Good morning. Good morning. Please take their seats. I apologize for being five minutes late, but I had to have a discussion. Welcome to July 20th. June 20th special council meeting. Let's go around and introduce ourselves please Joe Carlucci district five, oh the way we're doing this sitting down today Right, so I was just much here. Why go to stand up. No, it was the chair Joe Carlucci district five Rockman Johnson district 14 good morning the West side My gay district good good morning. All areas district 11. Good morning. Ken Amarves. It accounts with district one. Good morning. Nick Howell and that large group three. Randy White district 12 Ron Salem group to at large. Good morning. Terrence Freeman at large group one. Good morning. Chris Mel. Excuse me. Good morning, Chris Miller at large, group five, all of Jacksonville. All right, Kevin Caracco, district four. Jacobi Pittman, district 10. Your microphone's not on Will. Will Lane in district three. Matt Carlucci at large large group four good morning morning reginal gaffney to your district eight morning to be polusa district seven morning to run a clock morning district nine okay how about the front tables can we get some introductions starting down over here? Heather Reaver Council Auditor's office Bill Peterson Councilor's office Brian Parks Councilor's office Kim Taylor Council Auditor Michael Hugh Council Representative legal counsel Mark Lamping Jackson Jaguars Okay Councilman Freeman would you lead us in some prayer? Mark Weinstein, City of Jacksonville. Mark Lamping, Jacksonville, Jaguars. Okay. Councilmember Freeman, would you lead us in some prayer? Please join me in a prayer. This is the day, this is the day that the Lord has made. We will rejoice and be glad. And it got be with us during this time as we do the work of the city, our grandest wisdom. And God, we just thank you for all those that are watching those that are here participating. And God, we just pray that everything we do, as we always ask, is honoring and pleasing to you. And it's in your son, Jesus name, we pray. Please join us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance. This is the flag of the United States of America. Continue to be held up from which stands, one under our intervisual liberty and justice for our off. Thank you, Councillor Mellon. Freeman. I have a few announcements just to try to bring us up to speed. The goal is to finish today no later than three o'clock so we can prepare the chambers for the installation tonight. at the time of the day. We will take up amendments during this meeting. Yesterday, Mary circulated the spreadsheet of amendments received so far. You can still make additional amendments on Friday. We will take up those items on the spreadsheet first. It is a very important thing to do. We will take up the items on the spreadsheet first. It is anticipated we will take official committee action on the legislation tomorrow, so we will vote on it as a committee as amended. Okay. Floor amendments for Tuesday night, please have any floor amendments that you may want to offer on Tuesday night to Mary by 12 p.m. on Monday, June 24th. She will circulate the list by the close of this on Monday. June 25th, our regular council meeting, which is Tuesday, the stadium legislation will be the last item of business taken up that night. I don't anticipate deferring any other legislation. It looked like everything went through committee in a pretty normal way, so we will handle the meeting as just like we normally would. The early start time is three o'clock. No council agenda item scheduled for a public hearing or public participation will be taken prior to 5 p.m. A tentative order of business has been published and all of you should have received it. Public comment will be held prior to 5 p.m. Anyone who wishes to speak during public comment will need to have their cards submitted to legislative services prior to 4 p.m. Any questions on any of that council members? Okay, I see no one in the queue. Let's have a roll call. I've been forgetting that. 17, present. Thank you. Mr. Floor, later. Mr. President, I move to approve the meeting minutes from the June 17, 2024 Council meeting. Okay. I have a motion in a second. All those in favour of approving the minutes please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Like sign? Minutes passed. Okay. So we are now No pursuant to Council Rule 2.205, I have discharged 2024-904 from the committee of the whole. Before Council Member Vice President White offers his amendment, we need to recognize several Council members regarding their conflicts. I'm going to call out the names. Councilmember Caricote. I thank you, Miss President. I rise to declare a conflict on this bill as my employer, the boys and girls clubs in Northeast Florida, creates a conflict in my voting. So I will be upstanding from this legislation. Councilmember Freeman. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to declare a conflict with this bill because my attorney's soul told me so. I work for Miller Electric and there is potential that there will be they'll be doing work on the stadium So all the necessary forms will be completed and submitted to legislative services and I will be abstaining. Thank you I'll remember caffeine Morning, I also rise to declare a conflict. I was instructed to I guess I don't understand caution due to my employer's CRRC, my dad, for forming a relationship with the CBA. So I'll also be declaring the conflict as well. Thank you. Councilmember Gaye. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to clarify my position on this and the all the legislation that will be related to the stadium that my company will not be involved in any phase of the construction of it. I've elected to of it I've elected to remove our participation of it to focus on being able to vote and represent the citizens that elected me to represent them. Thank you. Council Member Pitman. Good morning, I rise to declare a conflict of interest because I am the CEO and President the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the Thank you. Does anyone else want to declare a conflict? Just so I'm clear. Okay. Councillor Remember White, would you like to offer your amendment? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I briefed in this same council last week or the first of the week I briefed my amendment but I would like to get married to explain the amendment in case so you can re-hear it thank you. Through the president to council president does you know why is that a motion on the amendments are? That is a motion on the amendment. Second. Thank you. Through the president to the council. So there was a spreadsheet Circulated to each of you yesterday That outlined the nature of this amendment and I'll just go through that for the record So this amendment would retain approving the city financial commitment of fifty six million dollars for the parks and Public spaces strategic focus outlined in ordinance public spaces strategic focus outlined in ordinance 2024 904 to be considered with the remainder of the stadium project. It would carve out the remainder of the city's CBA initiatives to be placed into a separate agreement and filed a separate legislation for city council introduction on July 23rd. The original spreadsheet had an incorrect date of June 25th. The intent is that it would be introduced by the next filing cycle for the July 23rd Council meeting. And third, it would reduce the Jaguar contribution by $31,333. $333. $334 to account for the reduction in the city contribution. And the remainder would be handled in that separate legislation that's going to be filed. All right, we're motion in a second on the amendment. I have no one in the queue. Mr. Halen. By the way, discussion on the amendment today is three minutes for the first time and two minutes the second time. Mr. Halen. Thank the second time. Mr. Howell. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick question for Mr. Fopolis. In Monday when Councillor Pregnant White brought this up, I heard you say something about there might still be conflicts related to some remaining elements of the CBA. Can you discuss that? Through the President to Council Member Howell. So during the discussion on the amendment, there was an indication that this would address all conflicts relative to the CBA and 904. And I just, the President at the time, at my recommendation, clarified that there may still be conflicts relative to 904 or the CBA that could not be resolved by this action. So it was just to clarify that there may still be some conflicts moving forward on portions of this legislation. Okay, thank you. If there's still conflicts in for the remaining parts piece, I'm inclined to say, well, if that could be carved out too in order for those conflicts to be relieved so people could vote on the stadium deal. But if they're not, I want to declare fully that I think this amendment is more fiscally responsible and I support it. And I say that because notice what is different from the park spend on the CPA versus all the other spend. It's very specific. I mean, it goes actually down to the 10,000. So if you look at, for example, Flexfield 8,760,000, the riverfront park, 10,000, 10,000,000, 40,000. I spoke this morning to Mr. Joseph had a parks and those numbers for completing these riverfront parks came because they looked at the design, how much it would cost to complete these riverfront parks, and that's how he came up with his numbers. But he also mentioned that these would have been his proposals in the CIP in August during the budget processes. So to me, it makes a lot of sense. You then look at the other numbers. 50,000 for a countywide strategic focus 30 million for countywide strategic focus, 30 million for Eastside strategic focus. Those are buckets of spend, not specific spend. So it's so indicative of government spending and that's why I think it merits being carved out and us looking at those elements in more detail. They're probably very good projects but we shouldn't just approve buckets. We need to make sure that we're approving spend that's going to accomplish the policy objective that we want it to accomplish. And I'm pretty confident those buckets will, when we look specifically at the CBA in separate legislation. So therefore, again, I think this amendment is very fiscally responsible. I applaud the president elect for suggesting it and I support it. Thank you. Council Member Johnson. Thank you so much Mr. Council President. I must say I too like Councilman Howland must applaud the Council President Designee for coming up with this amendment and trying to find a way to make this work. But unfortunately for me this is unworkable. I believe that if we are going to do the work that we say that we're going to do we must do it together. This has been a very tough 48 hours for me, Mr. Council President, because I have taken time to read every community of benefits agreement around the country. All of the ones from other places and spaces, I've had conversations with elected officials and city leaders and other communities around the country. I will tell you when I initially read the community benefits agreement in the way that it was put, I was not a complete fan. I know some of the folks in the audience and I had some very unique debates about it. But one thing I believe for sure is that if we are going to make the statement that we believe in this community then we have to either say it completely or don't say it at all. I believe that if we do regardless of the conflicts that are perceived to exist, I've had myriad conversations with our legal team as well. And in some ways, I don't completely agree with some of the conflicts that and the perception of such, but that is my prerogative to do so. What I do know, however, is that the people, as my colleague, Councilman Gays said, sent me here to do a job. And I believe that the only way that the job can be done is if we do it together. I believe if we begin to sever this agreement that it will be watered down, and I for wine believe that I have a responsibility to keep this agreement from being undiluted so that it can do the work. I heard Mr. Weinstein say, former representative Weinstein say the other day, when we were talking that he harkened back to one of the things I heard as a child, which Axonville was the bold new city of the South. And there was boldness in our actions. We have an opportunity to be bold. We have an opportunity to be a model city for this country, to show the largest ever community benefits agreement that has ever taken place in this country. It will happen here on the first coast if we allow it. Colleagues, we have the opportunity to be bold in our actions, to be bold in our work, to be bold in our thoughts. But it only happens if we take decisive action and not sever this agreement, but keep it together so that we can move Jacksonville forward one neighborhood at a time. Please do not vote yes on this piece of legislation. Keep this together. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Clark Murray. Thank you, President Salem, and good morning to everyone again. My concern is with number three under the White Amendment. I am trying to figure out the 31 million reduction from the Jaguar contribution. How, where exactly is that 31 million coming from? Based on my understanding and their explanation of their contribution, they're going to whether or not there is a contribution from the city. They were going to contribute 100 million. So where is this 31 million coming from? I need some clarification. I can, I think, no, we'll have Mr. Peter, so I know we discussed this yesterday. Why don't you go ahead? Sure, through the, through the President to Council Member Clark Murray. So the 31 million, the Jaguar said they would contribute 100 million regardless of what the city. The remaining 50 million is $1 for every $3 that the city puts in. So since the city is putting in 56 million towards these parks, their $1 equivalent is city puts in. So since the city is putting in 56 million towards these parks, their $1 equivalent is $18 million in change. So we're reducing their additional 50 down to that $18 million. That 31 million will then be included in the second piece of legislation that would match the city's $94 million remaining. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Great question, too. Thank you. Great question. Took me a while myself. Councillor Member Miller. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the President, I too believe this is an applaud. Council President-elect, White for coming up with this way forward. And I also believe as Council Member Highland has said that this is a good fiscal responsibly, a responsible way forward from a fiscal standpoint. And we want to make sure we're not only taking good action, we're taking the right action and that we can afford the action that we're taking. And also, with this proposal, there's also a regular order, a regular process that we go through, like we go through for every project, as I've said before, we have a good process. We have 19 members who love this city and want the best for it, and I, to take this funding outside of the processes that we have established and that works so well would also not be responsible in my way of looking at this. So let's do the work that we do for the people and let's ensure that everything goes through that regular order and that regular process that we've already established that is working well. I wanted to ask through the president to Miss Taylor to that end, this 56 million that is proposed in this amendment to be retained in the agreement, this 56 million for the parks and the public spaces strategic focus initiatives. What is the process that this funding goes through? It doesn't go through some special CRA or quasi-CRA as was originally proposed. It will go through regular order, through committee, through the council, would you, I just want to put that on the record. That's what will happen with this 56 million. If you would give a little more clarity to that, I would appreciate it. Yes, sir, through the President to Council Member Miller, you're exactly right. These would be capital projects that the city would take on, so they will go through our normal CIP process. You would see them when you take up the budget and the CIP at the same time. So they would not be going to any organizations outside of the city. It would work in the normal way as any other capital project. Through the President, thank you, Ms. Taylor. And so having said that I support this amendment I think it's we we owe our taxpayers that work hard for this money we owe them due process and make sure we're being good stewards of the dollars thank you mr. President thank you councilmember Matt Thank you. Council Member Matt Corloucci. Thank you, Mr. President. Congratulations on a fine year. And let me start out by saying that. This is your last meeting I suppose. So Tuesday. Oh, Tuesday. Okay, I'm sorry I got ahead of myself, but nonetheless, congratulations. I am voting on this amendment out of good faith. Out of good faith for somebody I've known as long or maybe longer than anybody else up here are incoming council president Randy White. And what this is enabling to happen is for those who have conflicts with the total bill to be able to vote on the stadium in the riverfront parks. But I have to tell you I am all in on the total complete package. And what I don't want to see happen in what I'm not expecting to happen. I'm expecting the rest of the package to be voted on in July. And not dragged through. That's where I'm based on because we're talking about scrutinizing 330 million or something for the rest of the agreement. Now we're fixing to vote through 600 and some odd million. Slot more money today than what's going to be coming up. I'd like to hear from the administration what their view is on this, if we might. But I'm strictly doing this as a combination in my faith and our incoming council president that we will take up the rest of this agreement in a timely manner because the folks on the east side and a lot of the folks are tired of being set aside and have to wait. And that doesn't make me feel good, but that's why I'm supporting this amendment from other colleagues. I had a good faith for incoming councilmember White. I'd like to hear from the administration. Thank you. Do you want to represent the administration and articulate their position? Okay. Mr. Weinstein. We see this as a means to move forward. We'd like the CBA as it is. move forward. We'd like the CBA as it is and we anticipate with a commitment that it'll come back on the 25th in a new ordinance and have a legitimate debate in discussion. So we see this is definitely a move forward and be able to move the other things forward as well. Mr. Ormara. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilmember Clark Murray asked the question that I was biting on and Mr. Peterson gave me some mathematics gymnastic answers, but I think I understand. So I thank you. I'm gonna support the amendment for the simple reason that the administration and incoming president White are now in plain English eyeballing each other and see an opportunity to move things forward. My preference would be to keep the CBA together because Audi says we are calling it, has experienced benign neglect for decades. This is an opportunity to be transformative and interject some help in that community that would move Jacksonville forward. My fear is that with the separation we may get married in political mishmash. I hope that the commitment that we're making here today on this vote does not allow that opportunity to come to pass. That what we do is truly the right thing and is in the best interest of our city. But for the proposal that is now before me, I will support it just to use the words of Mr. Weinstein to move this forward. Thank you. Mr. Polluse, so. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to echo some of the concerns that I've heard this morning already. Councilmember Johnson mentioned many of them. Councilmember Romaro mentioned a few of them. I would love to see the CBA retain as one giant. I would like for this all to get voted on the 25th. I would. I understand the value of a good compromise. I understand the value of this amendment. But I cannot in good conscience after seeing the massive amount of support that Audi's brought in this room in front of this body the other day. We cannot ignore them. I understand financially we need to make sure we're making exceptional decisions for the city, but we're leaving money on the table right now. And there's gonna be a lot of people that are confused by this process. I would like to support this amendment, I would. The only way I'm gonna do so is if I can amend the amendment and make it so that we can carve out the 30 million for the east side that was already agreed to into this amendment as well. So I'm offering the amendment to add the 30 million for the east side into this amendment to be voted on on the 25th. I will have amendment on the floor and it's been seconded. We go to discussion, Mary, on that amendment. Okay. I'm going to start with Mr. Aries. Mr. Aries, do you want to speak on this amendment? On the White Amendment. Okay, and I'm, go ahead, sir. Sir, Mr. President, can I start on the White Amendment first? Please. Thank you. Well, I definitely want to support his amendment. I think it's a win for our community, as I mentioned previously. The parks is something that was going to happen regardless if we did this or not. And the way I see it is the Jaguars being how they are, have always been generous. The fact that we're doing this 56 million now, we're getting 80 million as well from them now. When we wait for the CIP, we wouldn't get the 80 million, so we're actually winning on this part, thanks to the Jaguar, so I'm all for that. One of the reasons why I'm up for separating the CBA and the parks and everything else is because, I mean, you heard it today. There are maybe a handful of people that can't even vote on this. And the fact that they were elected just like my colleague to my left to do a job and to represent their community, their district, I wanna make sure that we all get that same opportunity. It's only right that we all have that opportunity. So now referencing Mr. Pallusas amendment, now we're once again getting back into the full CBA for that, you keep the full CBA. Because you're essentially adding another 30 million, you're almost at two thirds of what the CBA is. So what will be the point of having people abstain from this? If two thirds of it is already going to be added by your second amendment, Mr. Pelluzo. So no, I'm not supporting that amendment. Number one, number two, being that we had committee meetings all this week, it's definitely changed my perspective on the CVA. It makes me want to support it even more, especially from here, from the east side, come out here. I want to support them and I will support them, but let's support them the right way. Let's have conversations. Let's actually find out what economic development means for them, what workforce development, housing, the homeless and all that means for them Rather than having just some buckets. Let's actually dive into the details and let's get the specifics So we could actually help them out even more. I would love to see more than 30 million for them So let's not rush this. Let's do the process correctly. Let's have all of our colleagues involved in this process So we could put our heads together and do what's best for our community of our colleagues involved in this process, so we could put our heads together and do what's best for our community. So I'll support Mr. Weiss amendment. I will not support Mr. Palusas amendment. And one of the other reasons why I wouldn't support having a CBA spoken about right now is because while we do have a great, I guess, frame of action of what to do here with the CBA, these are just buckets. I don't know what it means to have compete in actionable recommendations or improve upward economic mobility, reduce disparities. Like, I get it. I'm reading it, but what does that mean? I don't see anything here on countywide for economic development. I don't see anything for small business community county-wide. I don't see any of that. I see it on the east side but not on the county-wide. There's a lot more work to do here with the CBA, which is why I will support a special committee so we can all put our heads together and actually make this CBA even better than what it is already presented. Thank you. I'm going to ask'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Vice President White, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to add Mr. Blue, so what that would do is basically with this compromise, which takes the four, since Mr. Gay took his self out to four conflicts, that would put that right back in and that's what this amendment is trying to do. So I just wanted to put that on a record. Thank you. Mr. Lanean. Thank you, Council President. Both of you, so agreement. So I will support the wide amendment and Mr. Through the President, Mr. Higley, can correct me if I'm wrong. I think regardless of what the dollar amount is, 118 million will be, are just, can be benefit agreement ever. Correct. Is that factual? Through the President to the Councilman, yes, that's accurate. Thank you. So we are close to approving the biggest community benefit agreement ever. Also, 56 million like Councilman Areas said, these were projects that Mr. Halen reference as well these are to the dollar estimates of projects that we most likely would have approved through the CIP process. Timing makes sense we're going to do it at the same time there's other major construction going on downtown and then regarding Council and Police's agreement. I mean one of my concerns I've had through this same time I've been looking a couple years ahead as some of the big chunks of money that are going to be in our operating budget that we're going to have to work out through this process. $42 million in completion grants. Collective bargaining agreement. We have increased debt service on the horizon. So I've met with the administration as well. They know my concerns that when we plan this, we're going to have to be balancing how we're going to potentially spread it out and push it out. So we can manage it all within our budget and to have defined programs. So we're not just putting more placeholder buckets of money but have actual defined programs, which I'm certainly willing to work with to support. But for those reasons, I'm good for the wide amendment but not for the police amendment. Okay, everyone has spoken for the first time that's on the queue other than me, so I'm going to speak now. If we thank you. First, I wanted to recognize the auditors. I was in here yesterday afternoon for a couple hours with them. They have worked. I can't imagine the number of hours they've worked on this. I just wanted to thank them as well as Mary Stephanopoulos who was working yesterday as well and put in a lot of hours with that. To get back to the White Amendment, I have been shouting from the rooftops that I thought the CBA should be pushed past this process. I'm ecstatic with the White Amendment because I was always supportive of the park portion, the 56 for those parks. I think they should be completed. Ladies and gentlemen, my council members, we need to see the 24, 25 budget. I've been saying that from day one. We also need to see the 25, 26 projections, and we need to see the 26, 27 projections in this budget going forward. These are major dollars to just come out and say $30 million. We don't know where it's going to come from. We don't know if we have those dollars. We've got to be physically responsible. So I will be voting against a police so amendment and I will support the white amendment but the other point is the hundred million dollars that the Jaguar's committed is the largest CBA ever. The hundred million. The next closest was 90 million from Buffalo. So let's let's make sure we're presenting the facts. Anything we add on is just makes it even larger and we're already adding in another roughly 17 million. So let's do this physically responsible. Now me speaking, my commitment will be to out east. I was moved by the people that were here. I want to see something done for out east and that will be my number one priority. Whatever dollars we can spend if we feel like we can afford it, the dollars I will look towards is out east. Because I was moved by the comments the other night and I have driven through that neighborhood. My uncle had a grocery store in that neighborhood back in the 60s, so I'm very familiar with it. They got burned out during the riots. So I'm very familiar with that area. That would be my priority. I can assure you. So let's vote down the Pallusso amendment. Let's vote for the White Amendment and let's move forward so we can hear these presentations. I have some people, I have Joe Carlucci for the first time. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. While I do support out east, and I've told them that, I feel the administration that, and I do respect your wishes to put it back in there, I will not support the pollute so amendment, because it's not just $30 million. It's all of the things that are attached to $30 million with the board who spends it, the CRA, that all of those other items for out east, that I'm just not comfortable with at this point. I those other items for out east that I'm just not comfortable with at this point. I'm comfortable with supporting out east and I've told all of them that. So I wanted to go on the record to be clear, not supporting Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman and Councilman I will be supporting Council President Desinate's amendment, Council Member White's amendment. And like everyone has said, the parks definitely committed to that. But I do agree that having the rest of this taken out gives us more time and more focus to make it better, to get better initiatives in there perhaps. But we again, to try to get all of those things done before next Tuesday is just not possible. It's just not possible. We heard that at this time of ten months to negotiate and that's I believe that at face value so if we needed extra month to look at it I think that's completely reasonable so I'll be supporting the wider amendment, and thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. Paloso, for the second time. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for your words. I believe you, and I believe everyone up here, when they say they are committed to supporting outies. And I do, clearly, I'm expecting this amendment to fail. I hope that doesn't. I do think that it should be a part of this agreement. I think the whole CBA should be done on the 25th, but I'm willing to accept voting for this amendment, assuming that East Side dollars are in there now. I hope that everyone else was moved. The majority of individuals who came, feelin' I, did not have their own vehicle. I had to get bust out here. This is the kind of neighborhood that's directly next to one of the biggest projects that this city will do, right? Building a new stadium. It's more refurbishing it, you know what I mean? For $30 million, we get to make sure that the very sensitive and fragile neighborhood directly next to it gets to it at the very least Get a fighting chance to remain the cohesive neighborhood that it is we've talked about Brooklyn We've talked about LaVilla. We talked about Sugar Hill gone. They're all gone Zaddi's next I Hope not I Is Audi next? I hope not. I just heard I hope we can find the money to support Audi's moving forward. We were able to find the dollars for the stadium. A project I am very supportive of. Right? Jaguars must stay in Jacksonville. There's no question. I will absolutely be voting in a positive manner on Tuesday, but I will say we have an opportunity to make sure, right now, that Audi gets the attention that it deserves. Some of you were moved, some of you spoke a moment ago about how you're still supportive. I ask you to be supportive right now. The amendment, if it passes, we can make sure that on Tuesday night, it's a bigger win, not just for the Jaguars in the city, but also for one of the most important neighborhoods. And I have a lot of neighborhoods in my district, but one of the most important neighborhoods for the specific deal. It's not being rushed. I know that the argument is it's a rush. We've rushed everything. But it was done in the right manner and we can continue to do so and I know my time is I think mr. President Thank you. You have Matt Corloucci for the second time then we'll be voting Thank you mr. President. I intend to honor my support the amendment I committed to that and I will keep that commitment The I Appreciate I appreciate Council Member Palusso in his courage in stepping up for the east side and that's what you should do. Listen, what I don't want to see happen though will support this. So my colleagues that have a conflict will have a chance to vote on the stadium. But we have already seen this package has already been explained to us in its entirety, viscally. It's already been through that. And I suggested those who are concerned about what the budget is going to be at all that. I think the administration has pretty much taken that into account, and I would recommend that the folks that have those concerns talk with the administration. Talk with this brochure, the chief of staff. Talk with the mayor. I don't want to see the rest of something that I am committed to. My word is committed to by press release by talking to people today. I want to see my commitment be fulfilled ASAP. And I don't want to hear a bunch of, oh well, we got to go through a lot of, you know, looking at the budget and just that and the others going to take weeks. Well, we just passed in $600 million or so in a matter of weeks. We heard the whole fiscal background of the CBA and the stadium deal. So I support this amendment, but I support getting the complete package through ASAP. Thank you. All those in favor of the Palozo Amendment, please raise your hand. The Palozo Amendment, I count two, Amendment fails. Okay, now we're back on the white amendment. Mr. Johnson, do you want to speak on the white amendment again? Thank you, Dr. Salem. So let me say a quick thing or two. I've heard some interesting things here. As a member of the Land Use and Zone and Committee, I'm charged with making decisions based on competent substantial evidence. However, that is not always the case when we are not in a quasi-judicial committee as this is not. I think the evidence is a part of the community coming to us. And like many of my colleagues, I was also moved by their testimony. But it's very interesting now how we speak of fiscal responsibility and even pragmatism when it comes to looking at the community benefits agreement being re-examined or gone through. The Jaguar's organization has spent months in community huddles. I've worked with the community development team who've gone into communities throughout this city to get to the community benefits agreement that we're in now. So it's not like we need to go through it again. I heard one of my colleagues say, we need to go through it and make sure we're putting the right things in the right buckets. They've done the work, and I'm so appreciative that thank you, Vice President Whitney, and the others of all the things that you have done to ensure that we're in the right posture. I believe that as we are looking at this, my colleague, Councilman Carlucci, said that, if it were about good faith and President Designee white and in a handshake, we wouldn't have to have a contract. And I believe in his, if it was up to him, if it was just him, I'd vote for it right now. But it's not. That's why we have contracts. We have them to ensure that everybody holds their part of the agreement together. And I believe if we begin to debate this and push this down and push this back, it will end up diluting the agreement and Jacksonville will suffer. Let's vote against this amendment and let's move forward in keeping this together so that we can do the work that people send us to do and that's to move do all forward. Thank you. Mr. Areas for the second time. Thank you, Mr. President. While I understand I hear exactly what my colleague just mentioned, I think we were elected each of us respectively by our districts, by our constituents. And while, yes, the administration and the Jaguars have done the work, we have not respectively by our districts, by our constituents. And while, yes, the administration and the jaguars have done the work, we have not done any work on the CBA. Who knows more than our districts than we, than us right here, us 14 plus the other five and large. They don't, we do. More of a reason why I want to have an input and I want to have a say as to what goes on the CBA. Because this CBA was brought up to us, literally the day before we started these meetings. We have had one ounce of input into the CBA and we need to have our input into this. Because this is not just going to affect the east side or downtown parks, it's also based off of this pamphlet, it's going to affect county wide. And if it's county wide, I want to have a say as to what goes here in this county wide initiatives. And right now we don't. Because if it did, I will see small business development and there's nothing on small business development here. So with that being said, I'm not in support of what we just mentioned and I'm in support of the White Amendment. I think we need to go to vote for this. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hallund. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Is this for the first time? Second time. Second time. Thank you. And I'll be real quick. I'm certain that this White Amendment is going to pass. But I want to ensure that everyone knows this is not us denying funding to the east side. It is merely us creating separate legislation to discuss that funding and potentially improve that funding. And talk about discuss here more information on that funding. So it's kind of a false statement to say that we're neglecting the east side by doing that. And I want everyone to understand that this council last budget cycle and coming up in this budget cycle has taken and will take investment in key infrastructure in all of our neighborhoods, particularly those left behind, into consideration. We do every time just look at the current CIP and how it's split down. This council is committed to investing in infrastructure where it's needed most. And this amendment today does nothing to detract from it. Thank you. Mr. O'Marrow for the second time. Thank you, Mr. President, as a Florida Supreme Court certified mediator. I'm very aware of mediated results where everyone is not happy. My question to you to Mr. Papolis through the chair, I'll end the position to call the question. Okay. We have a motion to call the question. That's non-debatable. This is calling the question on the amendment. All those in favor? Was there a second? I have a second right here. All those in favor of stopping the bait and voting on the amendment please raise their hand. I have two motion fails. Okay. I'm going to speak for the second time before Mr. Paloso speaks for the third time. Colleagues, the 40 million that was in the CBA and the second 40 made was for the, as I recall, the 2627 year and the 2728 year. Am I correct, Miss? To the council president, it's actually in 2526 would be the first 40 and in the 25 26 budget. Okay. That's a year and a half from now. That's not this October. money to the east side. That money is 15 months away. Okay? We're talking about taking some time this summer to work on this. And it might be once we get the budget and we see what's available, we maybe we can do something even earlier. Maybe even earlier. Maybe even earlier. That's point number one, point number two. I hear that I've asked some of the questions of the commitments we've made, police, fire, for example, and the commitments there. I haven't gotten the answers. I don't know what it's gonna cost us. We do not have a money tree in this city. We've got to understand and that's our job. They propose we dispose. We've got to make sure the dollars are there. Okay. I just so number one we're not delaying anything. We're not delaying anything and if anything through this process there might be some things we can do even earlier. Number two we've got to be physically responsible. That's our job. That's our job. I'll stop there. Mr. Palozo for the third time and I think we're ready for a vote. Thank you, Mr. President. I am, again, I'm happy to hear that everyone wants to support the east side and now the east. I think my concern to the, to the, to what was said the, to the, to the, to the, to the, to the, to the to the, to the, to the, to the, to the to the, to the, to the to the, to the, to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the to the We have fiscal constraints. If we allow ourselves to get too scared and spooked later on down the road, we could pull these dollars back. Our time in the military reminded me that you don't do something unless it's in black and white, right? Unless you see an imprint, it doesn't get done. We have an opportunity, or we did have an opportunity to make sure that the East side gets something in black and white now. So that later on, we don't pick and pick apart and pull things out. That's the concern that I really have, right? I will be letting down this amendment, but I overall support the deal. And I understand the reason why we are moving forward in this amendment. I think it's understandable from this perspective. But again, I understand that we're not, we could do things faster for the East side and I understand that this doesn't necessarily hurt them right now. I understand that. But man, is it going to be hard for them to understand? It's going to be hard for a lot of folks to understand. Why are we pulling apart something that was agreed upon by, again, Mr. Weinstein, who has been around a budgeter too in his time, right? We trust this group to negotiate the deal with the Jaguars, we should trust them now with the CBA overall. And I genuinely do hope that over the summer that we really do deliver for our east, and we make sure that we are providing what we promised. Thank you. Okay another person has popped up. Mr. Carlucci, Matt Carlucci for the third time. Thank you Mr. President. Through the President I'd like to ask the Chief of Staff, Darnell Smith to come up front and explain to us if they have taken into consideration future budget years. Well, he's walking in. What was, oh, okay. Would you repeat the question, sir? Yes, sir. I've heard expressed that the administration brought this whole package and that's all in the questions whether or not y'all took in consideration future budget years to make sure they could be paid for in the complete total package. In my understanding you would have never brought this whole package to us if you couldn't afford it down the road. I think anybody who's ever been mayor has a fiduciary hat that would cover that. I'd like to know from you, sir, in my friend, what is the administration stand on the fiscal responsibilities and fiscal outlooks for the coming years with regards to this total package? this total package. Absolutely. As you can imagine, and we're going through the chair, we are preparing for the fiscal year 25 budget. We have been looking extensively at the work that has to be done. We understand exactly what we anticipate in the way of revenues that will be coming our way, as well as the expenses that we're considering, things that people are asking, things that we're going to ultimately put forward, but we understand this. We have a responsibility to balance the budget. We will balance the budget. Not only fiscal year 25, but 26, and 27 as well. And we are comfortable, very confident of our ability to be able to do so. We've had a number of you ask us to show you a lot of that work. And we are actually responding to those who have actually asked for that. Obviously, we can't put the entire budget in front of you in what we're pulling together at this very moment, but we are very confident in our ability to be able to balance the budget and keep the focus on our priorities. And that would be keeping our promise of financing the amendment, which is promise of financing the amendment, which is the stadium in the parks, but also the complete agreement that takes the community. Y'all are confident we can meet those obligations. Mr. Smith, the time is up. If you could make your comments quickly. I sure take them. I'll make it really quick. We're very confident. Thank you. Mr. Lane and his kicked in here. Thank you President. Through the President's Mr. Smith started to make you go back up there. I just want to appreciate how open you've been to hearing a lot of my concerns. But the key word there is the administration's in the process of responding, which again just to reiterate where kind of I know you guys are working on it to prove it to us, which is why I say we vote on the white amendment and then work on everything else in the coming months. Thank you, Mr. Laney. Okay. All those in favor of the white amendment, please raise your hand. Thank you. Amendment passes. Thank you. Okay. Before we move on to the presentations, I just wanted to make— Oh. Okay. Please. Mr. President, I moved to re-refer 2024. Please. Mr. President, I move to re-refer 2024, 904 as amended to the Committee of the Whole. And that is a ballot vote. Please open the ballot, record the vote. 13A zero nays for abstain. I your vote you have supported moving and re-referring to 2024 904. Before we move to the presentations I want to do two things. Everyone that has looked at the amendments were contemplating amendment 2 by Amaro, amendment 6 and 7 by 12 by Johnson are all related to the pushing of those dollars to Are related to what we just did in pushing their dollars forward those amendments would appear to be Irrelevant at this point if I'm using the right word. Does that want to agree with that? Okay, so we will essentially eliminate amendments. If I can go back and read those off, amendments 267, 12, or no longer with us. Mr. President, would you like to meet a circulator revised spreadsheet for tomorrow's meeting to clarify that? That's an excellent idea. It reduces our work at this point, eliminating those amendments. Okay, before we move into presentations, Daniel Davis. I'm sorry, Ms. Clark Murray. Thank you chair. So in reference to the amendments for the CBA, through the chair to Miss DeFopolis, so I think it's probably the best person to answer the question that I have. That does not make their amendments null and void. It just means that they're not relevant to this portion of our meeting. So when we get to the CBA portion, then they can, those amendments will, I'm going to say revive or they will be before us again, or will they need to resubmit them. Through the President to Council Member Clark Murray, it would be up to the then President, but I can produce a separate spreadsheet retaining those amendments that we're going to be proposed to the CBA and have those Until we get to that point on that legislation my guess is there would also be an opportunity if further amendments are identified by the council members leading up to when that legislation is taken up that there would be an opportunity to do a similar process to also have an additional spreadsheet adding those amendments so that when it's taken up those are all in front of you. Thank you. Through the president to Mr. Fopolis I just don't want anyone's voices quashed. Because everyone has a voice and a vote. Thank you. Mr. Clark Murray. I'm going to allow the president to designate to handle that as it will be under his watch. Thank you. Okay. I have Dr. Johnson. Thank you Dr. Saylon. Mr. Council President from Mr. DeFopolis. I think this goes I just this is a kind of procedural thing. There will be and I'm assuming based on the CBA and the way it's going to be now there will be a, like I'm just going to make this up, 2024 through the President and Mr. Poppilus, 2024, like 905 since it hasn't been created yet. And I'm just making assuming this, is there a way to go ahead and attach these to that so that when it goes to committee, that it can be there, or do we have to go back and wait to amend that legislation? And let me answer the two-part question. We have to amend that legislation. And the second part of that is when you go back and it becomes, because I'm assuming again it's going to be a new bill, do we have to as a, as the individual committees that President doesn't be white refers it to, do we have to then go back and do yet another public hearing since we already had the public hearing or can that public hearing that we had be Included as the public hearing or does it have to be amended as well Through the council president councilmember Johnson So first the legislation number would be assigned by legislative services So whatever the next number is is the number it's going to be assigned I won't presume that it would be 905 or sequential to 904. With respect to the bill, it'll be filed just as we are carving out the part that is being carved out and that's being filed in a bill. None of the amendments will be rolled into that. Those will need to be debated and discussed by the council members when they choose to propose them when the bill is up for action. There will be an additional public hearing scheduled for the new bill. You cannot count the public hearing that occurred on Monday for that new legislation. So that'll be scheduled in the normal course when the bill is filed. Thank you. Matt Corloucci. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the chair to the administration or Mr. Poppilis, as she knows, when is the new legislation for the remaining part of the community benefits agreement going to be introduced? No, I'm 25. I ask Mr. Poppilis, Mr. President, but thank you for the answer. I appreciate it. It's in the amendment. Through the President to count some member, Carly. I appreciate it. It's in the amendment. Through the President to Councilmember Carlyce, it would be introduced as a regular cycle on July 23rd, and then it will move through the legislative process from there. That is the next council meeting after the 25th. Okay, I wasn't sure if it was going to be introduced with the intent of a in and out emergency or not, and I had heard some of that from the administration I'd like to know what their thoughts are on that That was not part of the amendment and the amended re-refer that was approved by council It was going to be filed on for introduction on the 23rd and move through the regular cycle from there We could take it up as an emergency if there were enough folks to do so is that correct? In the month of July. Through the President to Council Member Carlygge, there would need to be a motion on introduction to convert it to an in and out emergency which would then require the super majority vote requirement. That procedurally is something I could work through with you if that was something you wanted to entertain. It something that I'd like to think about yes Thank you, Mr. President even me to cut you off, but I knew I was gonna be asking further questions I Believe what you had to say thank you sir. Mr. Smith. Do you want to comment on that? Yes, sir Mr President and to the council It was our understanding that we would be taking this up within the first two weeks You all getting back obviously first two weeks of July So to hear that it would be proposed on July 23rd They certainly are surprised to us Mr Smith just to clarify we're on vacation the first two weeks in July I don't think the intent was ever to to bring us back from vacation. I believe I have the floor. So that is the first council meeting once we come back. And then it's in council President Desert's white hands or how he wants to handle it. Okay, simple as that. Did you want to say something, President White? Okay. Okay. So I want Daniel Davis is here. I know he wanted to speak briefly if you'd like to come for, but I do want to mention one other thing before he speaks. The plan is to finish the presentations today. If we do not finish the presentations today, then we will continue that tomorrow and then we will get into the amendments right after that. If we finish the presentations today before three o'clock, we will adjourn at that point and start with the amendments tomorrow. If for some reason, we get into a time crunch today or tomorrow, I have looked at Monday afternoon as some time if we need it after the training. I just want to throw that out there to make sure everyone's aware. I hope we don't need that, but I just want to make sure these agreements we're about ready to discuss are pretty complicated. I want to make sure these agreements were about ready to discuss are pretty complicated. And I want to make sure everyone has an opportunity. Okay, Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, does it need to honor to speak to the committee today. I just wanted to be very clear. I know you heard from Andre Wallace last week, my colleague at the Chamber. He talked about the economic benefit of the CBA, what it means for the Jags to remain in Jacksonville attracting the best talent. I just want to say personally, and on behalf of the Chamber, how much we appreciate the administration working hard with the Jaguars to come up with the, I believe personally a fair deal for the city of Jacksonville. We believe it's our top priority right now. We appreciate the vote that just came up. We were very supportive of the White Amendment. And this is what I would commit to you. I know that there were some concerns, Councilman. The Chamber is committed to the CBA. We're committed to the East side and economic development for all. We would tell you, I think everybody sitting around this dies. Notice that there's one person that you believe is a man of his word, it's Council President White. I mean, you can take it to the bank. He's committed to it, we're committed to it. I know the administration is, we look forward to working with everyone moving forward to get the best deal for the citizens of Jacksonville. I appreciate the time Mr. President. Thank you. We are now ready to move forward with the presentations. We'll start with the parking agreement, Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Lamby. Thank you, Mr. President and good morning, council. Thank you, thank you. We wanted to make sure this was on. I thought maybe this was on. Okay. The parking agreement, which we thought was going to be one of the relatively easy ones that we were going to be doing, turned out to be one of the more complicated and I'll explain why and literally worked on it till a couple of days before it was filed. Basically we pulled the parking out of the lease. The current lease basically has it within because we knew as we move forward with potential development that we would be looking to amend the parking structure as time went on and we didn't want to have to amend the whole lease each time we wanted to change the parking arrangement. Basically going forward, the reduction is a reduction in the number of potential spaces, partly due to construction, partly due to Armada, partly due for a number of reasons. It's 530 spaces that were obligated to provide. And as we said in the past, the parking is ours. I mean, the arena, they park for the arena, the baseball, basically the city's responsible for the parking lots and maintaining them. A relatively new, with the Miller Electric facility, there is a players parking lot that the Jaguars will take over. They've been managing it, they'll continue to manage it, they take care of it, they repair it, they put security and lighting on it, it's basically theirs and it's basically for the players. In addition, as you know, we're doing mosh, we're doing a number of things along the shipyard. So spaces will be taken away as we progress. And the agreement as you read through, it has the relationship of what the city does as parking spaces go away. And depending upon why those parking spaces go away, our obligations are different. And I know the auditors will speak to it quite specifically. But I want to take you through the complication that's happened with the parking agreement. And that relates to an additional piece of property. As you know, when we've said in the past that the Jaguars are already building basically Shotcon, the four seasons and an office building associated with the four seasons. And they also have a first right of offer for a piece of property next to where they're already building. So they were already interested in continuing to expand. The mayor on the other side has been always interested in development downtown and specifically around the stadium and the shipyard property. So as we proceeded to talk about how the 1.4 million was going to be divided between the jaguars and the city. Another idea came up and it came up through the jaguars that they would be willing to put in another $25 million to get us to that 50-50 split that you see, the 625 and the 625. If the city offered a $25 million credit for them to be able to take that piece of property next to the four seasons, next to the office building, with a commitment that they would build a minimum of $100 million development on it. The mayor started to look at it, she got very interested in it, and the idea kept going. Now the reason it's in the parking agreement is because there's going to be parking on that piece of property until they develop it. That's why it's embedded in the parking agreement. So it's going to be available for the stadium games. It's going to be available for the city. It's going to be available for the stadium games. It's going to be available for the city. It's going to be available to the Jaguars to use as parking. There's complications in that. There's ability for them to use it for a couple of years. We're going to probably pursue, we're definitely going to pursue a zoning waiver to allow it to be parked on for an additional couple of years to get to where they develop it. And again, the auditors just to add to what the Council President said, the auditors have given us well over 200 questions over all these agreements. And the parking lot had a pretty good share of those. So that's sort of the complication that you'll hear mostly about is how that property is going to be dealt with. In years to come, they can use that credit to literally get that piece of property. If the appraisal comes back at that time, it would be a little bit over 25, they'd have to pay more than the 25. If it came in less than the 25, let's say it came in at 20, they still have a $5 million credit to use for something else as the future goes on. So it's quite complicated in that regard, but the majority of the parking stays as is. It's for them and everybody else that uses those facilities down there. And with that, I'll call up to Jaguars and they can be healed. So you're yielding? He's yielding his time to the auditors. If that's okay with Mr. President. Oh, Michael before the auditor. No, he is coming. I'm unyielding. I just want to say something real quick. Just to, you know, as I've said numerous times, we've been working this for four years. And when we first started this project, when we started our first round of community huddles about 13 months ago, we talked a lot about development around the stadium. Okay, and that was important to us because we believe that, you know, downtown needs to have an entertainment district. We think it'll help attract events to the stadium and as a result, make our combined investment the stadium more worthwhile. The city told us at the onset, at the start of our negotiations, that was gonna be too difficult to deal with. So they wanted to separate the stadium from the Ansulary development, which will happen at some point in the future. And while that wasn't ideal for us, we agreed because we do believe the city wants to support development in that part of downtown. But it was maybe it's more symbolic and anything else. We really wanted to have a development piece as part of this agreement. And it seemed natural to focus on a piece of property where we already have the right of first offer on, which is the property next to the four seasons under development. So going forward, we know that as we talk about what we're accomplishing with the stadium, there is also a commitment of a minimum of $100 million in a mixed-use development, which will go through the normal DIA process and come in front of the council for final approval at some point in the future. Thank you. Mr. Hogue. Good morning, Mr. President. There are a lot of complications in this agreement that I think the auditors maybe will go through detail. I'll try to take a little bit more of a macro view, but make sure that you have a comprehensive understanding. If you are ideally doing these agreements, you wouldn't try to necessarily bundle them all under this one agreement, because a lot of them have genesis that are outside of the agreement. So it makes it difficult at times because some of them are not part of the guarantee agreement. Some of them are not part of the guarantee agreement. Some of them are not part of liquidated damages. They all have somewhat different cycles to them. And so it's not quite as neat. The right of first offer, which is what the jaguars had on the property that existed near the four seasons, has somewhat been bundled into this as well. A right of first offer and a right-first refusal are different in many ways. Normally, when you entertain a right-of-first offer, it means that you would get an appraisal, you would set a price for it, and before you go to the market to see what it might draw, you would offer that to someone. So that person who has a right of first offer has an exclusive right at that set price to purchase or to not purchase for some period of time. A right of first refusal is a little different because now you've gone out to the market and you're saying we're gonna invite other people to bid on this, but you still have a right to match whatever that amount is, and that amount could exceed whatever that initial appraisal was. In this case, I'm not sure if the appraisal was initially done, but a value was set at $25 million. And I think to some degree, the $25 million is, part of the overall deal, which makes this complicated, because it's hard to look at any of these deals isolated, because they all technically mold into this whole agreement. Because the team wanted a 600, the city wanted a $625 million commitment from the Jaguars, and they were at 600 million, this parcel of land became part of the add-on, so the Jaguars effectively increased their number from 600 to 625 million. And now we had a 50-50, not counting the other 150 from past debt that made the deal 50-50. But what that 25 million did was to give a parcel of land that presumably has a $25 million value to it of which the team can now exercise. It's right under this right of first offer this preset price of 25 million dollars Combined with it was the Jaguar's agreement to do a minimum of $100 million downtown development. And that was sort of the quid pro quo. So partially to make the deal 50-50, partially also to get the additional 100 million on top of the 400 million already part of the four seasons development. That makes a lot of these things difficult because you have to have an appraisal to value this 25 million and there is an understanding that when they get an appraisal, if the appraisal is less, that amount of money would be a credit that the Jaguars could use for future purchases. If the amount of the appraisal exceeds that 25 million, then the Jaguars would be responsible for kicking up that additional amount. If during that 10 year window, the Jaguars didn't exercise the right of first refusal at all, they would effectively have a $25 million credit that the city would then have to pay back to the Jaguars. Obviously, the understanding is that they would like that parcel because it's next to the development that's a critical piece. The other challenge with appraisals is that people don't often agree. So you have to have a procedure that says, and the timing of when you do those appraisals can impact that valuation. So if someone to come back and say, no, the parcel's only worth $18 million, you might want to challenge that to say, we want one or two additional appraisals and we want to have some process in place to determine which appraisal is binding. So those are some of the many steps that I think when you add these issues in including future zoning things. There are parts of this that are not going to be concluded in this agreement that you would have to vote on later. So some of this is going to require future work and language in the existing document to specifying, clarify things that you couldn't possibly put all of it into at this time because it's not just a parking agreement. It's really an agreement that includes development. So it's a parking and development agreement. As the parking spaces are potentially removed from construction, there is a general provision that the jaguars have to be made whole on those spaces. But the exact details of how that happens, probably needs some more delineation as well. I'm not sure it means that it needs an amendment, it just means that on its face it's probably not complete enough to cover all of the things or the questions that could be anticipated from this. The maintenance expenses during the time that the parking is used as parking and when the stadium is actually completed, then there's an understanding that the cost would be shared 50-50. There's still some clarity issues on how revenue is shared. Again, because all of these agreements have both a construction period and then a period after completion and in many cases the deal is different during the construction period. So again you'd like to firm up how that's going to work particularly if the construction is delayed or this construction has difficult issues as well. And then when you're doing development there's always environmental concerns that can develop and at least initially the understanding is that the city would pay to remediate any of those conditions that would occur potentially because of that construction and development. There are a lot of small details that I think we can go through if you have specific questions because the document, like I said, contains a lot of provisions that on its face would not be clear in just a general reading. I think I'll let the auditors address some of those points and then I can expand on it a little bit more. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Peter, so you're the parking guy? I'm going to ask you to go ahead and rip off that back page. That's a map that will help understand the rofo parcels as we get to that point. We do have one question outstanding of through our list of over 200 questions and Mr. Weinstein reference. And that's what the value of the rofo is right now. So 25 million is the number that is associated with that in the agreement. But there's not an appraisal or at least we have not been provided an appraisal to substantiate that $25 million. So that is an outstanding question. The summary of terms, Mr. Weinstein mentioned the minimum number of parking spaces, the 5,330 that's a slight reduction from what we currently provide to the Jaguars, that will go into place upon contract execution. So basically this year. And then this Jaguars get exclusive use of those parking facilities during team events, and then they also get the right to use them for what will be third party events. As it relates to the new lease, when the new lease kicks in, the Jaguars will retain all revenue and be responsible for all expenses for parking on game day operations. That's a slight change from the current contract where the Jaguars are not responsible for game day expenses. This city will be responsible for all expenses and then receive all revenue for city events, so the gator bowl and then the Florida Georgia game. And then we will split revenue and expenses for third party events that are held at the stadium. The city will pay for all maintenance and capital costs on our parking lots. So as it relates to the rofo, if you turn the map landscape where it says rofo parcel map at the top, you'll see the three parcels that are known as the rofo parcels. These are the pink parcel is the parcel that is immediately west of the shipyards development, the four seasons, the office building, and then immediately to the west of that is the pink parcel. That is what's referred to as the future development parcel. The green parcel is referred to as retained parcel 4. This holds one of the three guide wires for the tall communications tower that exists in downtown. And then the blue parcel is actually submerged lands that is an inlet in the downtown area that is owned by the city. This is one of the few submerged lands that the city an inlet in the downtown area that is owned by the city. This is one of the few submerged lands that the city does own in the downtown area. So the three parcels together are referred to as the Roe Faux parcels. So as Mr. Weinstein indicated, the Jaguars will be making a $25 million payment. But the payment is going to the stadium development cost. It is part of the $1.4 billion project budget. In return, they will receive a credit from the city for a future use of these rofo parcels. And that future use will be determined based on appraisal that is obtained as of December 31st of 2025. So if they decide to take down or exercise their rofo and obtain these parcels, the value of the appraisal on December 31st 2025 will determine a reduction in that $25 million credit. So if the appraisal comes in at 18 million, we'll reduce that $25 million by 18 million, they'll have a $25 million credit. So if the appraisal comes in at $18 million, we'll reduce that $25 million by $18 million, they'll have a $7 million credit that they can then apply to other parcels in the downtown area at a later point in time. However, if that appraisal comes in lower or higher, Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Hugh both reference that they would compensate the city. We do not believe that's addressed, so we'll be glad to work with them. That's actually one of our recommendations that the city be compensated for any difference. If that's not in the agreement, we'll make sure that that's included in our list of amendments for you tomorrow. So the period in which they can exercise this ROFO begins August 1st of 2025. Currently, the shipyard's hotel company has that right to the ROFO through June 30th of 2025. So they could exercise it now if they wanted to under the shipyard's agreement. Or this new ROFO will kick in August 1st of 2025. And then, they have the $25 million credit will remain for a 10-year period from the date that this is purchased, or that this agreement goes into effect. So essentially, look at this, 2034, that that $25 million credit is available to the Jaguars. So if the $25 million credit is not used by the end of the Rofo period, which ends in 2030, the city will have to cut a $25 million check back to the Jaguars at the end of this 10 year period in 2034. So if they choose not to exercise the rofo, because they've put $25 million into the stadium cost, the city would have to cut a $25 million check back to them in 2034. So that's something to keep in mind. However, if they exercise the rofo and they have a remaining credit, in my earlier example, they had $7 million credit. If that $7 million credit remains at the end of the 10-year period, the city does not have to pay them anything. So it's an all or nothing on the reimbursement basis. And then as both parties have indicated, there are stipulations into what a development would have to occur on the site a minimum $100 million private capital investment and then that it requires them still going through DIA and getting City Council approval. As it relates to the rofo parking the jaguars will have the right to use the rofo parking for game day events and they would also be responsible for the maintenance on the rofo parking as it relates to that five-year term Getting into our concerns and recommendations. We have four of them The first is that the city is contributing $775 million towards the stadium development the team But we are also giving up land so we're giving up the right to that land in addition to our 75 million the team is contributing $625 million. Our land that currently valued at $25 million is not counted in the liquidated damages. Should the team leave at some point in the future? So our recommendation would be to add that $25 million to the liquid data damages so that if they were to leave the city would recoup the value of the land that we are putting into the project. Concern number two is related to the appraisals, so we'll be glad to work through that with the administration to make sure that if the appraisal does come in higher than the $25 million that the city would be compensated. However, the second recommendation as it related to appraisals is that the appraisal data set at December 31st of 2025. They have until 2030 to exercise the rofo. The value of the land could greatly appreciate over that five year time period. And so our suggestion would be that a new appraisal be obtained at the time that they exercise their rofo and that that be the new starting point for determining any value that may be given or taken with the team. Going on to concern number three is related to rofo parking and I believe this one's an easy cleanup. Any revenue generated on the rofo parcels as it relates to third party events is not addressed in the lease. So right now third party events are split 50-50 revenue and expenses with the team so we would just suggest adding the rofo parcels to that as well. And then the same recommended amendment that we have on all of the agreements that anything substantive come back to council for any changes to the parking agreement. Mr. Lamping. Can you indicate support for those suggested amendments? Yeah, I'll be up. And thanks for the comprehensive work. On the first one, the non-lead location agreement should be amended to add the 25 million real-frope payment to liquidate damages. We don't have any issues with that. Okay. The second one on having an appraisal later, we don't think that is appropriate, because the 25 million dollars is going in up front as part of the construction. So we are in essence completing that transaction because the basis of this negotiation with the city is we went from 600 million to 625 million. We received the property as part of that but the 25 million goes into the project during construction. So we think that the appraisals should be set as was negotiated. And the third one, we have no issues with the third one either where we share equally revenue from third party events. So the first and the third, we have no issues with. The second one we believe should stay as negotiated. Can I just, I've got a couple of people in the queue. Do we have an appraisal today on the property? I mean, it seems to me that's the first thing we should have. You don't, but I can't tell you most recently, and this was within the last year We came back and amended our development agreement for the shipyards The property underneath the office building was originally Transferred to the Jaguars under a long-term lease We came to the conclusion that that wasn't going to make sense if at some point in the future that office building would be converted to residential. So we went out and got into praisle and we purchased that property from the city that was done within the last year. So the appraisal on property right next to it, appraised at $70 a square foot which works out to about $3 million an acre. This particular parcel is, when you take out the retained parcel for, I think it's just under five acres. So if you use that appraisal from a year ago, it's probably somewhere around $15, $16 million, not the 25. Not the $25. No, I would think, again, a praise will determine that. We would be surprised if it appraises for more than $25 million at this point. Okay. Let me go to speakers. Mr. Lainin, and this will be, let's go to five minutes. Thank you, Councillor Prasad. I think Mr. Peterson can answer all of mine. First question I had, so you said it was a slight decrease that currently is 5,330 spots. What was the previous agreement for parking spots? Through the president to Councillor Muralain and the previous agreement had an additional 124 spots. That's the player, Caralle, that Mr. Weinstein referred to earlier. Okay, through the present, thank you. So it's really not a large percentage change. Second question, going to your handout number two, parking revenue expenses of the four bullet points is the only change, the first bullet point to where the team now is paying for all expenses related to game day. Through the Chair or through the President to Councilor Elaine, and that is one of the changes. The other change would be bullet three. Currently there aren't third-party events. So that's a new concept. But as it relates to the to to NFL games, first bullet is the main change. Thank you. Through the president, Mr. Peterson, do we know like what the magnitude of that change is on an annual basis just roughly. Through the president to Council Member Lane, and we have some numbers on that as it relates to the lease agreement. When we get to that, we'll walk you through that. Okay, thank you. And through the president last question, for number three, just want to make sure if I understood this correct. So, forgetting the 150 and deferred maintenance, our cost is 625 million. That was the cost share. Does this reduce the actual cash outlay by 25 million? Through the president to Councilmember Melania and no, the full cash outlay will still be 625 from the team and 775 from the city. Okay, but otherwise without for this, it would have been 650. So this reduces it from 650 to 625 for just the stadium construction portion. So this reduces it from 650 to 625 for just the stadium construction portion. I would have to defer to how they arrived at those numbers. I think it's actually the opposite of that. It would have been 800, 600. That's where we reach sort of the end of our negotiations. And the city came back to us and said we really would like to get you from 600 to 625. And we said yes, we can get there, but you're going to need to add some value to the deal and we came up with. Getting access to this property. Because it made the numbers work, but also to support what I said earlier. There is now a commitment of a minimum of 100 million dollars of additional development eight adjacent to the four seasons. Through the presidents. I mean, Mr. Weinstein wants to jump in. I think may clarify something for you. I was just going to add the 625 was an understanding that the appraisals were going to go up from where they are today, but also the 625, God is to the 50, 50 split. That's why the number is exactly 25. Thank you, Ms. Winson. Okay. I have no one else on the queue right now. Mr. Howell. They came back. Yeah, there we go. Thank you, Mr. President. My question is going to be for Mr. Hogue, and I want to thank the auditors and Mr. Lamping for addressing the rofo questions. And those are, I think, great amendments that help protect us. My questions will revolve around lots, J-M-N-P-N-T-T, so zone three. Obviously, Mr. Lamping mentioned that when we started the negotiations it became too complex so we separated out the stadium from the sports entertainment district. If I'm no real state expert but I think that when or if we approve the stadium renovation on Tuesday night, those parcels, lots, J-M-N-P and TT will become some of the most desired and sought after pieces of real estate in the United States. And I think we as a city should want development of a sports and entertainment district there. So my question for Mr. Hogue is in this parking agreement, does it give, it gives the Jags consent? Should there be any city movement on the development in the sports entertainment district, correct? Yes, to the council president, that's correct. Yeah, and I think that's appropriate. It's kind of like if you have an anchor tenant in an area, they should have consent on that area to determine what goes there, such as what goes in out parcels. That's important to me because I think that will be something that we'll be tackling with probably as a council over the next several years and we will probably get lots of bids and it's going to be important to keep the jaguars involved in that as well. What happens if we develop that sports entertainment district with this parking agreement? Because it will eliminate a couple thousand parking spots. What happens then when a development occurs? Where does that parking go? Does it go as part of that sports entertainment district? Do we look at neighboring areas for parking? That's a question for Mr. Weinstein. Well, it goes back to why we separated the parking agreement from the lease because this is going to change, hopefully pretty dramatically as we go forward. The jack wars have a right to park there, and which is a substantial right, but they don't have a right to necessarily develop there. I mean, so everything that whatever happens going forward, we're sort of tied together. They have rights that would prevent us from doing certain things. We have rights because we own it, preventing them from doing certain things. So whatever happens in the future will be an association in some way with the Jaguars. Perfect. And then what in your mind, what are our parking constraints? If we do develop there, will parking have to be part of that development in the future? I know we're on the stadium and in particular on the parking agreement right now, but interestingly the parking agreement becomes intertwined on future development of the sports. Through the president, I apologize. As it sits now, this agreement doesn't necessarily spell out how that will go forward. That's why again, it's going to be amended as we move forward. A future- The council will be very involved with those amendments if amendments come forward. A future challenge to tackle. And a bright future to look forward to. Thank you. Mr. Polosa, thank you, Mr. President. I'm actually kind of piggybacking on what Councilmember Hallam was mentioning, because I have heard other concerns in the past about parking. Have we worked with Florida, Georgia, about what the parking spaces, how they're going to impact that game with the tax layer bowl? I know there's a minimum parking requirements for them. Through the President, as we've stated, both Jaguar and the administration, we've been in constant contact with both schools. The agreements that we have with both schools run out in 25. So this really won't affect that and we'll sit down and negotiate from 28 on and within those new negotiations will be a parking discussion. In order to do the Armada agreement, we had to get Georgia and Florida to agree that Armada could in fact adjust the parking right now. Georgia's been parking there, but we worked that out and provided additional spaces. So whatever we do going forward, those elements of Florida, Georgia, or Gatorbal will be a part of it But we'll have no obligation after 25 so it'll start all over again To the present so I To that end right my concern is has Florida Georgia said hey look if it's the less than 5,000 we ain't coming there Like have we have we heard that there's a specific number that always must be maintained They need 3,000 or any 4,000 like do we know when we should start getting nervous as a body up here for when a certain number of spots may go down if there's future development? We don't have a specific number but I know that they'll be happy with whatever the NFL basically has as well. So we're all we would all be in it together but we'd have to commit to the NFL going forward as well, how many spots are available. But they know construction's coming and they know there's going to be changes, but we're going to have to figure out as time goes on how to adjust to those changes. But without knowing what the development will be, we can't dictate how it's going to end up with how many spaces and where they'll be. Understood. And I know a quick question. So there would, under the agreement for the RIFO, there would be no availability for an unsolicited bid correct you guys would get right up for pretty much very first refusal. No. I'm sorry, I said it. Could a developer provide an unsolicited bid for Lachje or anything else to the point that council member Hallum was bringing up? Oh, from the rofo property for the rofo property or any of the other properties any of the other. Well anything this I mean anybody can submit anything they want anytime they want on solicited bids come in all the time. But so nothing prevents unsolicited to come in but they have they have definite rights on rofo and definitely parking rights on the lots that it were described. Understood. And then Mr. Lamping, in order to maybe get a headline for the daily record, are there any plans for the parcel? Potential development that's already being discussed? Yeah, yeah, so we haven't had discussions with the city. discussed? Yeah, yeah, so we haven't had discussions with the city. You know, we have felt for quite some time that downtown could use a entertainment center. We believe that that will make the investment in the stadium, provide a greater return to both the city and the Jaguars. That was at the basis of the Latje proposal. The need in downtown has not changed since then. The only thing that has changed is the cost of doing that project is, will be a lot more expensive and the cost of financing that project will be a lot more. But we've always believed and continue to believe that in order for the stadium to serve the purpose that we all want it to do, which is to be a magnet for major events. We're going to have to give more options for attendees to these events to do things before and after the game. And getting to the Florida Georgia question. I'm virtually certain that if those universities had the choice of, you're going to have to give up 150 parking spaces, but you're going to get a mixed use entertainment center outside the stadium. I'm sure they would choose the latter because that would enhance the experience for their fans. And what about the parcel adjacent to the future four seasons? You guys have a plan for that? Yeah, we're doing master planning on that right now. We expect that it will be a mixed use development. It'll go through the typical DIA process. So it'll go through DIA, and then it will hopefully get in front of City Council. We would expect that there will be a mixchs. We're still continuing to be interested in there being a medical component to that, along with some housing and some structured parking within the building itself. Mr., there you go, Karen Mathis. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. President, who can I jump in real quick? Sure. Mr. Pouluso asked a question about entertaining unsolicited bids. The parking agreement specifically says that the city nor the DIA will entertain or initiate any disposition lease or further incumbrance of the rofo parcels during the rofo period so until 2030. They will only entertain proposals from the team. On the rofo portion. On the rofo portion. Not any of the other ones. Not any of just the rofo portion. On the rofo portion. Not any of the other one. Not any of just the rofo. Okay. Council Member Miller, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the President, to Mr. Weinstein, in your negotiations over the past approximately 10 months, this is a related question, but what did you discuss regarding the veterans' memorial wall and associated parking events, access to what are other things that maybe of value for us to know about regarding those discussions. Through the President, the veterans' wall basically came up within the last maybe six weeks, two months, because there was really no discussion about possibly moving it. So it was not part of really any discussion as far as negotiations. But as soon as the potential of the idea of it being moved, then it came up as well. If it is moved, let's add some parking spaces because parking is very, very important going forward and we're losing them as we speak. So that was really towards the end. That was it. Okay, thank you. Through the president, again, Mr. Weinstein. I've heard some of those thoughts and some discussions outside of your official discussions about what you just spoke of. I was wondering at a basic level as far as the parking, existing parking goes and events that are held at that location and parking needed for those events. Is there is there any part in that in making sure that's solid as well, for those events and for the needed spaces they'll need for that? If it is moved, they'll be used for all the other events as well. But the movement of the veterans well was never part of sort of a negotiation. We didn't try to influence it moving, not moving. We didn't get into that. But if it is moved, the spaces will be used for all the different events. No, I'm through the president. No, I'm just speaking about it as it is now. They have various events at that location and they use, they need to use those spaces in that area. There's parking spaces for those events. I was just wondering, is that address, and is that still solid going forward? It's definitely solid in that it's all city controlled, and the event wouldn't be an NFL event. So it would have the same access it has today for all the different events that happen anywhere else outside the state. Okay, thank you. Okay, I have no one else in the queue, so I've got a couple questions. Have we addressed arena parking, jumbo shrimp parking in the event that there's a stadium event that may be a Jaguar and or a combo event with a city and they're parking. To the president that would just operate how it does currently. Okay, we can someone explain to me how it how it's handled currently if there are two or three different events at the same time. Well, we closely coordinate to try to make it work, but the NFL spots take precedence. So if there is a concert the same night as a, of an NFL game as an example, all of the spaces that we have through the agreement with the city will be honored for that evening. I'm less concerned about an NFL game on a Sunday afternoon than I am a concert or something like that in the stadium at the same time as something at the baseball park or something like that. Through the president. So the city is responsible for the parking operator that will run these lots that are subject to the parking agreement. In years past, the jumbo shrimp have made adjustments to their schedule based on events that have happened at the same fact they moved the game this year from a night game to a day game because of a concert that was occurring. So as Mr. Lamping indicated, it's a coordination amongst all the parties to make it happen. But the city does ultimately run the lots that are the subject of this. So we would do our best to make sure that coordination occurs. So what I hear you saying, we've not had a major issue with this. The parties get together together work it out and We handle the parking as best we can is that is that a fair statement To my knowledge, I'm not aware of any issues that have arisen that maybe mr. Weinstein or administration Good chime in mr. Weinstein That is true asm large part of the facility. The DIA is a large part of the facility. The DIA is a large part of the facility. The DIA is a large part of the facility. The DIA is a large part of the facility. The DIA is a large part of the facility. The DIA is a large part of the facility. The DIA is a large part of the facility. The DIA manages as well. So we haven't had a problem. That would be a big problem of success and we haven't had it yet. As I haven't heard much about ASM thus far, I assume that will come up in some of the other agreements. Or their role in all of those. Well, again, the agreement in front of you is sort of split. We're going to continue for the next three or four years with the current lease and the current responsibilities, the rofo and some other things kick in pretty early. But basically ASM will continue to manage it up until 28. And in 28, the different decisions could in fact be made, but it may be ASM again. Well, if I can follow up on that, if there is a change in the management, some other than ASM, it comes to the council. It would be a new agreement with some other entity, another contract that would have, and eventually come to council. Eventually come to council. Okay. Matt Carly, you're recognized. Mr. President and through the President to I guess Mr. Lamping or Mr. Peterson council auditors. So it seemed like we agreed on everything, except for one area when we asked Mr. Lamping if he agreed with some of the recommendations of the auditors. So I'm trying to remember what that one area was where we did have an agreement. And I'd like us to be able to talk about that a little bit. So we made one accord. Also the other thing I want to comment on is I'm comfortable with everything that's been said here with the entertainment center. I think the processes will be followed. I heard the DA would be involved. And so in the parking, our capacity won't be as much need for parking because our capacity in the stadium is going down. But when I see our auditors have a disagreement with the Mr. Lamping or the Jaguars, I just want to see how critical that is and if we can work through that through the chair. I'd like to have either Mr. Lamping or the council orders address that one discrepancy they had, that a thought they had. Yeah, we believe that we are providing consideration to the city in the form of $25 million. When we raised our contribution to the stadium from 600 to 625, we received property in return, but that's $25 million that is going into the project from the Jaguars. And that happens during the, those dollars will either be the first dollars in or the last dollars, but they will happen during the construction period. Because that consideration is happening up front, we believe that we should be receiving your credit equal to the appraised value of that property at the end of next year. And the council auditor's position would be, what you should be paying is when you actually take the property down and that could be as late as 20 30. So it's a little bit of a difference of opinion and yes, we do believe that that property could go up in value for a number of reasons one the hundreds of millions of dollars that shot in his family are investing in the four seasons that will be complete the or your investing in the four seasons, that will be complete. The dollars are investing in the office building and along with the city, $625 million in a new city owned stadium. So that the impetus for the increase in that value is being created in many respects through the city's contribution but also through our contribution. created in many respects through the city's contribution, but also through our contribution. So through tonight, can I add to answer to that also? Well, we agree to this in negotiations because of a number of reasons. And it's something that I've said many times when you focus in on one item, you forget about all the other items that we both give and take from the cost overruns the additional dollars the Contribution for game day the con you know so when you look at one item it may not and may seem unfair But it if the whole package is fair you know that it's been a given take on lots of other items That's why we agree to it and why it stands in the current agreement. Okay, Mr. President, I got a minute 29 seconds. Thank you to Mark and to Mr. Weinstein. I agree with your overall look at it. Mr. Weinstein, I would like to go to hear from our council auditors and see if this is just a policy decision. We have to make I don't want to follow to a financial pitfall on it. Through the President's Councilmember Curlygia, I believe Mr. Lamping described two sides very accurately. We just said that if the value comes in much higher than the 25 million, if they were to exercise it in one of the later years of the rofo period that the city should the city should be compensated. However, I'd understand their standpoint as well that they're making the contribution now. So it is a policy decision. Thank you, Mr. Carlucci. I have no one else. I'm sorry, Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. President. And if I can add on to, it will definitely be a policy decision through the Chair to Council Member Curlyucci. I think at a minimum, it sounded like Mr. Weinstein and we'll get agreement with Mr. Lamping as well, that at a minimum, if it's a policy decision to stay with the December 31st, 2025 appraisal date, it sounded like if it comes in above that, from the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to be a fair. I understand your point that your creating value for the city is a fair. I understand that's very fair I understand your your point that you're creating value for that piece of property by by what you're doing That makes that makes sense to me, but if the if the appraisal in 25 before all that's completed is above 25 I think that's different Absolutely, we agree with that the best case for us would be to do the appraisal today. I understand. Okay. No, I understand. So I think the amendment should reflect that what we just agreed upon. Okay? Okay, Mr. Lanean. Thank you, President. I just had a process question probably for Mr. Fopolis. We've had a lot of auditor recommended amendments. Are we tackling all those tomorrow as well? Yes, we are. Thank you. Yes, we are. That's the plan. Many of them are technical and in my meeting with the auditors yesterday, we talked about bunching the technical amendments together, hopefully with one vote, and then we'd go through the significant ones one at a time. Does that answer your question, Mr. Laney? Okay. I see no one else in the queue. Oh, Ms. Taylor? Mr. President, but I can just add to we've actually circulated a list of all the technical amendments that we believe are clarification nature. We've agreed, worked through with the Jags and the attorneys. And so we circulated that in anticipation to make sure that all of those technical that were on the same page. And if there's any issues, we'll work through that tonight. Okay. Anyone else on parking? Okay. I think we are ready to move on. Just so that we do have lunch available. I think it'd be great if we could get through one more agreement prior to lunch if we can. If not, we'll break some at some point in between that. Mr. Weinstein, did you want to begin on the stadium development agreement? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, through the past number of years since the Jaguars have been owned by Khan, that they have built a number of things for us. And to a great extent, the structure and the idea is basically the same. They're going to take total responsibility for the running of the construction process, but we're going to be attached at the hip at all the design meetings, at all the decision making that needs to take place. The city and the jaguars will do it together, but they definitely have the responsibility of building it. it and as you know they're going to take on the responsibility of the overruns. So with that come some control as well. They've committed on JSEP and I think the labor discussions will continue. I think their meetings and discussions going on to see how far long meetings and discussions going on to see how far along we can get commitments for local JSEP activity, local labor and what have you. A lot of the document in front of you relates to how decisions will be made, how many days decisions need to be left open, resolution, a conflict resolution process, basically the details of how this will take place. And you got to remember that construction will begin if perfect February, March of next year, the major construction January of 27 to August of 28. So we're still going to go through a lot of design work. We're still going to go through a lot of effort to try to understand the detail of what's going to be in the stadium. As cost estimates come back, adjustments will be made, but adjustments will be made together. You'll end up with a project program statement that basically describes the minimum of what it is that we anticipate getting. As time goes on, that project statement will be populated with more detail, but we can't stray from the minimums that we ultimately agree on because that then would have to come back to council and would have you. The administration would have some decision making through the process and it's outlined in the agreement, but nothing of substance to take away from what we anticipated paying with our $775 million. And with that, I'll let the Jaguar speak more to it since they're going to be ultimately responsible for it. Thank you. So as Mr. Weinstein mentioned, the development agreements that's forth both the sort of general economics of how the agreement, the statement of the future will be paid for. Overall, there's about 41-page project programs, statement, floor plans, and a series of renderings that'll be attached that describe in detail what the current applicable minimum standards will be in terms of what the $1.4 billion can purchase. There's also a budget and a schedule attached. And then this agreement details the process by which the team will continue to update the city throughout the construction process. This is just a point in time as we continue the city has the right to participate in our various meetings with the architect and the construction manager to inspect the project site in any time. And then also of course to inspect our books and records. And so our hope is that the city will be an active participant with us as the project continues to progress. And there's a minimum standards that forth by which we cannot reduce the scope without coming back to council. So the material programmatic elements that have been described in terms of what this will purchase. The most critical sort of new piece being the enclosure, but we've talked about the air circulation, the vertical transportation improvements, the 360 circulation, the stadium, all of those things we thought were critically important to bring to Jacksonville first class stadium of the future and those are outlined in this agreement. The process that we've outlined here is similar to what we've done in the past, starting with the video boards, the club improvements, the construction of the amphitheater and the construction of the flex field in the performance center, and there's actually more detail attached to this agreement as there should be because it's a more significant project than anything that we've worked on with the past, but we do have a track record over the last 11 years or so of working on private public partnerships with the city and being able to bring these projects from the stage to completion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I think the agreement does contemplate a requirement that any of the building and design goes through a review process and an audit process that would on its face appear to give confidence that the design that you're paying for is the design that you're going to get and there seems to be enough provisions in there where there is either work with the project manager or some reviews through the audit process to do so. The references to cost overruns that the team is responsible for is clear with respect to major things or things that aren't necessarily defaults by the city. But overall, they would be responsible. And that is the standard for most of the agreements in any of the more recent stadiums that have been done. Even in some of the cases other stadiums have even forgiven some of those past damages or maintenance defaults that have occurred. But clearly the cost overruns has been something that the other stadiums who of course are responsible for building the stadiums have taken on. So I think that is something common. There's also the Jacksonville Small and Emerging Business Program requirement that has a set mandate for that to be done. That is common and probably more extensive in many of the other agreement, stadium agreements that are done, but that is consistent as well. I think with respect to the concern I would have is in the reduced stadium capacity, the NFL typically has a formula or requirement or an agreement if a team is gonna play in a reduced capacity stadium with respect to how much revenue is gonna be there because the way the revenues are split between the home and visiting teams There's a certain amount of projected revenue that a visiting team would get in a 70,000 seat stadium versus a 40,000 seat stadium If those were the examples to use But in this particular case There's a provision in here that would allow the Jaguars, both during the 25, 26 season and the 20, 27 season to play games outside of Jacksonville and not only play games outside of Jacksonville but to play games, additional games in London as well. The agreement contemplates that they can play over two seasons, three home games outside of the stadium in London and in 2027, contemplates that they could have three home games in London as well. There also is the potential in 2028 and the agreement is relatively silent on what happens if that gets extended in future years because of delays and construction but presumably that would continue in future years as well. So in addition to the terms that we talked about in the non relocation agreement with respect to the typical one game outside of the market and the addition of one additional game every other year into the current number of home games that continuing to expand if we go beyond 18 games. This would add additionally, potentially to that. It's not clear that the three home games are tied to the non relocation agreement or how that would be viewed, but at least under the stadium development agreement, there is a contemplation for additional games, not only outside of the city, but specifically in London as well. Most of the stadium agreements say that the teams will not lobby to try to have additional games outside of the stadium area and certainly not for international games and you could consider strengthening that language with respect to not accepting unless forced to or not looking to do so if that was a consideration. Budget wise, again, as I said, there seems to be a pretty solid process of review of the construction funds so that you wouldn't get too far down the pike and have concerns about overspent. And again, I think the safeguard in this is that the jaguars are responsible for those overruns. I think the auditors will probably have some more specifics, but I think that's the biggest concern. Thanks Good morning again you have a four-page handout on the development agreement This is just related to the period of construction and we'll get into next where the lease starts and our next presentation But just want to clarify that everything I talk about is related to the construction time frame. As you know the amounts are listed there that we've talked about the commitments from each side. We do want to make the council aware and a lot of this is just making sure that we've lifted things from the documents so that you're aware of all the things that are incorporated. So in addition to the $775 million contribution we want to make you aware, there is a small piece of public infrastructure. It's about 1.4 million and that's related to paving of the lots and then some silting that's in the storm water system pipes. That's not part of the stadium construction cost. It's a separate city commitment that's within the agreement. We've talked about in bullet two, the rofo and the 25 million, so I won't belabor that. We also want to make you aware that within the agreement, there is a provision that foregoes a supplemental rent. And just for a brief history, the Jaguar's pays supplemental supplemental rent which was a liability they assumed when they bought the team. It's actually related what the amounts that are owed now are related to super bowl improvements that were done years ago that the team had agreed to. And so these are debts that they assumed but for 6.7 million this year and next year, supplemental rent payments that are being foregoed in the agreement, we do get a dollar for dollar credit. So that is for that 6.7 million, you do see the reduction in essence. For our 775, 6.7 million will already be spoken for and considered paid in essence. So cash out the door, we've in essence that will cover that part of the 775. What is not addressed is for 2027, if the rent is forgiven in the future, that would forego 5.4 million. And then also the agreement really doesn't address since the lease will start two years sooner. There's two years of supplemental rent that will not, not in essence, just fall off. That's about 7.3 million. So those items really aren't addressed in the agreement and we're making the council aware because we certainly that last bit the last two years will be foregone. So it just was not taken into account in the agreement and we'll have some recommendations regarding that. And then the last piece on their commitments, again just making you aware on the minimum capital investment, there is an agreement for them to develop the 100 million on that Rothvo property. So that does come in to play with all of the numbers. Sale of surplus property within the agreement, there is a pro-radar sharing. So if they sell anything within the stadium site, we do get credit for that on a pro-radar basis. And so that would reduce our cash out the door for the 775. Sales tax exemption built into the budget, so already taken into account where we get to the cost, the budgeted cost and the commitments from each side, is sales tax exemption on materials. Of course, with any project like this, where the city can in essence buy those materials and see sales tax savings benefits both parties. But certainly that's already been factored into the numbers that they have arrived at today. Turning to page two, cost everyone's was already mentioned that those are covered by the I do want to mention a couple of things that if the city is responsible for any cost over runs, that would be a city cost. And anything, cities are responsible for things on bullet four you'll see for change orders requested that are not attributable to ensuring public access and safety. So if we cause anything like that, grossly negligent, or if material delays to the construction schedule causing any delays, we could be responsible for any of those city-caused cost overruns. Otherwise, it would be on the Jaguars. Cost savings, we do share on a perreda basis. So with our 55, 45 split at this point, if there are any cost savings, we would share in that. Or there could be a mutual agreement as well that any of that savings be allocated to other improvements. So that language is in there to allow for the possible consideration for other improvements to be done with that cost savings. Stagco construction oversight. Keep in mind that this city is not in control of this construction project because it is a public private type of arrangement where they will be in control. Therefore, many of the change orders will not require approval of a city representative. What the agreement does lay out is that instead that any time change orders, if there's a reduction to the applicable minimum standards, or a line item change in the budget of more than 5%. Those things would require written approval of the city representative and we're going to have a recommendation To clarify that language. I think based on discussion and written responses that if anything varies from the minimum expectations of what you expect to get for the city's Investment in the stadium that that comes back to city council for approval. So we'll have some recommendation there and have discussion on that. The city's annual appropriation. There is a protection in place that if you appropriate dollars and include that in the CIP, if it's not enough in the intermediate time frame for the rest of that fiscal year, they will in essence front those dollars. And then in the next budget year, allow for us to get caught back up again so that we're staying in that pro-rata fashion. So that's a benefit to the city if that were to occur. Jay said that was mentioned previously, it is a goal consistent with our procurement code. As you know, we are waiving the procurement code in this bill other than the JSA provisions, so that 20% goal is still in place. Turning to page three, Mr. Hogue referred to the games. This is a list here for your reference on when they can have games outside of the existing stadium. And just to reiterate again, because I know this has been a very important topic for the council. You'll see for the 25 and 26, that's when you have the reduced capacity. As Mr. Hogue mentioned, up to three games in the aggregate for those two seasons can be played outside of the existing stadium. And we do want to mention that the mayor has the ability in those two reduced capacity years to allow for, to approve games to be played outside, outside additional games to be played outside the stadium during that period. And then for the 27 season when they, when we would not have any games played there, up to three home games can be played in London, as previously mentioned, and then remaining home games outside of the existing stadium can be played in an alternate site. And then for the 28th season, it was mentioned as well, anticipated to be in the renovated stadium, but it does not appear to clearly address if for some reason getting to the next bullet, the actual default date is the 29th season. So although the goal for everyone is the 28th season, technically per the agreement, they are not into fault, they have a year before they would be considered to be into fault if they're not completed by 28. And we do have bullet 11, there are several attachments that are referenced as exhibits that are not attached yet, just to make you aware of and we'll get into discussion on the project program statement. We have a concerning recommendation, but that's your specifics. That's what are we getting for the city public dollars that are being put into the project? The final stadium project budget, there is a draft attached for the 1.4 billion. It's a little over that, but you can see a draft of about three pages that list out some of the various items. A stadium site description, just laying out that perimeter of where this all, where the project is, is to be attached. A description of the public infrastructure improvements. We've gone by what verbally, what they have told us, and there's a little bit in the agreement, but specifics will be attached, and then JSAB reporting form. We do have a few concerns and recommended amendments. The first one is regarding the project statement, project program statement. It is required to be attached within 30 days of the effective date of the agreement. So that would be after if the council does approve this agreement, that document would be attached after the fact. It does have to be consistent with public discussions of the details and attributes of the stadium of the future. And they do have a draft in place that they are working on. It's a very important document and we pulled the original one for the Gator Bowl when that went through. It's a very lengthy, very detailed sets all of your minimums, whether it be seats, number of suites, bathrooms, escalators, all the various square footage of different areas, sets all of that in place for your public dollars being invested. The recommendation that we have, and this will definitely be a policy decision, is for the City Council to determine whether it should identify that specific criteria because again, we don't have anything attached right now. And include that or have those various metrics in there like the minimum number of seats. Or whether it should, as the bill is filed in the plan, is to authorize the city to work with the Jaguars to finalize that within the 30 days of the effective date so it would be an after the fact. So that will certainly be something that you need to discuss. I do want to mention that as far as this project program statement, it allows a lot of things to occur for Gilbane, who is our owner rep, it's that framework for them to know are the designs and is everything meeting that. It allows protections for the city if there's a question on a change order that if it's not meeting those minimums, that's a reasonable basis for the city to question to where we're not causing delays or creating default issues for ourselves or things like that. So that is something that the city council will certainly need to consider. Mr. Taylor, before you move forward on further, let's get a response from the Jaguars on concern number one recommendation on one before you move forward. Is that okay? Yes, sir. Yeah, from our point of view, the program statement has been circulated. We have been meeting regularly to answer questions as they've been asked whether it's from Gilbain or others and they're very good fair questions, but I think the program statement as it currently is coupled with the renderings that will be attached and the other metrics do set forth a lot of what Miss Taylor is talking about. So for instance, it does set forth with the existing square footages on the concourse and what it will be under the proposed plans. It sets forth the increased specifically in terms of number of elevators, escalators, restrooms. We're going from having three clubs to ten clubs, the increase in climate controlled space, and a number of other things are described in the current draft, which is just about 41 pages, and is a portion of what we'll set forth the minimum standards in addition to the other requirements set forth in the development agreement itself and the other exhibits there too. It's not a good thing to be involved in this. It's not a good thing to be involved in this. It's not a good thing to be involved in this. It's not a good thing to be involved in this. It's not a good thing to be involved in this. It's not a good thing to be involved in this. It's not a good thing to be involved in this. It's not a good thing to be involved in this. It's not a good needs to be involved in certifying because that's their framework for ensuring that we're getting what we're supposed to be getting. And it always, when it's important and comes into play, is when they are facing cost overruns that they have to cover and there's value engineering and things are cut out to where that may shift some of the capital and we'll get into in the lease. The potential capital cost that the city would be responsible for to where things may get pushed off to where it becomes a city responsibility. Again, we're speaking, our office is always speaking from the protection of the city's overall financial cost. cities overall financial cost. That will be a policy decision at this point, nothing is attached. Like I said, it may be helpful for that draft to be circulated for you all to get a comfort level. We would certainly want public works to weigh in as well as Gil Bain. And certainly, OGC, because this document is very, it provides protections for the city to ensure that you are getting what you think you're getting and that we're meeting all the minimum standards. So certainly, it's an important document down the road. So I think I would defer to those parties, OGC, and et cetera, to weigh in as well as you make the policy decision on this and since it is not attached currently. Mr. Taylor, if I can just jump in, is your concern that we have that list that make it just mentioned and construction starts and costs escalate for some reason and there's some cost savings, reengineering done, I'm not in this industry, to save some money and we don't get the escalator. We thought we were getting here or this bathroom gets cut out or the corridor gets narrower than what we thought we were getting. Is that your concern? Yes, sir, Mr. President. It really is depending on the level of detail. If it's not very specific on things and things can be cut out, then they can be because there's not. You're setting the minimums on everything that you would like to see in that stadium. It also is difficult because we're not building a stadium from the ground up. Knowing what is existing and what's being added to the more specific, better protects the city is what I would say. So I don't know if the, I certainly don't have the expertise to know, do we get to the level of concrete or things that are that want to be protected? That's where our engineers come into play in our owners rep. But it's making sure that you have that comfort level that number of suites, number of seats, all how detailed should it be to ensure that the city is protected? In the event that changes are made, that it's not a, well, that's not in there, so we have the ability to make that change to value engineer in the event of cost overruns rather than there's a commitment. It's very detailed, we have to do it type of thing. that maybe you could include this. It was my understanding that that's Gil Baines' role as to make sure what we agree upon gets completed. Maybe I'm wrong in that. Mr. Weinstein would you come in? Yeah, a couple things. That is exactly, we hired Gil Baine to be our eyes and ears day and day out for the next four years or so, four and a half years of construction, and to make sure that what it is that we're getting is what it is we anticipated getting. We have a project program statement, it's been in the second draft, and it does indicate all of the items that the auditor had mentioned, how many escalators, how many elevators, the size of the concourse and what have you. But what it doesn't have, and that's why it isn't in there now, but it can be, it doesn't have, you know, what's the level of carpeting, whether it's going to be tile here or tile there, the type of faucets in the bed. Those decisions are made as more estimates, cost estimates come in and what have you. That's why it was three, you know, 30 days or what have you after the effective date. But we can definitely have what we already exist, which does have the minimums in any reduction of an escalator has taken out because of the construction complications. We have to come back to Council on any minimum that we drop below. Just the Council needs to understand that it will be populated with more detail as we get closer to building this over the next four and a half years. Okay. Well, I'd like her to finish her presentation and then we can get to concerns. Please, please get in the queue. Go ahead, Miss Taylor. Yes, our turning to the last page, concern number two. This alludes to what Mr. Weinstein just stated. The agreement currently states that changes to the final project program statement, which we're talking about all these specifics, that reduce the applicable minimum standards cannot be approved by the city rep acting alone. We just want to ensure that that's clarified, that that means that anything that changes those minimums has to come back to council. And it sounds like that's what Mr. Weinstein indicated and we just wanted that clear. On concern number three, given the importance of the final construction cost and knowing at the end of the project, this was similar to something that was done on the MPS garages, is that we recommend that there be a final certification on all the construction cost, and this would be done by an outside audit firm that just gets all of that set. So going forward, confirmation for the insurance cost, just for everything, so that's set in stone. On concern number four, this relates. I didn't know if you want to Mr. Weinstein to comment. I'm going to come back. Jaguars or Mark, are y'all comfortable with two and three? Or yes, you are. Jack Wars or Mark, are y'all comfortable with two and three? Yes, you are. Okay, that's good. Okay, please continue, Ms. Taylor. Yes, sir, on concern number four, this is where I referenced at the start that within the agreement, and I do want to mention it is alluded to in the agreement and we do get a credit, dollar for dollar credit for the supplemental rent. There will need to be some additional legislation that amends the existing agreement. Because right now they have that contractual commitment under the existing lease. And so the 6.7 that is abated, that will need to formally be done amending the current lease. So I just want to mention that. But where our concern is the 28 and 29 years with starting the lease early, where we have 7.3 roughly million that falls off. Again, that has nothing to do with the base rent, the supplemental rent, is a debt that was assumed regarding that will not occur now with the change the early timeframe of the lease. So we are just saying that that should be considered potentially as a dollar for dollar credit towards the city's contribution. Or at least at a minimum that it be included as part of the liquidated damages for those two years. Again, that is a debt that is owed still, it's just the timing of the lease that allows in essence them to get out of it and it's not really addressed in the lease agreement. I feel like we're going to have some discussion on this one. Mr. Lamping? There's a number of things to consider. 28 and 29, we're no longer the stadium as we're operating under a new lease. We're no longer operating under our old lease. Concerned, you know, why we would have those ongoing obligations from our previous lease. We do factor this in, we have just invested $625 million into a city-owned facility. And I guess at the end of the day, we could solve this by simply exercising our termination rights on the lease, which we have right now, which comes with no penalty. So, you know, we obviously preferred not to do that. We just don't see how we should be paying rent in a building that is now essentially a brand new building and covered under a new lease, where we also in addition to picking up a lot of the expenses, we will be making a $625 million contribution. And the city does not have the cost obligations that they had under the original lease. So yes, there may be some supplemental rent payments which wouldn't be made, but at the same time, there's game day expenses, there's capital. There's other things that the city cost the city's not going to be incurring and I think if we you analyzed it the savings to the city will be more significant than the supplemental rent payment Do you want to add anything Mr. Weinstein? No, I mean I'd be nice if we can get anything that we can. It's kind of a complicated to, and I said this to, to Kim, to take one piece of an old lease that goes away and not other pieces of the lease. And we do get benefits in the new lease that, that helps compensate for the dollars. It'd be nice to have, but I don't see how you could really press it. Okay, let's move on. Yes, sir. And just for clarification. Other people can bring it up. So she can complete her presentation. Yes, sir. And just for clarification, we're talking supplemental rents. So it's related to improvements in the past, not base rent, which is a different item. It's a number ball. Correct. That's correct. From. 2000 for you. Yes. Thank you for the year, Councillor. Many years ago that they assumed. On concern number five, I think this one should be pretty agreeable to. This is just for the city rep to provide updates to city council, whether that be monthly quarterly, whatever you decide from a policy standpoint on the status of construction. So just so that you all are aware of how things are progressing, that's a recommendation that we have. I don't think there will be objection on that one. My suggestion that you included is quarterly and to the Finance Committee. Yes, sir. We can do that. Okay. And then the last one is our standard one on any changes that result in changes to the financial obligations that come back before you. That's on every agreement that we've referenced. And that is all that I have. Happy to discuss further when we get into questions on the supplemental rent. I think that was the main item that we did not have agreement on along with the project program statement, which you'll have to make some policy decisions on I have a line up here of people Mr. Polusa Thank you, Mr. President. I'm glad to get first dibs. I've been it's a person Mr. Landbanger said a few quick questions about 2526 season If we have playoff games is there a commitment that the games will be played in Jacksonville during those years? Yes. Is that in the agreement or is that just a commitment by the Jaguars? It's covered up at the existing lease. I just said. And I recall during the huddles we were talking about for season ticket owners during those seasons when we get rid of certain seats. How do we decide which season ticket holders lose their seats in which don't, and also will everyone kind of be in a pool to potentially keep a new seat? How's that work? Well, let's start with what season ticket holders will not be required to do. Once we get into the 2026 season and its reduced capacity, no season ticket holder will be required to renew their season tickets to keep their priority for the new facility. So we will lock in the priority list after the 2025 season. We will in all likelihood, we haven't finalized the plan yet, but if people have seats in the lower bowl, then they will in all likelihood be given the opportunity to renew those seats and then those season ticket holders that may be in the upper deck. We would try to accommodate them to the degree we could. But we haven't finalized the plan yet. There's a lot of different ways to look at it. I think it certainly will be giving more flexibility in terms of our season ticket packages. So we will give season ticket holders the option to not purchase the entire season as an example to try to increase the number of ticket holders that we'll be able to enjoy at least a portion of the season. I mean, setting that aside, as it exists right now, we would be able to accommodate all aside. As it exists right now, we would be able to accommodate all of our existing season ticket holders, meaning that those that we have in the upper deck will be able to move down to the lower deck. Understood. Thank you. And then lastly, I see that there is a J. Subgoal. What if that goal is not met? is there any criteria behind that? The goal of 20% for J-SUBS to work on the stadium. I'm sure you've seen probably some of the amendments that are going to be brought up on Tuesday. That also kind of speak to this. No, it's an aspiration goal. If there's no specific punishment for it or what have you but they've done it in the past and they're committed to do it in the future but it relates to you know they've already agreed they're going to break down a lot of contracts and what have you depends upon the other construction that's happening in the city but you can't really hold them other than to make sure again you're with them 365 days a year pushing it. Are we, and I'm asking you Mark, are you guys comfortable with the amendment offered by Councilwoman, Chairman Clark Murray about apprenticeships? Yes we are. Understood. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Hall, thank you Mr. Halle. Thank you, Mr. Council President. This, if not the core piece of 2024-904, it's certainly a key piece. And I kind of have, I've had a lot of time to look at it. I've jumped into three specific provisions that I'm going to ask Mr. Weinstein about. And then I have kind of a thought potentially for the Jaguars. But the first provision is section 5.7, the surplus tangible property and the auditors mentioned that before. How does this work? Us granting the construction administrator the right to dispose of and sell surplus tangible property without coming to council. Are there restrictions about how they're geographically bound? council are there restrictions about how they're geographically bound? Well, there's pretty elaborate process for city surplus that does go through city government and city council. Basically as they begin to demolish and take pieces out, some of which will have inventory numbers on and some of which won't, we just came to the conclusion that it would be much more efficient to basically put everything together, waive the surplus process that we normally go under and just process it out. This wouldn't allow lots JMM and P or TT potentially to be considered surplus property under this review. Thank you. Next, I'd like to talk about section 6.1, the auditors also talked about this one. So the city has concluded that the max liability under section 6.1 is $1.4 million. That's public infrastructure improvements. Spell it out for me because I'm not on the pages yet. Sorry, section 6.1 page 26 on what I'm looking at the version I'm looking at page 26. Oh yeah, okay 33. It relates to the infrastructure. Yes sir. Yeah, yeah, basically right from the beginning. Why it's in here is they just wanted to make sure that we did it, but we do it every about 15 years. We basically try to level the parking lots and repay them and stripe them. And that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna do it as late as we possibly can, but still be able to park on it for the next couple of years. And the silting basically, the only other item is silting some of the pipelines of the storm order needs to be cleaned out. Things that we normally do, things that we're responsible for doing, and really don't tie to the stadium. Anything that is created because of the stadium construction is part of the 1.4. These are just things we normally would be doing. Jaguar just wanted to make sure that we didn't put 1.4 in the building and we didn't take care of the outside. Okay. And would these projects have been recommended in the mayor's proposed budget for the CIP anyways? At the right time, the public works will determine when to do those things, but it would be typically, and the silting is so small, it probably wouldn't be in the CIP possibly the parking lot would be. That's really a little over a million of the million, three or a million, four total. I think I have an older, I'm looking at an older draft version. But it relates to, wherever I had it, 4.9.3. Change orders? Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I hand it, 4.9.3. Change orders. Yeah, change orders. And it refers to the city has to get back to Stadco within five business days. And if we could potentially be responsible for cost overruns related to maybe a delay in approving a change. Would that incur liability? Because five business days, someone could just be out for a week. Well, that's why we have the reporting to more than one person. We talked about timing, the speed of getting things done and the ability to not let something fall through. So the reporting is going to be to multiple people. So it wouldn't be just one person if the person's a way. It was exactly hypothetical given during the process. So we built in ways to make sure that doesn't happen. Okay, and let me clarify. I said cities responsible for cost over runs. I meant city responsible for city cost cost over runs. And my worry was if five days too small, would that generate a city cost over run? And my last thought, and I got to do it quickly in 40 seconds is not to a specific point but it's pretty much to the Jaguars we we get a lot of criticism for not a lot of progress in our riverfront and downtown on the positive side a lot of people refer to it as a blank canvas or a blank state slate. We have so many big developments going on. The Emerald Trail, Mosh, the Zoo, the Stadium. Those developments are going to draw tourists. They're going to be major attractions. I wonder if there's any value among the parties doing those developments in some kind of collective or cohesive design, just because, and if I can, Mr. President, I can either finish this up or come back. But go ahead. Okay, my thought is that if I've got a rising freshman in college, we did a college tour last year. If you look at universities around the United States, the buildings are all hodgepodge. If you look at one university in particular, the campus has developed in a uniform cohesive way. For example, Wake Forest. They had to move back in a couple hundred-year-old university moved to their current location in 1950s, and they designed all the buildings together in a cohesive manner that is frankly beautiful and constructive for the universities. While we're developing these major issues, there's these major attractions around the city with the Emerald Trail Mosh, the new entrance for the zoo for the stadium. I don't think the government should get involved in cohesive design, but I wonder if there's, again, any kind of collective value for the parties to get together and think, all right, we have a blank slate, we're developing some really major attractions. Let's look at how we do this together and have some element where we have something that's unique to Jacksonville design in a beautiful and constructive way. So I'll thought for the Jags no response necessary. I've had the same conversation with Mosh and with the zoo. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Areas. Thank you, Mr. President. I love being on finance and I love that Mr. Howland and I are thinking on the same Wavy link right now. My first question was actually to the council auditors regarding the overrun that the city would have to incur On our previous committee we Ornans I'm sorry bill twenty twenty four zero452, we just lost $4 million because of city delayed the permitting when it comes to the McCoy Creek relocation. On LUZ this week as well, we also just refunded some application fees because the city also dropped the ball. We keep on losing money, right? So how can we ensure that we don't incur any delays for the jaguars? And if so, what also my question would be, what kind of delays would we as a city be invoking to the jaguars? How do we get involved in that? I know that Mr. Holland just had the staco example for five days, but what other delays could we possibly foresee that we may be able to like prevent? Through the chair to council member areas, a couple things I do want to provide a slight correction. It's 10 days which is still a quick time frame for contract oversight if a change order is not approved. The city basically has 10 days to approve 10 business days. However, it is deemed approved, let me start there with a change order. It is deemed approved and doesn't require a necessary response back unless it changes that budget by 5% or the line item or there's a change to your minimum standards to that project program statement that changes those minimums. Those two things do require the city to respond back in writing. We are also clarifying that if there's a change to the minimum standards, those have to come back to City Council and Mr. Weinstein agreed that that's, so that's first I want to start with the change orders. As far as the change orders and they're being a city cause delay, what it mentions in the agreement is that if we request certain change orders and it's not attributable to ensuring public safety or required by some law, then we could or material delays to the construction schedule that are caused by our failure to meet deadlines. So certainly that's where the owner rep and the contract oversight as Mr. Weinstein indicated there will be multiple people involved. And although you will have one city rep designated, it lists in there that the jags are basically to be notified who are the people that are involved. And so you have that one voice of the city rep that you will have public works. You will have Gilbane as the owners rep, you will have multiple departments involved. Okay, well I just want to just for the record obviously make it a point of emphasis that we cannot drop the ball. We have to be proactive on this because this won't be like LUZ refunding a $1,600 application fee. These will be in a million dollars, so we just have to be mindful of that. I have two more points. In the business world, our business owner, when I negotiate a new lease, the old lease is null and void. Point blank. We can now have our cake and eat it too. So if we're going to a new lease, I think the jaguars need to be completely removed from the previous lease and then you kind of requirements that they had or have. So, and that's obviously referring to recommendation number four, in my opinion, they are not obligated to meet that currently, so we're in right now, because there is a new lease in place. Unless you've already negotiated that and put that in place into the new lease, then the old lease doesn't exist anymore, it's not bad. And then to the last point where my colleague mentioned the J-Seps, and sorry, the 20% threshold, I did hear Mr. Weinstein say that it's an aspirational goal versus a mandate to go and I do firmly believe that and I know that you know obviously everybody here knows how much of a supportive we all are the jacic community especially myself but we also have to be mindful of what the city has and we don't have enough jacic as it is we are making a push to get more jasives on board but to mandate for the jaguars to have 20% jasive obligation is probably not realistic and we probably will then in that case we the city will put in them in a delay where they might have other cost over runs for example. So I want to be able to avoid all that and I want to make sure that we don't mandate any kind of push on the jasub community versus just aspirational goals. And I'm pretty sure that the jaguars would want to work with jasub anyways as it is, but we just cannot mandate them on that part. And that's all, thank you. Councilmember Matt Corlucci. Thank you, Mr. President, through the chair, to I guess our councilor, or Ms. Taylor, and to Mr. Weinstein and the whole group of you. I want to go back to on page three of the recommendations. Recommendation one was identifying and including specific criteria in the agreement that considers the essential minimum requirements. I don't know where that would begin and I don't know where that would end and I don't want to get into too much detail and I'm not sure who's the best person to make that list or if it should be made. But what I'm concerned about is was she says, we wanna make sure we're getting what we're buying, what we're paying for. How do I guess Mr. White through the chair to Mr. Weinstein, what is here I thinking about in a amendment regarding those minimum requirements or how we can make sure those are going to be met. Through the president, my own opinion basically is to put as the exhibit the latest version of this project program statement with the understanding that it does provide the minimums of what we will be getting as far as escalators, elevators, concourse, size, seats and what have you with the understanding that it does provide the minimums of what we will be getting as far as escalators, elevators, concourse-size seats and what have you. With the understanding that it'll continue to be populated and as it's populated periodically presented back to council, so you'll get to know the tile and the carpeting and all the other things that we end up with but not necessarily for approval. and all the other things that we end up with, but not necessarily for approval. My only concern was that if we delayed approval, then we're not done. And we will have done all these other agreements, but we wouldn't have done a piece of the puzzle. So the goal is in the 24th, 25th, whatever Tuesday is to get done. And if it takes submitting the existing project program statement to get it done, I would suggest we submit it again with the understanding that it'll be more detailed as we move forward. I don't want to get into color and tile and rug and blah, blah, blah, blah. I just want to make sure the corridors are wide and we'll make sure seating is guaranteed and so forth. And I have the reason to believe that it won't be. But- It currently exists as about a 41 page document and describes what it is you're getting. And that could be attached to- And that could be a quality- And that could be a quality- And that could be a quality- And that could be a quality- And that could be a quality- And that could be a quality- And that could be a to the as an amendment to the bill. It's very well, well, there's an exhibit spot within the Stadium Development Agreement for the document. It's just the exhibit is not available today in what's in front of you, but it can be because it exists as it is today. Will it be available by the time we vote on this? It could be available in moments. Okay, so my question is I'd like to offer that as an amendment if the auditors and general council would put that together for me. I want to make sure that the jaguars don't have any major objections to that so we can all move together but have some guarantees. Yeah, absolutely. We have no issue with that. And if I could just take a take a second under this umbrella of protections so that you know what you're getting. You'll have this program statement, which is 40 some pages. Yes, that'll be part of the current agreement. There's detailed floor plans. So each level will show exactly what's happening each level. what's happening at each level. You have change order review rights. There will be renderings that'll be part of this agreement. You get full participation in all meetings, access to site. You get to approve permits as they're submitted. You have audit rights and at the end of the day there's a comparable NFL stadium standard as part of our agreement. So you have a full menu of protections. Okay, that's good to know, but if the council auditor would prepare that amendment for me, since the Jaguars are at agreement, Mr. Weinstein is of minimum standards, but the attachment he's referring to, if you could do that with General Counsel, I would appreciate it. Yes, sir, through the president, if I may. Can I make a suggestion? Yes, sir. Why doesn't that project statement come to the finance committee on a quarterly basis as we're getting updates on the stadium? That way we killed two bursts of the one stone. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. Mr. President, it should be one, I apologize. I'm running out of time. No, please continue. I, and I think quarterly updates is a great idea, Mr. President. I really do. Through the Chair, though, I still would like to have that attachment added as an amendment. So we have those standards guaranteed. I mean, I think I have no reason to believe they won't be met. But I think it helps solidify the perception by the public that we're making sure that the requirements that are at least minimums are going to be guaranteed in that. And so I'm leaving it to Miss Taylor and to Miss Lopolis or Miss Lopera to prepare that, which all mine doing that through the chair. And working with the auditors. I mean working with the whole group. Through the President to Councilmember Carlygge, I will coordinate with Miss Taylor as well as John Sawyer, who's been the primary drafting attorney on a lot of this with the administration. We will coordinate as appropriate. Okay, I would like that drawn up in a way that everybody can agree, but that is a part of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm taking it that that's gonna be developed and attached or in a amendment form for consideration. that that's going to be developed and attached, or in a amendment form for consideration. Through the president, yes, sir. And we'll ensure we want to make sure that public works and I believe Gilbane has been at the table as our owners rep that they are good with the document of whatever does, mainly if that's the intention. Thank you very much. That makes me feel a little better about that. Thank you, Mr. Carl intention. Thank you very much. That makes me feel a little better about that. Thank you, Mr. Carlucci. Councilmember Clark Murray. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I concur with my colleague, Councilmember Matt Carlucci in regards to the project program statement that's supposed to be, that is exhibit A, that's not in our drafts that were given to us of the agreements. If you could send that out even what you have now. So that way, although it's 40 something pages, I mean this was like 318 pages. 41 pages, that's a breeze, you know, to give that to us. So once again, if there are changes from the time that you submit it to us to Tuesday. I think that's fine. We'll be able to handle those as well. So please send that out in the form that you have now. Expeditiously, please. Thank you. Through the chair, I think my question is pretty much to, I want to call you Kim so bad to the council auditors. Going back to page four of your concern and recommendations, I know that you stated here that you recommended provision to add the agreement about the payments. When does the current lease with the Jaguars expire? Through the chair to Council Member Clark Murray, 2030 right now is the existing lease, but with this new lease taking place in 28, it will end in that sense two years early. So with that, I know that we could either require the payments or we could draft language so that we could waive the payments. So could we possibly draft an amendment or an agreement to waive those payments? Through the President to Council Member Clark Murray, in essence those last two years, have by default just fallen off. So I don't know if there were any discussions during negotiations on it, but by the nature of the newly starting in 28, those payments. So we wanted to bring that to the attention of the council so that, at a minimum, it is a debt that was owed that whether it be added to liquidated damages, that was our recommendation, I understand their position, but it's because of the timing of the new lease that it's just never addressed because of the timing. Through the chair to Ms. to the council auditors. It is it to a recommendation that we address that issue. I think that's what you're basically trying to tell us is that we need to be addressed in some fashion. Through the Chair and to Council Member Clark-Marie in essence, yes because the Jaguars benefit from not having to pay a debt that was owed based on the timing. Again, I don't know if in the negotiations it was brought up at all, but it's just not alluded to or mentioned in the agreement. Bigger concern than all will mention is, I hope that the payments in between what is being abated, which is in a payment next year, that those payments up until these two years that they will be covered, that the intention is for those payments to be covered. We haven't really gotten clearly on those. Our recommendation addressed the last two years, but there should be some discussion on the other years as well. Thank you. Thank you. Through the chair to Mr. Lamby. So you're listening to the discussion. What avenue do you suggest that we take? I use a term waiver. The council others mentioned abatement. What do you see as the most appropriate route to deal with the lease in the amount that's owed at this point for the current lease? Well, I think that the city should live up to their obligations under our current lease, and we should live up to our obligations under the current lease unless we agree differently. When that lease is terminated before the after the 2027 season, we don't have, we don't believe we have any obligations under the old lease, and that would cover these particular payments. To answer the council orders question on the interim years, we don't anticipate any changes. So we would be making those payments. We just don't want to be making lease payments under a lease that is expired. Okay. or at least that is expired. Thank you. One last question. Do the chair to the council otters? You don't need to answer this now, just food for thought. How do you see best as approaching that liquidated damages under which aspect? Do you don't need to answer? I just food for thought, because then I'm gonna, I wanna ask to meet with you so that we can take care of this aspect. Through the President to Councilmember, we have that as an alternative that we thought because they get the benefit of that, that that be added to liquidated damages. They are indicating they're opposed to that, but I'm happy to hear at least that the other payments that are contractually obligated will still occur. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Okay, I've got three more here than I'm gonna have a few questions. And at that point, I'd like to break for lunch, assuming we finished this particular agreement, that's the plan. Also, let me mention to my colleagues, we are gonna be tight to more on numbers. We have Diamond, Boylin and Miller that are excused and we have Pitman that's leaving at 9.30. So it's very important that everybody be here tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. I know some of us might be out partying late tonight. Not the president does it, but there may be. So it's just very important that we communicate if there's anything with your car, traffic, or whatever it may be so we can have a corn for tomorrow. And we need to maintain it throughout the day. My attorney is telling me. So just keep that in mind. Okay, so let me go to Mr. Laney. Thank you, Council President. Just one question since a lot of my have been asked already. Circling back on the tangible property and maybe for Mr. Hague, do we have any idea like if is that a large magnitude type thing that we're expecting from the assets? And I assume this covers all types of assets that we may be able to sell within the existing stadium, like Buffalo and Nashville, did they see a big dollar amount through this or is it fairly small dollar type stuff? Through the president to the council, but I'm not sure what the Jaguar's property would do. Others have developed sports entertainment properties there with master plans that are part of that and contemplated on the front end. It's unclear. I don't know if the auditors have assessed what that value would be here, but it would be difficult to speculate what that would be. Through the President Council Member Lainon, we have not, the Jags may have an idea, but it is tangible personal property that would be sold. And that's what the code is being waived to allow for that to occur. But I don't have a sense of the dollar value. Through the President to Ms. Taylor. Because my follow-up question is going to be if it is like a $10 or $15 million type thing, we split it. So our construction cost would be split halfway. So if we sell $10 million worth of stuff, 5 million of our burden would be reduced. If there's cost overruns, do we still get to book that savings though? Or would our cost go back up to the 625? Through the chair to Council Member Leenan, it is split per rata based on the 5545. And it would in essence reduce our 775 from, let's say it's 3 million that is our portion, the cash that we would owe then would be 772 million. So we do get the benefit in a cost savings, in a cost overrun situation. We still should get the benefit from initially and that amount would get reduced. Cost overruns would be on theirs. Thank you, through the President, to both Mr. Hugh Gamma's Taylor. Could y'all maybe just look into that? Because that would be my concern, okay, we get the benefit of this stuff we sold, we get the cash infusion. But if there's overruns to make sure the overruns are still 100% on the jack side, net of whatever we sell this property for. Through the chair, that does not change that. The overruns would still be on their responsibility. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Member Gaye. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the President, Ms. Taylor, we, a lot of these items we've been meeting and discussing on and some of it all wait till we go to the amendments to discuss those on the sales tax. But as far as the scope of work and the getting the definition of what's going on. The jaguars has had four years, they've been working on this, and we're looking at it in a matter of weeks, trying to get up to speed on what's taking place, and it would have really been nice to have a full scope of work of what's taking place here, specifications, requirements, and just historically, we're gonna be in here getting the flex field back. There's a lot of items that got put in the flex field that wasn't what was originally anticipated going in there and call it what it is or subpar. And so looking at moving forward into this that we really need to know what the standards are, mechanical, electrical, all your big ticket items in the stadium now. We've got mechanical issues with the chillers and things that are continually breaking down that we need to have a better grip on what's going on in there as well as the Gil Bain. We need a dialogue with them. We need to know if owners are ever who's ever going to be involved in this to make sure, because you can 5% that if through the President and the Miss State, 5% has to, any change has to come back to us. Correct? Through the Chair to Councilmember Gay, as I understand it, if there's more than a 5% change in a budget line, that requires written approval of the city rep, but that's not required to come back to city council. Only the changes in the minimum standards that you set up through this project program statement would require if we get the clarification language in city council approval. Right, and that's what I wanted everyone to understand. It doesn't come back to us with those changes. It's the city rep that makes these that can be authorized to make these changes. So that's why it is so critical that we get complete statement of work of what's going in to know that at the end, that's what's going to be put in. As far as the JSEP and some of my other amendments about the local business, one of the problem is our procurement, 126, our code has been taken out of this. So we've lost a lot of teeth of being able to get our codes in that we work so diligently on. So that's why there are some of my amendments here. But I just want everybody to understand that we really have to look at this with a fine tooth cone to make sure What we're going to get is what we're expecting Because right now we're being asked to vote on a whole bunch of money with Not a whole lot of reservations and concerns about this. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, sir. Councillor Remember Johnson. This is very quick, Mr. President, because I stand between us and lunch, so, and it's freezing. So we're getting ready for tonight. Never the less. I got a point. I'm going to have to go back to the point. I'm going to have to go back to the point where I'm going to have to go back to the point where I'm going to have This is very quick, Mr. President, because I stand between us and lunch, so and it's freezing. So we're getting ready for tonight. Nevertheless, I got to push back a little bit on what was said about J.S.E.E. while I do get it. I think it's important that we put it in there and representative Weinstein. Yet yes, it is aspirational, but I don't want it. It's nice to aspire to it, but I have been in conversation about this deal, and I've been taking copious notes and reading through this. And unfortunately, I've kind of been around this process all of my life through the chair to represent in Y's scene. I was around 30 years ago, which I hate to admit, but I remember conversations that I've had of recent as I've come to decisions that I want to amend or make in this process with former City Council President Warren Jones. And at the time, they had something called a minority set aside program, which 20% of the contracts that were done for these particular vendors were done by minority contractors. It was a race-conscious program that was done and we're talking 30 years ago. Times and things have changed, but guess what they did 30 years ago? They exceeded that goal. I am firmly believing that not only will the J.S. Sabs that we have enrolled in our program that they will be able to do this work, but we have to advocate for them to ensure that our community gets the benefit of the building of this facility. While I understand, as my colleague Councilman Arias said, we don't have as many J.S. as we need in that program, it's our responsibility to make sure that we do. And so I must kind of push back a little bit to say we need to not just look at it as an aspirational goal, but look at it as a destination goal, which should be included. Which I'm sure as Councilwoman Clark Murray has put in, we'll come up. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. I'm going to speak for the first time and I have one person for the second time. Three things, sales tax. It sounds like the city will be purchasing some things in order to save on the sales tax. And if there's some delay due to a procurement issue, are we going to be penalized for that? Through the President, I may defer to the Office of General Counsel. It could potentially, if we insisted for some reason that the materials be bought to get that sales tax exemption, which is built into the budget, it would seem like there could be a potential, but I would defer to OGC ultimately on that. I mean, we're buying it to save money. They're responsible for cost overruns. It would seem to me that we should not be punished if we're buying things to save sales tax and it causes a delay. Can someone speak to that? Mr. Sorrier's here, that's what she suggested. John, can you speak to that? You've been hiding back there. I've seen you. John Sawyer off the General Counselor to the Council President. There's no penalty if for some reason the city is unable to utilize the sales tax exemption. I will need to look in a little more detail to extend the causes of delay. But if there's a request to use it and we either refuse or can't, there's no penalty to the city. But as to, we try to use it than there's a delay in the purchase. I'll need to look at that issue a little closer. Can you get back with us on that? And if we need to include some type of an amendment to protect the city for those situations, I think we should. Yes, sir. Okay. Number two, I just want to go back to the project statement, just for a minute, the project statement's going to be circulated to the city council, correct. Is that what we agreed upon? Is someone going to circulate it? That's what you'd like. I, please. Yes. Please circulate it. Number two, it's going to be attached to the final document that we're going to approve. Is that correct? If that's what you'd like, it would fill in that exhibit slot. I think it should be attached. And number three, as it and we will get quarterly updates to the finance committee as the process moves forward on the project statement. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Yes, Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to add, there will become a final project statement. That's what, as I understand it, if the draft is to be attached through Council Member Curly, choose amendment, there would still be a final statement that would be certified. I want to make sure that's clear and if they disagree at all. But that would not change then for the rest of the project. And if there were any changes that changes those minimums, it would need to come back to city council. That's the project statement I want to attach. So the final document, will that be finalized to where it can be attached? Meg, are you saying yes? Well, again again the final project program statement will be what we submit the day will be populated as we get further along cost estimates of what have you the fear of of saying that Instead if you get quarterly reports you'll know what happening, you'll have input and what have you. But to say that months down the road, you will have another opportunity to approve a document. It's basically saying we're not done. That's my concern if we leave an absolute approval process. I mean, you can approve something coming out, but the whole document is the concern. I'm not asking for approval. Okay. I'm asking for the final document to be attached, and then we will get updated as changes are made publicly to the finance committee. Okay, well, the term final was the one that threw me off. You'll get the latest that we have. Okay. Knowing that it'll be populated as we move forward. And we will get those updates quarterly to the Finance Committee, along with the financial, along with an update on how we're doing construction wise. Is that? Yes, Sarah. And my understanding from the agreement language is that a final one would have to be adopted within 30 days. I believe of the effective date, but I would like clarification on that because there should be a point where there that a final one would have to be adopted within 30 days, I believe, of the effective date, but I would like clarification on that because there should be a point where there is a final determined one that does not budge. Can someone address that from the drag wars? Yeah, you'll have a whole series of documents. You'll have the program statement. You'll have renderings. You'll have a whole series of documents. You'll have the program statement. You'll have renderings. You'll have floor plans. You'll have all of that now. And then when the, and it'll be in essence, probably 90 plus percent there. We've been exchanging, we've been getting comments from Gil Bain is really what it's is. It's really going to the city and then they're giving us comments. And but then there's got to be a point where the document is what the document is. And that will be within 30 days of when the documents are executed. And then that will be the basis of the updates that you will be receiving quarterly and standing alongside all your other ability to oversee the project through Gilbane, through participation in meetings, through approval of change-artors, through approval of permits, through on-site inspections. You have a whole laundry list of protections. Okay. I have one other question, Mr. Lamping. I need you to walk me through starting with the 25 season capacity and home games Jacksonville versus the secondary 205 mile site versus London because what I've read over the last two or three days is it was new to me Okay, let's start with 2025 was new to me. Okay. Let's start with the 25, 20, 25, the capacity will be very similar to what it is today. We will we will continue to and we will agree we are agreeing to modify our current rights under our existing lease as it relates to games outside of Jacksonville. So we are voluntarily agreeing to modify the existing lease to protect the status quo. So in 2025, we will have the option, not the requirement to play one game away from Jacksonville. When we get to 2026, we will be under a reduced capacity with the upper deck closed. We're still trying to figure out if from a public safety standpoint we'll be able to get authorized to use the terraces. But the working capacity we're using is 43,500 for the 26 season. Between the 25 and the 26 season, the game. The game is going to be a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than three. No more than three between those two seasons. Okay. As we get into 2027, we will be playing zero games in Jacksonville. And as we currently go through our review, it is almost certain that our games will be played either in Orlando or in Gainesville. It potentially could be a combination of the two based on stadium availability. The other aspect that we have to give us protection for the 2027 season is that for that one season and that one season alone we we would have the option not the requirement but the option to play up to three games outside of Jacksonville in London. Just for the 2027 season. And again, we believe we need that at this point because we don't have the schedules. We have to have places for all our games to be played and we haven't fully negotiated agreements in either our land or our games. Okay, can I stop you there before we get into 28? But what I hear you saying, you're looking just to protect yourself in case your schedule conflicts with the gators or whatever's going on in camping world, depending on what state you're using. Is that fair? Yeah, but we also want to have some flexibility. I mean, keep in mind, under the terms of our current lease, there are no restrictions. And we are voluntarily accepting restrictions for the 25, 26 and 27 seasons. Okay. Now 28. the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the that we're under a 17 game schedule. I can't imagine that that we would pick the first year in a new stadium to move more than one game to London. I think we'll probably even think about London for that year. But as far as 28 going forward, then we'll be operating under the restrictions that have been negotiated as part of our new lease. Now, there's language in there that the mayor on her own, this mayor could be a whatever future mayor could approve more than three games. Correct? Yeah, I think that's how it's written. That was a little bit of news to me when you asked me about it this morning. Because I can't imagine a circumstance where we would come back and look for more than three games in 2027. Well, there was the exact year. Well, I was. Yeah, it's just as it relates to 2027. I don't know. Right? Not the way it's written. It doesn't have to be just the construction is 25. Through the president, it's in section 7.3, which is on page 36 of the on file that addresses this. It's for 2526 that once you've done the up to three beyond that, if the team requests, the mayor can approve that more games be played outside the stadium, but it's just during that reduced capacity time period of 25, 26. So it does an impact 27, 28, the mayor's approval. Through the president, that's correct. There's no language at least in there that addresses it like that. Are you okay if we remove that language? Yeah, I don't know why we need it. It's just that there's 25 and 26 for whatever reason construction. Dornel, I'm trying to keep games here. I'm not trying to take away the mirrors of authority. Okay, no, no, no, we understand that. We understand that. Here, Meg. So what the agreement provides is that just for the 25 and 26 seasons, if based on the progress of construction for some reason, the team would like to ask to play additional games away, we have the ability to go to the mayor and ask for that or otherwise come to a mutually agreed upon solution. So there's no ability for the team to just say for 25 and 26. In the aggro, we want to play more than three way. It's that there's some external circumstance that's dictating us to come to the city. And so we would like to come up with some mutually agreed upon solution because the progress of construction's dictating that. And that was in part because we could have, and didn't want to, but could have played 26, 27 away, asked for this protection knowing that especially during that 26 season, we just want the ability to come back and have a conversation if, for whatever reason, based on the progress of construction, it may make sense to play additional names away. I hear you. The other point that I was trying to make, it's the mayor that provides that authority, not the mayor in concert with the city council, it is the mayor. And I want to make sure all my colleagues understood that. And I can tell you, we have no issue with adding the city council to that approval process. I'm not sure that I wanted. Yeah, exactly. No, I was more doing, going through this exercise, so that the public could understand where we are. And so it would not be a surprise. That's why I wanted to lay it out that way. I don't want to add a lot of bureaucracy to this. It sounds like I understand your intent, and we never know what's going to happen from a construction standpoint. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. I have some people coming up for the second time. Mr. Areas. Thank you, Mr. President. Just wanted to just hear from the jaguar as if possible. Out of the six recommendations is only the number four the one that you guys are just really not wanting or are there any other ones. Well, let me go through here. The first one relates to the program statement. We're going to circulate the program statement as current version along with several other documents. So that'll be done. The second one is related to the final cost for insurance. Yeah, we're okay with number two. Number three was fine. Number four, we have a difference of opinion on that. So we don't think we should be responsible for at least payments under a terminated lease. Number five is fine, number six is fine. There you go. Well, I ask because I've also been having issues with number four and I know that some of my colleagues since I spoke have also asked about that issue. And I do have a little bit of time, Mr. President, I might run over a little bit just to let you know. My question and my statement is this, as a business owner, whenever I'm negotiating a new lease, my landlord will tell me, you have a six to 12 month renewal period before the lease expired, so we can renew the lease and then we renew the lease and then we have a new lease in place. Do we have that kind of language right now currently what the current 30-year lease that the jaguars have and if not, then can we add that to the next 30-year lease because I don't want to be put back in the same situation 30 years later. We're not going to be here, but I don't want them to be put in the same situation where they have to now be obligated for liquidated damages because of some language not written in the lease itself. Because ultimately what I see here is that the jowars are not terminating a lease, they're renewing a lease, right? So there is no liquidated damages here. If they were terminating, if they were leaving, if they were actually making the city lose money, then I will see liquidated damages here. If they were terminating, if they were leaving, if they were actually making the city lose money, then I will see liquidated damages. But in this case, they're renewing, so if anything, we're the ones winning here. So I believe that the liquidated damages portion of it is really obsolete. And I know I asked you a question, but my time is up. So before you answer, because you're going to take two minutes to answer me, let me just have one more statement here is the fact that I want to make sure that like I said moving forward We have language in the current lease to avoid this conversation because this is not a practical Conversations to have in the business world when you're talking about renewing at least So now with that being said I want to make a motion or I don't know how this works because this is a recommendation at the end day but I definitely want to make a motion to remove this recommendation if possible because of what I expressed and because of what just makes sense in general. Thank you. You're talking about number four. Number four. We're in at the one that they, that the Jaguars had a problem with and we, that's correct. Okay. I, yeah, I don't think it's gonna move forward. All right. Doesn't sound like it. Good, just make sure that it's not moving forward. And then if that's the case, can we have language in the new lease to avoid this issue in 30 years from now or in 28 years from now? Through the chair, this is a unique situation with the way that it worked under the initial improvements. Basically the city acted as the bank for Jaguar improvements. And when there were agreements in the various amendments for the team to participate, we financed it, we did it, and then they agreed to pay us back. So this is a unique situation that should not require. We wanted to make sure the council knew because I'm not sure that it was considered in the negotiation process that you are in essence for going dollars that were owed. So we just wanted to make the council aware. So we just wanted to make the council aware. I will stand by where I agree on trying to protect the dollars, but this should be a unique situation that you would not require language for in the new lease. Okay, well thank you for that, Ms. Taylor. I have, I guess one more question, very quick. Who initiated this new lease? Like who wanted to do a new lease right now? I think both parties. Both parties. That's exactly my point. It wasn't just a one-sided affair. Because it is both parties, then, I think that we should definitely just release them from the old obligations impossible. Thank you. Thank you. I've got Mr. Polusa for the second time. Thank you, Mr. President. I just kind of want to make a quick point. I'm sorry we haven't talked yet, Mark. So I'm going to air it out in front of everyone. So when it comes to the year that you guys are not going to be playing in the current stadium, by then we should have the Armada Stadium built, which is also very close in proximity to where the Jaguars play now. I know that the LA Chargers played in the soccer stadium for I think it was three years during the time that they were getting a so-fi built up. That had about 27,000 C capacity. All I'm suggesting is maybe we also look directly right down the road here in Jacksonville. Obviously we're going to be losing bet tax dollars during that year. There's a lot to be gained by having a game here or games here in Jacksonville. I'm not necessarily, you know, that's just a recommendation of mine to the Jaguar. It's not some sort of requirement. I envision, based on the times where I think some of us have gone to see the PGA play, they build up rafters and all this stuff around it. So if we want to increase the capacity of that stadium, temporarily with stuff for a year, I would think that it'd be possible. That's just something that I, you know, if you have any comment on that, I'd appreciate it. We looked at multiple temporary solutions. We looked at a unique opportunity at the Daytona International Speedway. We did some work as it relates to adding seats to Hodges Stadium at University of North Florida and also did some work at the baseball grounds. All that was being done under the assumption that we'd be playing two years away from Jacksonville. That was the original plan. What we went through our community huddle process, the feedback was very clear. The community wanted us to be away from Jacksonville for as little as time as possible. We went back to the architects, went back to the construction managers, had them relook at the sequencing of the plan and were able to come up with an approach where we're only away for one Yeah, that obviously increased the amount of risk as it relates to schedule and cost. So now we were looking at temporary solutions for only one season and the minimum investment that we looked at for as the baseball grounds in University of North Florida, we're both an excess of $100 million. And that would be to get us to a less than NFL standard stadium with around 30,000 seats and you know spending that amount of money adding $100 million to the project. We just felt that playing away from Jacksonville outweighed any benefits of that. Thank you Mr. Police. I have two more Mr. Polusa. I have two more, Mr. Gaye. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be real quick through the President and the Miss Taylor. What is the amount of the, I guess, the still to the bank for the rent and the deferred. Through the, through the president, if you could clarify for what time period, do you want me to leave off those two years that are the last two years or just a grand total? Just, well, if you wanna leave off the two years that won't be applicable, just where we're at now. So we kinda know what, what figures that we're even talking about. Through the through the President it's around 20 million that is still owed for those supplemental rent payments. Okay and but then we we're also looking at having to defer maintenance. What 150 million I believe that's what the figure is. Through the president yes that's the part of the total cost. 150 million is part of the 775. Okay so but that's you know we're looking at having to do deferred maintenance from the past of paying now but there there's still a $20 million amount that's owed that they're expecting us to pay deferred maintenance, but wanting to us to basically wave the $20 million. So it's kind of, I think both need to be applicable in you know in business when I owe bills I have to pay bills thank you councilmember Johnson Mr. President leaving the mic gave to bring it down to brass tax. I just want to say I appreciate Councilmember Palusso's statements or what have you. But this is something I got to say. I just want to put this on the record. Since day one, when the Jack Wars organization walked into my office, what is it six, eight months ago when we started talking, Mr. Harden, Mr. Lamping, my first question for them was, too, I want to stay in Jacksonville and I want to play at UNF. And not only did we talk about it, have been talking about it for months, but they did the work. They came to the table, looked at every possibility. So I just want to note that the community know that the Jaguars are committed to being here because we, and Adnazim, I'm sure Mr. Lamping is probably sick of me bothering him about playing at UNF, but we looked at every possibility and came up with, we even got the number down to just under $100 million to $98 million, but it was still cost prohibitive, but we did the work and I think it's important that we understand it wasn't just a cavalier decision for the team to decide to go run to another locale. Thank you. have a clear decision for the team to decide to go run to another local. Thank you. Mr. Elaine. Thank you, Councillor Prousade. I was just going to share up my counterpart, Councillor Ngancan. I shared one of the jacks to come to District 3 as well. So I asked about it and quickly I realized it would not be feasible. So I just wanted to get that on the record as well. That it wasn't just a Councillor Ngancan. Okay. I, before we break I wanted to clarify a point, the new legislation is introduced on July 23rd. I think is the first council meeting when we get back. I spoke to Mr. Lamping before the meeting. He is attending an owner's meeting sometime in mid-October he indicated to me so we haven't until then to figure out the CBA and whether we can get the whole 150 million that kind of thing so we have over two and a half months to work through that process So I just want to put that on the record Okay, let's break for lunch. It is 12.35. Let's come back at 1 o'clock. Thank you. I'm going to go to the other other other other other other other other other other other other other other I don't know if you have any other questions. Are there council members in the green room? If so, can you please join us so we can get a Okay. Well, let's go ahead and get started because it's a workshop and we don't need to have a Thank you, Mr. President. This is the last of the eight documents to go over. And this is the lease. This is the 30 year lease. And different than the document we just went through the Stadium Development Agreement, the lease takes effect basically August of 28. So the things that you hear in some of the complications that we talk about in the orders we'll present, it's years away as far as being implemented. As you know, originally the Jaguars thought maybe 25 years, 20-25 years, but it's a 30 year lease we all came to that agreement. They're going to take over as I've stated in the past much of the obligation not only to operate but to maintain it and make sure it gets the 30 year useful life out of it. We're going to together decide on annual budgets for maintenance. We're going to together decide on annual budgets for capital improvements. So they're going to be responsible for doing it, but we're going to be attached it to hip as to what is in fact being done. So we're very pleased with that change also, as you've heard before, that they are putting in dollars for maintenance, putting in dollars for capital, that they really haven't been doing in the past. So the lease is very different than the current lease, but understand it's for 30 years, and that's what took us so long to get it to you, trying to think of every possible situation that can occur over the 30 years and try to deal with it on paper before it's presented to you. But I'll yield most of the time I'm sure today with the auditors with their questions and what have you and I'll yield if the Jaguars want to add to it. But this is the last the last of a group. Thanks, I'll be brief as well. I think most of the value of this conversation is going to come from the council auditor and her staff. One of the things that was critically important at the start of this, and a lot of people focused on the cost sharing, you know, we always felt that we would get to an agreement on cost sharing, but one of the things that was most important to us is that we don't repeat the mistakes that were made as it relates to the existing stadium. And that's building a stadium without having the appropriate amount of maintenance or capital funds available to make sure that the stadium is well maintained and it stays up to date. So that was a critical part of our agreement and one of the reasons why we feel so comfortable in committing to a 30-year stake in that stadium is because of the maintenance and capital dollars that were identified. Those funding sources are identified up front and as Mike said, we'll be working in partnership in terms of capital plans, maintenance plans, we'll work together on those plans and then ensure that we have a stadium we can can all be proud for 30 years. Thank you. Mr. Hague. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I won't be redundant because I know the auditors are going to go through a lot of the points in this lease. You know, of significant, this original lease was done in September of 1993. You know, of significant, this original lease was done in September of 1993. And now we're looking at revisions, 14 or 15 amendments. And now a new 30 year lease that's going to commence in 2028. And as Mr. Weinstein said, it does shift a lot of the responsibilities to the Jaguars, including stadium operation management. The rent is a million dollars a year just in comparison. 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 the state of utilities funds, there are ways to protect the shortfalls that may occur. And I think the auditors will address those. I mean, first they use the reserve fund and then there's a 50-50 split, but they'll get more into that in detail. There is a management fee of 5% that the Jaguars will get for managing the stadium. I don't know the full cost. I think it's estimated about a million three that they will get annually for that role of managing the stadium as a management fee under the agreement. There is a capital plan that goes to anticipate what those costs are gonna be, I suppose to be submitted and reviewed every three years. But this capital maintenance fund is a $15 million. You'll hear more about this investment that's intended to grow at 1% every year. And I think it's to anticipate arcs where more work needs to be done every five, seven, or 10 years where incremental significant maintenance procedures need to be done to the stadium. That is intended to be split 50, 50 by the city and the Jaguars. And that's a contribution of up to 5 million each after they've exhausted the reserves and everything else. In overruns up to $10 million. And then if those overruns go beyond that $10 million, we're both the Jags and the city have each contributed equally $5 million, the next up to $20 million would then bid the city's costs. So I just think you want to make sure you have a clear sense of what those maintenance costs are. You're already seeing $150 million from the time that it was gapped over this previous lease. So if there is some exposure, I think the timely understanding of both reviewing those budgets for maintenance and making sure maintenance is adhered to to avoid that cost because after the first 10 million of overruns, effectively 25 million is the city's responsibility. and is the city's responsibility. With respect to revenues and third party events, I think the auditors will get into that, but city events generally mean that the city still gets revenue and there are carve outs for the Florida Georgia game, tax layer game are carved out in the agreement. The traditional rights advertising broadcast, concession, naming rights, all of those things are traditionally components that the team gets in other markets and that would be true for this as well. So with that I think I'll let the auditors go through some of the specifics. Thanks. You have a five page document on the lease agreement. We'll be going through a lot of numbers to help you understand that we did try to take into account everything. On page one, this is a summary to help you. I know we needed it just to kind of pull everything together of where are things today and where are they going? So I'll just quickly walk through. You'll see naming rights revenue. That's staying the same. Jags in the current agreement. Jags in the future agreement. For NFL events. Big savings for the city with that going federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal law and the federal stadium that will be split during game day with going forward. And then all other game day expenses, which would include parking, moving from the city to the jacks. So that is a significant and you'll see on the second page when we start working through some numbers, the savings how they play into that. City events the same today, we would pay for revenues or take in revenues and expenses. Same thing in the future. For third party events, that is not really a terminology in the current lease. In the new lease, you will have that where events are put on jointly by us. So in essence, we would be co-hosting with Stadco, the Jags on this. So revenues split, expenses split, in essence, what we've talked about in some of our technical amendments in talking to their chief legal counsel, and with Mike, is laying out that they're in essence fronting the cash on these third party events. They're paying the expenses, taking in the revenue, and it's that net amount that comes to the city. There will be support provided, reports provided, it will be auditable by us. But in essence that net revenue coming to, we'll get into conversation. Actually we'll go ahead now and talk about what Mr. Huegen, Mr. Weinstein mentioned, that operations, utilities and events fund, that's really where all the main operational cost go and those are going to be split. So that net revenue from third party events, there's net profit, which of course everyone hopes on every event. That comes rolls through that fund where we're sharing in that. If there's a net loss, we also do share in that net loss from a third party event. But all of that, that main fund will be set up and will hit on some of the numbers. But there is a cap for the city on our exposure on operational cost of 3.5 million. So you have revenues roll into it, you have rent, their base rent will be a million dollars and it does escalate by 3% each year. You have base rent, you have NFL surcharges and other surcharges that will revenue will come into that fund. And then anything else we first share $3.5 million, $3.5 million if we need to to cover costs. And beyond that we are capped and the Jags do take on that responsibility for additional operating expenses. So that's how third party events will roll and how that operational fund will work. As far as general day to day expenses, you'll see there, all of that has been the city regarding whether it be a management cost or fee associated with ASM or provider right now. Utilities, insurance, security, insurance, security, outside type security, and then your non-capital maintenance and repair, those are all city now would be split going forward. Capital expenses you'll see our note be below. We'll get into an example, Mr. Huege alluded to, the dollar amounts in there within the agreement. So we'll go over that more in detail on the next page. But again, a sharing up to a certain point on those costs. I do want to mention within this agreement, there is more of minimum requirements starting for the first year of an operating budget. Different from the current lease, which didn't have set requirements so I want the council to just understand that there's a little more, I would say, responsibility or expectations, obligations of the city to have certain budget levels in there. But again, with that comes they are agreeing to have revenues deposited there. They are agreeing to share in cost but there are minimums put in place now. Capital, if you want to turn to the next page, we'll go through an analysis of all the numbers and how does it all shake out? So what we did is we looked at 2022-23 fiscal year and we said, what does it cost the city now for the stadium. That top number of 19.9 million is in essence a general fund contribution or a subsidy that it takes to run that stadium. So the revenues don't cover the cost within the stadium. And that's the city's portion that has to be covered for 2223, so that's the contribution. So that's where we're at now. And then we did a full analysis, and I want to say, kudos to our staff that worked on the models and spread sheets and everything that it is a lot. And they've been working on months to set up how does it work today and get everything so they have done an outstanding job with that. But going to what will it cost under under if we layered in taking those costs, if we layered in all the new terms with all the new sharing and things being moved here in there, where would we get numbers wise? That first block you have contributions under the newly agreement. For the operation, utilities and event fund using those 2223 costs, which obviously will change. Just insurance costs alone, we know under a new building, for example, that would be more, but apples to apples. 3.3 million. And again, if we reached that 3.5 million, that would be the city's cap for that year on their share, their portion of operational cost. Capital and maintenance fund. So, City cap of $27.6 million, I'm going to go into that in a moment. So, just pause that for a moment. But the way capital will work is that convention development taxes. Right now they're used for debt service and for capital at the sports complex. So, that is the stadium, baseball, and arena. It's now going to go to capital. So right now choose for debt service, but it's going to move to capital. So we had to take that loss into account, the general fund, since the dollars for debt service, now someone has to cover that. So that's why you see a negative hit a 6.8 million there. We had to take into account all this movement of all the coconut shells of where everything is going to present a fair picture to you that that debt will now have to be covered. Convention development tax will move to capital. That leaves a general fund spot that will have to be covered. So that's why you see that negative 6.83 million there, or 6.8 million. There will be a savings as we understand it from our dialogue with the administration and the jaguars that temporary seats on the floor to Georgia game will no longer be necessary. So taking there's some costs behind the scenes taken into account here well, but as well, but the net savings there of 361,000. So that gets you of other impacts, a negative 6.4 million. So taking those negatives, the 8.3 and the 6.4 of what it will cost ultimately, if you were to use apples to apples, you would actually have a savings of about $5 million. And that is based on all of the sharing where the different revenues get deposited now, all the shuffling around of the terms of the new lease. The big caveat that I want to mention is that's like the first step. What you do have to take into account is on capital, there are new minimum requirements. As I mentioned, there are not dollar requirements necessarily in the existing lease. So there will be obligations of the city that I think your biggest exposure for where you could have significant cost or cost increases that kind of offset that 5 million savings will be in that area that I just want the council to be aware of per the terms of the agreement. So how the capital works and we have in note A, in example, based on the terms in the agreement, the convention development taxes, which are about 10 million a year, go into that fund. The minimum floor obligation is 15 million a year for capital. And so let's just say that that 10 million and it's roughly that here, any difference from the 15 million and the convention development taxes is split between the city. So in this case based on the actual amounts, it's 2.6 million. Jags would put in that, we would put in that. From there, if there is a funding shortfall, with reserves in the fund coming into place, but if there's a funding shortfall, we split 10 million, so 5 million from us, 5 million from them. After that is where the bigger exposure is, is that if they're still funding shortfalls for what they want, you know, what we agree to and talk about through a capital plan, 20 million is on the city. And then from there it would be a negotiated and discussed working in good faith with one another on any exposure. So that's as far as all of the numbers analysis and all the movement, I would just say my overall comments would be with the new requirements as your capital area and that's for capital repairs, capital maintenance and capital improvements. But again, all of the items have tried to be taken into account and analyzed so that we have done that appropriately. I do want to mention just briefly some other terms, turning to page three, just to make Council aware of the main items in the agreement. Stadco, operating for the Jaggers, will be in charge of the day-to-day management of the stadium. There is a management fee that's part of the agreement terms that's equal to 5% of operations and capital budgets, and it is budgets, not actual, but budgets. So both of those combine. So for the first year in essence, what we said, there's a minimum operating budget of 10.7 million in the agreement and then there's that that floor minimum of 15 million on capital taking those two items combined total 25.7 That times 5% gets you to the annual fee of the 1 million 25 just as an example For the first full year now that is a cost. So it runs through that operations fund where the city is sharing and all those costs with them. So it would be split. There is also language that they can contract. If they choose not to manage it, they can contract with a third party operator. If they choose to do that, it must be approved by the city representative. There's also a code section within your municipal code that requires that come back for city council approval. So you would have the ultimate approval on that. Bullet two, the operations fund. We've talked about that, so I think I've hit on the main points there. Capital and maintenance fund. You'll see some bullets there. What I'll mention is a couple of things. There is an obligation for two experts really to come into play on a capital plan that's starting on the third year. Every year a capital plan is required to be submitted. And they are required to working with the city representatives approval to hire an independent consulting firm of qualified engineers, licensed in the state of Florida, and a reputable independent facility condition consulting firm, and or construction firm to assess what needs to be budgeted that year. What are their recommendations? That cost comes out of the capital maintenance fund, but that is a requirement that does have to occur every year. I will mention also that capital expenses are not required to meet the capital improvement requirements that are laid out in the code, which is a 10 year useful life and over 100,000. So that's not so. So there is some between the three items the Repay capital repairs capital maintenance Could there be some subject subjectiveness on when they're working with the city on whether it lands in the utility the utility Operations fund where it split versus the other fund where we might be covering it. Yes, you could have A little bit of a little bit. You could have some subjectivity discussed amongst the parties, but it would be discussed with the city. I mentioned the base rent already, of a million, and then that increasing by 3%. Currently, it's a million to 50. It was kind of in chunks for several years. The initial lease was 500,000, and then it it went to a million and then it's, so this one will have an escalator on it each year. In the event of default on this agreement, similar to the development agreement, the NFL can perform Stagco's obligations under the lease, which is a good thing. A good protection. Going to the next page four, third party events we really have already covered this on the sharing of all the revenue and the participation together. The city can choose, also I do want to mention, to not co-host and have these third party events. They can make the choice to say we're not sure how that event will turn out. We're going to decline and then it just becomes staccato. It's on them to cover the cost and also collect the revenue, but we would not be a party with that event. City events, there are two named events in the agreement that are considered city events. That's Florida, Georgia and tax layer. Florida, Georgia is given the highest priority in the lease of all of the games. The main thing that we want to mention is that someone within the city and I know it's done every year, but it needs to be notified to them or notice provided by February 1st because there is the slight, if notice is not received by then, and there's rescheduling of games that have to occur, that Florida, Georgia, in essence, loses that priority somewhat, but as long as the notice is there, that's the top priority in this lease is making sure that that gets the ability to have the game on that schedule. Civic events are allowed to occur within the stadium. It provides for unlimited use and that's for really events that don't generate a material amount of revenue. And those are rent-free, allowed pursuant to the upcoming lease. Procurement, they will follow a mutually agreed upon process and what's going to happen because the city's procurement code is waived. They're going to work to develop a policy with our chief of procurement. And we'll have a recommendation regarding this, but really just that the city gets notified of what those policies are. So there will be some leeway to develop policies regarding the procurement process. There will be future municipal code changes that will be needed regarding the ticket surcharges, where they go now, where they will need to go, that sort of thing, and just creating these new funds, establishing them within the code for the operations and capital, et cetera. So just making you aware, there will still need to be some future changes there. As far as concerns and recommended amendments, the first one is that we don't have audit rights, neither does the inspector general within this portion of the agreement. We did on the development agreement. In our talks with them, they are agreeable. I think it was just standard language that got put in that would allow for a third party to come in and audit. We just wanted to ensure, especially with the sharing of third party events, that we would be able to look at all documentation, all expenses, all revenue, et cetera. And I don't want to speak for them, but I believe that that was an agreeable item. Mr. President, I don't know if you want to address each item at a time, or if you'd like me to just go through. Why don't we do that? item at a time or if you'd like me to just go through. Why don't we do that? Item number one, Mr. Lamping. As usual, the councilor was correct, we did agree to that. Okay, that makes it easy. Please continue, Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir, Mr. President. Item number two is that in order to prevent, since Stadco does have the ability to hire, they are named as the manager of the facility, but they do have the ability to choose to hire a third party to operate as a mentioned coming through city council for approval, but they do have that ability and we are just saying to prevent duplicative management fees that we recommend that a provision be added that if stack code does pursue hiring a third party operator, that that management fee come out of the management fee as a whole. In other words, that it be peeled out since there is already a management fee of 5% in place. So that 5% would cover them and any third party so that we don't have duplicative. We have not had a chance to discuss this with them, so I don't know if, I'm sure I could tell where they would weigh in on it, but. Well, we're going to find out very quickly. Mr. Lampy. Once again, the councilor, there's correct. Okay. There is a 5% management fee. It's really split between us, because it's funded through. So it's net to us, it's 2.5%. This was a part of our economic calculus that we negotiated. It was part of our overall agreement. It wasn't isolated just to a management fee. It was actually tied to a request that the city made regarding treatment of another revenue stream, which we agreed with the city's negotiating. We agreed to that, but in order to make sure that the economics were zero, some, that's where the management fee came from. So it's part of the overall economic structure of the deal. I'm gonna ask a question here, how to order. Why is it a percentage versus a fee? It seems like, because it's gonna escalate as the capital escalates and there's no more additional work, it would seem to me a fee would be more appropriate. Well, the amount of work other than inflation is correlates with the amount of money you're spending. So for example, you have to have some basis in terms of the financial analysis. You know, I could sit here and tell you today, the capital plan in the first year of the stadium is not gonna be 15 million. It's gonna be less than that, okay. And that's basically the mechanics we went through, but there will be other years, let's use, when you get to the point where you need to replace all the seats. And you may have a $52 million capital budget that year. That's bigger and more projects for us to have to manage. So that's why I was structured that way. Okay. We're almost done, Mr. President, on page five. I don't think they'll object to this recommendation. This is just if there's ever a position because, again, there are minimums in here, there are obligations, dollar-wise, there are things that we hope never triggers a default on this agreement. But in the event that there is a default, OGC always gets notified, the administration would get notified, because of the significance of this agreement, we just recommend that all default notices go to the City Council President into our office. I hope it never happens. But there are curing periods and response periods, and if somebody's out, we wanted to make sure that that notices highest priority if there were to be a default notice sent to the city. Mr. Lamping. I will refine with that. Okay. And then our last one is just our standard one regarding limitation to technical amendments. Okay. That's okay. We're okay with that as well. Okay, I've got people in the queue, Mr. Lanean. Five minutes, please. Thank you, Council President. I think all my questions are for Ms. Taylor. So, tell me if I'm summarizing this correctly. Assuming that our capital needs are 15 million or less a year, we're coming out 5 million ahead annually, better than the current agreement. Is that a fair way of putting it? Through the chair I believe that's a fair way to put it and I should have mentioned on the 15 million there is a 1% escalator per year and I don't believe I mentioned that but that one does the 3.5-reed operations and this is outside your question does not have an escalator. Okay and through the president did we look into like just the past five years like what the average capital needs have been for the stadium? Like it's 15 million of realistic number, is that much higher, much lower than what the run rates kind of been? Through the Chair to Council Member Lainon, we did and there have been a couple of occasional bills and I don't remember the dollar amounts, but the concept was we know we're about to build a stadium. And so I would say there was rightfully a hesitation to expend on capital and even when council took up the budget last year, there were lots of questions on, do we need to do this? We want to make sure we're not putting taxpayer dollars into something that's just gonna be torn up next year. So I would say there has been a hesitancy over the last several years regarding capital. Okay, and through the president, I go into page three under capital maintenance fund. The first bullet there, a talks about how there'll be a mutual agreement for the capital and maintenance fund. What if one side say the Jaguar is want to do something new, like thinking back to the score boards, is it something they want to do? Would we be allowed to negotiate that then rather than it just fall under how it's written now to where pretty much anything above after the first 5 million cost share the next 20 million falls on us or would big items like that still be allowed to be negotiated? Through the Chair to Councilman Marlena, I believe something like that would fall into the capital improvement and really for the operating budgets and the capital, the city will be in a position of negotiating each year in essence. So I might defer to Mike, Mr. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. than what the current rent is? Yes, sir, through the Chair to Council Member Lainon. Right now it's 1,250. Okay, so it's through the President's a slight reduction. Yes, sir, it's a slight reduction, but there is an escalator on an of 3% per year in the upcoming lease. Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Mr. Johnson, Dr. Johnson. Council President, I do have a question about on page number three, which is number one. Currently, through the President, through the President, too, I think the auditor's office, the current agreement is for the management company that we have. Could you help me with the language on the current agreement is for the management company that we have. Could you help me with the language on the current agreement? Doesn't it say that both the city and the jaguars have to agree on the current management company? Is that the way the current contract is structured? Through the Chair to Council member Johnson, yes. And it does have to come to City Council, but I will say there is language along the lines of that, in essence, that the Jaguars have to approve type thing. But it's a mutual agreement, but they really have say so in that part. Not just say so, veto power, if I'm not mistaken, correct? Through the Chair to Councilmember Johnson, essentially, but it still does have to come to City Council, but ultimately they control who gets picked. Because they're unhappy with the party and don't want a party to be picked. They can be, yes. So in effect, Mr. President, it would be veto power. And let me ask Mr. Lamping, what is the reason for Stagco, since Stagco is not a management company per se, what is the reason that we are now looking the step away from this? Was it unsuccessful? Were there issues that existed? Could you bring me at least a little bit up to speed on that? Well, we certainly have a much greater vested interest in how the stadium is gonna be operated, maintained, into the future by virtue of the fact we're committing to be there for 30 years. And the Con family is investing in a minimum of $625 million into the city owned facility. We're a football team, but you know, many of us have been leaders in facility management for quite some time. And I think what you'll see if you look across the entirety of the National Football League, it's probably split about 50-50, about half the team self-operate their stadiums and the other half outsource. And we just want to make sure that we have that option available to us. I look through the chair. It says if the if Stagco contracts with the third party operator to manage the stadium or concessionaire, does that mean at this time as well that the team would also manage con sessions or is that something that is being considered? Because right now from my understanding the con sessions are also outsourced. I would anticipate that the food and beverage will be outsourced, continue to be outsourced. Although again there are some examples in the National Football League where teams self-operate. But in that type of situation, there certainly would have to be an agreement with the city in terms of what that relationship is. Because it does impact city revenue as it relates to city events. And you need to make sure that the city's not being impacted negatively in any way compared to a NFL game. Were there any, through the president? Were there any issues though, because I remember the packet that I received with this huge number as we all did of deferred maintenance? Wasn't that something that the current management company was supposed to be? Obviously we weren't on council at the time, which already of us weren't, but is that one of the issues that deferred maintenance that kind of stacked up so to speak? I don't think as much as it relates to how the management company performed because you know there was an extension a few years ago and we agreed to stay with the current provider ASM. I think it's a function of there has not been sufficient funds made available to the management company to keep the building where it needs to be. And that's one of the reasons that we wanted, it was imperative to us that any agreement with the city included a defined source of revenue for future capital and maintenance expenses. And by the way over this 30 year period, we've run the models. That's how we arrived at starting at $15 million. We feel that we are confident enough that there will be sufficient capital and maintenance dollars available to make sure that the stadium lasts for 30 years. As my time to end, Mr. President, finally, would the team be open? Obviously, we would say whoever comes back. Would be chosen comes back to us. And I know one of the reasons I'm asking these questions about the third party is because it kind of goes back to what the auditors concerns were about the Oversight and auditing about looking at what stuff is coming in with the team be open to I don't want to say going back like it was but certainly saying here's a third party Up front or is that co-committed to just questions. I don't have it. I kind of did put it in amendment, but were you be open to looking at that or is it, hey, we want to manage it and see how we can do this thing. Yeah, I think given the magnitude of our investment and the fact that we're in that business, the city is not in that business. We are the appropriate party to provide the day-to-day supervision in partnership with the city in terms of their involvement in approving plans on an annual basis and monitoring those plans. In fact, as much, we've even discussed that the city is welcome to embed somebody in our organization if they feel that's something they want to do. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Howell. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Howell. Thank you, Mr. President. Mike, the question I think is for the Council auditors and it's focused on advertising rights. So, when we approve 2024-904, if we approve 2024-904, it comes with this 30-year lease for the Jaguars. So, it's a 30-year marriage we have with the Jaguars. And a lock a 30 year marriage we have with the Jaguars. And a lot can change with technology over time. So looking at that advertising revenue, I think what we've got here, but I'm asking the council auditor, just for confirmation, is a good scalable agreement that allows for any future development of technology, the city to capture that revenue at city events or split with the Jags of Third Party events. So what I'm thinking about here is if a technology develops over the next 30 years that enables strong revenues to be generated from game day digital rights or social media or something like that, does this agreement allow for us to learn what the NFL does or the Jags do to maximize revenues from that kind of technology and capture it during our own city events and third party events. Through the President to Councilmember Helen, I'm going to pull up that language and they may be able to answer a quicker but the advertising revenue is very limited. You'll see here most of it goes to the Jags. Limited on city events. They still maintain like the TV rights and all of that still will go to them. So the amount that we would get is very limited. Okay, because I and maybe Mr. Atlantic and I said that question, but I do see third party events. Revenues are split, which are great in city events, such as Florida, Georgia. Revenues go to the city. Would that include in-stadium advertising revenues during, you know, any, what I'm thinking about is digital technologies. We don't know yet. Could we learn from and do we capture them accordingly and fairly under this agreement? Through the chair to Councillor Morehall and we'll pull the specific language, but anything, third party then I believe it still has exceptions regarding broadcasting rights or things like that. Again, I do not believe in what we looked at that there would be material amounts that would in essence stay more of the same for the large advertising type dollars would stay with the Jax. Yeah, and maybe Mr. Flamie can address the issue. Yeah, that's certainly true as it relates to NFL games, but we participated in no broadcast rights on events outside of NFL games unless we agree in partnership with the city to do so. So for example, we partner on an international soccer game and we're the promoter of that and then we sell those broadcast rights, those broadcast rights would go into the event P&L which we would split 50-50. Yeah. Okay. And then say there's digital technology which creates advertising revenue in the stadium during that international soccer game that also goes into the fund and ends up being split with the city Yes, and that's one of the basis of our new agreement Under under our previous agreement There are certain revenue streams that we controlled like for Florida, Georgia We kept sweet premiums. We made seven eight hundred thousand dollars a year from that under the new agreement all of that goes away and the the city will get to that. But more importantly, for third party events, which we all want to have as many third party events as we can, every revenue related to that event goes into the PNO. Then I would hazard to say that this is a attractive agreement for the city because we're never going to be experts at developing new means of revenue generation off of advertising. But the Jags will be because it's profit mode of generating, you know, causing them to do so. So we get to share on their lessons learned for city events and shared third-party events. That's what I was trying to get at. So I appreciate both the answers. If there's anything you want to add to that, Ms. Taylor, please do otherwise. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Yay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to elaborate a little more on what Dr. Johnson was referenced in Miss Taylor, through the present, Miss Taylor. Does AS, what facilities is ASM managed for the City of Jacksonville currently? Through the chair, I believe they manage six facilities. Let's say stadium, arena, ballpark, Ritz Theater, the Performance Center, and Convention Center. Okay, thank you. Prime Minister. Okay. Through the President and Mr. Lampleen. So the intent with the JWARS is to potentially not use ASM? The intent of the JWARS is to have the best run stadium possible. And we want to make sure we have flexibility over what those models could be. It could be hiring a third party, such as ASM. And we have no issues with ASM. Or it may get to the point where collectively, we decide that we should manage it ourselves because we certainly have the capability to do that. I understand. And so I guess that brings another question back to to the city is how would we handle the situation if the management company is not involved in the stadium? Through the Chair to Council Member Gave, I'm in your senior question and please correct me if I am not. I believe because that is a five year agreement on the ASM. Currently, five year, five year lease right now. So there would have to be discussions in essence if we are. It does allow, I believe in that agreement because we looked at this, that facilities can be removed in essence, but I imagine there would have to be contract discussions because they took on the contract with the notion of having those facilities. So we have not gone down that road yet, but did look into to see that we'll have to be future discussions. And I don't know if Mr. Weinstein may have an answer. Mr. Weinstein may have an answer. There'd be an adjustment through the president. There'd be an adjustment on their management fee and what have you. But that's sort of happened with daily. I think they've had some facilities that they've been in and out of. The Miller Electric is totally by the Jaguars as it is today. But there'd be an adjustment to their contract and their new contract would be adjusted if they get a new contract from us. But the idea of facilities coming and going isn't is an unknown and unprecedented. Thank you. I guess to the president, one of the questions that Ms. Taylor would, how would we be able to remove the stadium from their portfolio and have a Doing this new contract Through the president of councilman reggae their contract we did confirm it ends in 27 So at the point where the new lease would be coming on board and what are the renewal period? There's one five year renewal period, so you're going to come into a unique window there of the administration needing to make decisions and the council, it coming to council of whether that renewal option is renewed or not. It's going to be a unique time period to be in with the stadium opening the next year. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Matt Corloucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. President. I don't know if this is out of order at this point, because we seem to be kind of going around, which is not bad. It's a good thing. I think we're covering some good ground. But on page four of five, I just want to know through you as you're running the meeting, I would like to request an amendment and I'd like to know what the observations would be of the Jaguars and Mr. Weinstein of the concern number one on page 405 by the council auditors. And that is making sure they have the right to audit this agreement. And they agreed to that earlier. You might have been out of the room. Okay, I didn't know that. That's good to know. Thank you. They agreed to number one. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Amara. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A quick question for auditor and Ms. Taylor. Just trying to get a bottom line picture. I know you ran the numbers. I heard Mr. Lampkin talked about, and he said it a couple of times, and we respect and acknowledge Mr. Khan's $625 million investment. But out of curiosity, given the structure of this lease agreement and everything going forward, and what the team is going to recover through revenue streams, what are they recapturing from that 625? Through the Chair to Council Member Merrill, I would not have access to their revenue and what they be making off of it. I really would have no, those are protected in private financial statements. So through the chair and I get that. I'm not asking you to look at their books. But we've heard, for example, leases a million a year, but on this management fee, it's a million two or something like that. And what I'm seeing thus far is they've got certain little revenue streams throughout the entire agreement. So I was just curious what that adds up to bottom line in context with their investment. So that was my question out of curiosity. I thought you may have Made some kind of assessment in that area. So through the president to council member raro Can't really go to that level. It's really a look from the city level goes back to with all the There may be revenue that they have but there's a lot of cost sharing that is occurring that has not occurred today. And that kind of our page two is from a overall, from a city general fund impact, would be a net positive until you start getting into the minimums potentially on capital is where you could see a switch from our, and I really can't say from a, from a their revenue and knowing their total revenue picture. Thank you. It was just a curiosity thing. Yes. If that kind of assessment was made. Thank you. Mr. Areas. Thank you, Mr. President. Regarding the management, Ms. Taylor, well actually the Jaguars mentioned earlier that usually the NFL teams are like a 50-50 split as to a team managing it versus the city managing the facilities. In this case, obviously the Jaguars want to manage it. So comparing it to other cities Who represents the city usually When it comes to be the managed proportion of it I know that they're gonna have managed it themselves But if we're gonna have somebody represent the city in that management process Comparing it to the other markets on the 50 50 split who normally from the city will represent it would be somebody from the city council Would it be a committee that we form would it be somebody from the city will represent it? Would it be somebody from the city council? Would it be a committee that we form? Would it be somebody from the administration? I want to know who exactly would have a say into the management portion of things. Through the Chair to Councilman Arias, you're going to have a city rep on the sports and entertainment director right now would be the one that I believe is established in the legislation to oversee this agreement. So that's going to be your point of contact from a contract oversight standpoint. They of course are going to be working with the mayor and the administration and their office to to do that but it's not anything where the City Council has weighed in in the past or would. I don't know what other cities normally they may have more comments on that or Mr. Hew may have more. Mr. Weinstein sounds like you haven't answered. Through the president, two pieces to the answer. I mentioned previously the city will hire a basically an experienced stadium manager as a staff member to be part of a 365 day year process to monitor and work with the Jaguars on our payroll on all the things that we do together. It's self it'll probably be the Department or division of the sports and entertainment Well, they'll probably be the contract entity that has the management oversight Thank you Through the chair. So I had a feeling that was the answer and in that case I know that the sports and entertainment manager Alex Austin which I see him back here, but Mr. Austin how would that affect your your man? Because I know you don't have enough right now as it is. So would you be needing to request more funding from the city to manage this portion of it? Well, it's four years, okay. It's four years away, so. I'm not sure. We're still walking through the process. You gotta have a foresight. This is Alex Austin through the chair. You know, you got to have a foresight. This is Alex Austin through the chair. I would anticipate over the next three or four years we would work in collaboration with the J.I.Wars on a plan for what that budget would look like if we didn't need to bring on more manpower as Mr. Weinstein mentioned. Which is why I wanted to compare it to other cities to see what kind of manpower the other cities have so we could predict how much of a budget we're going to need for that. That was kind of the reasoning to my questions. Thank you, Ms. Raelson. And then regarding the, and through the chair regarding the ASM global contract, I know it's a five-year lease and they're going to expire in 2027. Alongside the time that the lease comes in, are we going to be obligated to buy ASM out of anything? Of this contract, are there going to be like a time period where we're still on the hook and we still owe them some dollars and so what is that dollar number? Through the President's Council member areas. With that ending in 27, that's going to be decisions made by the administration and brought to the council. But there are provisions that allow for facility reductions. So in other words, as Mr. Weinstein indicated, there may be a reduction in their management fee because they're taking on less. But there are contractual provisions that do allow for facilities to be removed. But again, that key year would be in 27 when it ends. Do you want to allow, if they come before you and they want to do that five-year renewal period, those decisions really need to be made at that point to try to avoid to your point any kind of contractual implications normalized. Okay, and with 40 seconds left on the clock, normally when people and entities negotiate a contract, if there's a bulk deal in place, we get a better rate. Being that part of this bulk deal is not gonna be removed, the biggest part of the bulk deal, how is that gonna affect our management fee obligation with ASM with the arena and everything else? Because now obviously they're not gonna give us the same rates for those management fees. They're probably gonna increase it because they're losing part of the bulk deal So are we going to be on the hook for for more costs now in that portion of it and that's it. Thank you Through the president. I can't answer that right now Certainly I I completely understand your point of the volume discount But there may be Staff that they no longer need because again our stadium is what out of the in 2223 out of the 21.4 subsidy from the general fund 20 million of that was related to the stadium. So you may have some relieving a cost where it shakes out but I certainly hear your point and we would not be part of that until it came with legislation. Okay, it's my turn. Let me play through a scenario. ASM is there now. At the end of, let's just assume they're there until the end of 27. Who makes the decision whether the Jaguars assume a leadership position in managing your facility? Would you come to administration and then come to the council? Is that how it's seen? Mr. Wieshden, can you help me there? Yes, sir. Mr. President, the way the lease is is that the Jaguars have the opportunity in total discretion to manage it themselves. If they do not want to do that then we jointly decide who basically the the manager operator will be. Can they become the operator without council approval or does it require council approval? No the the least as it stands is they have the opportunity to manage it themselves if they so choose. Without our approval. Yes, sir. Without the city's approval, they can just elect. The city's approval will be if you approve the lease as it stands. Okay. It requires no additional approval. That's correct. They can just say we're going to manage it and that's the way it is. And they may decide to and after two years decide that it was a incorrect decision and then together we find someone else. Okay. But yes, they have that discretion on their own. Once they're, they elect that choice, they can bring in another operator similar to ASM to manage it. Is that my understanding? If we so if we agree okay at that point the city has to agree right So so they can elect to manage it on their own without any additional approval But if they bring in an ASM type or ASM back then we have to approve it Yeah, I believe that would have to go through the competitive process of the city if we hired an outside operator. But they're hiring them because they're in control. That's how the lease is written today, yes. The lease is written, let me make sure I understand it. The lease is written, so if they decide they're going to hire a third party NFL experienced type provider, then it would go through a competitive process. That's correct. Okay. But it sounds like it is there intent at some point to manage the facility and at the end of 27 when the ASM lease expires, that would appear to be the time that that would occur. Mr. Lampton, can you just, can you help me there? We want to have the best run building in the National Football League. And we want to make sure that all management models are available to us. Okay, I got it. Okay, I think that's all the first time people. Mr. Johnson, Dr. Johnson for the second time. Gotta ask again, thank you, Mr. President. I kind of follow your line of questioning, as well as Councilman Aries, Councilman Gay. I'm still not there when it comes to stat co-managing itself, while managing the facility. The two things that I think are important, number one, is I was listening to the conversation, having two companies managing these multiple facilities around the city is going to result, regardless of the conversation, having two companies managing these multiple facilities around the city is going to result regardless of the communications. One of the good things we have now about having a company that has done this. I'm not saying it has to be ASM. They seem to do a good job. I have an audit to them. But there could be all kinds of operational and planning mishaps. And that's one of the things that we have. Plus we have a third party that we can hold responsible that is almost an arbitrary party. And so that's why I think it's a good idea to be able to have that other party to be there between us. And the other thing is that one of the things I have to put in, I would be remiss if I didn't say it, is it's not gonna come up in this negotiation. I'm not trying to put anything else in it to change it or tank it. But HBCU games. We hadn't talked about that, but we did talk about Florida, Georgia, in this agreement. But I would hope, and you don't have to opine on it, but I just wanted to put it out there, that as we look on forward, that would all agree not just the city but the Jagle Stagco and the Jaguars organization to committing to an HBCU game every year we've been successful in that and I think it's very important and it's something that our community wants to see and could benefit from. At this point however I'm still just not there on saying that it makes sense for Stagco to be the manager and then to not have to come to council to decide that only if they hire a third party. And I would love to get some more information as to why that would be a good idea. Nobody uses the stadium and has a direct impact on how that stadium operates more than us. We are probably more involved in terms of what happens in that stadium as it relates to how it impacts our fans in the customer experience. We work alongside ASM on a game-by-game basis. We do all the training for the people that work on game day, you know, not just ASM. I'm not suggesting they don't have value because they have great value. We want to make sure that the stadium is run in the best possible way. And we want to make sure that we're not precluded from pursuing what might be the optimum model. The best model might be to continue to have a managed management company from year one. But having been in this business for decades and decades and having personally managed Major League Baseball Stadium in St. Louis and NFL Stadium in New York, it's a home of two teams. We know a lot about this, and I can tell you, the best management companies that are out there, it's not what the name is, it's the people that are actually doing the work. And that, what's most important to us, and as we would go through this process is, I don't care if it's Oakview Group or it's ASM or some third party who are the people that you're actually going to have they're going to be accountable on a day-to-day basis to make sure the city's investment and our investment is is maximized so I just think that we need to make sure that we have flexibility as we go for it we haven't determined how it's going happen, other than we want the best structure. Thank you. Mr. Romaro for the second time. Mr. Chair, just wanna make a quick comment. I see fully what, Mr. Lamkin is speaking of. If I rebuild my house, I want to be able to have control of my house. And so I hate to apply some simplistic logic. I think where we have some flexibility is that if as Mr. Weinstein pointed out a second ago, if after 27, they realize it's too big of a task, then it comes to a third party, and then we have some input in it. This is a major undertaking, and we wanna get it right, not just on the paper, not just in the documents, but I'm pretty sure the team, Statco wanna get it right as well. And so I fully understand what he's saying there and at this point, don't have a problem with it. Thank you. Okay, there are no other speakers. So let me do this. Number one, council members, Mary Staff and Office passed out the revised amendments. One through nine, you all should have these. It took off the ones that I referred to earlier. So please refer to that. Obviously we will have auditor's amendments in two groups, one technical, one more substantial. I think all the substantial amendments have basically been agreed to by the Jaguars to my knowledge, maybe not, maybe not all of them, but I think most's been a great moment for me to be able to presently be agreed to by the Jaguars to my knowledge. Maybe not. Maybe not all of them. But I think most of them have. Through the president. I think early on there may be some. I don't think I was. I don't think I was quite as. Stopping and getting consensus on those as I have today. That's probably my fault. But if you can work with them and if we can get consensus, it'll just make it easier tomorrow. Mr. Weinstein. Just before you close, I wanted to bring up an item. Okay, hang on a second. Just before you close. Okay, so we've got those. Tomorrow, very important. We have everyone here. We have to have a quorum and we have to have a quorum all day tomorrow. So as people walk out for a particular reason, we may have to stop the meeting. So please keep that in mind. I've got some public comment cards. Did you want to say something before I went to public comment? Yes, sir. If I may. There's been a lot of discussion. There's a couple of amendments possibly floating around on the CBA is the CBA amendment on that list. No they're not they were all removed. They were what? All removed. All the amendments. Well the amendment that you did pass, which was Council President elect whites Did it stipulate that the Jaguars were still putting in the hundred million 75 for East and 25 for parks. I don't think it's it didn't specify where the dollars were going It just did specify they were putting in the hundred still? 100 and actually it was 117. 118 and change. Right. Okay. Where it's specifically going, I think it's still up for debate. Okay, because the amendment that I read from what I did say that 75, 2.5 million would be for the first five years, 3.5 for next 25, and that the east side would get the 75 million and the 25 would go towards the parts. That's why I brought it up because I think there's a couple of ideas floating around on it. That's all. That was not the amendment we passed. And the amendment we passed is not on that sheet. That was the amendment we passed is not on that sheet. That was the amendment we passed earlier today. Okay. Public comment. I've got five here. I'm going to give each person two minutes. I've got Lauren Woods. Miss Woods. the seats. Can you all please hold it down? Can you, there you go. That's what you have two minutes. Can you also provide your address, please? My name is Larinco Sandra Woods, W-O-O-D-S of 600 North Washington Street, the family home of Jazz Wheat and the third tribe of the United States of America, the Abyssinian tribe, which is a home of Chun Lee and Fouley, who are both members of the tribe. Their exhibit has been housed on the bottom level of the free library of Jacksonville and it needs to be enhanced. The fifth tribal state in New York is my base and I am an ordained person. My father is Marsette, which junior and I am his birth, written, lineage, righted son and league personnel, Henrietta Diana's spouse and my birth mother. Felt to plan plan to fail. Urban planning is a critical task for the downtown area, which is known across realms as Cathedral City. The urban planning is short of its need. The homelessness, which has been mentioned, perhaps is better managed if we address them 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 note, there is no desire or need to make this historic residents and fort an apartment building. And that building is a regal residence and it's a Francisi priory. I'm the Franciscans and the Jesuits are known to be from this city. This is a historic restoration and maintain and maintain it on the National Register of Historic Places. I am also a workperson for Historic Fire Engine 4, which is a tribal scene. It needs to be historically returned to the labor work team called the Magnificent. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin. Is it Shoop? Sharp? Is he still here? Okay. Next speaker is Ricky Anderson. I saw Ricky here earlier. He's gone, okay. Joseph Tasty. Mr. Tasty. Joseph Tasty, 1115 South Edge would have new District 7. I'm going to go to the next slide. Joseph Testy, 11, 15 South Edge would have new district seven. Remember those who suffer because you are involved in mankind. I feel like I'm in oil and I have two minutes. I feel like I'm an exclusive car dealership, but a dealership nonetheless. Everything's fine, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Since the Jaguars came to Jacksonville 30 years ago, the number of illicit massage parlors has doubled. When the Super Bowl came to Jacksonville, the number doubled again. And you don't have to take my word for it. Just ask Sheriff Waters or former Sheriff Nat Glover. You all remember Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots. He was arrested here in Florida for solicitation in an illicit massage parlor. The Titans, even more devastating, in the Titans neighborhood and also in the Atlanta Falcons neighborhood, a disgruntled customer went in and shot and murdered masseuses and customers. The 49ers, I was working in Silicon Valley when Jerry Rice was arrested for solicitation massage parlor. David Miller says the $26 billion is going to be $2.6 billion going to be generated just during construction. Well, I assure you that those massage parlor are hoping to get a piece of that pie. Now, so I'm just here to tell you it's not all good And lastly boy, this is the way you stand Sir sir you address us you don't dress anybody else that this is the way you stand football helmet in hand with your Hand over your heart your laser focus on the American flag. You're not on the... Thank you, sir. Thank you. Baruch Kushim out of nine. Arean Randolph. She's gone too. Okay, guys, we're adjourned. Thank you. you you you you you you you you