I'm sorry. Welcome to the What's the date today? June 13th, Committee of the whole Legislative Services, would you please announce a quorum? Council President, we have quorum with 16 present. Thank you. Public comment cards are located in the back. If we have time today, we will take public comments, so please fill out a card and get it to the staff. I am noting that 2024-904 is read for the second time in re-referred. And I also wanna make an announcement that there is a possibility of an amendment on Monday to address possible city council members conflicts. If you have any questions about that, council members, I would ask you to see Mary Mary staff and op-alice offline Let's go around and introduce ourselves and then I'll go through the schedule starting with mr. Diamond Good morning. We're worried. I'm in district 13 the beaches Good morning jocke ol to district 13 to beaches. Good morning, Joe Coligie district 5, not the beaches. Good morning. Rockman Johnson district 14. The West Side is the best side. My gay the district to good morning, raw areas district 11. Morning, Kenna Mar of City Council, District one. Good morning, Michael, one district six Mandarin. Good morning, Nick How of City Council District one. Good morning Michael one district six, Mandarin. Good morning Nick Howell and at large group three. Ron Salem group two at large. Good morning Chris Miller at large group five. Good morning everybody Kevin Carico district four, God's country. Jacob Pittman district 10, take pride in the north side. You can't we pitman district 10 take pride in the north side Will Lane in district three kind of like interco to what interco stole west and east Arlington. I'll get up there one for next time Guys All right, I think we're getting a little out of control Matt Carlucci and I represent all the great city of Jacksonville group four Come on now. I know going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. Matt Carlucci and I represent all the great city of Jacksonville group four. Good morning. I don't know how to follow up. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Jimmy Paluso. We are in district seven right now. District seven is also where the stadium is. I think we should all remember that. Good morning, Tyrone, TIE, clock Murray, City Council representative for the nine in Jacksonville, Florida. Thank you. Let me go through today's agenda just for the purpose of the public and everyone else. I am. I'm going to review today's and then I'll get into that. Thank you, Marianne. Today we will have some follow up on some of the financial questions of the last session which I don't think will take very long but I think it's I've met with the auditor some very very useful information for all of us I believe. Then we'll go through the community benefits agreement. We'll go through the security agreement. Similar times as we did the last session, we'll go through the sports performance center lease or Miller Electric Center. We'll present the amended and restated amphitheater lease, better known as daily's place. If we have time there, we'll take public comment. that the amended and restated amphitheater lease, better known as daily's place. If we have time there, we'll take public comment. If we do not finish today, we will come back tomorrow. If we get through all this today, we won't be back tomorrow. And let me just review before we start today, the schedule for the next week or so. As I stated tomorrow, be a workshop where we do not need a quorum and that will only occur if we do not finish the material we have today. On the 17th we have a special council meeting where we will have a second reading and we will have a public hearing on the stadium legislation. Please plan on this being potentially a long meeting as it's three minutes of person and we don't have a feel for how many people will show up. On June 20th, Thursday, we will meet as a committee of the whole from nine until three and we're asking that you have your amendments in to marry by 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 19th, which is June 10th. If you can't get them in before them, please do. And the amendments will be taken up in the order that they are received. This does not prevent anyone from from bringing forth an amendment at the meeting on the 20th. On June 21st, we will have a committee meeting of the whole if needed. And then on obviously June 25th is the regular council meeting where floor amendments can be offered and final council action on the legislation hopefully and that meeting will start at 3 o'clock. Mary Ann, have you sent out the agenda for that? Okay, an agenda has been sent out for Friday. Order of business, thank you, Mary Ann, of how we plan to work, what we will take up from three until five, and what we will do after five o'clock. No council agenda item scheduled for a public caring or public participation will be taken up prior to five o'clock. As I mentioned, a tentative order of this has been published. Public comment will be held prior to five PM. Anyone who wishes to speak during public comment will need to have their cards submitted to legislative services prior to four PM. I announce that Tuesday night, and I'm announcing it again for those that want to participate in public comment on Tuesday the 25th. Are there any questions from the Council on any of that? I've repeated it a few times but never hurts to go through it again. Okay. Then we will begin with the auditors on a follow-up from questions from 6'5, 24 Council workshop. Ms. Taylor? Thank you, Council President. Good morning, Councilmembers. Kim Taylor, City Council auditor. I wanted to update you. I know at the last time there were questions on talking about the swap. We have 600 million in essence covered where you don't add additional debt in the proposed financing mechanism and then there were questions on well what about the additional 175 because the total city contribution is 775 million we were waiting on some debt Amortization schedules just to get our hands on everything But in looking, doing our analysis, what I want to let the council know is that on that 175, currently what you have in place, the county levies 6% bed tax. 2% of that goes to Ms. Brock, Carol Brock oversees the tourist development council. That's for promoting tourism, goes to visit Jacksonville, that's 2 cent. Then you have another 2 cent, each of the pennies in other words, that are dedicated and required under the code to go to, in essence, the stadium, because it's for, to pay debt service, where there is a professional sports franchise. And the stadium is the only thing that qualifies for that. So in essence, that to send is what covers right now the improvements that were done many years ago on the stadium. A little over 8 million, 8.7 that's covered currently by that to send. And then you also will talk about next week because there's some movement around, but there's the Convention Development Tax that is also utilized to cover that service and also provide capital at the sports complex currently. But we're talking about two of that six cents. So right now, as I mentioned, it covers about eight million in debt currently. The timing of when that debt will come off, which is in 2930, is the last payment. And the debt coming on related to the structuring of this last bit of the 175 million. When that debt comes on and the other debt comes off, the analysis that we've done and we've assumed a 1% growth rate in the betax. So nothing extravagant but a 1%. And it looks like that will be able to absorb that new debt service coming on to where if any very minimal half a million potential hit to the general fund. But we feel comfortable that it will cover it. So we wanted to make sure that the council understood that from a general fund impact, you're not having to see another hit of 11 million, 12 million to the general fund taking up budgetary capacity when those debt service payments have to start coming on for that portion. So before I move on to the second item, would you like to have any questions on that council president? So a couple of things. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Number one, we are providing lunch today at a time to be determined. When I think it's a good time to take a break, I would like to use the same format as we used last time. I'll give each council member five minutes the first time, three minutes the second time. I have attempted to wait till the end of the first time before I make comments and same thing on the second time and I will do my best to stay within that. There may be a time or two why I jump in because I just think it's important that I make a point. So any questions please use the queue up here and I'll recognize you. I see no one in the queue at this point. Okay. Miss Taylor, if you want to continue? Yes sir. The second item that we wanted to update the committee and you should have the handout at your desk. This is just what we wanted to give you assurance on is are there 600 million of projects within the CIP so that this swap in essence works. And we worked extensively with the accounting area, budget area, with OGC to confirm OGC even reviewed scopes within the CIP to ensure that we were very careful about these meeting eligibility. What I do want to note as a caveat, this could change when you see the CIP. So they may decide a couple other projects get swapped out that is different from what you see here. So this is not necessarily a finalist, but it literally just takes them from there. In the CIP now, we've just pulled them out for you to get comfort that there is enough there to swap. And you'll see looking at the first column, the current revised budget, the debt funded. Those are amounts that have been previously appropriated. Debt has not been issued yet for them, so their balance is still available on the projects to be spent that can be swapped out. So much of this you will see is past previously appropriated amounts that Council's approved $378 million. So you'll see that more immediate hit for your debt service in other words being covered by these past amounts. You'll see then what you would have seen in the CIP last year, so that's why you only have the four years out. But you would have seen in the CIP that you approved those same four columns, the 25, 26, 27 and 28 columns. There's no change in the timing of the funding. As I believe it was Councilwoman Pittman asked because I know that's one of the biggest concerns. Timing of the projects, this should not change any of that. The funding stays the same. It's just switching from debt funding to using the BJP surtax by allowing that to stay in place. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, but we just wanted to provide you some comfort there that there appear to be enough eligible projects to cover. Council Member Daimann, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. President. I assume we're sitting down since this committee. Okay. Thank you, Miss Taylor. You're always amazing through the President. I have a couple of questions on pushing back the better Jacksonville surtax to not put it into the police and fire pensions. So what is the mayor's proposal? How many years do they want to push back versus immediately doing it as the prior administration wanted to put into the police and fire pension? Through the president to councilmember diamond. I want to be careful on using the pushback So what the proposal would be instead of moving it up early by four years is what what was contemplated? When you all took up bill 2020 to 416 It would keep it in place through 2030. Right, so it's for, through the present, we're talking about four years though. Yes, sir. All right, and then how much do we collect with a better Jacksonville plant money every year? Through the chair, approximately 130 million. So it's $130 million times four years. What is the opportunity cost of, oh my goodness, can you do the math for me? Through the chair, there would be growth in that too. So that's where you'd have, and we've looked at a cash analysis too for paying off debt that you have the cash in order to cover these projects as well. Yeah, I understand. I'm just, I'm gonna make a point that this isn't free, four times1 30 is $520 million correct. That otherwise would have been paid into, had we done with the prior administration, want to do, and to the police and fire pensions. Through the chair, all of the pension obligations will be met. It's just the timing of when that occurs. I'm tracking, but that's $520 million that we're not going to be putting into the police and fire pensions for four years that we otherwise might be correct. Through the chair, yes, she will have the BJP surtax will go towards projects rather than starting the pension surtax sooner. Right, and so if we took that through the president, took that $520 million and put it into the market, it would grow, is that correct? Through the chair. Yes, but you have to take into account the debt service cost that you would have on issuing those bonds of 600 million as well. Yeah, through the present, I understand. Yeah, there's a set off. My question is, did you do the calculation on what the opportunity cost is for not putting it into the police and fire pension immediately, as opposed to pushing it back four years. Through the chair, I don't believe so in our analysis. Yeah, the one thing I want to go back to is we did consider, so as Mr. Weinstein presented and we've confirmed, the debt cost on the $600 million is the $40 million. What we presented last week is to give full fair picture. You would have had about a $15 million savings in the city's cost. So moving that up reduces what the city would have had to contribute. And so that's where in taking it into account, where we lowered that potential net cost avoidance amount by that savings that we would have had with moving it up sooner. So in essence, taking that into account. Right, and through the present, yeah, and I watched, that analysis made sense. But what was your calculation for what the return would have been like into the market had we invested 520 million if the pension fund had? Through the chair, I may need to get some clarification on where you're heading with your question. Not hiding the ball at all. I promise like cards on the table through the president's sailor. So we're talking about 520 million dollars that would be immediately over the next four years put into the police of fire pension and these other pension obligations correct? Yes. Okay, and so there's an opportunity cost of not doing that over four years, which is whatever return we would have got. Had we invested it immediately for the police and fire pension is correct? Through the chair, I think what you have to keep in mind within the city, we're also looking at the differential between the debt cost, which is about 5.25%. And that rate of return, that 6.5% that is getting very close within the proximity to each other. So that 6.5 assumed rate of return because the debt cost have gone up. It's 2022 when you took up that bill, certainly there was that arbitrage, that difference. But now with that assumed rate of return in the debt cost, they're very, very close to one another. Last question Mr. President. So I guess because your thought here is because money's so expensive right now, that delta is just, is smaller than it was back in 2022 and that's your calculation is based on the cost of debt today. Through the chair that's part of the analysis to consider. All right I'll have further questions on at a time thank you. Thank you. Mr. Police so before Mr. Police that jumps in Mr. Telly you made the point to me when we met that this process does not change the timeline of any of these projects. Correct, yes sir. It does not change the funding timeline. I just want to make sure that's on the table because I felt like that was going to come up at some point. Yes sir. Mr. Palozo. Thank you Mr. President. Hello Ms. Taylor. Thank you very much. So on the discussion of pensions, have we talked with the Police and Fire Pension Board about what their actuarial tables were kind of expecting in 2026? Do we know if they were expecting the half-cent BJP extension to start coming in at that year? Through the Chair to Councilmember Paluso, their actuarial assumptions have never changed. They have never done different scenarios for anything other than ending 2030. So that has been the presumed. So there is not in other words an increase cost to the city where when the 2022 bill went through that revised actuarial assumptions were calculated, it has always been based on, even though when pension reform went through, there was the thought it would end sooner. The pension certext would kick in, potentially sooner and end sooner. Their model has always been based on ending 2030. Through the President of Australia. So thank you for that. So it sounds as if, for those that may give the impression that we're pulling the rug underneath police and fire pension, they were never expecting these dollars to come in at any time earlier than 2031, correct? Through the chair, that's correct. It's all I have, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Layden. Thank you, President. Through the President, Ms. Taylor, Councilman Diamond brought up opportunity costs, and I think the way we talked about the last meeting was when would the pensions be a hundred percent funded And I think it was just a matter of like two to four years differential But regardless it was late 2040s early 2050s is kind of when we expect to hit that a hundred percent mark correct Yes, sir through the chair to councilman Lane and yes several years still before that the 30 years Yes, you're correct, early 2050, 2055, but still plenty of years of bandwidth to still cover market conditions or anything like that. Thank you. And through the chair, sorry, through the President's tail again. And the current savings would be by extending it out my notes where we'd save 600 million in debt. It's a net 25 million in savings of our operating budget going forward. If we were to do the BJP swap through 2030 versus if we see IP it out correct. Through the chair, yes, of cost of waiting that you do not have to add into your budget capacity. Thank you, and through the president's one more question from Ms. Taylor. Going back to the bed tax just so I'm clear, thanks for walking me through that earlier in the week. But we talked about the 600 million now that we would avoid the BJP swap 175 million, which is the remaining portion would be covered just from the timing that we pay off. Current debt with the 1% of the 2%, and there would be enough annual money to pay off what would be, I think it was close to 175 million over whatever term. So pretty much debt neutral between those two versus where we are now, I'm thinking. Through the chair, yes, you're absolutely thinking about that correctly. You are in essence from these two pieces not adding any debt that you would not have already had on the books, your plan, redways, et cetera, swapping. You're not changing that debt position. Thank you. Council member Clark Murray. Good morning. Thank you, President Salem. Just thinking about what Mr. Good morning, Miss Taylor. Thinking about what Councilmember Diamond had mentioned. Let's just say you have 525 million in regards to the pension and he talked about market rate. How much you earn on that 525 million depends upon the market, right? It's not necessarily guaranteed because the market fluctuates. Through the chair, that's correct. They do have an assumed rate of return of 6.5% on the plan, but certainly market conditions can change that. Thank you. Thank you, President Zayl. Mr. Howland for the first time. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to address something that Councilman Paluso brought up. The idea that whether police and fire were expecting this or not is not as simple as whether they had changed their actuarial tables for the pension fund and the calculation of unfunded liability. Yes, their calculations didn't start until 2031, but this council actually prior to, actually last council. In 2022 for 16, we did take the action that would be one of several steps to eventually sunset that BJP sales tax early. And that was pulling projects out of BJP and putting them into the CIP. So it wasn't totally clear that they were not expecting it. There was some element of expectation because it had been discussed for about two years, but we had never completed actions necessary to effectuate that. And their actual rotate will still took 2031 into it. Okay. So just for the record. Thank you. Matt Carlucci for the first time. All right. Thank you. Matt Carlucci for the first time. Sir, some of the questions, particularly from my colleague, Mr. Landon, Councilman Landon, brought up. I thought we're very timely, very good. I was just hoping that we can get past the pension fund. It actually starts talking about the community benefit agreement at some point Yeah, if there's other questions on math, that's fine, but I'm anxious to get into that part of it That's just and look In government, I've seen it over and over there are times when Monday gets rearranged from one funding element to another and It's because opportunities come up. And that's what has brought this change with BJP and so forth, an opportunity. And the opportunity is we've heard a lot about the opportunity and we still have a lot to hear about the opportunity. That's why I look forward to getting to the actual community benefits agreement. Thank you. Mr. Diamond for the second time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just two quick questions then. Through the President and Ms. Taylor, I mean, if we stuck with the prior administration's plan of moving forward the four years, isn't it true that in 2056 we would the tax would end? Right, wouldn't we stop collecting that tax in 2056? Through the chair, was that the? Okay, yes, because it would be within the 30 year period, yes sir. Right. If it had ended in 2026 through the chair, if that was your question. Right, and so then it's got a max of 30 years. And in this current plan, we would have to keep going with the tax, is that correct? We would have to, in order to meet these obligations, we would have to extend it in some way. Through the chair, legally you could not. What would happen is if it starts 2031, it ends the sooner of when all of the pension plans are funded 100% or within that 30 year period. Right, but this would more than likely extend out how long we're collecting taxes in order to get these 600 million today. Correct. Through the chair, it's not even even four years. It may be a two to four years that potentially, yes. Yes, so we're extending taxes on people who are not alive yet, just to be clear most likely. We're essentially kicking this financial can down the road to them. Is that fair to say? Through the Chair to Council Member Diamond, I would say it's within what the voters legally authorized on the referendum of within that by 2060 based on the referendum. Okay, and through the present, I promise I'm not trying to trick you, but we are likely to have the tax go longer than we otherwise would if we wait four more years to start paying down these pension obligations with a better jacks of a plan. Through the chair, potentially two to four years longer, yes sir. Thank you. Mr. Gaye. Council member Gaye. Thank you, Mr. President, through the President and Mr. Taylor. Have you all been able to analyze the projects that were never completed in the original Better Jax Plan to, I know we're looking at community initiatives to how this is going to benefit certain communities. But a lot of our community never got what it should have got in the Better Jacks Plan. And I'm even looking at your spreadsheet here that we just recently, the Cedar Point sidewalks, got pulled from us. So we're instead of working in a positive, we're moving in, like in my district, we're moving in a deficit. And so I'd really like to have some data on that of, if it's available. And just in the documents that you got here, how many of these are actually going to move forward as far as the dollars in here that's, I don't know, I guess public works would have to grade these to see if they're actually going to take place. Through the chair to Councilmember Gay, so a couple of things you'll see on the last page, the blue highlighted. Those are the nine remaining BJP projects that they are working on right now and moving forward with. The Council President brought up at the last meeting. There were, and I believe Philip correct me from around 2005, when many of the, I think it was University in Atlantic. Several of those projects, there was a fairly large amendment to the BJP work program, which has to be done here as well. But as far as the remaining, the nine that are remaining where you addressed in a bill 2020 to 416. This would not change those projects being completed. Those are on path and when we get the quarterly update at the fact pack which oversees the BGP funds. Those are moving along as planned and this potential swap would not change that. As far as I know over time, when the work plan was changed and things were pulled out, can't really speak to you. I don't know if Philip wants to add anything or not, but it's definitely evolved over time where there have been projects pulled out and not done. But these are of the original, so it's taken many years, and I'm sure Councilmember Johnson can address one of his that's still in place those would still stay on track Okay, thank you. I don't know if that fully answers your question. I know there were projects that were never completed that were pulled out of the work program But as far as a full history we don't we don't have that it just I know originally it fell short a lot of areas and It's just we we had hope that maybe one day that we would actually have it fulfill what the the promise was that the voters voted on the better jacks plan. I know there's a few projects left but there's many many holes in the in my district that didn't get in the field or got cut short. So thank you. Let me know, President Designate, a white has joined us and I've got Joe Carlucci. On the queue. Okay, all right, thank you. Carlucci. No, you're good, thank you, Mr. President. This is just maybe a statement, not a question, and you've been on the hot seat here. Just one thing that stood out to me in the list of the CIP projects was the same Mateo Elementary School's sidewalk, small, small, line item thing. But just something I want to make sure that we're looking at while the administration's kind of coming through the CIP, that school's plan to close and consolidate. And I looked at it on Google Maps. through the CIP, that schools plan to close and consolidate. And I looked at it on Google Maps. It looks like there's plenty of sidewalks. It's not like needing maybe a sidewalk. So that's just one thing I want to be mindful of, not just for this discussion, but future discussions with the administration when we're looking at a lot of schools consolidating what other projects are in the CIP that we virtually don't need to do now. So thank you Brian, shake it his head over here. Okay we're good. Thank you. Thank you Mr. President. Council member Ramara. Thank you Mr. Chair. Through to Chair to Mr. Taylor I just want some clarity on three things. Number one, what was expressed in 22 as far as the, using the half of penny sales tax to address the unfunded pension liability, was there any action that committed the City Council to starting that effort earlier? Through the Chair to Council Member Amaro, no. That bill really just provided a funding mechanism for these projects to move forward. So it was a flag, I would say, as Council Member Helen said. An indicator we may go down that path, but no formal action was taken. Through to Chair, any action to swap the better Jacksonville plan with the CIP to be able to fund any future of the stadium. Would that be a breach of faith to the Union and their city's commitment? Through the chair to Councilmember Emerald, I would say no based on the original referendum, and that's where we've spent time dialoguing with the Office of General Council. The referendum that went before the voters was very specific on vertical structures named, like the Library, the courthouse, but it was not on roadways, and the voters approved it through 2030 to cover roadways in general, drainage, different issues that on those they are very generic in nature that went for the voters. Last question through the chair. Would the swap change the city's commitment to that unfunded pension liability. Through the Chair, no. It may, as Councilmember Diamond, it may allow that tax to planes. It stay in place two to four years longer, but still within the period authorized by the voters originally through the referendum, not extending it in any way. Council, President Desigate White. Thank you, through Chair and for the rest of my colleagues and maybe you can, Councilman Amaro, with the FOP leadership and the FireCarder leadership, this phone has not called on fire I'm not sure if the group is going to be going to be a leadership and the fire codder leadership. This phone has not called on fire them calling me. I'm thinking I can't speak for them and we will probably get them if somebody wants to hear from them but there's not anything to move into the community benefit agreement. If I could get Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Lamping or anyone else from their team to come forward and take there a lot of time to explain the agreement from their perspective. Thank you, Mr. President Mike Weinstein. Good morning. I know that you've heard a lot about the community benefit agreement and I'm going to just give you sort of how we got here, why we're here and then go over briefly the three focuses of the community benefit agreement. Right from the beginning, and it's really at eight to ten month effort that we've gone through with the Jaguars, the community benefit agreement was on the table being discussed. The Jaguars right up front had some strong interest in doing something for out east, the neighborhoods, north of the stadium, out east and some of the adjacent neighborhoods. They also wanted to get a sense that the city was, in fact, committed to downtown. And Mr. Lamping and all the huddles we went to reminded everybody that Shotcon has already provided the largest private investment to downtown in our history with the four seasons. And if, in fact, the stadium is done with another 625 he will be over a billion dollars in downtown and he wanted to make sure that we were committed as he was to downtown and they also wanted to do some things throughout the county and I'll get to those three focuses but it was really important to them for us to stand up and basically do all that we can. Also right from the beginning, the mayor, so the community benefit agreement as really the sort of icing on the cake that we shouldn't just do the stadium. We should take advantage of do something bold and do something big. And that's when she offered to the Jaguars that if we were to put in some dollars would they agree to up it, up their 100 million that they originally talked about. And we very quickly got to 150 million from the city and 150 million from the Jaguars. That's sort of how we got to where we are. One of the focuses is on downtown. Downtown parks basically to finally finish and get open, the major parks along the river. That's the Riverfront Plaza, the Shipyard West Park, Metro Park, and then we also put in the Flexfield because we have to do something with the flex field as the stadium Adjusts and daily's place adjusts and we take flex field into our inventory with the parks and recreation So the dollars that the community benefit agreement allocates basically the 56 million Goes towards the gap of each of those facilities to get them finally finished as far as funding and get them opened. We've invested a tremendous amount already. I just got just to give you a sense. Ultimately the cost of the Riverfront Plaza, $78 million in change. Shipyard west, $94 million in change. Metro Park, $18 million in change. Metro park 18 million in change. Those are the estimated costs from the beginning. You have provided money. We've provided CIP, but there's a gap. And the gap is what's listed in the community benefit agreement. 10 million going towards Riverfront Plaza. 24 million in change going going to Shipyard West, 12 and a half million to Metro, and 8,760 to Flexfield. I'll talk a little bit again about downtown when we talk about out east. But basically, if we're gonna to have a real economic engine, it's going to be from the river through the shipyards, through the entertainment district, and then north. I mean, that's the engine that we could possibly create. And I think it was Vice President-elect Carrico that said, we've got to put our money where our mouth is if we're going to do downtown. And this is an opportunity to lock in Again the gap and get it done with once and for all The second piece the second focus was countywide and it lists three different functions its workforce development affordable housing and homelessness initiatives Workforce development It's workforce development, affordable housing and homelessness initiatives. Workforce development has always been a priority, but it hasn't been structured so well across the county. The jaguars in their effort to do Miller Electric did provide some training in isolated areas throughout the county. We have met numerous times with all the elements of workforce development and creating this community benefit agreement to make sure that we can upskill in the areas that we need to have it upskilled in so that people can get over the barriers that are trying to get upskilled and can't get to the location, doesn't have the right uniform, doesn't have the childcare, all the barriers that are in the way of people trying to move up and get into a liable wage and a better career. These dollars in this effort is trying to deal with. The school system has been up front, they'll open up facilities, the colleges, all the main elements of workforce development through the chambers are on board with this. Affordable housing, the dollars for affordable housing will go along and support the existing programs that are out there. You already have indicated a strong desire to deal with affordable housing, also in homelessness initiatives. Existing programs that you've created, the mayor created, these dollars would continue to move forward in it. The way it would be structured, our recommendation, and during the community benefit process that we went through for eight months, we at one time tried to embed in the agreement how specifically it would work. We got into appointments and how this and how that. We decided to not put it in the agreement because one, we wanted to deal with it over the next couple of years. The dollars aren't available. Won't be for a while. We thought we had time to deal with how literally it the $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have. The $1,000,000 that we have be created an advisory commission or committee for the workforce development affordable housing in homelessness initiative that would have seven members to appointed by the council, to appointed by the mayor, to appointed by the jaguars and one appointed by the group of six to appoint the seventh. And they would make recommendations as to how to move forward with these initiatives. To the mayor's office, the administration, mayor's office would then package it like they did the transition committee to council. Council would have the ultimate say to appropriate dollars. We were going to put $50 million into this effort to start it, to seed it, to get it going. For the Jaguars then to put in half of their 150 million, they were going to put in 75 million, over 30 years, 2.5 million a year for the 30 years, to follow up the incentive and seeding that we had done. That's basically the structure council also, always will have the final say, but we wanted to have the community and the experts in the community Basically provide the initial recommendations Deal deal with the housing entities that we already have the homeless entities that we already have That's the county-wide section The east side sections a little bit more complicated all of the structures the same and I'll get to that. But right from the beginning, as I said, Jaguar's definitely wanted to make sure that their neighbor to the north was involved in this. And what we created is the opportunity to provide 30 million upfront to an effort, economic development, affordable housing, homelessness initiatives in that particular area. There's a map included in what was filed. It's basically the out east where lift jacks is, but a little bit bigger, a couple of adjacent neighborhoods. Why that neighborhood? Besides the Jacksonville Jaguar interest in it, that particular area, and there are many other areas that have been left behind that need help, no question about it. But there's a uniqueness to this particular area. One is the impact that the sports complex has already created to it. Some of the neighbors, some of the houses and the residential were taken away literally when the complex was originally structured and they've had impacts not necessarily positive that have come from the complex being developed basically south of them. And that's a reason to do it. It's also a reason to do many other areas. But the other reason is the investment. As I said at the beginning, if we're going to have an economic engine for downtown, it's going to be here. It's going to be with an entertainment district. It's going to be with the shipyard and all the things that are happening. And it's going to be with the business card or going up north. That's where it's going to be. And the question is, do we want to invest in that? The structure is basically similar, advisory committee would be structured to point it by council, to by the mayor, to by the jaguars, the six will point another one. They'll make recommendations to the administration like the transition committees did, and then eventually come to council for final approval. It's so much different than what's happened in the past. And the 30 million that's up front, and then 75 million from the Jaguars, again, over the 30 years, 2.5 million a year. What we don't want to do, and we talked about it, we don't want to do this as a pilot effort and a needed effort and short-change it. And that's where the tax increment came in. And basically, it's not a CRA structure that has all the rules about land and use and what have you. All this is a calculation of the increase in property taxes from the area to be divided between the general fund and this particular entity. That's what it is. It's basically a rev grant. Instead of giving a rev grant back to a developer, we're giving a rev grant back to this entity that helps create property improvements and value. It's really important, again, look at it as philanthropic because the area deserves it, but also as an investment. That's the key. And I'll end with this. When I first came here, we recall the Jacksonville, the new bold city of the South. Somewhere along the line, we changed our name to First Coast or what have you. And we haven't really been bold ever since. This is an effort like better Jacksonville was like getting the Jaguars, like the Renaissance was, to really make an impact and be a change agent. And I think that it culminates in a pretty good offer. And there's been a lot of discussion about, well, let's do it in the budget, let's do it in the budget. The difference in this process, if you do it here with an agreement with the Jaguars, we're under a contract. Those dollars are dedicated to do these things. If you wait and do it in the budget, then you have the same issues that you have every year with a budget and communities will be left behind as they have been in the past. There's no real commitment. This locks it in to do it the way the community benefit agreement was established. That's the difference between let's push it or let's do it now. This locks it in versus it's going to be pitted again. So many other valid necessary things to do. But we will again, as we have in decades, not taking care of the original promise of making sure these neighborhoods are taken care of. And I'll end with this. And the mayor says this and the huddles that she goes to. It's the economic engine of downtown that makes things happen around the county. We have a lot of benefits where Chris work and solidated. We also have disadvantages because we're consolidated. And one of the things that we have as an advantage is to use the engine of downtown. Property taxes from businesses create more than they need for services. Property taxes for homes don't create enough for the services that they get. It's the business engines that provide the dollars to do the things around the whole county. That's why it's really important to do this investment. I appreciate it and I'll be here for questions later. Mr. Lamping. Thank you, Council President. I Really appreciate the opportunity to be here. Almost four years ago, we began the planning for the state and the future. Following significant public outreach and engagement, input from key stakeholders, including the universities of Florida and Georgia, the Gator Bull, negotiations with multiple city administrations, numerous city consultants, conversations with numerous city council members, and several city council presidents. We are now nearing the end of this process. While we welcome and encourage any questions you may have over the past 12 months in particular, most questions related to the stadium have been asked, answered, and based on our numerous meetings with current council members, it seems most of you have a good handle on the stadium portion of this legislation. At the start of this multi-year process, we also recognize that a joint investment of this magnitude created a unique opportunity to provide benefits to the entire community. That is why we originally offered to create a $100 million community investment fund. This commitment represented the largest community benefit program in the history of the National Football League. We then agreed to raise our local commitment by $50 million to a total of $150 million. When the mayor asked us to join her in pursuing an even more impactful community benefit program. As we considered her request, the commitment to fund the downtown parks was a powerful message that the city is committing to supporting downtown development. This was a particularly timely message to Shod and his family as he is on the verge of the largest private investment in history of downtown Jacksonville. The larger community benefit program, which includes $150 million commitment from the Jaguars, and $150 million from the city is what is included in the legislation that is in front of you. This is what we agreed to as part of our negotiations and is our hope that this significant community benefits agreement is what this body ultimately approves. We also understand that some of you would prefer to separate the two agreements to give you more time to consider the community benefits agreement. As I mentioned earlier, while it is our preference that the stadium and community benefits agreements remain as one piece of legislation, ultimately, that decision is up to this body and we will respect your decision. If you choose to separate the two agreements, please know that the Jaguars will honor our original $100 million dollar commitment without any funding required from the city. We've been working on the stadium piece of the legislation for years and as a result, most have already formed their opinion regarding the stadium proposal. If that is the case, and you reach the point where you are ready to vote on the stadium portion of the legislation, we would encourage you to do so. Delaying a vote on the stadium proposal will only introduce more cost risk, more schedule risk, and more risk of achieving an expedient review from the National Football League. Thank you. Mr. Hue. Thank you, Mr. President. I went through the document and I guess I would say that the recitation by the city is accurate with respect to what's reflected in the document in terms of the allocation of dollars by the Jaguars and the schedule of payouts, most of which have to occur over the first two years of the anniversary of the effective date. So the larger payments have somewhat of a two year cycle to be paid others within a one year cycle. I think that is probably important because one of the things that I did was look at the community benefit agreements at almost all of the other markets, both the recent stadium markets, as well as some of the longer standing community benefit agreements. I think Mr. Lampling is correct that this is the most lucrative and beneficial community benefit agreement that exists. And before you is a document that kind of covers a lot of the specifics of at least four of the markets that Council President asked me to look at and the auditors also looked at. And it kind of gives you a sense of what those contributions are across the board under the related community benefits agreements. As I said earlier last week, a lot of these agreements seemed to track previous agreements in large measure they built off of the Buffalo agreement or the Tennessee agreement. In this case, Buffalo was one of the largest community funded benefits where the team in that case contributed $3 million committed to committing $3 million a year over the 30 year term, which was a $90 million contribution. The Jaguar's initial contribution was $100 million, which exceeded the Buffalo Agreement, which at that time was the largest of any single NFL member team contribution. And then to Mr. Lampings Point, they upped it an an additional 50 million to get to what the city wanted to match in the total of 300 million. And so even at 100 million the Jaguars would still be contributing more than any other team with respect to their aspect of it. The timeline of how the money is spent is somewhat of an important factor because in Buffalo, for instance, where they're contributing $3 million a year over the 30 year cycle. Many of these other markets have advisory committees set up like Mr. Weinstein suggested with assignment of seven or nine people on those boards. In other markets that has tended to be difficult in terms of how those dollars are accessed. In Buffalo for instance, they still haven't adequately assessed the team's three million. So there have been some hiccups in trying to determine how those monies are going to be allocated when those committees are set up. In terms of the contributions from the government, Tennessee, for example, is contributing 1.2 billion buffaloes, contributing a significant amount of more from state funds and other things that aren't available to Florida. So they don't have the same level of commitment that the city is proposing here. So if you look at cross at least the four markets that we covered, and I looked at in addition to those markets, Los Angeles, the Raiders, a couple of other markets, the Vikings, you're not gonna see anything comparable to the contribution that the city is making here. So I'm not making a statement of the value of that just to give you a comparison point that the 150 million that the city is contributing and the Jaguars under this proposed legislation are proposing would be by far the largest in any other market. Whether or not that is something to be in a community benefit agreement or a separate agreement is for you to decide. But I would say that the bulk of what community benefit agreements have been for a majority of the other markets has really focused on workforce development like we are, but also making sure minority businesses and women businesses get to participate in the operation of the stadium, of the building of the stadium, of the business, business to business operations that are made available. In some cases, there's a set aside of 30% of business that must go to minority and small businesses. Tennessee, for example, has a widespread program of 16 different individual components that are part of their community benefits agreement. So in large measure, those agreements without dollar commitment were designed to make sure that there was inclusion and diversity in many instances and what were the substance of a lot of the prior community benefit agreements. And, Council President, at some point, if you wanted to go through the individual teams, I'm happy to do that. You certainly have some of that here, but there is not a market that is paying anywhere close to the amount of money that was being referenced here in this particular agreement. And, again, to large measure, I think some of that is due to the very heavy contributions that other markets are contributing to the stadium development. Also in Tennessee, for example, the stadium has a 12,000-foot room that's a community building that's being able to be used for the community. So there were just a lot of things that were built into these other community benefit agreements that were designed to have an impact locally in the communities, whether it's homelessness or workforce development, student internship programs, funding for unfunded parks and other developments, but again without the financial contribution. Atlanta, for example, the blank family contributed $40 million already. That was one of the larger contributions by a team before Buffalo came in at 90 million. And so of course the Jaguar's 100 would set the new threshold. The other markets that had new stadiums, teams, contributions was a paucity of what is being contemplated here. Thank you. I just wanted to make a point. I did ask Mr. Hugh to gather this information. He sent it to me, and I sent it to the auditors, because I wanted a neutral third party to put this chart together. And Ms. Taylor and her team put this chart together just for everyone's information. Thank you Mr. President. Okay we'll now start questions and Mr. Diamond you're apologize. I apologize for the best. Yes, please, I apologize, Mr. Taylor. Thank you for all of that. Good morning again. You have a handout in front of you on the Community Benefits Agreement. We have a chart at the top that addresses what Mr. Weinstein presented. Getting into the funding gets into, I'll go down to one of our things to consider. Just so council has everything in mind when you're taking up this piece of legislation. You'll note at the top of the chart under the city column and these are based on responses that we received from the administration. For the $50 million that's plan to be funded in $25, $26, $40 million. That's within the budget. So a pay go amount just within your recurring revenues that the plan is to fund that. The $30 million fiscal year, $26, $27, so your total $80 million is split between those two fiscal years of 40 million each, basically coming through your budget process. For the 70 million, that would be through the CIP, likely debt, not certain at this point, but the cost of that debt, the 70 million, is about 4.5 to 5 million a year once those are fully on board that that would be a hit to your budget through debt service cost. So in the first point, we just want to mention that because that is a significant hit to your budget as you're putting together the budget seats here. And as you're looking at the next year with collective bargaining coming on board. And just an item to consider and keep in mind from a cash flow since those would be be pay go amounts on the 80 million funded. I also want to mention that the agreement all that it addresses is the timing on the 80 million it says by year two, basically of when the lease, the new lease comes on board. So that would be by 2030. So it is being funded a little bit sooner than the agreement requires. And then also for the 70 million, it just requires by the one year anniversary of the lease coming on board. So estimated to be 2029. So again, both of these items are being funded sooner than is required in the agreement. On point two, just letting you know as they alluded to, this is a separate agreement. It is not part of the guarantee or non relocation agreements. .3 on the 150 million to be contributed by the Jaguars that is over a 30 year period to 5 million a year. There is no language in the proposed agreement that requires city council approval that we see of how the 5 million contribution will be spent other than the jaguars are required to provide 50% to countywide, 50% to eastside. But other than that it would come on with what Mr. Weinstein alluded to the advisory board, possibly considering all that but it does not appear to come to City Council for appropriation based on the language That is in in the current proposal So they may have discretion that may not be the intent But that is based on based on the wording in the language now There is a reporting requirement for both the city and the jaguars so they do have to delineate each year Exactly how those dollars are spent. Turning to point four, although that process has been described as far as community advisory board, there is nothing in the agreement that addresses that. So if that is something that you do consider and you want to keep that proposal and you want to formalize any of that, just making you aware that that is not addressed in the agreement. We do have a few concerns that we want to point out to City Council. In addition to that 150 million, Mr. Weinstein alluded to this, an effect they would be setting up a CRA-like type of concept. So they've established a boundary and we have the map that we'll get to include it within here. And so within that boundary, it would function just like your North Bank CRA and essence under DIA. It would have that the same model, but not be going through the formal process and the state's very strict on setting up CRAs that has governance over it. A business improvement plan and you have to comply with that plan. So it would be over the 30 year term that this in essence would function where it's 95% of the incremental property tax revenues would go back and we have some calculations just to give you an idea so that you understand the magnitude. CERAs are concerned is that by design, they take that revenue, it erodes that revenue within the general fund because you are sending that to a different area. So when you have an increase in cost, whether it be fire, police, libraries, those revenues are then put within the different area. So you do lose that capacity within your budget. Our second concern would be the precedent that would be set. And again, this is not, I want to caveat this with, this is not geared towards the east side, this is geared from a financial math standpoint. The precedent of setting these up, if it can be set up in this mechanism and not through as a formal CRA, each district member may want areas of town peeled out. And if you start doing that, it just further erodes and takes away from that general fund pot. So just keeping that in mind on administratively could place a burden on tracking all of this internally but that you could certainly have the precedent set for any areas of town for this to be set up in this informal fashion. So our recommendation regarding that is that if it's the desire to do this to go through the process of setting up a formal CRA, just to have all those state statute restrictions and guidelines in place that guide the operation of that. And if it's decided by council that the informal process is something you want to do as a policy decision, you can certainly consider the percentages 95% right now in the agreement. That could be changed. 50% 70% whatever you want to consider. The duration could be changed from 30 years to whatever time period. And then this is over the base that they've established of 301 million. But again, if you decide to go down that path, there are, this is not set in stone since it's not a formal CRA that does have restrictions on percentages. On the next page, page three, concern number three, we just in the questions back and forth that was not clear that if this CRA-like concept is not adopted in the agreement because the agreements were it as use good faith effort, it was not clear if that would potentially put the city in breach of the contract or in default. And so we just want to make the council aware that we may want to just clarify that language to make sure it doesn't alleviate the jaguars of their 5 million per year. If that is something that the city council, again, you would have to appropriate and direct the dollars over to there. So if that's something the city council in the future does not approve, that that would not alleviate the Jaguars obligations. And then concern number four is just addressing the technical amendments. You're going to see that throughout every agreement that we mentioned to you. That it's limited when changes are done, that they are limited to technical where it doesn't change the city's financial obligation or take away any city protections. You'll see that throughout. Page four, we have a map that the administration provided to us of the boundary for the east side proposed area that would again function like a CRA. And then on pages 5, 6 and 7, we ran some models just so that the council understands in their decision making process, the magnitude of sending dollars in this way in a CRA mechanism. So we did 5% 7 and a half percent and then 10%. So at 5% you'll see over the 30 year period and again using the base that they have established indicated for this area. By doing it in the CRA like method, it would be 128 million that is peeled out of your general fund and then restricted for that area to be utilized. So again, it erodes at your general fund. Looking at 7.5% 262 million over that 30 year period. And then 488 million with a 10% growth rate on your last page. And I do want to mention we did look at the other CRAs. Just if the question is, well, why did you use those percentages? Just to get a base for them, for the North Bank. So we saw 7.5%, 10%, 12% on Soutel. So we tried to gauge it within that where it was reasonable on growth assumptions. But I think even I was surprised at the magnitude of when you look at the dollar amount. So that's why we wanted to make sure that you just had all the information on potential magnitude when you are considering this item. And I believe that I've covered everything, so I'll wait for questions at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I was asked to allow Andre Wallace to come forward representing the Jacksonville Chamber. He's substituting for someone and he has a scheduled in conflict. So, Mr. Wallace, if you could come forward and just take a couple of minutes, kind of out of order here. And then we'll go immediately to questions after that. Yeah, three, no more than three minutes. You won't trust me, I'm brief, you be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to to reviewing the documents, but definitely not least, last but not least, the Office of General Counsel, the work that goes in and preparing that respective document cannot go overlooked, as well as you as a body, with the vetting that you're gonna have to go through to approve this particular, these agreements. But I also wanna say that, you know, our CEO, Daniel Davis and I, when we're out recruiting and trying to bring jobs and investments to our city, you know, having the Jaguars is an incredible opportunity and it's very important for us. And having an NFL team helps puts us on the map and it's keeping the team here for another 30 years is critical for economic development. More specifically to you community benefits agreement, it's an important piece of this bill. As I've been in community economic development, housing development for well over 30 years, what it really boils down to is meaningful gainful employment. It's the number one factor to people, persons, particularly the family, and it's about their economic health of their family. So investing in workforce development as a part of this agreement will have generational benefits for a city. The same for affordable and attainable housing, or we're still competitive from a cost perspective with other cities. So many people in our community are struggling with rising housing cost. And the 70 million dollars in downtown projects. I can tell you from my very own experiences, the past CEO for the Downtown Investment Authority. Those parks are an absolute gang changer for downtown and it's a compliment to the stadium's improvements and all other investments that the city is looking to make in terms of making downtown attractive. But obviously the stadium deal is one of the biggest pieces of legislation and it's a significant step for our city. But if that's all that we do, we're missing an opportunity to help spark and transform and change our city. I hope you take these negotiated business terms which have now moved into legislation via these various different agreements before you and approve all of these agreements collectively as one piece of legislation. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Okay. Mr. Diamond. Thank you,. Thank you mr. Wallace. Okay, mr. Diamond Thank you mr. President I only have a couple of questions. I promise I'm not gonna be a long-awaited But mr. Lampy if you wouldn't mind I just have a pretty straightforward question for you Which is the big debate here has been? Whether or not to take up the entire agreement with the CBA in order to take it out. And for really, for councils to take its time later on decide that's how we want to spend $150 million of taxpayer money. But nobody wants to lose extra tax money. So you set it up here, but you drove by it so fast, I feel like the public could have missed it. So just so unclear, if we approve zero taxpayer dollars as a match, the Jaguars are still going to come forward with their $100 million. Is that right? That's correct. Okay, and so then if we just go ahead and next week take the CBA out to be slowly kind of like rationally looked at in the budget process. When we're doing our work up here with the budget committee and all the rest, we can still work with you all to make sure that we're working conjunction how you're spending your $5 million a year. And that we're matching things, we're doing things with the east side that kind of activate the stadium in the same way, correct? Absolutely, yeah. We have three priorities. Support downtown development, provide citywide benefits, and address long-term issues in the out east neighborhood. As long as they fit under that general umbrella, we're fine. Right, thank you. Mr. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Lamping, as I'd heard, so $100 million is something you are committed to. That additional $50 million that if we signed the CBA, that would be off the table for the moment, is that true? Well, our motivation to do something great for this community doesn't change in the next couple weeks Okay, it's it will stay there and What we would say is if If this body does choose to take up the stadium separate from the community benefits agreement And you subsequently come to some type of agreement and Hopefully would happen before the end of September of this year if you get through this budget year And if it's 150 million dollars will put our 50 back in if it's 75 million will do 25 so we'll match one dollar For every three that you could potentially subsequently allocate up to a maximum of 50 million dollars But again, that's a that's a long term play from those councils perspective. Is that correct? Well, long term in terms of its benefits to the community, absolutely. But, you know, we don't want us to sit out there forever. You know, if you, if the idea was, you need more time to consider the community benefits agreement, and you're going to take that up potentially more time to consider the community benefits agreement, and you're going to take that up potentially during the budget process. And that budget process, I think, has to end by the end of September. And if you deal with it during that budget process, our commitment to match $1 for every three that you would put into a community benefits agreement up to a maximum of $50 million would stay there. Thank you for that. I'm Mr. President to Ms. Taylor. You had brought up that one of the concerns about the TIFF is that this could be brought into other districts. To that I just want to ask how many TIFFs and CRAs that we created in the past 10 years? If you don't know, then that's fine too. Through the Chair to Council Member Paluso, one that's been created within the last 10 years. And we did sunset one earlier, is that correct? Through the Chair, the JIA-CRI ended last year. To that end, to this body, CRAs and TIFFs have been around for quite some time. This has been an option for black management and for going into neighborhoods and helping them out since the 1970s, possibly even before then. This is not something that, you know, once it happens in one neighborhood, in this case, the East Side, that everyone's going to want one immediately. This is a major policy decision that we as a body need to make. We did one in Arlington, it was a brilliant decision. We did one in Kinsu-Tel, also a great decision, obviously before my time. I'm just trying to let everyone know that this does not open up Pandora's box. We've had CRAs, we've had TIFFs, and policy decisions are made all the time where we as a body get to decide, hey, are we gonna, in this in 30 years, are we gonna end it earlier? In the case of the JIA boundary, we ended that last year. So just kind of food for thought. As for what the CBA can provide to the city and what this long term could mean for us as a community, right? In the 1980s, urban renewal kind of struck the city of Jacksonville. We completely demolished La Villa and Brooklyn, two African-American neighborhoods. We don't have many left that are so close to our downtown, right? We passed a resolution this year condemning redlining saying that we would do our part to help make sure that we're going to be a part of the solution moving forward. Support for this CBA, support for the East side, support for our downtown projects, and in the, in the lane of workforce development, affordable housing, and homelessness, these are all things that we have, we as a body have said, policy wise, we want to push forward on. So I just kind of want to make that known. I do have one final question. It is to, I think you may ever, it might be Mr. Weinstein. If we wanted to change a CBA in such a way that we could make sure that the dollars for homelessness went to the new homelessness commission that City Council will prove this year. Are those conversations could be happened or must could it be done after the fact or must we do it within the within the confines agreement through an amendment. Yes, we purposely as I said at the beginning left some things out. We're looking for the commitments to the focus areas, the commitment for the funding process. And over the next year or two, figure out basically the, in the weeds as to how exactly it will be distributed. So, so those options will be available. We didn't want to put too many things in the CBA because things change. An organization comes and goes. We put it in the CBA, it doesn't exist any longer. So we purposely structure it the way it is today. Thanks, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's clear from reading in the media about my colleagues' opinions on the CBA that there's some friction here. I think someone will kill it. I think some think it's non-negotiable. I'm kind of somewhere in between undecided, but I do have concerns. My concerns are all fiscal. So, first I want to say to the Jaguars, thank you for this generous offer. It's better than any other team. It shows your commitment to our downtown and to our city as a whole. So I mean, 100 million, although over 30 years without a match is really a generous offer when you compare it to other cities. And frankly, the projects that have been identified in the CVA are good ones. Workforce Development Affordable Housing, Riverfront Parks, even Milton Friedman, a hero of mine, and a fan of limited government, says that when certain parts of a city could be left behind, it could become the responsibility of the city to invest in infrastructure to make sure people have equal opportunity, as long as it's done in a limited fashion with defined goals and in light of other investments. So that's kind of where my concerns are doing this 150 million in light of other investments. And I'm not saying that my concerns can't be mitigated. I think they probably can, depending on just how responsible of a view we take to both the CIP and the operating budget in light of other constraints, other investments, and potentially, although more ad-belorum collections in last year, less of more than the previous year. My concerns, basically, let's talk a little bit about numbers. I understand how valuable this city invests 100 and 150, and then the match of the Jaguar's 150 could be. I'm just concerned why if it's that valuable, didn't come up in September during the budget process. Or December when we looked at and approved a mini budget in the transition. It's coming up now two months before we do the budgets. And so that's what my concern is approving something now Before we hit budget. So where my concern could be mitigated is Miss brochet and mr. Weinstein and I have a a meeting to talk about where they're potentially gonna reduce CIP Projects it could be mitigated and in that meeting because it should could show that we're being responsible Given cities scarce resources that were being responsible given city's scarce resources. But I do wanna say when we talk about the unkept promises of consolidation that we have to keep our current spending that we as a body, this body here approved in September. And I say that of the 423 million that we approved in this year's CIP, a record, record CIP investment for the city, 43% is in district 7 alone. So that means La Villa, Springfield, out east, downtown, the riverfronts, that's $182 million. If you look out over our five year CIP that we approved $1.2 billion, roughly 28% of that is that in district 7. When you look at our investment in downtown parks for the last five years, we've invested 48 million in downtown parks. In the CIP, we approved in August for the next five years. We're investing 82 million in downtown Riverfront parks. So yes, I hear you, Mr. Onc, when you say there's a gap and we need to close that gap. But we need to close that gap in light of limited scarce resources that the city has and I just hope that as We approach this vote on June 25th. We keep in mind that Money doesn't grow on trees that we have other investments for the city and although these might be good They because we're spending city and taxpayer dollars need to be considered among other investments. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. Thank you so much Mr. President. I am really in awe of the wonder and greatness of this discussion and the work that my colleagues have done and I echo since this is my first time speaking the work that the Jaguars have done. Our team with Mr. Hughes, Mr. Weinstein and the entire team, and the specifically general council and the auditor. Let me get to my questions. I will have others as it relates to some of the work that's being done. But the first goes into the council district funding portion of the community benefits agreement where it says D 14 million council district funding is 1 million per district. Initially I sent an email over where I got some feedback that it was if you notice on this agreement that we got today it says parks and public spaces strategic focus but the council district funding is not included in that. So I guess Mr. Weinstein, this would probably be a question for you. Is there a restriction on where the $14 million goes for the Council District funding? Because it's a little bit incongruent based on information I got from your office, information I'm seeing, and then the agreement. Thank you. I neglected to mention it, but yes, there's $14 million in the CBA as it sits now, $1 million for each council district. If you use for parks and public places and for activities within the parks. And there's no limitation other than having it be for those activities. I've got to push back against that a little bit Mr. Weinstein. I think in some spaces that to have, and this is one of the questions I had in the initial set of questions I sent over, and I'm not sure about how my colleagues feel about this, but while I do understand the commitment to parks and what have you, I think it is important for those council districts, there may be something programmatic related or other things in our specific districts. And I believe that the communities themselves, as well as the council members, should have the ability and authority to make that decision. It should not be mandated by the administration or the Jaguars or anywhere else if it is indeed an investment and a benefit for the community. That's something I think that needs to be addressed. And we try to keep it within the focuses that were listed, but now that it's in your hands, what's up to you guys? Understood, so Mary, we'll be talking about Mr. Foppel is that we'll be coming up. Because I think it's just important that we look closely at that, especially when you look at districts that may already have projects in place or may not need that. It's important that we have that autonomy to do those things. The next one is when we are looking at, I certainly understand that you're saying that the East Side was an neglected community. Could you give me a little more feedback because on why the focus of the city dollars specifically in that amount, I kind of and listening to what Councilman Howland said and doing research myself, it seems as though there was an effort of focus that could be too focused, that could lead to an unintended consequences. Do you have any other data on why specifically the East Side and that specific radius? Now the decision was based on three things. The Jaguars historical interest and investment in the area, their requirement that we continue to do that. So it's a geographic area, it's the Jaguars, and that it is going to be an investment that would help others. If we did it in other areas, in other areas, deserve it, no question about it. It wouldn't necessarily have the same economic focus and basically development that could also help in other areas of the county. and basically development that could also help in other areas of the county. We just saw it as the best area to invest in that would permeate other areas as well, that's all. That's it. And as I come up on time, I wanna just a quick comment, Mr. President, I certainly understand what Miss Taylor said about the good faith agreement. I do think it is important that if we are going to do a CRA-like agreement that it not be like it be what it is because that leads to a bit of ambiguity which then again could lead to unintended consequences. And last but not least Mr. Weinstein, I know you said the disadvantages of consolidation but I'm in receipt of a 2019 report by the University of Tennessee that talks about the I know they're always pros and cons but I'm in receipt of a 2019 report by the University of Tennessee that talks about the I know they're always pros and cons But I do believe that we are in this unique form of government and being consolidated There are certainly more pros than cons to having our system of government and that's why Jackson was a city that it is. Thank you Councilmember Lanein Councilmember Laney. Thank you, President. Through the President, to Ms. Taylor, we got a few questions. We went over your first concern, or I'm sorry, your thing to consider you talk about the significant impact on the budget. But just looking ahead to 2526 and looking at what our normal property tax increases, it's about 75 million a year. Sometimes shared revenue goes up or down a little as well, but in general 75 million a year the past five years. But this would be 40 million for this and then we have 42 million dollars of completion grants we've already committed to as well. So just want to point that out we're pretty much already there with just those two things if I'm thinking about that correctly. Through the president, yes you are. if I'm thinking about that correctly. Through the president, yes you are. Okay, thank you. Next question was for Mr. Hugh. You sent us the, I believe you created this Mr. Hugh greased into the auditors and they put together for you. For these four, do we know, or, and I don't need it now, maybe in the next iteration of this, could we have what the total dollar amount was of the community benefit agreement and also what the total dollar amount was of the community benefit agreement and also with the taxpayer match or contribution to it as well by city. Through the present Councilman, yes I could send you both the actual agreement and a summary of those and as I mentioned on the floor in most cases there is not a matching community from the city. Thank you. If I understand whether a hundred or that's the highest ever by any NFL team correct. Right. It was Buffalo that spent 3 million a year for 30 years at 90 million unmatched by the city. Okay. Thank you. Through the president to Mr. Weinstein my last question here. Regarding the timing of the 150, I mean 150 million right now is way more expensive than 150 million over 30 years. So it's not really a match in my mind. Is there any opportunity to spread that out over a long time period just to make sure it matches a little closer to the time schedule that the Jaguars have? Through the chair, through the president, the parks would be when the parks are ready to open. I mean, we wouldn't want to do that. The other dollars could be spread out, but they were desired to be seed money. They could be spread out to a certain extent and still be seed money with the Jaguar money coming in later over time. But yeah, you could adjust it wouldn't I wouldn't adjust it too far and again the majority of the park money would need to come when the construction and development is ready which won't be for a few years but it is it is before the stadium would open in 28. So through the President and this Ryan St. Sounds like the CIP portion kind of used to stick to that schedule but there may be opportunity to spread around more in the 80 million of the operating budget portion. Yeah, I would look at it as a full, through the president, as a full package. If you took from here, you could add there, you can adjust, and still, again, the goal was to not, you know, businesses go out of business at the beginning because they're under capitalize. We wanted to make sure that it had the resources to really be beneficial and potentially be a pilot for other areas as well. So we didn't want to short change it, but it is fluid as far as how you create that resource level. I get the present thank you. And really I was brought up because I was just concerned that what a mismatch in present value dollars it was when you look at it right now or spread over 30 years, that's really a huge mismatch on the real present value of it. Thank you. Council member Gaye. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the President to Mr. Taylor. When we've had our meetings with the CRAs, it's been discussed that the state is not allowing CRAs to be new CRAs to come on board. And so I'm concerned, confused why, you know, just clarity of why we're talking about CRAs when they are pushing to close them and then when the airport CRA closed, that month there was money in there, then it just got dispersed throughout the rest of the city that it was supposed to be used in that area. So I'm just just point of clarity of what's why are we even talking about that if they're saying that they're not going to allow anymore to be created. Through the President to Council Member Gay, we had researched that same item and couldn't find that necessarily. So I would defer to the Office of General Counsel to potentially answer that because we still found where they could be created. We thought there was a time limitation to your point on putting in more restrictions, but I would defer to them. Thank you. Thank you. Through the president to council member gay. So there is still an opportunity to create new CRAs. I think we're the confusion lies as there's a state statute that talks about termination of CRAs that were created prior to October 1 of 2019 that those would have a set sunset date unless extended by the respective county body that created them. But you still have the opportunity to create new CRAs. Thank you. Mr. Areas. Thank you, Mr. President, through the chair. I'd like to echo my colleague, Councillor Mahal and I stated earlier. This is primarily just our responsibility to be physically responsible and concerned for for was a stake here. In this case just you know going back by his notes and I said on the finance committee you know we're all aware of this but the fact that 423 million of the CIP has been allocated 43% of that to district seven. I think that district seven obviously downtown we definitely need invest into it and the city is committed to it, which is why almost half of it is committed towards downtown. So the fact that anybody will say that we're not really interested in downtown or the development of it, that's bogus because we clearly are. I say that because my question is primarily to the CBA, We're grateful and gracious enough to have the Jaguars commit a record setting the bar as high as possible for $100 million compared to $90 million and $45 million with Nashville. But when we're talking about Nashville and Buffalo and $90 million and $45, my question to you Mr. Lamping is, did those teams, did they dictate how those dollars would be used? Example here were essentially saying that we got to use them towards downtown parks and the east side. Did Buffalo or National also have the same, I guess, issues with that? I don't think it was at that level of specificity. It went into a fund and that fund is administered by appointees. And there are issues that they're supposed to be invested in, but it's probably not as specific as us, so if Michael can add to that. But yeah, through the President, they're not as specific. In fact, they usually go through these oversight committees and make recommendations, but they don't have the same complexities that this has with respect to directed payments and directed amounts. Okay. So not to put you guys on the hot seat or anything, but why are we having to abide by where those dollars would be used if that's the case? Like my colleagues here have concerns as to why the east side, why more money in downtown parks when we're already putting in roughly 85 million in the next couple of years towards downtown parks, why do we have to continue to do that and not use it towards countywide efforts that we as council members see fit? I can give you a part of that answer. The city can probably give you the larger part of that answer. A lot of it has to do with the amount of private investment that's being made in that part of downtown. I think we've talked about multiple times. The single largest private investment in the history of downtown Jacksonville is occurring right now across from the stadium with the four seasons, the office building and the renovated Marina. In addition to that, Shod and his family will be investing $625 million into a city-owned facility and committing to be there for 30 years. Plus a commitment of another $100 million of development on the riverfront. So we think that the parks need to be done not only because it will encourage downtown development, but keep in mind, if we want the sports complex area to develop into that economic engine that can be generating revenue that can be dispersed throughout the community, that area needs to be well maintained, well kept, and be a thriving neighborhood. That's why it was a ventress to us. Thank you, sir. Well, I ask all that because, you know, let's say we do the 150 for 150 match. We're looking at 70 million tours, tours, parks in general, 56 of which will go towards downtown parks and 14 million will go towards district parks. A, district seven is already getting $56 million. So the fact that they're getting another million dollars doesn't make sense in my opinion. But when we're looking at investment and the best use of dollars for our city and just as practical business owners, you guys are giving us $100 million. We're extremely blessed for that. Thank you. But if we want another $50 million, we have to invest $150 million. That's, to me, in my opinion, that's a 300% interest loan payment. Is what it is. We're getting a loan for 300%. And maybe my numbers are wrong, but the reason why we would consider breaking this up, it's not because we want to break it up, it's just because we have a lot of concerns still at hand here that we need to figure out if this is the best use of dollars for our city. So I do hear your concerns as to patching it all up. My ideal scenario will be here for us to just vote on the Jaguar Stadium. Figure out the CBA at a later point just because we still have a lot of out of concerns that we need to figure out and that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Boyle. Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of comments. First of all, I'm very supportive of the CBA and direct contrast to my colleague, Mr. Hound, I would offer that if we bundle this and make it done, it certainly makes the budgeting process going forward a lot easier because we have a better understanding of what this does, the CBA does, and with respect to that funding process. Mr. Weinstein, I've got a couple of questions for you. First of all, you heard from the auditor some recommendations, particularly as it relates to items that they referenced in here, items two, three. I want it to, one, two, and three. Have you had any foreknowledge of all those recommendations in any response to them? I'd have to see, I don't have the form with me, I'd have to get a copy of it, which particular ones, but right from the beginning, questions and answers have been going back and forth between the administration and the auditors. I've never seen a Kim suggestion that's outrageous. So I'd have to see what specifically could you tell me? Well, if you take a look at there some specific language they think there needs to be a more specificity in terms of oversight, amendments, and the allocation. The CRA piece is a different conversation, I think overall. I think Mr. Fopolis has spoke to that. But I'm just making certain that if we aren't able to move this forward that you have an opportunity to address in a timely fashion the concerns they raised in their report. So that's all I'm asking you for. Yes, and most of the things that she had mentioned we had discussed even before presenting and left it to this body and to the discussions because it's again it's a 30 year agreement. Great. his body and to the discussions because it's again, it's a 30 year agreement. So we didn't want to get too specific and how it was to be done because things changed and the dollars weren't going to be made available for a while. So we had the opportunity to work through these things. As a district that has one of those nine projects in the Better Jacksonville plans still out going after 20 small years, you interchange the word oversight and advisory with respect to those groups. I'd like to understand and better understand that we are looking at the oversight committees if you will of both of these have wherewithal to move forward and more importantly report back to us the progress of those projects that they have adopted. Absolutely. I want to make sure that would be the case. I did also, I did like the question that Mr. Hallmar-Eyes of what's respect to mitigating future CIP projects. Can you be unequivocal in the fact that future CIP projects are not going to be impacted by the adoption of both the state agreement and or the CBA. Two two phase answer to the president. One is that if you remember during the budget time, we discussed CIP quite extensively and we committed to come with some recommendations that would relieve and provide some more flexibility going forward. But there's nothing that's being discussed and haven't been discussed, having been discussed, that will jeopardize or change any schedule on any CIP projects. Or the prospect of new projects. I'm sure the public works are looking at other things that are coming down, the pike that aren't going to be covered by the $14 million. They aren't going to be covered by what's obviously what's specified in terms of the projects where the contributions are going to go towards? So I'm just concerned about what this might do to projects that are you know that may be out there that we don't know about at this point in time. If this was all that we were doing then it would basically provide a more difficult path to get additional new things on CIP, but the other CIP recommendations that are forthcoming should relieve that concern also. Just I use the word too, which I did appreciate very much, contractual commitment. You know, many times we put these things out there and you said budgets or dollars or funding gets in the way of getting them done. This is a contractual commitment, so the confidence level of us getting this done as it relates to the relationship with the Jaguars, I think, is very important to appreciate. So thank you for that. And through the President, that's the main difference of doing it through the CBA and not doing it through the CBA. I understand. Miss Taylor, last question for you with respect to pages of 5, six, and seven. Help me understand what you were trying to say with respect to the impact. And likely this impact would have been, if the allocation we do for Audi already or downtown already, I think that some of these dollars would have been in play already with respect to that. Do I make myself clear in understanding that? Could you help me understand again the impact of what the future impact is on this? I apologize. Yes, sir. Through the President to Council Member Boylan, on those three pages under the three different growth assumptions for the change in assessed values, so those property values going up. What we're basically saying is those dollars, so for example, on page five, the 128 million, that would be pulled out of your general fund, think of your big pot of general fund budget that covers your cost, and it would be designated for that area. So any cost that you have in the general fund, if your fire operations go up, just because you add personnel. That revenue is now gone and it's dedicated to that area and you have to find either alternative revenues such as increasing the millage. You have to cut cost to kind of address those cost increases. But the offset to that is that if these properties in this area are improved, the taxable value of those properties would go up through that process, do I assume? Through the President to Council Member Boylan, this is again, it would be dedicated to that area. I get that, I understand that, and dedication of the funding, but I'm also saying their contributions to the funding process through the millages are likely will increase as well, because the value of the properties may go up, so their taxable values may go up Through the chair to councilmember Boilin They would go up and you see those growth rates built into there But again, it's all dedicated to that area so it wouldn't be the revenue increase wouldn't be to the general fund Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Councilmember Joe Carlucci All right, thank you, Mr. President. Finally up. This has been good discussion. I'm still waiting too. I know, I know. And lunch is waiting. I'm hopeful. But anyways, you know, I don't want to belabor a lot of the points that have been made. I think I've got some new ones. But just to kind of wrap up my thoughts and everyone else's thoughts on the East Side tips, slash CRA. I want to be careful that we don't normalize this because it is not a tip, it is not a CRA. It is basically a special revenue fund overseen by a board that is kind of, that's how the money is getting spent. Or your point, it's like a rev grant sort of. But it's ultimately just a board that's selected and appointed and they're kind of overseeing the dollar. So, a little bit looser than a TIFF and a CRA. So I just want to be careful with that. And so next question, the Council Auditors, something that is on your seven page packet here, bullet point number three, and the Jags might have a follow up on this. So it looks like the Jaguar's money, they are in full control of spending that and dictating where that goes, and that doesn't come to the city at all. Through that chair, based on the agreement language, as it sits today, there is the only requirement for the Jaguar portion is that for 5 million each year 50% goes to countywide 50% to east side. That money does not appear to come to the city and be appropriated by city council. It stays in an account controlled by the Jaguars. So that is where based on the language that it would not appear to come to the city to where you would have approval in essence. Got it. Okay. Through the President and Mr. Weinstein, do you have a follow-up on that? Yes. Through the President. Basically, when we discussed this through the months, they didn't want to get into the position of picking and choosing the different entities that received it. They were gonna leave that up to the city and get reporting and get analysis and auditing to make sure it's being spent the way they wanted to. But in my mind, all of it would be co-mingled. And all of it would ultimately come through the city advisory to the administration advisory to the council and then basically spent that way. Unless Mark thinks differently, but that's my impression. Well, just through the President's miswancing, I don't think it is like that, though, because I don't think it comes to the council in the current agreement. I think the current agreement goes to the CBA board for those things, and then it goes to the mayor, and then it comes to us. So I just want to get that ironed out. I don't know if this is the meeting to do that or not I'd rather you guys just give us the money we can you know do it according to what's on the list I mean that that's my question through the chair to mr. Lamping is that agreeable or is that not because that's not how it's written right now Yeah, our goal is not to pick the specific recipients of the grants It's just we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we're not looking for specific control of exactly where those dollars go. Okay, great. That's that's some clarity that I wanted to add. So I think maybe there's an amendment worthwhile there. And then while we're on kind of getting into the nuts and bolts to my good seat mate here, Councillor Rajonston's point earlier, the definition of county-wide strategic focus, Xiaomi workforce development, affordable housing, and homelessness, I think it's worth, you know, to the body, through the chair, to broaden that up a little bit, only because I don't want to be boxed in for those three things in my district. I think there's other strategic focuses that we all have individually that we could kind of broaden that scope a little bit, which would kind of take care of a lot of the other spending down the road because a lot of it ties back to county-wide strategic focus. It represents that. So I think we might want to tweak a definition there too. And then, and that's where I'm sitting right now. I mean, for me, I would personally like to see the CBA as a whole. Whether it's split out or not, I think if it gets split out, I think it would potentially become better or become a little bit more conversation to be had that doesn't give me any heartburn. I know the mayor's office wants it to stay in there. What I would not want to see is it stay in there and then it, you know, ultimately have a lot of contention and a lot of gutting. I wouldn't want to see that. I would want to see it become the best possible thing possible because I think this is a great opportunity for the city. For me, again, I would like to see it maybe broaden out to a little bit wider council district initiatives, so to speak. I just see a lot of this going into the downtown area and I get it. We all want to see downtown and we all want to see that drive. But for a true community benefit agreement, I would just like to see a little bit, I don't know how to put this in right words, but broader focus, more generous focus to each council district perhaps. So those are my thoughts for now. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. Amaro. Thank you, Mr. President. On the CBA, I commentary, I think it's critical to where we are in the future of this community in a very important piece. What, as a newbie here on the City Council, what I don't want to see is that this end up in some political meshing machine and then it becomes useless and the jacks go their way with their 100 million. So I want to pick up on where Councilman Boilin was with Miss Taylor on pages 5, 6, and 7. The numbers you've provided, those are future dollars based on investments in that community and the milled rate as to what would possibly be coming into the general fund, correct? Through the Chair to Council Member Mero, these would be dollars that would be retained by that area. So just assuming certain growth rates in that in the taxable values that that area would retain so it would be lost revenue to the general fund. I guess that's my way of saying what you're saying because these dollars are not there as yet. Through the chair, that's correct. How much comes from that area right now into the general fund through the chair? Do you know? Through the chair, we don't track it by district, but they provided that it had an assessed value of 301 million as the base. Mr. Weinstein may be able to allude more to their current and what they talked about. Through the chairs, that correct, Mr. Weinstein? There are $301 million in property taxes that come from that area right now? No, not exactly that. It's the value of taxable. And then it would be the millage against the 301. So it'd be 30, you know, 33. 3.1, I'm sorry. 31? 3.1, based on that $301 million value. Thank you. You had me there for a second. I'm like, oh my God, I need to move there. So again, through the chair for clarity, these are potential dollars that would not come into the general fund because if the investment is made, this is what the growth in that area is going to be valued. Yes, or through the chair. That's correct. One more quick question. You said that through the chair that if this goes through the fund is going to be collected sooner. My question is will that money be sitting idle or will it be going to work? Through the chair, I apologize. You may have to clarify your question for us. You said being funded sooner than in the agreement, the dollars would be coming in. Through the chair, yes. The point that we were trying to make is that the agreement requires certain deadlines that the 150 has to be funded by. Latest state being 2030 for on the cities in. So the Jaguar's payments are over 30 years. There's a requirement in the agreement on the 80 million that it be funded in essence by 2030 and the 70 million in essence by 2029 based on the targeted opening date for the new stadium. Okay, thank you. One final question, Mr. President. It's been inferred why there versus the CBA throughout the entire community. I mean, it's clear to me why there. But Mr. Lampkin, if you can expound on that, I see the connectivity between the investment. Mr. Khan is making in that community, the future of the stadium, and that entire east side. But give me the why there. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, but thank you very much. The entirety of the package needs to be somewhat considered, and I think it's 80% of the city dollars are going elsewhere outside of the out east neighborhood. Our interest are to try to make sure that that neighborhood becomes, are that part of downtown becomes a thriving commercial center and that the neighborhood just to the north advances, you know, without driving current residents out of that neighborhood. We've had first-hand opportunity to observe the slow pace of development along the North Bank and we've had a chance to invest and see the advancement of that investment in the out east neighborhood. You know when you're going to make a commitment and and I'm talking about the Khan family, making a 30-year commitment to play in that part of downtown, to make a $625 million investment in a city-owned stadium, on top of the 500-million development project that's going on with the four seasons in the office building and another 100 million next to that. You wanna make sure that, you know, that neighborhood is stable. And we think that this is part of that stability promise. It shouldn't be a, you know, a surprise that we would take that focus. I don't think you were on the council at the time, but when those that were, we went through this debate about the shipyard's development agreement, which is the four seasons. And one of the things that was important to us is that Met Park was well maintained. So similar to this, but on a much smaller scale, as part of our development agreement with the hotel and the other properties, we are paying for the maintenance of Met Park. So we want to make sure that that neighborhood has the best opportunity to generally serve its current residents to attract future residents, but almost most importantly to become the economic engine that it could be in order to provide revenue that could benefit the entire community. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Councilmember Matt Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. President. Good meeting, good questions. It's been a good time of conversation debate. I do have some concerns that I'm not going to go into right now. I'll talk with the auditors and the administration and the Jaguars about that. I've been in this position so many different times from when we brought the Jaguars here to better jacksville plan, River City, Renaissance. So, Lotchay, I have been in this position, so there's so many things that kind of go through my mind that I want to share, and then maybe a question I'd like to ask. So bear with me as I go through the different thoughts that I have. First of all, I want to say I am so complimentary of the administration of Jaguars in the package they have put together for Jacksonville. I also want to make the observation that when the better Jacksonville, when the better Jacksonville plan passed, the East side got the least amount of money from that. So I just an observation. I would much rather have a package that have to go put something together piece by piece by piece. We have a package I don't want to see it taken out of the stadium agreement because I think then we're going to start putting it back together piece by piece by piece. And I would urge everybody here, particularly district council members, which I have been one. And I have done two polls over the years that ask my constituents, you want me to take care of my district, since I'm your district council member, as opposed to the whole community, which would you rather me do? Every time over 67%, the poll came back, we want you, even though you're our district council person, to take care of the city as a whole. So I would really admonish us all to put our procreal wishes in things aside. They'll come a time when we'll have a chance to address those. Believe me, we will. This is a time of legacy. And as Mr. Weinstein talked about the bold new city of the South, this is our time to be bold. If we take this out as a package, then over getting is, in my view, is a state of agreement and a field goal. Man, I want to score a touchdown here. And I just want to share with you that if we take this CBA out and then try to put it through the budget process and all that, that all sounds good, but the package we got is amazing. From my experience, I'm just admonishing all to hear that this is an amazing opportunity that we don't want to miss. We don't want to be on the wrong side of history. And I think one of the reasons it is big is because it was big enough that the public loves it enough that it actually makes the stadium deal palatable to more than 50% of our constituents, at least according to a poll. This is our time and this is our chance. And it may be the only time and chance that we have as a council to do something really big that we can think about in terms of our legacies and the legacies of the city and of our children. I may bring an amendment or two back at the appropriate time, Mr. President, but I would like to end by asking if we were to take this out and I ask this, Mr. Weinstein and Mr. our Chief of Staff, Darnell Smith of the administration. If we were to separate the CBA out of there, what are the consequences? What are the consequences to the expediency of having our Riverfront Parks built in developed. What are some, what are the consequences of taking apart, taking our time and besides the fact maybe not seeing the thing actually get put back together? So I would like to ask in that if I may, Mr. President, through your chair. Who's the question to Mr. Carlucci? I had mentioned that earlier, Mr. Weinstein and Darnell Smith, the question to Mr. Carlo? I had mentioned that earlier. Mr. Weinstein and Darnell Smith, the chief of staff. Well, your time is up. Why don't we get you back on the queue? Well, Mr. President. Well, why don't you pick one of them? Well, I think they both are best to answer it, but if I must, I'll take the chief of staff, Darnell Smith. Okay. Mr. Smith, would you like to come forward quickly and answer his question? To the council, certainly through the chair to Councilman Carlucci, I tend to believe that my friend over here might have been the best answer that. However, I will share with you that if we do not make the decision to move forward on these parks now, it is very difficult to predict when they will be done. Is it possible that it can be done within the next two to three years? Absolutely. Is it likely? I would tell you I can see it taking beyond the two years just because of everything vying for those dollars and needing to make the decisions in order to get to decision to move and focus on these particular parks. Now, I'm of the opinion that when we lock ourselves in through the CBA and you've seen the time frame that we put in there for fiscal years 26 and 27, we'll get it done by them. And we'll have the opportunity by which to ensure that they are completed. I do want to make certain that I remind us if we haven't heard this. We are working diligently, even as we speak, even though we haven't gotten the CBA through. We're already looking at federal and state grants, by which to get matches for these dollars. Now, obviously, we can't move forward until it is approved, but when it is, and I hope it is, know that we're looking to utilize as much of those dollars that we can bring in to do other work across the city and certainly across things that are certainly of importance to each and every one of you. So I do want to make certain that we don't lose side of that as well. Mike, I don't know if you wanted that, anything different. I wouldn't, Mr. President. I just wouldn't suggest you go through the exercise and debate of taking it out. If it's going to ultimately end up to be pretty close to what it is already, you just save all that time and process of taking it out and end up at the same place basically. That's my only suggestion. Thank you. I have two more for the first time and then myself and then we have several coming up for the second time mr Counsel vice president white Yes, we're playing it here. I've got more of a statement than a question Certainly respect everybody's opinion up here and they got different thoughts of different ways to get there and If I'm reading the Teeley's correct Mr. Lampings should be real happy because I'm not hearing any questions on the stadium deal. So if we qualify that some way, it's your choice that we get past that. The rest of the time this meeting, the Mars meeting, can maybe drill down before amendments can start. If we could get those amendments that were satisfying to everybody, I would like to see it stay together so it moves together and it will create less havoc. I understand what Mr. Areas has said and my good friend, Councilman Howland, but I just wanted to go on the record that if we could get there or maybe if we could take off the table that won't seem to be any stadium questions, it will allow our rest of our time on the meetings in the future to drill down on this other piece and hopefully keep them together. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Councilmember Miller. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to start out with just a few statements and I do have a couple questions. In general, I just wanted to also thank the Jaguars, Mr. Weinstein and Weinstein and Mr. Hugh and others who play a part in making this all happen. I know the Jaguars have the last four years actually. Been working with the past administration and now with this one in trying to get to a deal to move the stadium to a current NFL level and also to activate the surrounding areas. And so they've been at this for long haul and I thank you for that effort and the commitment. And I thank you for the also the option and even though your preference is to keep the CBA together with the stadium deal for that flexibility for this body to be able to choose to accept that 100 million now and be able to move forward. So thank you for being willing to do that. I also wanted to thank the auditors. We just received some various things, mostly fiscally related and all you worked at went into this and all the other efforts that helps inform us and best inform us so we can make well informed decisions. So thank you for your efforts regarding all of this and the different agreements. And I took a bunch of notes as soon as I received this just a few minutes ago or not too many minutes ago. So there are a lot of questions I have here, but I'm not going to go into those right now. I think there's some time to digest that a little further. What I will say is I think overall, I think because of what's been said, what's been shared, the auditors questions and comments, I personally don't see why we would want to create a new process, a new program, new members, new system when we already do have the way to be able to address projects through a formal process that has taken place year after year after year in the City Council. I get the broken promises and they are absolutely true and don't want to go over those. I'm sure a lot of us could go through a lot of those, but I appreciate the current efforts that are being made and the percentages of the projects in the historic east side, especially, and other commitments that this body has made to help restore some trust and confidence and to raise up that area. And we need to continue to do that. But I will say overall, I trust this body. The implication seemed to be that some people don't trust this body. I do and I can't speak for past city council groups or what was done, what wasn't done, I can't, some of you can, but I can look around this dius and every one of you. I know your hearts in it and you want to do the right thing for our city. And so we have those relationships between us. Yes, we have disagreements. And that's healthy. But we can always find a way forward. And so I believe because of these solid relationships and the new ideas of the, I think, new eight new council members this last cycle, we can work this out and we can ensure that nothing gets dropped. In fact, I think we can do it quicker when we, if we go through the budget process, like every other project goes through, and I have faith in the district council member that's active and very proactive looking out for his district as well as our collective body that we can get this right. But I'm sorry, I push back, respectfully push back on anybody who implies we have to create a bunch of new ways with new people and new thoughts on this body, that's what we're here to do. So my preferences and we'll be going forward that we separate the two out and take the graciousness of the Jaguars And we move forward and we get this right and make sure through the budget process we get this right So thank you Mr. President Thank you mr. Miller and thank you for those comments. I'm next on the queue Let me first begin with the CBA itself. I have two or three major concerns about the CBA itself. Number one, the district funding of 14 million. In front of you, is this document council members? This is the 100 million that the previous councils and it may be jumping up on the screen. This is the hundred million dollars that the previous council appropriated towards parks. It was fifty million a year for two years. I research this, twenty-seven million of this has been completed. There are sixty-three million million more going into parks over the next two or three years. So we have substantially invested into parks. I just wanted to make that point to you. Number two is the CRA. It's a it's a it's a great idea but it's very bad public policy in my opinion. I have a CRA in my area. It was years to obtain. It's very effective. If we approve a CRA for that area, there'll be 13 other council members or more looking for a CRA and a disadvantaged area in their neighborhood and we will erode the general fund. It is just a terrible idea, terrible idea and I am very concerned about the financial stability of this city and what will happen in the future if we allow a CRA just to be created like that. I have been an advocate of moving the CBA to the budget process and let me tell you why I am concerned about the financial stability of this city and let me just go through a few points. We're going to have $100 million less in revenue next year than we had this past year. In any figure that I give please ask the auditors, I've done a lot of research on this. $100 million less in revenue. The mayor has reached a tentative agreement with police and fire. I don't know what that's going to cost us. I know the FRS part will require approximately 45% of their salary to go into FRS versus today the roughly 25% we put into their 401K. A substantial increase in dollars. I don't have today what that's going to cost the city. Number three, I gave you this chart. Pink at the top. We will owe $16 million due to DIA previous commitments in the 2425 budget and we will owe $37 million and the 2526 budget due to past DIA commitments. Okay, it's a lot of money. Number four, I know UF Health is asking for $20 million more for their operation over the 40 million we put in last year's budget. I don't know if that will be in the mayor's budget, but I know they are asking for 20 million more. I've had several calls over the last few days. We have $250 million committed to the UF campus here. They are looking for $50 million more from the city. Where is that money gonna come from? We need to have that debate. We've got three major economic development agreements that are in front of us, so we'll be in front of us. Law Street Trio, related in gateway. The total of that is over $200 million. $200 million. Those are just a few things that I've been able to identify over the last several days. That will impact future budgets. I am concerned about moving forward with this kind of spending without it going through the budget process. I want to see Mayor Deegan's budget. What is wrong with wanting to see her budget to see how this spending fits into that? I'm all for the parks. I want to see those parks completed. I'm not sure I wanted on this schedule, but I want those parks completed. So I will continue to advocate that we move the CBA out of this process into a process that my good friend, President Designee White, could set up as soon as we get back from break, if you wish, is to go through this and have the mayor's budget proposal on July 15th at schedule so we can make good decisions for this city. We have a lot in front of us and I want to make sure we're in a good position that we're not scrambling because this was approved. $150 million in spending. I mean, make one other point. I am committed to taking Mr. Lampings $100 million. I'm very grateful to the Jaguars and finding ways to get the other 50. I think we could do it. But we need to have a process. We have a $1.67 billion budget each year, and we spend four months going through it. We're being asked here to appropriate $300 million with two or three hours of debate. I think it's wrong. And I've been saying it, and I will continue to say it. It needs to be moved, and I will have an amendment to do it. It may be 17 to two, but at least I can say I tried to stop this and put it into the budget process. Okay, I'll stop there. I have Mr. Paluso for the second time. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Hugh, earlier Mr. Liner asked you to make sure that you have the taxpayer how much their CBA contribution was out. I just also asked that you add in the total taxpayer dollars from the state, from the local government, however much they put into their stadium. It's certainly much more than we're putting in ours. It is, yes I will. So, it's substantially more. I'm a little bit heated, I apologize, everyone. I heard a lot about District 7 today. A lot. I guess we're just going to pick on District 7, huh? Ashtray Mediation, UF Health, Emerald Trail, key projects like bulkhead, marinas, that's what's in the CIP budget for District 7. Much of that was here way before I sat in the C for District 7. When I ran for office, it wasn't even District 7. To the point that somebody made about, well, if we all get $14 million for other parks, District 7 certainly doesn't need any more. I suppose I should say that to Newtown. I suppose I should say that to Dirk Keeville. It's very frustrating all of a sudden here, everyone talked for weeks and weeks about how downtown is so critical to the success of this city that we created a special committee. And now contrary to that, everyone wants to get heavily involved in this process that we have experts like Mr. Weinstein, who's, I believe worked on a budget too before, having an answer? Who's been CFO of this city three times? CFO? Four times, my apologies. To think that he isn't looking at the numbers that our president had just mentioned. It seems very odd to me as if this is the first time he's ever thought about this kind of stuff. It's frustrating to me because if we're going to do this work and build a new stadium and not do any of the tertiary work around it, then we're just building a really cool shell and we're building nothing else close to it. And I don't really understand that. We have the ability to get an extra $50 million. We have the ability to make sure the CBA gets cross-finished on. It's been negotiated by the administration, by Mr. Weinstein, by people at our experts in this field. We have the budget process afterward to put money into everyone else, whatever anyone else wants. The budget is right around the corner, and I understand the concerns of the president. But there is another pot of money after this CBA and after this Jaguars deal, that we all understand and have worked through in the past. There's a CIP budget that can change and get altered and changed again, and people can get different projects and different things in their district. But why are we trying to rip this apart so early in the process? When again to the point of my colleague, Mr. Carlucci, this is the most popular part of this deal. Zalia, thank you. Councilmember Joe Carlucci. For the second time. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well I just did a chair. I just want to respond to my count. I get it. I know it probably feels like the year you know everyone's kind of picking on district seven. I don't, you know, stop that. So I hear you. But I don't feel like we're ripping it apart. I feel like we're getting our questions answered. And to be honest, you know, Councillor Pluso, like a lot of us are seeing this for the first time as of like 48 hours ago. So I feel like my question is on his questions. And I think we can all kind of agree that the items in here are good things. And if they're in district seven, they're in district seven. If they're in district five, they're in district five. If there's more in district five, then fine. But, and I also just want to add just a bit of clarity, because it just kind of, you know, when both y'all referenced the poll, but Mr. McHarlagy, Jimmy, and Plessot, let's keep in mind, you know, we don't really legislate off of polls and the poll also said that workforce development was the lowest item of popularity. Let that sink in for everybody. But yet, you yet, we all know that it's important to do. We've heard from the Chamber, we all know that it's important to do. So when you ask people, do you wanna make Jacksonville better on a poll? They're all gonna say, yeah, of course we do. But then when you drill down on it, you really start to find out which ones are the most important. So those are my two responses real quick. Mr. President, if I can just take one more minute, I think, I mean, I'm kind of hearing a lot of support for getting pulled out, you know, the CBA portion getting pulled out. If that happens, it happens. We've got great framework to work off of and going into that framework. One last item, I wanted to clarify. If everyone can turn to page 307 of 319, I'm just kidding. But that's where it's at. It says the $14 million for the districts will be set aside, blah, blah, blah, for use during construction of the renovated stadium. So my question is through the president to whoever wants to address this. Does that mean we have to spend the million dollars during the construction of the renovated stadium or does it kind of stick with us? Mr. Weinstein? Through the president, construction of the stadium starts February 25 and goes to August of 28. So it would be basically those three or three, three and a half years. OK, so through the president, I don't like that. I'd rather it stay further beyond that. I don't want to feel pressured to spend $1 million in three years, basically. So I want the million dollars. I just don't want the timetable. So that's all this president. $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1,000, $1, in years. It was beautiful, fiscal sanity, thoughtful leadership about jacksville spending way too much money. So thank you for that. I really appreciate it. I actually have a question. I think it's for General Counsel Pomerary about conflicts. So I heard your comment, Mr. President, earlier today about conflicts. And my brain started clicking. I was like, OK, I think I know, I think the CBA separated issues going to be moot. I think it's going to be separated no matter what by law, by our rules. But I just want to ask this question through the President to marry. If a council member has a conflict related just to the CBA portion or might have one, it's typically our practice to separate those types of legislation and vote for them separately. Is that fair to say? Through the president to council member diamond that is correct. It's traditional that when you have larger items that are under consideration such as the budget also occurred during the discussion and deliberation on the mayor's transition bills there were certain items that were identified that did create a conflict for a particular council member and to allow them the opportunity to vote on the larger item that council has traditionally carved those conflict items out to give them that opportunity. Okay. And just so the public at home kind of understands what I'm talking about. You know, three years ago the budget came through and for example, Councilman Bowman was, you know, working for the Chamber in Jackson, USA partnership. There was money for it in the budget for that entity. And therefore, we have to separate that piece out. So he could vote an abstention on just that piece, but he could vote for the whole budget. So that's what I'm talking about. I suspect that there may be, and I don't know for sure, but I suspect that we'll get to this later on next week. There may be conflicts on this council. So this whole question of the CBA being in or out is going to be moved. And so I mean we can spend a lot of time on it today. Like absolutely, let's have at it. If you want to talk about it, but I don't think we're spending our time wisely now, I think we ought to move on other than what's in the CBA, but it's going to have to be in July that we actually get to the nitty gritty of it. Thank you. If I can just make a comment regarding your comments, it is extremely important to me as I've done in the past to ensure that every council member has the ability to vote on as much legislation as they can. We've done this through the budget, we did it through our strategic initiatives, and I will ensure that every council member can vote on as much of this as possible. I think it's only fair and there are elected to represent their constituents. Council member Areas, for the second time. Thank you, Mr. President. And through the chair, this question will go to Daniel Smith if he's still here, if not, then anybody from the mayor's office that will mind answering this. But earlier he spoke about the matching federal state grant dollars. My question to you would be, is this only matching from the city's 150 portion of it, or would it be matching on the full 300 portion of it? From the Jaguar side as well too. Good afternoon now that's why I was looking at my watch. Good afternoon everybody. Joe Inder, he's Deputy Chief of Staff from Aida Deegan. Thank you for the question through the President to Councilman Arias. The grants are based on the programs not based on the funding source where the matching funds come from. So the fact that the, as was explained earlier, the fact that the Jaguar dollars would come into the city, we could use that as match as well. Okay, and I know that our office at your request is working on a list of grants that are out there, though they change, right, is over the course of years, that would give you a look at what would be opportunities to fish in those ponds. Sure, so then through the chair, then I guess that answers my question regarding, if they could match essentially also jaguar dollars as well. That would be the intent, yes. Yes. All right, my second question Jaguar dollars as well. That would be the intent, yes. Yes. All right, my second question on that note as well would be, the reasoning why you guys wanted packaged together as Darnel Spith alluded to was because you guys want to be able to tap into those dollars now. Should it not be packaged together, and let's say moves to the budget cycle, would we lose that opportunity to tap into those dollars? It would certainly slow the process. It would certainly slow the process. I think the opportunity is now because we would have that runway to build out the programs. The programs need to be in existence in order for us to compete for the grant. Does that make sense? So you have to have a program in order to compete for the grant. So we'd have the opportunity to build out the grant. Does that make sense? So you have to have a program in order to compete for the grant. So we have the opportunity to build out the program. We'd have the dedicated and committed funding source in the 25, 26 budget to be able to point to as match in order to do in our experience. And for those of you who compete for grants, you can say you will agree with us that matching funds are like steroids to a grant application. Thank you for that. I have 30 seconds left. I'm not done with that topic though. Regarding creating the programs, we've had pilot programs in the past and we've seen how long they've taken to actually just get implemented. I don't see any programs here. I just see bullet points. Do you have programs already created? Well, that's why the time is now for those boards to be stood up to have the runway that the entire 24-25 year to be in position when the 25-26 budget unlocks the CBA dollars. All right, thank you, No further questions. Okay everyone I've got two more and then myself for the second time and if no one else pops up after those two in myself we will break for lunch. Then the question comes up after those two in myself are we ready to move on but we want to come back and continue the discussion on the CBA. and continue the discussion on the CBA. Through the chair, quick question. I just want to know if we do decide to move on from the CBA, would that be a hand vote? Will we be making that vote today? No, we're not taking any votes today. I'm talking about moving on from the discussion on the CBA. Okay, last question through the chair. The rest of the things that we talk about today, is that included in the CBA? It is not. All right, thank you. We will move on to some of the other agreements beyond the CBA. I'm happy to continue having comments and questions until the sky goes away. But it's up to you all. I don't see anyone jumping up for further discussion. So let's go to Matt Carlucci, Mike Gaye, and then myself, and I'll conclude. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Doug, a great job with this meeting. I was especially grateful to hear the comments of our incoming council president of keeping this together. Our council president asked a lot of good questions. And the reason I know there are a lot of good questions is because those were the questions that I asked before we brought the Jaguar to Jacksonville. Before better jacks and what it would cost to maintain what we were fixing to build. To River City Renaissance. Could we afford that at a time when our economy was down? Our city so needed a victory. And the reason I'm bringing that up, Miss President, is because they were great questions. But then what I learned, sometimes painfully, as a young buck, is the administration that already figured all that out. I've never seen an administration bring before the council something where they hadn't taken a consideration that we got to have money for this. We got to have money for that. We got to have money for that. We got to have money for this project, for this item, for this program. When an administration puts something like this together, all of that is in the soup. All of that is in the equation. And there's no way that I could ever believe Mike Weinstein or Daniel Smith or our new mayor, Donna Digan, would bring to us something that would not allow us to fulfill future obligations. So good questions, but I have already asked those questions of the administration. You may have hit on a couple that I didn't. They are prepared for future expenses. So I just want to say that. I don't make my decisions based on polls, but I do think they're an indicator. So to the younger Councilman Carlucci who implied his daddy works off polls, he, I think the younger Carlucci knows that his elderly father doesn't work by polls at all. Although I'm very glad that I have very good poll numbers at the present. So what I would say, keep the package together. A lot of us in this package will have to come back before the council. Let's not leave $50 million on the table. And let's speed it up through our discussion. I mean my God, how much money are we doing on the Jaguar Stadium? And we flew through that. We have enough time to go through this, but it's rather a dilemma out of time. But we have enough time to spend more on this and pass this through as a package. And I promise you, when it it passes you'll have much more fun at the ribbon cuttings and at the ground breakings. Thank you. I've got Mr. Gaggin and I got myself and then we'll break for lunch. Thank you Mr. President. I fully concur with your comments and it was kind of refreshing to with your comments and it was kind of refreshing to hear a perspective like that. And as myself, I'm very cautious and always going to look at the effects and the impacts of how we proceed. and so I look, support what you were saying in that regards. But as far as the, and I look forward to the amendments and having some of my own as well, because I think there's some different ways we got to look at this that hasn't been looked at before. And so I've set back in and have been compiling my information and so let me say I support you in that and I look forward to bringing some different angles and views of the whole package. Thank you. Thank you. Let me go through a few more things. I left out the sheriff's request for $60 million more in his budget, so I missed my notes on that. I just don't understand the thought process of not waiting three weeks to get the mayor's budget so we can see exactly what she's spending. And I have committed to the future president that I will work with him anyway that I can to make sure if we move this. Separate it and move it on. I'll do whatever I can to make sure it's handled in an expeditious fashion and that we work on ways to get the other 50 million from the Jaguars. Since I've been on this council, there are three things I learned from past people that are very important to this government that we have to make sure we do. Police, fire, and you've got to pick up the garbage. Those are three things we have to do, or we won't be here long. And I hear what are my colleagues' comments that everything is taken care of, and we're all okay and just trust them. I believe in the old Ronald Reagan axiom, trust but verified. And that's what a budget's for. That's number one and number two from the phone calls that I'm receiving and I return every every one of them and they have turned the civic council and the chamber and everyone else on me. They don't believe the future budgets are going to take care of what they're looking for. So there's a disconnect here over what they're looking for and some things and what the mayor's budget may or may not contain, which is another reason to amend this out if it's not done for other reasons. Work very hard very quickly to address it once we have the mayor's budget. I can't emphasize that enough. And as I said, I could see I've got a few of us here. I don't know if it's 10. Tom will tell, but I'm willing to dial that hill. Because I think it's, I don't wanna look back two or three years from now when I'm off this council and we've got the city in a bad financial situation and I could have done something to stop it. We were breaking for lunch, we will come back at 1.15. And everyone please take their seats. Mary, would you check the, I'm sorry. Mary? Yeah. I understand, but are there people in the yeah if you would Before we we get started I did want to just clarify a couple things It appears like we will finish in time today Even with public comment with the agreements we have left which will allow us not to meet tomorrow comment with the agreements we have left which will allow us not to meet tomorrow as we stand right now. But let me say this next Thursday and Friday we have amendments. We have the parking agreement. We have the development agreement and the lease. Two of those are some of the more complicated agreements. And then so I and Thursday, we meet, and then we have the installation at the end of the day, and then of course we have Friday. So, I would have loved to have had more agreements today tomorrow, but they just weren't available for the auditors to review, and we don't wanna go forward without the auditor's input. So, just be prepared for next week depending on what we hear about the conflicts and those types of things because that will drive some of the amendments. I'm sure. Okay. With that number two, I wanted to clarify, I've been accosted by some of my colleagues about something I said. I thought I said it accurately, but let me read a statement drawn up by the auditors to make sure I'm okay. We will have $100 million less of an increase in next year's budget. In the current year, we had an 180 million increase in revenues. Next year's budget, we're only looking at about 80 million in increase. So we will have more money in next year's budget. It just will be $100 million less than what it was the previous year. Everyone, my financial experts, I'm looking at Mr. Laney in particular. He gives me the okay. If I didn't say that, I apologize, I've corrected it, and everything else I said, I'm 100% confident was accurate. Okay, so, percent conflict was accurate. Okay, so does anyone before I move on from the CBA I want to make sure or is everyone's questions, comments regarding the CBA are we ready to move forward? Okay, I see no one in the queue. So let's move to the sports performance center, Mr. Weinstein. Okay, I thought it was security. You want to do security first? I'm sorry, it's my fault, security. I can't follow my own agenda. I don't think your microphone's on mic. Thank you, Mr. President. This will probably be the easiest and quickest of the group, so it's the best to take up. I want to remind you that some of you that had meetings with the Jaguars and myself about game day, how much we changed the game day costs that basically now as we continue through the lease that we're in we basically pick up all game day costs Is this not working? The city basically responsible for game day going forward that's going to be switched quite substantially We're going to be dealing basically with security And they're going to be doing all the other game day expenses So specifically and I'll address a little bit of the council auditor's question or concern also There's a distinction between exterior and interior outside We are the responsible party 100% of the cost the, everything that happens in the security field is our responsibility. We pay for it. We also ultimately do the security plan. Basically the jaguars in the city constantly are doing security plans and ultimately we have the final say of approval of those security plans. So exterior's all ours interior is new because it's split 50-50 for public safety. It's not for you know the part of their game day expenses is those safe uniforms, shirts around the stadium. Anything internal in that regard they still pick up 100% of that going forward. We're going to split 50, 50, the police and fire and other entities that are required basically government. So it's going to be very different than the way it has been in the past, much to our benefit. Councilor Lordeaters were asking a question about who basically can answer some questions of adjustments, amendments. And this isn't the answer that I give you permeates the entire group of agreements. That there will be a city representative that's designated by the mayor who can make changes, amendments, and what have you, but not of substance, just basically technical amendments, things that don't change the money responsibilities, the obligations, anything that changes anything of substance would have to come back to council if there's going to be a amendment in any of the agreements. But there will be a flowing, small changes that will be done by the city rep. And if you'd like, you can add the responsibility that any changes are at least in writing presented to council or the finance committee or whatever that you wanted. So, security is basically gonna stay as secure as in the past. Who pays for it and who has ultimate decision making is adjusted. And this is for the future. This is for 28 and on. In the meantime, we function under the existing lease. With that, that's really, that's it. Mr. Lamping, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? Mr. Lamping is not coming forward. I think Mike covered all of the high level points. The one thing that I would just add is that currently as part of its overall management of the stadium, ASM through the city is also responsible for 24-7 security, going in 28 and beyond the team is assuming that responsibility. So for the entire sort of stadium amphitheater and performance center complex, the team will be responsible for the day-to-day security. Mr. Hueg, would you have any comments? Thank you, Mr. President. Just very quickly. As was said, the deal originally was 100% on the Jaguars now. The least the interior security is split 50-50. For city events though, that interior would be 100% on the city. So it's really Jaguar related events where that 50-50 is split on the interior. But as I said, it did not exist before, so that is clearly savings. Other markets do have sunset timelines on when they revisit the stadium plans, Buffalo, for example, every three years they look at it. And this is favorable as compared to other markets too, where other markets provide all of the security and the teams only pay for any supplemental security. The Jaguars would also have to pay for supplemental security that they request themselves. So whether it's police escorts or specific things that they might want, that would be a Jaguar cost as well. But in general, it's a savings to the city, I think, and compared to other markets. This would be a more favorable deal on behalf of the Jaguars. This time. Thank you, Council President. Most of on our handout, it's been covered. I'll just mention a couple of things. We are working through how the payments will work now that we will be sharing on these inside security costs for the inside portion of the stadium. Just making sure that process of who's going to bill who and all of that, I will not bore you with the accounting of that. But there may be a technical amendment that we have just to clarify that process. As they mentioned, with this sharing in NFL games and then third party events, we expect about a savings of 500,000. Again, there'll be some ups and downs of changes in the agreement that next week will be ready to go through all of that. But that's what it looks like based on the costs that we got through ASM and through Mr. Weinstein that it would result in. And this will take place in the newly. So 2028 is when you'll see these changes take effect. And Mr. Weinstein already mentioned our same concern that we've had in making sure that only technical amendments can be done that don't impact the financial obligations of the city. So that's all that we have. Mr. Boyland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Taylor, I think you just referenced the savings. I was trying to get a sense of kind of number we talked. What's a game day security cost in a typical basis right now. Through the Chair to Councilmember Boylan, about 2 million total for the entire year is part of the total cost that's related to police and fire. So if we book that down by seven games, right? It's that we're talking about. Through the Chair, nine games. Nine games, sorry. Including the preseason. Preseason, you're right. And we're looking at our savings at that amount and it's part of this process. Yes sir. I'm just trying to get a quantification of what the kind of impact this is going to have in the process. Yes sir through the chair about 500,000 roughly in rough numbers because we will still maintain the exterior. This will just be a savings the 5050 on the interior part of the stadium and probably Mr. Lamping question with respect to the motivation or incentive of you The Jaguar is being willing to take on this additional responsibility on the interior security Yeah, we want to have control over the game day experience I mean right now when there's issues from our customers that a lot of times you have to go through the city We don't have control over it. And one of the improvements of this is that we will have direct control of our fans experience of Jaguar games. It's coming at a cost, but we think it's worth it. And an opportunity to respond as directly as possible to the concerns of the ticket holder. Thank you. Mr. Aries, I was getting ready to jump in, but we'll go to you first. Thank you, Mr. President. And through the chair, just to just ask one more question regarding that, the nine home games that we have, the $200 million for the year, that's just pertaining to the Jaguar games itself, right? Not just for other events as well. Through the chair, that's correct. That's just your NFL games. And maybe I miss this part but who's going to be paying police and fire and we're splitting a 50 50 but who's paying. We are paying them and then the drivers are paying us. Through the chair that's part of what we are working out of which way things will flow and if they will pay the cost and then they'll build the city and then we're paying a back for the sit for our portion for the city's portion. So that's all the mechanics of that is what we're we're trying to internally work out. I only ask that because if the essence of this is because the jaguars don't have full control on how to game the experience they should be the one paying them then invoicing us otherwise we're still in control they're still paying us. Otherwise, we're still in control. They're still paying us at the end. We're still invoicing them, right? So through the chair, if I may, Council Member Areas, and I do want to clarify the JSU officers will be paid the same way that they are today. So through their paycheck, whether it be overtime or that will not change. It will just be the billing process between the city and potentially ASM and the Jags on how that works. I'm not going to question the fact that they want to cover the 5050. I just don't see how this would really change what's being done right now for the game the experience of that's the case. Mr. Nimbim. It's not necessarily related to JSO and JFRD. It's more related to the independent security guards, guest services that are all in there. It sort of excludes city employees. And I assume it'll stay part of the normal city payroll and then we'll probably have to invoice us back. Okay, all right, well thank you. There's no one else in the queue. So I have a couple questions. Is game day defined in this agreement? Is that a 24-hour period? So that it's very clear when all this kicks in? I didn't see it. And should it be defined? So the defined terms are actually in the lease itself and the security agreement cross-references the lease. So it's defined as NFL events and third-party events as where we're splitting the 50-50 on the interior security services that are public safety related. But do we need to define the time frame? To the President. That's one of the agreements that we are just now getting into on the lease. So we will see if there's anything that clarifies. Is it to your point on somewhere else I have seen it where it's the day before, the day after or what I want to clear. That's what I want to what, I want to clear. That's what I want to clear. And we'll get that clarified. That's exactly what I'm looking for, exactly when it kicks in and when it ends. So as it relates to the security services for public safety, what we do currently and what we plan to continue to do going forward is that prior to each event, which is an NFL Fell then our third party event, City, Team, and other public safety officials meet three separate times. And so the exact sort of reporting time for police and fire on game day will be determined by the activities on that day. But generally it's when the parking lots open and then folks get redeployed until about an hour or two after the game. I'd just like to see it defined. And if we need to get into the, what we'll be getting to the least to see that, if you'll just follow up with us, Miss Taylor. Number two, has the mayor identified who the contact person is, once this agreement is in place, Mr. Weinstein? The agreements basically say the city representative will be designated by the mayor. So after basically in October when if the NFL agrees and we basically consign at October it will be at that time. Okay. Number three, I would like to see it if we need an amendment I would ask Mary to draw it. I'd like to see any changes to this portion of it come to the Council auditors for review. And we talked about subtle changes to the agreement. You know, I heard what you said about anything financial will come to the Council, but I'd like to see any changes go to the auditors. financial will come to the council, but I'd like to see any changes go to the auditors. Which could possibly work but then the timing of such? I mean come as a notice or come for approval. No, I just as a notice. Oh perfectly. Thank you. They have a concern obviously they'll raise it, but I don't want to stop the process. I just want someone reviewing them to make sure They're not financial and there's not something we're missing. The last question I have, are we under the existing agreement when the Jaguars play out of town? That's in 27, correct? So we're under the existing agreement that year? the city has a lot of things that are not available to the city. So we're under the existing agreement that year. Yeah, it's to the extent though if you're not hosting home games here, you can't have obligations that you currently have for those home games. Well, that's my question. Are we responsible if you're playing in gamesville? Are there any obligations the city has when you're playing out of town. Why are you smiling? If you'd like to be, you can. Our assumption is you're not. Our assumption is you are not. Okay, I just want to put that on the record that we have that you're totally in control of those situations. Yes, that's been our assumption. That's why it's not addressed in the things. I have no one else in the queue. Anyone else have any questions on security? Oh Mr. Gaffney popped up. Yeah, thank you through the chair. I just want to clarify something. You mentioned games. So is it official? I know I'm sorry. I didn't mean I said gamesville or land or wherever it is. It's my point. Okay. Oh God. Please. Yes, it is my point. Okay. Oh, God, please. That is correct. Anyone else, Mr. Palozo? Thank you, Mr. President, through the President. I just had a quick question about, so you have events in here. Now I assume this also includes, for the Georgia game and future major events like that. of Florida Georgia game and future major events like that. So Florida, Georgia and tax level are still city events and so the city would continue to have responsibility for those. Understood. Thank you. Any other questions on this security agreement? I see none. Let's move toward the sports performance center lease Miller electric. Mr. Weinstein, you're going to start with that. Please. Thank you, Mr. President. Mike Weinstein, this one and the next one, which is Daily's Place, the Amphitheater. Right from the beginning, we wanted to make sure that the other facilities, the Amphitheater and the Performance Center got out to the same schedule as the lease. So at the end of the 30-year lease with the stadium, these leases would come to a termination with the understanding, and I'll talk about two extensions potentially. So that's why you'll see it in front of you today. It's basically to get them in line. And a lot of the language of the existing lease relates to these facilities. So as the existing lease goes away, we needed to make sure that we had a new lease for both facilities. We purposely didn't want to change too many things at all. We were really interested in the term, but some changes did occur, but not substantial enough. As it relates to the term, Miller Electric, the Performance Center is somewhat unique and it's in the existing lease. They have two options at the end of their current lease for two 10 year terms. And they very much wanted to make sure that they didn't lose that in the transfer. So the current lease that you have in front of you has the first term ending in 30 years. It's really like a 34 year lease to start it now. This is one of the things that start at execution. So when these things are signed in October, this doesn't start in 28 like most of the other things. This will start at execution and it'll be like a 34 year term. They have two 10 year terms after that at their option. Again, it's built into this lease. But they're required to do training, basically sports training exhibits to do exactly what they're required to do there now to make that extension possible. And it's not that they can do it just one day and then they got a 10 year. They have to have an ongoing facility there with the exclusion that if we get, if they leave after the 30 years and we get a different team than we can let them, we'll have them leave immediately. They'll leave if that happens. If not, they may want to extend that lease, but they have to do the things that they're doing there now. It's kind of unusual, but they very much wanted to keep that option because they have it now. And we went through scenarios of why would you want it, you're playing in St. Louis, why would you? So they can answer some of those questions if you get into it. They manage it, they operate it, much like they're going to do if this lease is approved the way it's in front of you. They have total responsibility for the facility as well as paying for things as well. We do have the opportunity to have city events there. They'd be ours, we would have to pay for those things and what have you, and we would get the resources and the revenues from those. I don't know if we've had any city events in Miller Electric to date, but we have the option to do it. And like in the other agreements, there are assignment opportunities, but they're very strict. And there's a resolution process if we have a conflict. But basically, they're going to run it and operate it. Not exactly like the stadium, because the stadium we do a lot of things together. We're in Miller Electric. They do a lot on their own. They basically are the main tenant, and they don't have others in it very often. So they have total responsibility. And with that I'll yield. Thank you Mr. President. This is a little unusual to have this deal kind of incorporated in the deal almost like the community benefits agreement in the sense that it's not part of the guarantee, it's not part of the non relocation agreement which was also the case for the community benefits agreement in the sense that it's not part of the guarantee, it's not part of the non relocation agreement, which was also the case for the community benefits agreement. And the whole goal was generally to wrap all of these agreements up under one umbrella. This also has the two 10 year renewal phases to it. So it fits a little differently, but I think the goal was to just bring all of these agreements under one umbrella. I think from a standpoint of the existing term, the city would still have responsibilities through 2028 terms of security and those type of things that continued exist. There's also a ticket surcharge that's charged for events that would come back to the city. There's some estimated pricing on that, somewhere around $2.60 or $3.260 for paid tickets, $1.30 for paid parking, but the Jags are supposed to have some collection process. How that gets distributed, how that gets audited, it was not really clear from the document, but they do that in other phases currently. So presumably we would just follow those same practices. It does require NFL approval, which is probably a reason why it's also incorporated into the agreement. Other than that, I don't think there'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. I think that's. Boyle. These technical changes can we put the same amendment to that for this agreement that they go to the auditors just for information. I don't want to, I'm not using the word approval obviously for good reason. Mr. Boyle. Thank you Mr. Chair. Just to get for clarification to the Chair of the Mr. Mr. Boyland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification to the Chair, Mr. Taylor. Obviously, Section 12 speaks to the capital projects or any improvements that require us to go through us for advice, not so much advice, I guess, just notification. But general maintenance of the facility is that under what we characterize as management and use. Through the chair, currently under the performance center they cover those costs and they would continue to cover those costs. Okay, I don't see it actually stipulated in here. Is it defined in the man? I didn't see it defined in that way, but just wanted to make sure that was the case. And with respect to the capital improvements, anything over $200,000 they need to advise us in the context of that, does that mean we have authority to approve or disapprove any capital improvements to the facility? Through the chair, they're responsible for covering the cost. I know the reference, I don't remember the exact section, but I think that was to make sure it's our facility, it's our asset. They're not making such a large change that we would object. Yeah, but that's the point I was trying to make. Get some clarification to that. I mean, I don't anticipate any of that, but you know agreements like these require that kind of what if situations being covered. Yes, I suspect, but any improvements they want to make. No change there with the with the current So maintenance and capital maintenance is their responsibility any significant capital improvements they need to come to us for notification at the very least Yes, sir if not approval through the chair, I'd have to pull it again, but it's their cost that they All right, well just take a look to make sure if not approval is in there it should be in there probably thank you Any other questions or comments on The sport on the mineral electric Mr. Paluso Never mind anyone else want to make sure every questions answer Never mind. Anyone else want to make sure every questions answer? Anyone else? Okay. No one else? Let's move to the presentation on the amended and restated amphitheater release. Mr. Weinstein. Thank you, Mr. President. As I stated previously, the goal here and the reason why I include it is to get the terms in line. And there is not an extension on this one. This one will start at execution and really be like a 34 year at ends when the lease to the stadium, the 30 year lease ends. It's with bold, basically bold events, one of many Jaguar offshoot subsidiaries and what have you, but the agreement itself is with bold events. And they like in the Miller Electric, bold events manage, operate, total control of it basically, very similar. We do have city events there and the opportunity to do city events there just like we do in the performance center. There are surcharges and the surcharges go towards basically managing and helping to maintain and the tenant bold basically match the amount of surcharges that come in to help maintain it is then matched by the tenant. So if 100,000 comes in, then 100,000 would be a match to that to help make sure that it's maintained. Florida Georgia tax layer in the Jazz Festival get to use it. I don't have tax layer down. Does tax layer, I don't know if it was in there. I think it's Florida, Georgia and the jazz festival. I don't think the tax layer has a right that I recall. And it has the same assignment opportunities, very exclusive, very limited. So it's basically a repeat of existing agreement that you're already approved years ago in 17, not you, but the council approved, I think in May of 17. And we just try to get it updated and make sure. Now there is a complication with this and the complication is with Flexfield. For those of you that aren't real familiar with the way these things were constructed, but the amphitheater and the flex fields share a wall. And through that wall comes noise and light and everything else. Also, the restrooms basically for the flex field are outside of the flex field walls and in where daily's place basically is. If you recall, we didn't really talk about it much in the CBA, but the Flexfield will be renovated to be part of the park's inventory. And the money set aside, it was 8,760 would be to get the Flexfield ready for tournaments, put a floor in, get some temporary bleachers and what have you, and put bathrooms inside the flex field so that things that are done in there, they don't interfere. But we do have some challenges because of security in and out, sharing doors, sharing rooms. So it's more complicated than you would think, but originally, there were basically that both were going to be theirs. They had their practices there, and they had daily for an amphitheater activity. Only when it totally came back to the city that those things crept up, we share a meter. So we got lots of things we got to deal with in the coming years to make both facilities independent. both facilities independent. Yes, thank you Mr. President. So this agreement is between the Jaguars and bold events, LLC, which is different than any of the other events. It's an entity that's controlled by the Jaguars. And this also is essentially incorporating the 14th Amendment to the original lease and replacing it with this new agreement, which also is not part of the non relocation and not part of the guarantee agreement. But again, because it's sunset sooner than the end of the term under the regular lease agreement, it was brought into to be part of the full agreement under the same umbrella. Mr. Weinstein referenced the one tricky part, which is an agreement at some point after the document is signed to come to terms on how this flex field dual use is going to happen with a shared wall between the two entities and security and other things. So there's no real clear statement on how that would work. I think they have an understanding of what needs to be done but that would be something that would be left open in the agreement. Other than bringing it in under that in the surcharge Mr. Weinstein referenced that's essentially all I could add to it. Thanks. Councillor Remember Lane and you're recognized. Through the present with the previous table going to speak first. I'm sorry. That's the second time I've been upholic. It's nothing personal. No worries at all. I will not take it personally. On the imp theater, you'll see at the top of our handout just mention of a couple things that you may see as technical amendments. Just clarifying that there is a parking surcharge. That's a says that it's language that just needs to get cleaned up. And then on the second one, this is in the currently. It's just a cleanup of not transferring from the Infa Theater Capital Fund to the Stadium Capital Fund. This was initially put in, we think with the expectation of we have a new building, we'll have surpluses. And so we're at the point where it really doesn't make sense to have it in there. So those are just a couple technical amendments that you'll see next week. We've hit on this was to align the date with the new stadium date of 2028. Again, as Mr. Hague mentioned, this is not part of the guarantee or non relocation, so it doesn't come into play on either of those two items. We will mention that the, as far as security, the city is currently responsible for providing security to patrol the amphitheater area and then in the proposed lease, the tenant will be responsible for providing the security to patrol the amphitheater area. So city now but going to tenant for patrolling, the city will continue to be responsible if there's a city event for covering those costs. Amphitheater security cost on NFL game days will now be split 50-50 in the proposed lease. And so the splitting of that game day cost along with the change to the tenant now patrolling the amphitheater area will have a savings. It's difficult to pull out just that portion for amphitheater. So within that 500,000 that I mentioned earlier is a total cost within. It's gonna be baked into some of that and we'll see if we can pull out any more details. But that half million kind of covers all of these changes in security being split 50-50. The Flex field future lease was mentioned as that will come back to you and then again we'll just have a recommendation to clarify on who can approve technical amendments that it's nothing that changes the financial obligations of the city and that's all that we have. I have a question. There's no one else in the queue right now. The Jaguars have control of the Flex field on their game days, correct? Yes. Is that in this lease or is that in a future document? It should be in this. It'd be in the Flex field, field lease going forward. Okay, are those the only days the Jaguars have control of the flex field is on game days? I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Mike. That's one aspect that didn't change from the existing lease to this updated lease. I think we had control for 35 days. What was designed to do is we need to get in there the day before the NFL game, then the NFL game. So I think it's 35 days out of 365. Can anybody verify that? 36. Through the president, it would be their game days, but other than that, they would be like any other tenant that's using the facility. So what I hear you saying, game on Sunday, you want control over on Saturday, obviously Sunday for the game, and I guess Monday to get it cleaned up and all those kind of things. Miss Taylor, it looks like you can answer that. Yes, sir, Mr. President, the current lease, and we don't have that amended yet, but in the current lease, it's the day before, day after, and the day after, that they have utilization. And so that's three, if you had non-home games, 9 times three is 27. That's up to 36 total days out of the year that it can be utilized. When do we expect them to use it the other nine days? I think they accounted for that. Playoff games. Preseason. They have to see championship games. Nine games, too. Other than championship games and those kind of things, are there other, that's basically it. Can someone just say that in the microphone? Just game day, yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Gay, you're recognized. Just game day. Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Gay you're recognized Thank you mr. President for clarity to through the president of Miss Taylor yes under the current situation out there right now Who is in charge of the flexfield maintenance and upkeep on it. Basically it's now part of the park's inventory. So it's the city. Okay, I heard mentioned through the president to Mr. Weinstein that there is going to be a need to be remodeled to have a restroom and all that put inside of Mr. Weinstein that there is going to be a need to be remodeled to have a restroom and all that put inside of it. Who is going to be responsible for that? That would be the responsibility of the city. And in this community benefit agreement, that's the fourth park. It's the River Front and Metro, shipyard and Flexfield and in the CBA that's in front of you There's 8 million 760 put aside to do those things to the Flexfield Okay, that that's and originally this Flexfield was basically built by the the Jaguars basically built by the Jaguars. Did you build it? We'll begin it. Yeah, we oversaw construction, we split the cost with the city. Right, it was purposely built just to have practices for the NFL team. That's why we didn't need to put in a bunch of bathrooms. Okay, that's where I'm seeing a problem is that we're gonna have to have have good through all this extra expense of doing this remodeling But I think we may need to look at if they're going to be a shared Shared expense on that because this is the way y'all build it and And now it's it's got to be revamped. So I think it's something that we need to look at moving forward. Thank you. Well, Mr. Gay, it was built as a practice for the Jaguars. We're taking it over because they now have the Miller Electric Center for all their practices and if it's raining and all those things. They don't use it anymore. We're getting it back. It seems to me it should be our expense to put it in the situation where we can use it. But that's just my own opinion. You can put forth an amendment if you'd like to change that. If you'd like. The other comment I wanted to make was any technical amendment, so I don't have to say this every time, would go to the auditors and Mary just knows that going forward if there any more like that, go to the auditors. Mr. Boylin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Taylor, page 13 of the with the capital projects component there. It references the tenetual undertake all capital projects using funds from the Amphitheater Capital Fund. So I think Mr. Gays comments may not be as a concern if in fact that responsibility. And if there's any additional funds, if I read through this correctly, that it needs to be shared equally between both parties in that regard. Am I reading that incorrectly? Through the Chair to Councilmember Boylan, just a couple points. I believe Councilmember Gay was questioning on the flex field. Flex field, right? So, cost there. You are correct on the point of the amphitheater. There's a capital fund that, to get your charges go into and then on the amphitheater, it is matched by the jaguars. So, that's the source that covers capital out there. So, am I looking at the wrong document? Is that what I'm doing? Are they mixed together? They're intermingled? flex and the amphitheater intermingled? Through the chair, there is no amendment on the flex field. Before you right now, they are going to come back as they work through some of where the controls for the lighting and fans are located and all that. So it's just the amphitheater that is being implemented. So I appreciate the idea of trying to separate as best we possibly can, the two facilities. That's my understanding. And I guess we're asking since the flex field is ours, I guess the responsibility of any improvements to the flex field will be assumed by the city. Through the chair, the flex field has always been ours. We are looking for, I am trying to remember and council president, I believe you made an amendment on, and Mr. Peterson found it on the training performance center where we were trying to, not negotiate, but we changed up the coverage, the percentage of maintenance responsibility that the city was responsible for, that was actually an amendment that you brought on the training performance center. So I'll let Mr. Peterson refresh our memories on this specifics. The chair to Mr. Peterson. I have to do the chair to Councillor Weber-Boyland. So the capital maintenance is what is split. The Jaguar's cover 90% and the city covers 10% above what the surcharges cover. So if the surcharges do not cover all the necessary capital maintenance, that 90s 10 split then kicks in. And I'm not aware of that. For both the amphitheater and the flex field. Just for the flex field. Just for the flex field. Okay, I think that helps a little bit with respect to the concerns Mr. Gayrase. Thank you, Mr. President. with respect to the concerns Mr. Gaye. All right, thank you Mr. President. Council Member Lane, and your recognize. Thank you President. Through the President, first off, a couple of my questions I already been answered. My first question was, how do the Jaguar still using this? Am I just saying it's about 35 days a year, so pretty much just game day plus minus one day correct? I guess to Mr. Weinstein. That is correct from the Jaguars. Through the President, thank you Mr. Lamping. The other question, not to reopen the community benefits agreement, but the one line out there, the eight winning. Do a councilman get... assuming it's 100%. That's 100% off-swrite. There's no Jaguars potential match, even though they still be using it 10% of the time. At this, at this particular point, that's not decided. I mean, we're going to come with a new Flexfield agreement and we're going to have to do it together because again, the combination of the Ampitheater and Flexfield, but how that ends up financially, I can't say right now, but maybe the Jaguars can. I can't. Yeah, and I'd like to speak to the modifications being made to the Flexfield. We're happy with the Flexfield exactly where it is right now. We don't need any modifications. We don't need any improvements. We don't need it to entertain our fans on game days. So we need zero improvements. The city has chosen to change the uses in that building. And what they want to do instead of having a football field, they want to have a hard surface so that they can have volleyball tournaments and things like that and bring in stands and add restrooms. So it's the city's desire to be able to make that facility which they currently control and will continue controlling the future Such that they can have more events We're not involved with that Through the president's mr. Lamping. Thank you for the very clear answer I have no one else in the queue any other questions on on this? Oh, Mr. Gaffney. Please turn your microphone on, Mr. Gaffney. I apologize about that. I do wanna ask my last question. Mr. Lampen brought up a great point. I saw the city one of you that is volleyball game. It'll be a flex for you to create, right? And we have volleyball games and what else would other type of tournaments? And do we know if this would be bringing any type of revenue over the course of the 12 months? The desire with the Flexfield going forward basically is too old. And we've had comments and discussions like with Brooks, Rehab, and others to have multiple types of tournaments there for lots of different sports adaptive and what have you but also my Corgan that talked to me early on about having an exhibit space there as well to bring in exhibits for the community and what have you. So we anticipated being used in a variety of different ways. We'll have portable bleachers pulled in and out. So I don't know what the future holds, but it'll be much more active than it is today. That's for sure. Yeah, thank you. And I guess my last statement, it'll be great if we could get like a study on the potential revenue we can bring into the flat field over a course of a year. I might be a debt addition of revenue we can bring in. A, U-turn turn the minutes, flat football turn the minutes, soccer tennis, whatever the case may be, pickle ball, which, you know, you know, that so that might replace that $8 million over the year. So just something to think about. Anyone else? I'm going to go to public comments but just before I do, everyone understand the schedule for next week, which we won't be meeting tomorrow. Monday, public hearing, five o'clock, time to be determined, and then we will meet Thursday and Friday of next week. I'm pretty comfortable to say it'll probably be both days because we have some very significant agreements to review. Everyone over there's nodding their heads so they're expecting two days. And we will have amendments that can be proposed at that time as well. So we will have to structure those two days and make sure we do it effectively. Any questions on that? Okay. public comment. Daniel Nunn. Sir, you have three minutes. Council President and Council members. Thank you for your service to community. I'm Daniel Non-301 East Bay Street. I live and work downtown. And my firm has the honor of serving as pro bono council to the together east side coalition and lift jacks. We've been working with them over the last year to help them on the community benefits agreement aspects. And I want to limit my comments to two particular areas that I think are clarifying. Some of the council auditorous comments and concerns council auditorous comments and concerns related to not using a community redevelopment area. There will be legislation based on my discussions with Mr. Weinstein. There will be legislation introduced to designate the area on the map that you have seen as an urban infill and redevelopment area under Chapter 163 Florida Statutes, it's a statute that has not been used to my knowledge in Jacksonville, but it has been used in other communities in urban areas that meet certain requirements. We've done an analysis and concluded that those requirements are met. That creates a great deal of flexibility, but it does have restrictions. We will still have to provide reports to the city, to the city council. We will have to get audits. We will be subject to audit by the council auditor. There will be restrictions on the use of the money. So all of the protections that you have will be there with a greater deal of flexibility because it will be nonprofit led with a shared governance model consisting of representatives from the city representatives from the Jaguars representatives from the community Second point that I want to make is why the east side is included in this community benefits and why that's intergly tied to the stadium Mr. Lamping was kind enough to mention the concept earlier of resident displacement and gentrification. The core idea of community benefits agreement is one of the core principles there is to offset any adverse impacts from the development. So one of those development impacts in this case potentially is resident displacement due to gentrification. So this is integrally tied to the stadium deal and I would urge you to pass the east side portion of the CBA with the stadium deal. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Nunn. Nancy Powell. I don't see Nancy out there. I think she must have left. Ariana Randolph, if that's Ariana. Okay. Just Randolph, you have three minutes. If you state your address for the record. Greetings, my name is Ariane Randolph, 620 Odessa Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 322-06. So I am a resident, an intentional resident of the historic East Side. So what that means is that I live there on purpose. I'm not a default resident, an intentional resident of the historic East Side. So what that means is that I live there on purpose. I'm not a default resident. I just didn't happen to be there. I live in the property that my grandmother owned. And then my grandmother purchased that property from Nurse Nelson, who was the community's midwife and nurse during Jim Crow segregation. I am a fourth generation e-cider. I have five children. This is important because I teach them that you have and made it when you got out the hood. We do not have a hood. We have a community. And I will always say that. I will always make an attempt to address your humanity. I'm going to speak in terms of we and us and not I. I think that's important. And so that's the lens that I share through. My ask is that we think about what this means in terms of, again, the experts that have shared, I did watch all of the commentary earlier today. I am aware of the sentiments. I am aware of what I hear that hasn't been said, meaning those biases that we don't say, the ideology that we don't often verbalize. I hear it in cold words. And so, again, I'm going to ask us to be mindful of those that are there intentionally. If you don't know someone there, if you haven't been in our community, it's okay to talk to us. We are smart, we have degrees, we all may not have all the language, but we do have the wherewithal to work for what's already been happening. Let me just say, while the stadium, the team has put together a great package, the community has been a part of that process. I've been a part of that process, but the reality of it is the work is going to happen regardless. We're not going to leave whether it happens or not. And there is this language about why the East Side, again, geography is important. The East Side is housed in our community. For those that don't know your history and it's okay, you can go and check. The East Side has always went to St. John's River that has not changed because the vernacular is now modern. So go look at aerial maps and again I can say this to urban planning lens, environmental science lens. You can look at the pictures, the studies to show what geographical area was the east side. The other issue is that studies have shown when you do CBAs, a community benefits agreements in areas, the community near it needs to have an advantage. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. The last card is David Garfunkel. Good afternoon, through the President. My name is David Garfunkel. Adder has forced 40 East Adams Street. I come here through my day job as the President and CEO of Lift Jacks and no many of you. And thanks for the opportunity to speak a little bit. This is really just an invitation from me to share more about the work that is happening in the historic east side. I know many of you have spent time with us, you spent time in the neighborhood. I want to offer that invitation here so that you can see the good work that is being done in that neighborhood. And of course, what we believe can be accelerated through the community benefits agreement. But I'll just share a couple words about how we as an organization chose to work in the historic east side. That was several years ago. And there were two main reasons for that choice. One, most importantly, was a strong community leadership. People who have been living doing this work in the neighborhood for decades, people with whom we could partner to advance the priorities in our work. And that's really key, because when we think about, for example, resources coming into the neighborhood, I want to assure you, in this this body that there are neighborhood leaders and organizations working together to sturer those resources in a responsible way that is going to have impact. And the second reason that we chose the neighborhood at that time was of course the momentum happening around it. And that of course now shows up as the sports entertainment district, but what's everything happening in Springfield, there is a lot of momentum around the historic East Side. And that's exciting. That's an opportunity for us to channel that momentum into the neighborhood to strengthen that neighborhood as one of our urban core neighborhoods that is in and adjacent to downtown and of course the stadium. And on that note, there are many more who could speak with much more authority on the history of the neighborhood, but I would just say that it is our understanding that having been designated on the National Registrar of Historic Places, that the historic east side is the largest intact historically African-American neighborhood in the state of Florida on the National Registrar of Historic Places, we were just designated as a Florida main street, which is a strategy to redevelop the commercial corridor. These are first in the city of Jacksonville, and these are things that exist in historic east side that we believe lay the foundation for further success as we move forward. And so I'll leave you with this, which is just an invitation to please come out to the east side, to the historic east side, to see the beauty of the community. There is a melanin market happening this Saturday, which is an opportunity for you to come out and see one part of the community. But then also just a personal invitation, happy to share more about our work at any time and look forward to continuing this dialogue with all of you. Thank you very much. Thank you. There are any comments from the council? We are adjourned.