Good morning, everyone. Good morning. We would now like to call to order our July 18th Committee of the Whole and we're going to begin with the roll call. Mohammed. Here, Floyd. Here, Gertis. Here, Abbott. Here, Antonary. Here, Hannah Woods. Here, McSanders. Here, Andrew School. Here, thank you, councilmembers, before us we have an agenda. I entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. All in favor. Aye. Those opposed? Before us we have our May 9th meeting minutes. I entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. All in favor. Aye. Those opposed. Now we're going to expeditiously move into our new business item and the reason why we are here today. I want to give a couple of housekeeping really quickly. So I want to thank everyone for attending and for watching at home. And just a couple of housekeeping beforehand. As a reminder, Council Committee meetings are open to the public. However, there's no opportunity for public comment or audience participation unless authorized by the chair. The overflow area for public viewing is up in the City Council's chambers on the second floor. And as with the last cow, I will not be placing time limits on my colleagues during the speaking. I am going to hope that we remain respectful of time and each other and I will say although I'm not going to implement time I will stop you and move on to the next person because we can have multiple rounds. We're also going to have the presentations together but we're going to entertain questions as perceptive. So we'll do questions for the gas plant first and then the presentations together, but we're going to entertain questions as perceptive. So we'll do questions for the gas plant first, and then questions for the stadium so that we don't have staff up down, uptown, you know, moving musical chairs. Is that all right with everybody? I hope so, because that's how we're doing it. All righty. So, joining us at the table today is our Mayor, Mayor Kenneth T. Welch, our City Attorney, Jack and Goa Lange. Our Managing Assistant City Attorney for Environmental and Land Use Matters, Attorney Michael Dima, our City's outside council, Mr. Peter Berry, our City Administrator, Rob Gertis, our City Development Administrator, James Corbett, and our raised presidents, Max Silverman, and Brian Old. We also have McCall Dreyer, who is our managing assistant attorney for contracts, who will be switching with Mr. Dema to cover questions related to the Stadium Development. And also from our outside council firm, we have Mr. Allen Wheeler, who will be switching with Mr. Berry to assist with the Stadium development related questions. So now I proudly turn it over to our mayor, Mr. Kinnefee Welch, for opening remarks. Thank you Madam Chair and your instructions were very clear. Happy prime day to the Amazon. Thank you. We owe you all what that is. But it's a momentous day for our city and our county to counsel to members of our St. Pete team to all the citizens who are here and watching. This is a very important day for our city. Our administrative and legal team along with our Hines, Ray's, and county partners are excited that we have arrived at this point in the process. The final committee of the whole before we will ask for your approval of agreements that will set the path for progress in our city for decades to come. Now most of us are on social media, so you are familiar with the helpful feature of Facebook and other platforms that reminds you where you were a year ago or two years ago or ten years ago, without your request, by the way. And I had an interesting pop up a couple of days ago. It was July 12th, and it said two years ago, July 12th, 2022. And that was the day that the city hosted the first of a series of community conversations on the historic gas plant redevelopment after I announced the new RFP process the prior month. Now, more than 200 residents came to that meeting at the Center for Health Equity and more than 2,000 participated in subsequent conversations. That's how the RFP was developed. Now, that was two years ago. Some of us have aged since then. Coppile still looks the same for some reason. I don't feel it, ma'am. But in the subsequent 24 months, we've done a lot of work and made a lot of progress. I just wanted to remind us of the progress we've made. We've issued the RFP. We received four proposals in December of 2022. I selected Heinz Rais in January of 2003. That was 18 months ago. We developed a term sheet in September of last year, negotiated a set of development, stadium use, and other agreements over the last nine months. We held three committees of the whole meetings, including the meeting on the term sheets, and multiple individual briefings with council members. We also implemented the city's community benefits process, ultimately receiving a 7-to-2 vote of support from the CBAC. Now, this was a new and unique process. The city's never done anything of this scope. And that required a collaboration, innovation, and a focus on getting feedback and recommendations from you. The council has the body that will ultimately vote on these agreements. That was our process. And so we listened, we refined the agreements, we made changes based on consensus items from the council, from approval provisions on onsite housing to open space departments and dozens of other improvements. Your feedback has made these agreements better. I want to thank you all for your due diligence. I think the process has worked. Today's COU is an opportunity to review the final agreements, including the changes made to each and to answer your questions. Before I close, I want to again thank our team under Rob, Jackie, Dwell from the Mayor's Office, and all of their team members, for their countless hours of work. Knights, weekends, holidays, powering through personal losses. Our team has shown extraordinary professionalism and commitment to the completion of this work and I just wanted to state that for the record. I also like to thank our Hines Race team and our county partners for your collaboration and partnership to complete these very complex agreements. We have arrived at a place of historic opportunity for our community and I'm really looking forward to our conversation in the next steps. Thank you so much. Council, thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. So now, next, how are you? Thank you. We'll have comments by our Tampa Bay Race residents, Mr. Bryan Old and Mr. Matt Silverman. I'm going to speak on behalf of both Matt and myself today if that's all right. Although I'm sure you will hear plenty from Matt before all is said and done, but Chair, Vice Chair, members of Council, it is once again a privilege to be here today. I'm going to keep it brief and just share with you that we are incredibly proud to be discussing this historic agreement with the City of St. Petersburg. It is the product of the extraordinary efforts of so many. There have been hundreds of hours of community meetings, feedback sessions, dozens of late-night work sections, multiple public cows, workshops. As I look at the binders in front of most of you, there is evidence of all that work there right there. City staff, the raise Heinz team, and untold numbers of community members have poured their time, talent, and treasure into making this agreement the best it can possibly be for the rays and for our soon to be forever hometown of St. Petersburg. This process has been long, but it has been productive, is improve the agreement and is let us to where we are today. Thank you all for providing rigorous examination, suggestions, and questions. Thank you for representing your constituents so vigorously, for helping us nail down the details, for making sure all of our residents were heard and represented in this process. We have long said that we wouldn't want to be party to an agreement that is not in the best interests of our city. Your analysis, your suggestions, and your support is what we need to be confident moving forward with this historic partnership. With the firm conviction that this is the right path for our organization, for our hometown, for our children, and for our collective future. We look forward to our discussion today, and I want to reiterate how grateful we are to you for driving us to get this right. I'll turn it over to James. Thanks, Brian. Madam Chair, if that's right, would I'll turn it over to James. Thanks Brian. Madam Chair, if that's right, would you all turn it over to James? No, I'm just gonna go ahead and let you run this. Okay. Thank you Madam Chair, morning Madam Chair, Vice Chair, members of City Council. I just wanted to go over a little more detail on the agenda of how we're going to break down the presentation. So the first thing we're going to cover are the changes to the redevelopment agreement followed by the changes to the stadium related agreements. Then we're going to go over the changes that were affected, that affected multiple agreements. And then finally, we'll talk about the articles and agreements that were not previously reviewed at previous cows. And then I'll give a brief overview of the timeline and then we'll turn it back over to Council for questions. So before we move on to the agreements, I'd like to review the process that led us to today's discussion. Mayor Welch and Brian, all have already discussed the process and Mayor Welch often talks about how process matters. So I want to reiterate the path of collaboration that's led us here today. The fate of the raise in St. Petersburg has been questioned since the first waterfront ballpark discussion in 2008. As a city, we've been talking about the redevelopment of the historic gas plant for more than eight years, including a community input session that began in July of 2016. The issuance of the RFP in 2020 under a previous administration. In April of 2021, and I actually pulled this up to look at it, Council unanimously passed the resolution requesting that city administration, and I quote, not bring any agreement with a master developer for development of the Trapper-Cant infield site until the future of the Tampa Bay raise was determined. And that was signed by the Chair Montenaria at the time. So much has changed in this city and the world since that time. Mayor Welch had the fourth site in 42 to start the process over again to ensure that the redevelopment will reflect the evolving conditions and needs of St. Petersburg and its residents and also to ensure that the rays were here to stay. A new RFP was shaped with the input from four community conversations and included the 23 guiding principles of development. That prioritized economic equity, inclusion, affordable housing, job creation, workforce and business development, community connection and much more. Throughout this process, the rays have been engaged in a variety of community stakeholders. They've engaged in a variety of community stakeholders. They've engaged a variety of community stakeholders, including the descendants of this historic gas plant neighborhood. The proposals were presented to the community in January 2023, and we had an announcement of the initial terms with Ray Ties in September of 2023. We've held a community input session of December of that year. Additionally, there was a community benefits advisory committee that was convened in January 2024. And after several meetings, the CBC voted to move the community benefits agreement forward. As you all know, on the council side, this is our fourth committee of the whole meeting related to the historic gas plant. And we've had numerous individual meetings with council members to keep us keep you updated as the negotiations progress. On the following side, you're going to see a few images of the engagement and administration as work hard to facilitate throughout the process. So now I'd like to go to the changes that were made to the redevelopment agreement. These are changes that have been made since the May 9th count. In the interest of time, I will not review every edit made to each document, but I will cover these substantive changes. I will also not point out every change where your discussion and feedback has been integrated. But I think you will hear that City Council's influence on several of these changes since the last two counts. So moving on to the parties. So for the parties, we have a clarified that the parties in the historic gas plant redevelopment agreement that this agreement is between the city, the historic kinds gas plant partnership, which is a joint venture consisting of the Hines affiliates and razor affiliates. The definition of razor affiliates was revised as requested by council and now means any person that is controlled or directly or indirectly by tamper-bay raise limited or a successor entity. Furthermore, Heinz's story of gas partnership is a duly formed joint venture under the state of Florida. Moving to the next slide, administration of Heinz Reyes has heard council's comments loud and clear regarding the minimum development requirements. And since the last cow, the minimum open space requirement has been increased from 10 acres to 12 acres. We've added a minimum requirement for 2,500 square feet for a childcare facility. We've added a fresh food and produce retailer of at least 10,000 square feet for a childcare facility. We've added a fresh food and produce retailer of at least 10,000 square feet. And I want to express my appreciation to City Council for pushing us to have an earlier milestone. I also want to show my appreciation to Ray's Hines for agreeing to add this earlier interim milestone that will require at least 400,000 square feet of vertical development to be substantially complete by December 31, 2030. This will ensure that significant construction will begin early in the term. Regarding the workforce and affordable housing, City Council approval is now required for any changes to the number of onsite units and the verbiage has been added to make it clear that the developer can convert all market rate housing that would include single family homes into a affordable and workforce housing to meet the offsite requirement, providing that that housing remains affordable for at least 30 years. If you move on to the committee benefits There were several changes made to add clarity. So there are an article six on the committee benefits to specify how the Heinz raised $50 million investment will be used over the term. We've added a lot of flexibility in that, but we also made sure we understood that there were some very distinct and clear goals. So first and foremost, any substitute obligation is now subject to City Council approval. And for clarity until aligned with the city's plan, the restorative, what was previously called restorative ownership and occupancy has been renamed to housing opportunities for all. And that $15 million as earmarked for that program will be used to support a wide range of the cities affordable and workforce housing programs. Additionally, any funds that have not been paid by the before five years of term expiring will be paid by the Hines Race Team in the lump sum. That's a chain from the previous agreement where it was one year prior to. It's also important to point out that the $15 million contribution for the Housing for all initiatives is not a cap. The $15 million can be more if more than $4,800 market rate units are developed. The $750,000 set aside for outreach will be spent on creating online communication tools, hosting a minimum of two public hall meetings per year, establishing community and youth steering committees, and hosting a project welcome center to connect local residents and businesses with the opportunities on site. Additionally, the $10.5 million that's allocated for restorative enterprise will support local existing entrepreneurs with an emphasis on local capacity building business creation programs to grow local diverse supplier communities also target industries for targeting the industry for economic development and the funding and programs will be focused on small minority-owned women-owned and home-based businesses in residence of the South St. Poozburg CRE. The restorative talent pipeline, 6.25 million, will support diverse hiring, job training, entrepreneur development, mentorship, and job placement programs. The internship in apprentice Programs will focus on residents of the South CRA. Additionally, the Apprentice Development will concentrate on the construction and land development trades and will be conducted in compliance with the Florida Department of Education guidelines. As we go to the next slide and talk a little bit more about Article 6, there is New Language added regarding the Woodson African American Museum. This is balancing the community's desire article six, there is New Language added regarding the Woodson African American Museum. This is balancing the community's desire to feature a new museum in the historic gas plant district that the raised desire to ensure that the development stays on track. And this revised agreement, Heinz-Rays still has a deadline of July 1st, 2025 to reach an agreement with the museum. And I'm pleased to say that Heinz-Rays and the Woods in African American Museum have entered into a letter of intent on May 30th, outlining the terms and conditions for the contemplated delivery of the real property and the $10 million in funding to the Woods in Museum. That will be delivered at Phase 8. The museum must provide a finalized financing plan, a GMP bid from a qualified contractor, evidence of financial commitments covering at least 50% of the project costs that excuse the $10 million Hines raised contribution. And if construction has not commenced within 15 years, a substitute obligation must be proposed by Hines raised and that is subject to City Council of Plut. Finally on the transfers and assignments any transfers or assignments of the redevelopment agreement must include either a raise affiliate a high-hines affiliate or both and any transfer assignment that does not include a Hines or raise affiliate must be approved by City Council. As it relates to terminations if the stadium development and funding does not include a high-end or raise affiliate must be approved by city council. As it relates to terminations, if the stadium development and funding agreement is terminated due to a team breach, the city is not obligated to convey additional land parcels to the high-end raise. Additionally, if the city and county terminate the stadium development and funding agreement, the city is not obligated to a convey additional parcels to Heinz-Rays unless the default is cured. This ensures that the city retains control of the parcels in the event of a lengthy cure period. So the next thing that we're going to talk about are the changes that were made to the stadium related agreement. So this will be changes that have taken place since our June 12th cow, and we'll begin with the development and funding agreement So the first thing I'll talk about is the language was removed that referred to the city's ability to wave Conditions precedent to the funding release date and the current agreement all conditions for funding must be met and cannot be waived Next any changes to the stadium's definitive elements as defined in exhibit B2 cannot be changed without City Council of屈. Additionally, the construction manager and design builder will advertise all subcontracting opportunities in local publications and again emphasis on local. And finally, Article 17 of the Development and Funding Agreement, which is tied to Article 17 of the Development and Funding Agreement, which is tied to Article 19 and the Stadium Operated Agreement, are changes that will be addressed later on because that is a new agreement that you all did not see. And Tom will be covering that later. There was a lot of discussion about sustainability and resilience. And so per council's requests requests some elements related to sustainability and Resilience have been spelled out more specifically in agreement The most notable changes include that stat coal will use good faith and commercially reasonable efforts to achieve lead certification Additionally, stat coal will develop plans for solar installation that will generate renewable energy on site At least or a minimum of 20% of the parking stalls will be EV ready and at least 2% of the parking stalls will have EV chargers installed All of the stadium entrances will be above the city's 100-year flood plain, and the mechanical, electrical plumbing and other critical infrastructure will be located to guard against flooding. The storm water will be retained and managed to exceed the city's and swift mud requirements or reuse on the site. And the stadium will be built to a risk-thru category standard, which is used for all buildings and other structures that represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of failure. And this standard is used for schools, jails, all buildings with an occupancy load of more 5,000 people. And we have the stadium architects and engineers here, and they are available to answer any more questions you may have about sustainability and resilience. So next I'd like to turn it over to Tom to cover the next slide regarding the Stadium Budget and Funding Terms. Thank you James and good morning Madam Chair and City Council, Tom Green, Assistant City Administrator. And to continue with the changes made to the development and funding agreement, we wanted to point out the new note added to the high level project budget included in the exhibit C of that agreement. And the footnote outlines city expenses to be covered by the project fund. The expenditure reimbursement total 1.6 million and itemized in the footnote including $750,000 for legal fees, $350,000 for intercircle sports, and $500,000 for our construction owners for upper construction representative. Additionally on this slide, we wanted to point out that the exhibit G, I mean, is the owner equity letter, and that is a new item that was not previously provided in the agreement. In short, this letter outlines the terms and conditions of the owner equity commitment or cash to the STADCO contribution amount. And just to keep it simple in round terms, if we know that the STADCO commitment is 700,000, we know that there's going to be an MLB loan in the amount of 100 million. I say 700 million. I'm sorry. 700 million. Then we would net out the 100 million of MLB loans and other credit facilities. Let's say that's total 500. So we have a total of 600 million of borrowed money. Then the owner commitment letter would be in the amount of 100 million in that fact pattern to reach the total of 700 million. Now I'll turn the presentation over back to James to talk about some changes to the stadium operating agreement. Thanks Tom. So we'll talk a little bit about Article 12. Article 12 City Council approval is now required for any replacement parking areas that are chosen any event of a termination or partial termination of the original parking license areas. While we don't anticipate the need to identify replacement parking areas, if we do need to do so, they will be subject to City Council approval. Another change that was made and the promotional matters is that the raise will provide at least one ticket to each City employee for the annual home is that the raise will provide at least one ticket to each city employee for the annual home game celebrating the City of St. Petersburg. And lastly, Article 19 of the Stadium Operating Agreement, which was not included in the June 12th cow will be discussed in the section where we recover new items and that will be covered by Tom. And I will tag Tom back in for the next few slides. Thanks again James. So during our last committee of the whole council member Hannah, what's pointed out that we needed to delete a portion of footnote number three on table number two in the second amended and restated interlocal agreement on the TIFF. And that quite candidly was some legacy language from previous agreements that said if resources, 40 million of resources that were to be invested east of eight street, if we didn't fund all those projects we could, had the flexibility to convert it to address the 75 million for the stadium, we don't need that flexibility so we did delete that from table two in that agreement. And now we're going to move into some changes that have been made, that impact kind of several agreements. And I think we'll start with the impact of the apprentice and disadvantaged as City Council is aware of the recent action by Florida legislature and recent court rulings have serious impacts on our apprentice disadvantaged worker and responsible wage ordinances. We are all disappointed in these developments as they as these initiatives are important to the overall bargain struck on this redevelopment deal. We are happy to report that our partners, Ray and Hines have agreed to a voluntary assumption of certified business, disadvantaged workers, apprentices as outlined in the respective agreements. And this slide tries to capture those agreements. So under the community benefit with respect to the vertical development in section 6.1.3 and in 6.1.4 it outlines the 10% commitment to those two both disadvantaged worker and apprentice. Both of those are subject to good faith estimate or good faith. Good faith efforts. Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm getting all tongue tied. And to be completed by the end of the term. Next with respect to the historic gas plant, the infrastructure or horizontal development, section 7.4, B5, there's the 15% goal for disadvantaged workers, and then in 7.4, B6 good faith or the 15% goal on apprentice. Again, both of these are subject to good faith efforts as outlined in the agreement. And I should point out that none of these percentage levels have changed since the last time we discussed, but just the mechanism through which the voluntary assumption of those responsibilities has changed. And then in the stadium agreement, again, we have the 15% goal undisadvantaged in section, and it's an exhibit E, and it's in paragraph 2A, and then in 3A for the disadvantaged and apprentice, both subject to the good faith efforts as outlined in the agreement, and again, that 15% is not changed. The next series of changes we wanted to highlight are on the two master bond resolutions and they have been updated, these two resolutions have been updated to a point, Bryant Miller and Olive for validation purposes of all bonds to be issued in series 2024. So 2024 A and B for the stadium and then the C series that we're referring to as the first phase of the infrastructure. Additionally, we have it is updated to reflect the appointment of Fragrary Drinker to work on the drafting of the construction fund trust agreement. And just as a side note, that would come back to BF&T and ultimately City Council as part of the supplemental bond resolution that we would take when we're ready to issue bonds. And just to point out we have resources appropriated to cover the expense associated with validation for Bryant Miller and Olive. The any costs for Fragrary Drinker will be a cost of issuance on the bonds. So that's how we plan to pay for those two legal fees. Additionally, on series 2020 for C bonds, the first phase or installment on the infrastructure, we've added some flexibility to make a change in the definition of the project. Subject to the approval of bond councils so it wouldn't impact our tax exempt status. But that is, that flexibility is there. So in the unlikely event that we have an automatic termination of the stadium deal, we could then change the project description to invest the bar of resources in other city projects if we are not proceeding with the financing. Now we'll move into a discussion of new articles and agreements that have not been previously discussed. And first up, I think we're going to take a look at Article 19. And before we get started there, Madam Chair, I'd like to have a little permission to go to ask Beth to go to slide 28. Because I think there's something I want to point out on that slide before we get into this discussion. And I apologize to council for the audible if I were Peyton Manning and I'd be screaming Omaha, Omaha. Slide 28. But I did want to just point out the third bullet point on this slide, because I think it is foundational to, or I want you to keep this in mind, that regardless of the type of security or the cure rights, the following applies. All secured interest must remain subject and subordinate to the operating agreement and project documents. And then any secured interest may not come for the county's me interest in the land or the city's lease hold interest in the land including our reversionary interest. So I just wanted you to keep that in mind as we're going through the slides and now if we could Omaha back to that first slide article 19. So thank you and I apologize for that change up but article 19 basically governs the transfer of Stadco's team co and hold co's interest under the project documents including the requirements and limitations for financing and that article starts out with a couple additional foundational issues so the first one I want to point out is that in general, hold co, the parent company is always going to own team co and stat co as sister companies. And that's kind of consistent throughout the document. And then secondly, there is a general prohibition of transfer of interest under the project documents, team co-stad co-use agreement, and their assets or equity, except in three cases. And on the bottom of this slide, we have the three cases. First, there's the permitted MLB membership transfer as outlined in section 19.2.2. And then secondly, there is a minority interest transfer as outlined in section 19.3. And then thirdly, the granting of security interest as outlined in section 19.5. Now we're going to take a look at each of those three starting with the permitted MLB transfer. So briefly, if approved by MLB and if the successor transfer, the transferee assumes all of the obligations of the applicable team party under the project documents, the team may be sold to a third party without City Council approval. The next on the minority interest transfer, without City Council approval, hold co may transfer less than 50% of its equity interest in a single or a series of transactions if among other things, hold co continues to own all the equity and team co and stat co, MLB approves of the minority interest transfer and team co continues to own and operate the team. And then there are some additional requirements to be satisfied if there's a change in the control of old Co or a change in the MLB control person, and that would require some advance notice to the city and provide certain additional details on the transfer. So this slide has a lot of words on it and I apologize for that, but this really outlines the financing overview and the total contribution of Stadco's contribution to the deal will be made up of a combination of Stadco and Teamco barwings. And to state it simply, there will be two separate pools of collateral. There will be the collateral that Stadco has from the operation of the stadium, and they will pledge those revenues or collateral as repayment for any borrowing that they have. Then you also have the team co. The team co will have a separate pool of collateral that will secure their bonds or their debt, and that will come from either the stadium as a property or revenues generated from operating the team. And those are separate and distinct pools of collateral that will secure the finances. The subuse agreement between Stadco and Teamco will outline all the particulars and the exact mix of revenue collected by each of those parties. On the next slide, just for clarity purposes, we wanted to identify within the document kind of some terms so we know who's borrowing what or what entity is having. So for Stadco, they can grant a use right secured interest. That's the collateral that I was just talking about on the previous slide to a use right secured party. So the use right secured party is effectively the lender who would be underwriting that deal. Similarly, with Team Co, they offer a covered pledge security interest, the collateral, to a covered pledge secured party again, a lender. And then hold co is slightly different. They could pledge or collateral assign or grant security interest in equity of hold co, team co and stat co. And that is termed or the lender and that scenario is other secured interest party. So those are just kind of the terms that are used in the document for the pool of collateral or the security being pledged and the lender or provider of the funds. So next we want to talk a little bit about cure rights and lender enforcement proceedings or foreclosure. And so secured parties may but are not obligated to cure breaches by hold co, stad co, and team co under the project documents. So they can, but they're not required to. Secured parties may foreclose their very security interests. So long as any successor remains bound to the terms of the project documents, including non-relocation agreement, the team co-subuse agreement, and regardless of whether it is a voluntary transfer or lender enforcement proceeding or foreclosure. And then getting back to the point I started with, regardless of the type of security interest or the cure rights, all secure interests must remain subject and subordinate to the operating agreement and these project documents and no security interest may encumber the county's fee interest in the land or the city's lease hold interest including reversionary interest under the new stadium parcel agreement for sale and the new stadium parcel lease back agreement and mentioning of those I think I'm going to turn it back over to James at this point to talk about some of those new agreements. Thanks, Tom. So we'll stick with the theme of new agreements that were not reviewed at the last cow. The next floor slides are going to be the agreements with Pinellas County in the city. The first one is the amendment to the agreement for sale with the county. The original agreement for sale with the county dates back to 2002 and it covers the sale of the stadium property from the city to the county. This amendment severes the new stadium, parking garage, and marquee parcels from the remaining property and releases the developer parcels from the original agreement to allow for the proposed redevelopment of that land, and it also spells out the terms of the sale. The next agreement is the amendment and leaseback management agreement with the county. The original leaseback and management agreement with the county also dates back to 2002, and it covers the leaseback of the stadium property from the county to the city. This amendment severed the new stadium parking garage and marquee parcels from the remaining property and it releases the developer parcels from the original agreement to allow for the proposed redevelopment of that land. This also spells out the lease back and management provisions between the city and the county. The third agreement is the new stadium parcel agreement for sale, which transfers the stadium parcel land to Pinellas County. Pinellas County will convey the title back to the city if one the stadium parcel becomes taxable, if the new stadium use agreement expires or is terminated, if there is a change in the law that makes the city ownership exempt from taxes, or if this agreement, or the new stadium lease is terminated. And then the final agreement is the new stadium parcel leaseback and management agreement, and this allows the city to lease back and manage the county's property. It also makes it clear that the county does not have the power, authority, or obligation to make any improvements or repairs to the property. Also that the lease is not assignable and the city will pay the county a nominal rent of $1 per year. So the last thing we're going to do is go over a high level review of the project timeline. City Council should have received a more thorough timeline following the June committee of the whole. And that timeline will be updated as the project schedule is finalized. But as we look at the slide, you'll see that this year pending City Council and County approval, we will have the bond validation sale. And we will begin permitting for both the redevelopment and the stadium projects. In 2025, phase A infrastructure would begin that includes the roadways and landscaping. Construction would begin on the stadium and the first parking garage, which would be located near Fort Avenue South. Additionally, the minimum purchase payment of land of $4.4 million must be met. In 2027, the lift station would be completed. The demolition of Tropicana Field would begin and a minimum parcel payment of $15.8 million must be met. In 2028, which is only four years from now, which is pretty exciting. The stadium would open. And also in 2028, the council would be asked to approve a supplemental bond resolution to fund phase B of the infrastructure. Phase B vertical construction would begin and the construction of 100 senior affordable housing units must commence. At the end of 2030, a minimum of 300 affordable and workforce housing units must be complete and per the first minimum development milestone 400,000 square feet of vertical construction must be substantially complete Phase C construction will begin in 2032 with city council being asked to approve the phase C supplemental bond resolution and in 2035 the phase D construction would begin. And in December, we would have the second minimum development milestone. By the end of 2036, 300 additional workforce in affordable housing units must be delivered. And in 2037, the full land payment of $50.4 million must be met. In 2045 the third and final minimum development milestone will take place and finally by the end of 2047 350 additional workforce and affordable housing units must be delivered. While this isn't a vicious timeline it is achievable if all partners involved come together with a vision, thoughtfulness, and determination needed to make the historic gas plant a model for the nation. We have the opportunity to transform St. Petersburg for generations to come. I appreciate City Council's time, and I'd like to turn it back over to Chair Fakes Sanders for any questions you all may have. No, we're not going to ask questions now. We're going to go ahead and do the presentation for the state. That is it. That's everything. That's everything. Okay. I thought it was going to be a little bit longer and a little bit more in depth. So we're going to go ahead and open up for questions. Councilmember Floyd. And again, I'm going to remind everyone I will stop the presentation. And the Q&As for that if we don't have anything else from administration councilmember Freud. Thank you. I won't be long. I've just got a few things highlighted here. Thank you for the cooking. I appreciate that. That's nice. Okay, so I'm just going to get right into it. There's some things I appreciate that some of the changes, they were really thoughtful. Some of the things I brought up were helpful. But I do want to talk about a couple of things that I'm not sure about how they've changed have seen a word or something and I want to make sure I understand. First, in the excusable development delays, excuse Z, actually is the one that I asked about last time. I saw the word reasonable was removed from there, but I don't think that impacts it much, but basically what excuse Z is, it says if there's like a decline in the leasing market in the southeast That could be considered a development delay, but there again I asked this last time I want to ask it again. There has been a decline in the leasing an environment in the southeast recently and so is there an interpretation right now that says that pending mayoral approval this could apply immediately. Thank you council member for the question. I would say no that's not our position right now and we discussed this in the previous Cal. It's a high vacancy or significantly deteriorating leasing market. We don't believe that we're in that condition right now. In addition the mayor has the full authority to approve or deny this item. And I don't believe that it's a standalone item. There has to be a couple provisions in the excusable development to lay forward to kick in. OK, I appreciate that. More than that, though, it's just like the way that the language is written right now. I'm not sure where the threshold is is what I'm getting at. And that's why I bring it up. Like I don't know, like I asked because just the interpretation is still open right now. And so I wanted to make sure that we had looked at that. Same thing, similar situation, article 2.1.5 about threats of litigation. We guarantee that there's no threats of litigation. I guess I'm looking for maybe a legal definition of what a threat of litigation is. We got a letter that was ominous, but I guess to describe it as a threat isn't quite what we would do yet. So if there's, there's hopefully go could speak to that at all. You know, I think to some degree it's a bit of a case by case situation. The letter you described would certainly not rise to the level. You know, it would take more than a little saber rattling or ruminations to rise to that level in our mind. I mean, I think a threat of litigation would, you know, demand letters and up. Okay. Okay. All right. And then I'm going to get into some of the parcel development stuff quickly. One thing I brought up last time, I just want to have it clarified if it changed or not, was about in the minimum development agreements, being able to place different items anywhere on any parcel they'd like, particularly my worry was like having our affordable housing in less desirable places Is that still the case that the developer can move things around as they see fit on the site? Councilmember there is flexibility within the minimum development requirements to locate uses on the site And we anticipate that on the site the affordable and workforce housing will be a mix of And we anticipate that on the site, the Affordable and Workforce Housing will be a mix of 99-year ground leases and then some affordable and workforce built into the market rate units. So there is an exhibit included in the agreement for the properties where there'll be the 99-year ground leases. So you can see those and those are locked in. Okay. There could be other workforce and affordable housing in different parts of the site, but those four areas were locked in. Okay. Thank you for that. And then in a similar vein, 4.2.1, can the developer elect to still buy what parcels it wants and outside of these changes that you just described and not purchase the other ones so long as they're meeting the minimum development agreement. Yeah, so there's minimum parcel purchase amount which are built into our debt service so those are important to us. If they were determined through their due diligence that there are other parcels that they would not like to acquire, they certainly have the right to do that. We've discussed previously that our position is that it's really not in their self-interest to pass on any property because they would be then subject to what we wanted to do and city council wanted to do with that property. And that would not be in their best interest. So we fully expect them to acquire every property unless there is some significant issue that arises. Yeah and that's what my concern is is a significant issue that deems a property considerably less desirable and then it's back on our books. That's why I bring it up. Okay and then the last thing I have for this sort of guest when I say, I told you I would be quick, and then I only have a couple things for the stadium is about housing. So 5.2 still looks like it says, and this was one of my big contentions, and I wasn't under the impression anything was going to change, but I want to clarify. Subsidies that may be necessary, reasonable and necessary subsidies. So I'm still under the impression that we're doing this agreement right now, but in the future, in order to achieve any of the affordable housing that we have laid out here, it will require additional subsidies from its federal, state, and local sources. So if that's the case, it feels like to me, we might be in a situation where, or we are in a situation where we do this agreement and no affordable housing goes forward unless those subsidies are attained. And it could be that they come to us and say we would like, you know, X amount of money which I think is described as an amount similar to other affordable housing deals with similar financing strategies. And if we are unable to do it, then they don't have to meet that obligation for those units that we may not have the money for in the future. And so if that's the case, then it doesn't seem like this guarantees that we're going to get affordable housing from the zeal. So I appreciate your concern. I would say that your description is accurate. The language that gives us great comfort is similar to other affordable housing deals with similar financing strategies. We have a very strong affordable housing program which we plan to continue to maintain. And we will do our part not only with the Hines and Rae's redevelopment, but with other developers in the city of St. Petersburg and we're gonna continue to pursue opportunities to be a gap financial for affordable housing. So we're on the administration side, we're very comfortable with this link. Okay. And you said in an amount similar to affordable housing deals with similar financing strategies, the premise of the affordable housing fee that we put in here for if they don't make the payment, it was that $25,000 that we based it on. And we said that was historically what we had as what I would call similar deals with similar financing strategies. So do you think, and maybe this is a legal question, there's a legal argument to be made that with $25,000 per unit, we could do this when, you know, over the last year and a half or so, it's gone to $150,000. You know, that if we were to offer the $25,000 because we premise this entire document on that being a similar deal, you know, does that question make sense legally, I guess? you know, does that question make sense legally, I guess? I don't know if it's a legal question. Okay. But your correct is the initial premise for that is based on the gap filling from the city's standpoint. Of course, you know, the damages per unit, the liquidated damages per unit, haven't escalated now. Of course, of that to reflect that numbers starting to change. I mean, it's still significantly lower than what it actually calls us to. And yeah, I know that's not to you. Yeah, that's not to you, yeah. Councilmember Floyd, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but we did run them for the first workshop we all had on this. And I think pre-ARPA, the average was 25 to 28,000 dollars. Post-ARPA, it's still below 50. And so, you know, we have seen some deals, every deal is different that requires some larger investments, but our average across the board is still around 50. Thank you. Administrator Foster, if you'll introduce yourself for the record. Sorry, Administrator Foster, housing and neighborhood services administrator. Thank you. Okay, I just was wondering if there was an argument to be made that said something like, if we were asked for a significant amount of gap financing, we could say, no, that's too much, based off of similar agreements, and they would still be locked into that requirement. Because my concern is, first off, I don't think we should be giving them any subsidy after all of the money that we're about to pour into this. But that's just a difference of opinion here. But my concern is we might be getting put forward significant subsidies that we can't afford, and then they can get out of it. And so I just want to make sure that there's an argument for us to make there. That's our position. Exactly what you spelled out is exactly our position. Okay. All right. Two other things about housing real quick. One is lie tech funds. So low income housing tax credits. I just want some clarification because something was brought to my attention last time that they're usually doled out geographically. Is that? It depends on the fund and the funding source. So 9% tax credit deals, there's one deal a year. It's a lottery system from the state. 4% tax credit deals are not competitive. And we can receive as many as applicants we have that we are able to financially support. The requirements change every year. One of the things that we talk to you about is that it's really hard to read the tea leaves with Florida housing finance. So sometimes they require there to be a city contribution. Sometimes they don't. And so that just depends. But for the 9% tax credit deals there's one per county per calendar year. Okay and that that takes me down a path of wondering you know if we're doing all of these housing deals or we're anticipating doing all of these housing deals are going to come from the future from this agreement. Are we in danger of it not necessarily being additive and I'd just love to hear administr's opinion on this. If we're having to say, okay, we've got this amount of money set aside for all of these housing deals we've entered into through the historic gas plant project. Does that potentially jeopardize other housing deals that we might not have entered and that we might have been able to enter into from a financing perspective, from a LITECH 9% perspective, and end up to where in the end we might still be in the same or similar situation to where we would have without this. So Councilmember Floyd, I would say that the work is additive. From a 9% deal, we support a deal every year for that. You just approved one last week. But oftentimes we don't get that deal, right? Because somebody else in the county may get it. So then we put that back in the hopper and support that in another way. I have not been in the position in my two years here and I know that would be true for Rob when he was in this role that we say no to anything that financially makes sense. So we are always working to get to yes and so far we have found a way. You need to be reminded that you put aside some money in general fun but there's also CRA dollars that help make deals happen. There is ship funding that help make deals happen. There is ship funding that helps make deals happen. We have the payment in Luffy, which you were leaders on and changed. I think there's an upcoming conversation about whether that should change again that Council Member Driscoll has proposed. And so if we were in a situation where we weren't able to support deals, and it would mean that something wasn't going to get bill, I think you would find us taking a leadership role in coming to you and having that conversation and asking for your leadership to help us close that gap. Yeah, yeah. I hear what you're saying. It does all feel like a speculative conversation. We don't know what the city's financing is going to look like. Financial position is going to look like in the future. But I just wanted to throw all of that out there. Councilmember Florek, can I just weigh in on that in terms of housing. This is not the only thing that we're doing. And it's my intention that we enhance our housing opportunities for all program of that, some preliminary discussions with our staff. But we plan to do much more in housing. We're not going to take our foot up the gas just based on this story gas plan. There's a lot more that want to do to find additional resources, additional partnerships for the housing. So I think it's absolutely ahead of it. OK, I appreciate that. And I hope that that's the case. And I'll be right there with you working to make sure it is. I just know that we're like sort of locking ourselves into a lot of agreements right now over the long term. And I want to make sure that that's OK. The last thing I have on this topic is the ability for single-family homes and I think home ownership to be part of the off-site housing. I know you heard from a lot of council members about that being what they wanted. I just wanted to, you know, I don't know, it feels like we might be a bit late in this process to change anything. But I just wanted to put out there that like right now it seems quite big like it could be part of the agreement. Like I would love it if there was some guardrails in either direction. I wouldn't be happy if every single offsite unit was affordable. It was for a purchase. And I think I wouldn't like it if every single unit was for rent either. So like without there's nothing there right now as far as I can tell that puts any guardrails on it. And I just thought that, you know, maybe we wanted to consider something like that. It's sort of simple. Okay. I want to move on to the stadium stuff. And I only have very. No, not doing stadium right now. What's that? We're not doing stadium right now. We're staying with the gas plant. We'll come back to the stadium. Oh, okay. All right. Well, then I'll end on just reiterating my disappointment that in order to get the pieces of affordable housing that are promised in this deal, Our current subsidy does not attain any of that. We have to provide more subsidies. I think the public should be aware that this deal doesn't provide the affordable housing. It just outlines how future deals will provide it. I think that's an important distinction. And one that I'm frustrated by, I understand that administration came to this position, but I don't personally agree. And I will leave it there until we get back to the stadium stuff. So thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Gabbard. Thank you, Chair. I need to kind of reorganize my thoughts because I want to do those straight in on my most important topic, which is the stadium, specifically around the resiliency piece. So I will switch gears just a little bit. So I guess first of all, I kind of want to piggyback on the conversation that Councilmember Floyd was just having around homeownership. And there in the slide talks about the conversion potentially of single-family homes to affordable offsite. Can we get a little bit more information about that? Because for me, when I look at that piece, that presents the opportunity that, as I see it, for home ownership opportunities. So I want to understand kind of what the thought processes around that and what those conversations have been like. So the, there's a few ways. Obviously the Heinz-Rays team can build anything new and make it affordable, provided that it meets the affordability period. We added clarification, I believe it was Councilmember Driscoll had asked about, there was an opportunity for Heinz-Rays to make a contribution a contribution of at least $25,000 to have credit towards so they can convert, let's say they helped the deal, they had 100 units. And let's say just to make it really simple, man, they contributed $100,000. What we wanted to do is make it clear that if this building had 100 units in it, that $100,000 did not give them credit for 100 units towards the 600 requirement. So we put a minimum investment amount of $25,000. So in that scenario, they contribute $100,000 towards a 100 unit building. They would only get credit for four offsite units. And those units must remain affordable for the full 30-year period. The question was, what could the contribution be and those units must remain affordable for the full 30-year period. The question was, what could the contribution be towards single-family homes or home ownership? And so we've clarified that that can happen. It has to be at minimum of $25,000 to get credit for any unit. And the affordability periods must remain the 30 years. So that could be, they could build a home, they could convert a single family home into affordable home as long as they contribute at least 25,000 in that home remain affordable for 30 years. Okay. Alright. Still on the housing just one clarifying question. So on the timeline that you gave at the very end, talks about in 2028, the 100 senior housing start construction, and then in 2030, 300 units must be delivered. So I've had this question from concerned residents, want to understand those 300 units that must be delivered by 2030 do those include the senior units that have started construction to yours prior. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Can you also give a clarification? This is another question I've had quite a bit. The differences in very plain, as hopefully you could just would say. We want it kindergarten. So the difference very clearly between the target of $20,000 or $20,000 square feet for a brochure and the minimum of $10,000 square feet fresh food. Will you please explain exactly the language around that? I would say the minimum is a it's obviously a smaller square footage and it could be achieved in a variety of ways. It may not be a traditional rosser. It would just have to be a facility that provided fresh food within the facility. Stand alone facility. And the scenario goes if there are retailers throughout the site who are willing to contribute a portion of their space to fresh food, does that qualify if it adds up to the 10,000 square feet? That's a great question. Let me get behind the chair. Hello. Good to see you today. Likewise, good morning and thanks for having us back. The intent is to have a dedicated grocer. It's not to split the 10,000 in 5,000 here in 25 there and tucking it in as part of a larger retailer. So our, the messaging from messaging from council was very clear. We would like to focus on getting a grocery store in the development of a size that would allow for all of the things you would customarily expect to see in a grocery store. And that's why we increased the size to 10,000 feet. As I you know, as I think many, you know, but not everybody, grocery providers, they've been very interested in the project already. We've been receiving calls from a number of the household names that you're familiar with. But they also, more so than just about any other retailer, really rely, excuse me, on data. They need to know how many rooftops, how many families are within a certain radius. They obviously know we have a public's less than a mile away or a mile, 1.2 miles away. And so the type, the size, the range, that's the reason for the range in there, but we're comfortable committing to the minimum, 10,000 and the intent from the developer side is for that to be a single facility. Yeah and I would just add to that council member the way I read the language it says one. So that means one of 10,000 square feet minimum anything else would be additive. Okay. You couldn't combine four at 2500 square feet. And legal you agree? Correct. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Frances. I'm sorry for the record. I'm Michael Harrison with Hines. Thank you. All right. Also just back to the interns and the timelines. I'm very happy about the first interim development milestone. I want to thank administration for fighting for that from our very first cow. Very important to see that piece. I was very happy with that. Also very happy with the many, many layers throughout of the City Council approval. And I think my last question, Madam Chair, and then I'll leave it until you get to the stadium is about the apprentice. So obviously, we've had quite the upset over the last few weeks regarding what's happened from Tallahassee and the prohibition of mandating all of these percentages with any project within our city. So I really want to hear and maybe Mr. Harrison need to come back up. I'm not sure, but I want to hear the commitment, I want to hear it here today, that this is not just aspirational, that this is what the intention is because we now cannot mandate it. So we need to hear it directly from you, that this is what we are looking for, that this is what we are going to commit to for our community. Good morning, Andrew Frazier, best source consulting and thank you for the question Councilmember Gabbard. It is extremely important to the development group that we are providing bench strength and really developing workforce talent and while we are upset about the news that came out of Tallahassee this group is firmly committed to meeting the requirements that you see in the document as it relates to both workforce development and apprenticeship development. Okay, disadvantaged workers and apprentice. That is correct. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that. I appreciate your commitment to that. I appreciate you all upholding this. I know that that was kind of a last minute change that we all had to pivot from, but I definitely appreciate the verbiage that we've been able to come to. Thank you legal for working so quickly on that. I'll leave it there Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Montenegro. Thank you. I'll start with the disadvantage. I'll just pick up on the disadvantaged damage worker issue. And I had a conversation with our attorney yesterday and I just want to, because we had this conversation at our city council meeting last Thursday, about House Bill 705 that passed the legislature and was signed by the governor. And also the court case that came out that prohibited us from mandating this. On page 28 of the agreement under community benefits, it says the language in the first sentence says the developer must comply with the following community benefit obligations. That word must, is that going to put us in any sort of jeopardy with the state or the court? Well, you know, it is an obligation. So, but it's not going to put us in jeopardy in our legal opinion because of language that we put in here, responsive to some of these changes and you'll see that in the red line. It's like unless prohibited by applicable laws. In addition to, I'll point you to 6.1.10 developer acknowledgment. Okay. Where this is being clearly stated that, is being done at the developer's own volition and not as a matter of law. So in our opinion, those types of language changes here keep us on good legal terraforma. Okay. And at the, the only thing I'll add, Mr. Deem, I explained it well. At the heart of it, it's the difference between a regulatory imposition and something agreed upon contractually. And we view those differently both in terms of the legislative change in the court case. Okay. All right. And then going to page 67, that's the article, the concerns, defaults, and there's a community benefits obligation default. I just want to make sure that we're okay with that language also. We are absolutely. You're going to be the same reasons. Okay. Page 51. It talks about the city to approve traffic parking and micro mobility plan. I don't know if there's a legal question or a question to the admit. When I start to stay with legal, who approves this plan? Is this the administrative approval or is this City Council? It's an administrative approval. Okay. And then on page 60, Article 13 environmental matters, 13.1, there's some new language that was drafted from the previous version of this. The previous version had the developer picking up the costs for environmental issues. And this language has the developer splitting costs with the city. Can the administration kind of talk about that? Sorry, Council Member King. Page six. Page six. This action again. Page 60. Article 13, 13.1. It's 13.11 the previous so so what this is saying is is and this was understood previously I think through the exhibit is that essentially that an environmental remediation could be considered an eligible infrastructure cost. So our infrastructure contribution could potentially go towards this environmental work. Now obviously our contribution is capped. And so if some of our money is used on environmental work, that's going to leave other work for them to do above and beyond our contribution. But it's really just saying it's an eligible infrastructure cost. Okay. And I just wanted to point out in the previous version, it had the developer paying at its full cost and expense, and now we're splitting it. So I just, I noticed that. But that makes sense, the way that you were explaining it. 13.2, there's a bunch of additional language on brown fields. Can can somebody explain like what what happened between the earlier version and why this language was was change? Yeah I can weigh in on that council member. So the developer they had local outside council weighing in on some of this as well and in viewing some of the proposed changes really what you're seeing here is an added specificity as to eligibility for certain specific programs under brownfields and petroleum and other state cleanup programs so it's really just kind of fleshing out the types of programs that are available and just kind of putting those all on the radar here as opposed to really before was just kind of generally talking about that availability. Okay. We ended up agreeing with that level of specificity for this. Okay. I'll add that. Some of the redlining that you see here is part of the ongoing efforts to keep this and the stadium DFA having the same consistent language. Okay. Thank you. On page 65, paragraph 15.3 under release, the language didn't change, but can I have you just explain this paragraph, too? I mean, I defer to Mr. Barry here. So we're looking at Section 15.3 release, and basically it's describing that if there's a transfer of the developers' obligations under this agreement, the obligations will transfer to the new entity. In the previous entity, we no longer sue the previous entity for or go after the previous entity for the future any future obligations. We'll be looking at the new entity only. Okay. Okay. That's the way I read it. Yeah. I just wanted to hear it from legal. I think that's going to do it for my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. And good morning, everyone. I would have started off by thanking all of you for the work that you've done since our committee, the whole meetings. That goes for the entire team, both from City staff, to the raised Heinz group. We gave a lot of suggestions. We made a lot of changes and there are some things that we were very clear that needed to be improved. And to get this new copy to see almost everything that we asked for was changed. And throughout this entire process, I have felt heard, but to see all of it coming together in this draft was really meaningful. And I think that everyone on City Council, as well, should be very proud of the work that we've done to get these agreements to this point. Now, I have just a few things I want to ask about regarding this section. And I'll start with sustainability. And in Article 6, there is, so in this part for the historic gas plant redevelopment. And someone from Heinz might wanna join us at this point. The way that it is worded the sustainability efforts, it's different from the stadium. So I'll be talking about that at a later time. But I wanna point out that the wording is different. That here, the commitment is to design to market appropriate sustainability standards as they exist at the time of design. I want to point out to everyone that this is different from the stadium. This is for this huge redevelopment that goes around it. And so tell me, tell us a little bit about how this one is different because you've got different buildings that might need different standards that you're working toward. Yeah, I think the answer to your question is really two parts. One is the stadium is being designed once it's being designed now. And so we know in this moment in time what standards exist that could be applied to that particular single project. For us, we know this is a two-decade long project and what we have for standards today for both environmental sustainability as well as resiliency are going to continue to evolve over time. And so what we're obligating ourselves to do is to keep current, not just say here's what's in place today in 2024, and that's the standard that we'll design to for 20 years. So we're really, and this is really philosophically the way Hines has always done business, which is we want to be best in class, we want to use the best standards to evaluate, you know, our contribution as stewards of the land to both energy conservation, sustainability, and even more so as it relates to Florida resiliency. And so that's part one is it's gonna change over time. And the staff has said we don't want you just committed to what it was in 2024. So that was one part of your question I heard. The second is that the level, the types of standards that apply to a residential project are fundamentally different than what might apply to an office building. And it's also different than what you would apply to a retail project or an entertainment venue. And so, or a hotel. And so what we've committed to is, you know, identifying the most appropriate standard that is applicable to hotel design because you've got all these hotel balconies where people are opening windows and the, you know, being able to condition that space is very different than conditioning and office building, which may be a more sealed environment. So, what we're committed to is using the best practices for sustainability as it relates to residential retail office and any of the uses that we're developing on the site. Thank you. And I want to point out that this strategy for designing to a variety of standards depending on what type of building it is, it's for all. That's correct. And not just for some, and that includes the affordable housing. Correct. So if folks are renting an apartment there and they're responsible for their power bill, there will be water, things like that. Even those two will be built to sustainability standards based on the list that you have here or similar. Yes. We don't want to create an undue burden for one type of occupant versus another. Right, right. Okay, thank you. And then in a different part of this section under sustainability, another strategy is restoring and protecting Booker Creek. And we have such an incredible opportunity here to not just restore, but really use that as a centerpiece for the project. And what I'd like to know today is how, what are you envisioning in terms of like the buffer? And I know that that changes as you go along the creek from the renderings that you've shown us before. But we have some folks who think it should be a substantial, like shoot for a 50-foot buffer. And to me, I kind of like that idea, because it's part of protecting it. It's part of creating, you know, encouraging the natural habitat. It's part of, you know, keeping, keeping trash and things we don't want from getting into the water. So that buffer, I think, is very important to the health of the creek. Along with it being an opportunity to concentrate some of the green space and thank you all for working to increase the minimum amount of green space. I'd like to see a lot of that concentrated around the creek in the form of that buffer, wherever it makes sense to do that. Yeah, before our architect comments on the buffers, again, I think that we completely agree with you that Booker Creek is really one of the iconic features of this overall project. You wouldn't know it by looking at it today. But if you look at our master plan, and as the master plan has evolved over the last 18 months, the creek has taken on an even more prominent role architecturally in the heart of our redevelopment. And so again, I think Rob made a comment earlier about it being in the developer's self interest to do certain things that are beneficial to the city here making that a an environmental oasis and making it a place that people can congregate and people can have access to you know in terms of seating around it and, you know, just the, you know, it's a, especially this time of year, it's a hot place to be, but being near water has a cooling effect. And so turning that from a drainage channel into a feature is a top priority for us. And selfishly speaking, the better we make it for all the residents, the better and more value added it'll be to the adjacent development on either side of the creek. Thanks, good morning, council. Ever Coloss, store and studio of architecture. Michael answered it quite well. The only thing I would add to that, of course, is it is still chanalyzed, but outside of it we are going to do a buffer because it needs to perform. The sort of word we've been using as a Zion team, it's an urban sponge. So when there is some overflow, we'll have a buffer from the center line of the creek that goes out to take water, so it performs. It also becomes a feature. You might recall our last cow, EDSA, one of our landscape designers talked about the fact that once you get out of the south side, there's a stormwater garden, which actually retains some of our storm water but also has incredible walks. I like it and it's a boy hill nature preserve and that buffer gets incredibly wide. At a minimum for its easement on a center line of the channel is about 40 feet but it gets much wider at certain parts of our project and it helps to form in that sort of 12 acre minimum open space which we like to talk about. Our code calls for a 5% open space in general. When we do buildings, my buildings, as you know. If we took 5% of 86 acres, we're providing three times that amount in this open space. We believe, as Michael just mentioned, we believe that the great part of our city is approximately within a half mile walk. 90% of our city has pocket parks. So we want to make sure the way we balance it's in fill, especially with Booker Creek being a centerpiece that we balance that. It's not all about hard buildings coming, but also softening wood places for you to walk in a public to enjoy. Right. I'm glad that you recognize the great opportunity we have there to not you know, not only restore Booker Creek, but build on something that's going to be very beautiful and runs, you know, through the entire property. So at this other end of the property with the stormwater gardens and that's very close to a ramp that leads to the pedestrian overpass over I-175 going into Campbell Park. That's the next thing that I want to talk to and it's not something that's in one of our agreements because anything that's related to I-175, that's when you're getting FDOT involved and we didn't need them to be part of these agreements. But there have been a lot of conversations. The city does have a fantastic relationship with FDOT. And there has been, you know, Kimmel Park is part of my district too. It's the neighborhood that is directly south of the project site, this property. And what I'd like to talk about today is how we can commit to engaging Camel Park and really putting some things into place as a team working together with you all the neighborhood, the city and FDOT to create enhancements. Because right now you go from the beautiful booker creek and the wonderful stormwater gardens up a ramp to basically what looks like a prison walk. Barbed wire hangs overhead as you go over the interstate and down into Campbell Park. Imagine that someone who lives in Campbell Park has tickets for the game and they want to walk over. That's there, that's their welcome. That's how they're gonna get there. It's either that or walk up 16th Street, which quite honestly that underpass isn't much better. Now way back in October when we got our first presentation from you all with these great renderings, there were signs of improvements that were going to be made to both the pedestrian overpass and the 16th Street underpass. In fact, it was called a 16th Street Plaza. Today, those don't exist and I just pointed out why it's an FDOT thing. But I don't think that should prevent you or us from making some improvements. Now, long term, there is a great discussion and studies going on regarding making major changes to I-175. But even if that was decided today, that work won't be done for many years. It takes a long time. So I look at it as that's like the long term goal is to, you know, do something about this clear separation between the site and the neighborhood. But there are the short term things that we can do that don't that Kimber Park resident with tickets to the game. So what I'm looking for now is a commitment doesn't have to be on paper, but I want to hear from you all now. And if anyone from the race wants to speak on this as well, I would really appreciate it. But we can't, you know, we have this wall and it sends a clear message and it's not a positive one. We can all work together to make that better, short-term, until that long-term solution comes up. You know, the message that is sent by that pedestrian overpass short term until that long-term solution comes up. You know, the message that is sent by that pedestrian overpass that is so ugly and so insulting. It's just offensive. And 16th Street is just begging for art. The wall that separates everyone is begging for beautification. And so today I'm asking you all to help me tear down that wall. No. We can start today by tearing down the message that the wall sends and creating a new one that really does benefit everyone and brings together this project with its adjoin adjacent neighborhood. So will you work with us to make those improvements? Well I don't begin and then I'll hand over to everyone to get into some specifics. I think that was a Gorbachev reference and I'm gonna choose to not take that particular role but we are eager to improve that connection, have been to some Campbell Park meetings, talk to residents, understand how important it is, both practically and symbolically. And one of the things that the raise will be impacted by immediately is when we begin construction, lots six and seven will not be available. And so we know that our fans will be coming from the 16th Street side to a much greater degree. And we want to make sure that whether they're parking it at the Johns Hopkins Middle School, or this could be Johns Hopkins Middle School, or anywhere else over there that they've got a pleasant, enjoyable pathway along to get there. We also worked on Mayor Welch's Fathers Recreation Center across the way and did some landscape improvement a couple of years ago as an organization, because that was important to us. That was a great, relatively small community focus project that got a whole lot of individuals from the community involved in beautifying that exact area. And I don't see any reason why we can't do a lot more of that going forward. And it'll be, again, a practical focus for us in addition to what I think you're laying out very clearly as a bit of a moral obligation that we want to take on. Hopefully in cooperation with you, with your constituents, with the city, and wherever else we can get support. You want to give a little architectural expertise to- Sure, I'd love to. I'd love to. Councilmember Driscoe, I think you framed it incredibly well. In terms of the fact that we understand the constraints that we have at the pedestrian bridge, but we understand we can quickly work on that 16th Street underpass, which we talked about in October. And since then, we've had been working closely with some of our designers, including EDSA and Walter Hood, to look at some ideas for that. I thought perhaps, because you always want to architect to speak with some visuals, I thought we might show you where we are with that if anyone could work on this. So you are doing some work still? Yes, we are. So just to contextualize it quickly, if you give me a minute or two. So that red circle talks about the underpass plaza that we spoke about in October. And it's been an interesting study for us because as we've been working with it internally and thinking about Campbell Park, we understand that connectivity is important on the basic level of our complete streets initiative of having multimodal of planting, by clanes, what have you. But the end of pass, as we know, and many cities that are trying to deal with this is how do you Make it a bit more approachable and not as scary The next image here looks at our current underpass. Mm-hmm. Yeah, you're right. The next one The one here looks at our current underpass as you look north towards 16th This is that interesting portion of our city where fifth Avenue South goes East and then you also have another fifth Avenue South that goes east and turns into Fourth Ave. One of the things that we know, and this is the next few images will be from Walter Hirdard Design Partners, one of the things is how do we stop this from looking just light and for structure, and the one thing is the underside and the way you light it, you mention artwork which is an homage to what we did in the deuces with the Zulu painter. I think that's some of the basis we do here. But as we've been working with some of the descendants and talked about this connection, we also understood that there are two churches that were where the underpass is now to baptize churches there. So there are some inspiration that came with that. And then some of the descendants also mentioned our Saturday shops, which happens in lot one. And perhaps if we actually bring this as a proper room, how can you bring that back? So the next image shows an idea. This is just a section cut. Here you are. The overpass is above your head. You have approximately 24 feet. You see this sort of painted adicula portal. Dicula is an architectural word for sacred portals, talking about churches. And then perhaps a market space. And here it is in a rendering. So what that will do is the reflective panel is an idea of just making sure that it makes a room, you're not looking at hard structure up above. You have these portals that come in. It could be a great place to celebrate our pop-up market spaces for small businesses. We also structure up above. You have these portals that come in. It could be a great place to celebrate our pop-up market spaces for small businesses. We also will have these pocket gardens to soften it as Brian spoke about. Middle school children walking from, J-Hop would be able to have a pleasant walk. And of course, not shown in here, but basic lighting, of course, which is the first position to make sure that it's approachable and not scary. Heinz-Rays have left a portion of the budget as part of this. You make sure it happens. This is something that we're still committed, but this is an early design. And as we continue to work with descendants and work with our Campbell Park community partners, we'll make sure this becomes something that we can celebrate earlier, waiting on what happens at the OT. Thank you. This is so encouraging. I mean, if this is what you can do with that plaza and everyone's seeing like the before and potential after pictures, imagine what you can do with a pedestrian bridge. There's some really creative stuff out there. So... Absolutely. I forgot to show our favorite images next slide. That should actually activate it if there is one more slide. No, maybe not. Okay. Okay. That's fine. Well, I'm just saying that one at some point. That's right. Well, thank you. Of course. This is really amazing. This is exactly what I was hoping for. And I'm really happy to hear and see the commitment that you have to engaging with the neighborhood and creating that connectivity that they've been asking for. So thank you for that. Of course. And just want to thank you for the question, because it also allows us to say that this is going to be an ongoing conversation for a very long time. We'll look to each of you to help us connect to the surrounding neighborhoods, to your constituents, to make sure that this project continues to meet the needs as our community evolves broadly over the next 20 plus years. All right. And Council Member Drisco, I just want to tell you you've got my full support on this from the administrative Thank you. I actually remember walking that over past a couple of times as a kid And I think the barbed wire is there because of some incidents that happen with most throwing things down from the image Mm-hmm. But it is not at all a welcoming walk. I totally agree with you on that We don't have a picture, but Birmingham actually does this very well. We took a trip up there for the Negro League's tribute. What they've done, what they're underbast, is they tackled it. We ought to try to match it. It looks even a little bit better than that. And the other thing I want to say, we do want to focus on the corridors. This is outside of the scope of the historic gas mine. But 20 produces 18, 49 MLK. We want to have a height and focus on those quarters going forward and James and this team are working on that. So you've got our tools. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. It'll have a great ripple effect on all of the neighborhoods in those areas on those corridors. All right. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. It'll it'll have a great ripple effect on all of the neighborhoods in those areas on those corridors Right. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. I want to make sure I didn't miss anyone council member anoints I guess there was no one else on the list Missy the one you hadn't spoken or Thank you. Thank you chair First of all, I thank everyone for Listening to us in the last few meetings I for those who are watching obviously the exhaustive list of things that I've addressed that are related to this deal. I'm only going to cover some. So if there are things that are not covered by me today, it's not because I don't have issues with it, but it's because we're focused on different changes to the agreement. So since we just covered Article 6, I wanted to actually touch base back on Article 6 and Mr. Harris and if you can come up on that, because Councilmember Drisco asked about Article 6 strategies including the commitment to design to market appropriate sustainability standards and other strategies that are outlined there. And then you mentioned that, I quote, we are obligating ourselves, right? That's what it says. Yeah, I read 6.1.6. There is no obligation there, because all it says is developer has identified the following sustainability strategies to be deployed in the project that will advance city priorities. It's not implementing, we're not doing, it's just you've identified. Yeah, we're identifying sustainability targets and our intent is to design the projects to those design standards. Right, so legal. I would like your opinion in terms of what obligations are there in terms of actually doing this and whether that language could be much stronger in terms of making it a requirement to do these things. I'm going to chime in. Yeah, so if you're looking at 6.16, the introduction to that sentence as developer has identified the following sustainability strategies. Two-year point, I think that would be, and then we go through and one was what the Council Member Driscoll pointed to as far as designing to the market appropriate sustainability standards. Which we heard they intend to do. It would be stronger if the introductory sentence that developer has identified must implement the following sustainability strategies. Okay. Yeah, and I believe that the other contract uses award implements in terms of the stadium, in terms of some of the sustainability standard. So, if you say that you're gonna do it, then say it. It shouldn't be identifying it. That's not an obligation. And so that's my concern with that section. And since we're covering open space and sustainability measures, I'm happy that we increased it to 12 acres. But when you get a discount for 14 acres from the price, then you get 14 acres of open space. Not 12, not 11, not 13, 14. Otherwise, you don't get to discount for 14. You get to discount for 12 or 10 or whatever it is. So I just want to put that out there in terms of open space and what the bargain is. In terms of, and Michael, my as well say there because we're going to talk about the parties a little bit. I appreciate that. The last meeting I covered, the issue of who the parties are and in the presentation it was mentioned. And I want to ask you attorneys, have we received any documentation, any organizational documents on the joint venture at this time, and if so, what what and when have you received this information? Yeah, I do not have any organizational documents about the joint venture Neither does our office Correct, okay, so we haven't received anything. We've had these meetings for a while already This has been going on for years. And so I would like to understand why it is that we don't have any information as to the entities and who are part of the entity. Why wouldn't we have this information? Yeah, well, I'm not going to pre-qualify this by saying I'm not an attorney. I appreciate it. So that's a good answer. That's it. You know, the rays and hines have formed a 50-50 partnership and it's comprised of a high-and-affiliate and a raise affiliate. So that is something that we have worked on at length with the rays over the last 18 months. And I know you know a lot about the rays and who they are in their 30-year commitment here in the city. I don't actually. I mean, we know the outside stuff. I want like the, we can, we've got the right people on the road. But what I can tell you about Hines is that, you know, the Hines organization was established 67 years ago. We have over $99 billion of assets under management. And the Hines Organization is a privately held third generation company that is controlled by Jeffrey C. Hines and his daughter Laura Pierce Hines, who are both co-CEOs of the company. And when we execute this agreement, the Hines partner within this developer entity will be an affiliate that is controlled by the family. And the owners of the entity will be the Hines family and select employee partners. I appreciate that. Look, Hines obviously has a good reputation. It's been around for a long time. There's a reason why the raised pick you all. And I'm not disput appreciate that. And look, a Heinz obviously has a good reputation. It's been around for a long time. There's a reason why the raised pick you all. And I have, I'm not disputing that. And I'll ask legal, you know, when I brought up the issues in terms of the transfers in Article 15, the changes that were made basically is, as long as the developer remains a Heinz affiliate, raise affiliate, both a hinds affiliate and raise affiliate. Now how does adding that language, okay, change any of the risks that I identified last time, for instance, we were sold on Hines and their experience as a developer, how can we guarantee that the permitted assigned remains a high and affiliate based on or anyone like with their equivalent strength, credit worthiness, experience, reputation, all that? How does this language guarantee that they stay on? Does it? Don't you take it in the hand? Yes. Yeah Council Member, thank you for the question. This language doesn't guarantee that hines would remain because it allows, and it's going to be either a raise affiliate, a hines affiliate, or as you said, both. So there is a possibility that between the two of them, that they change their arrangement and it becomes just a raise affiliate with highs not involved. Right. Nobody expects that but that is that is a possibility. Well, what we can expect is for anything that can be allowed under the contract to happen. Right? If it's allowed in the contract. It's two different things and what we expect and what we can enforce in guarantee. Right. So going back to your point, based on the language here, it doesn't guarantee that you are going to be part of this in the future. There's nothing here that guarantees that you're going to be part of this. What we've negotiated and what we've agreed to with the city is that it's either going to be a Heinz-Rays partnership or a Heinz affiliate or a raise affiliate that controls this. So you're getting who you've had from the beginning of our proposal. But you just heard from legal who interpreted that provision and whatever the bargain is and the reality remains that based on the language, a Heinz affiliate can be out because it can be a raise affiliate. I'll give you an example. No, I'll give you an example. Let's say Sturmburg right now decides he's going to sell the team. Okay. And the buyer wants to not just get the team, get the whole development rights, which can be transferred under this agreement. And so the raise affiliate or the raise, whoever they do the steal and then buy you all out, that can happen under this. So I appreciate all the experience that you have, but to my point and my concern is, this is a redevelopment agreement to redevelop men and it is important under the bargain to have a developer that has the experience that you all have. So that is still a concern I have and nothing, none of the changes have addressed those concerns. And we have no way to vet who's gonna be change in the agreement, who's a high-sophilia as a matter of fact, under the agreement, it says basically that you all can change to raise affiliate or high-sophilia and we will not get any information of it. So how do we even vet whether it's an affiliate or not under this agreement? There is no way for us to vet it because we can't even get the information. There's a definition of a high-saffiliate in the... I understand there's a definition of a high-saffiliate, and then they won't with director and direct interests. Control by Jeffrey C. Heinz. That's right. And how do we get that documentation? How do we verify that under the agreement? What is the mechanism? Could someone point me to the mechanism that we can go ahead and get this information in the agreement itself? Besides just asking, I want something in the agreement. So I believe the council members referring to 15.2.2, which allows Hines affiliate to transfer to another Hines affiliate or raise affiliate to transfer to another raise affiliate. And the question is, well, that can be done, that's allowed. But what she'd like is the contractor to say, yeah, you've got to prove that the transfer is to an affiliate. Because right now, if you were to commit fraud and violate the contract, we wouldn't have a chance to know that. Which I think is your concern. I just want to make sure that we can get the information we can get based on the affiliate and follow whether or not they are an affiliate. That's what the concern is. If they're relying on this language to protect us, and we have no way of verifying this, that's to me an issue. So again. I think your point is valid. I think in part, from a commercial standpoint, somebody was acquiring the Heinz affiliate interest, and it wasn't a Heinz affiliate. I don't think they would do so knowing that this provision is here. So it's, this takes two to commit that. I understand that. The violation. I know you do council member. My point is I'm sitting here, I don't have agreements. I don't know, they're telling me what their partnership agreement is. I don't have anything in writing. you say it's 50-50 I don't have anything to confirm that we don't have anything where we've done our due diligence to confirm what you said here We don't have any of the documents and that seems to be okay with some people. It's not okay with me a simple zap I want it. I want things in writing and You know promises or I will do this or that's my intent no I want it in black and white So I want it to be clear if our bargain is we want a good developer Then it has to be crystal clear in terms of the transfers and city council should have oversight They just should at the end so that's all I'm going to say about that I think I've been crystal clear about it and I think none of the change that I've been made in terms of those transfers I think I've been crystal clear about it and I think none of the change that I've been made in terms of those transfers Protaxes in that regard. So councilmember Yeah, I think it's just important for the the administration just to Business perspective and we certainly understand your concerns and ultimately this is gonna be a vote of city council and and what city council is comfortable with We're comfortable with the agreement, the protections that we have in the agreement. We're comfortable with our partners, we're comfortable with a transfer to a high-end affiliate or to a raise affiliate. If we were to end up eventually working only with a raise affiliate and it was a new owner, that new owner would be approved by Major League Baseball. We feel that it would be somebody that would be distinguished and that we could work with. And if that ends up being the case, we believe the agreement protects our interests and we'll just work with the new person. And I appreciate that. I understand that that's the position of administration. And look, MLB is going to be concerned about somebody who can run baseball. They're not developers. So just because a team owner is approved, that doesn't necessarily mean they can develop. And that's what my concern is, they're going to have a different focus. I understand that there was more control with the sale of the team and MLB being involved and all these other protections you have, but that has to do with baseball, not development. But I appreciate that. I appreciate that too. And I would say that's why the minimum development requirements are so important. That's why the intounCRA is so important that there's guidelines and standards that whoever it is would have to follow. And that's what we're relying on. And again, the bargain is with a developer of this level and if anyone else comes in, that's not at that level, then that was part of our bargain. So I'm just putting that out there not to be repetitive. In terms of the community benefits, I appreciate that there was a lot more detail that was put into the community benefits. And I'm just going to say this about community benefits. Okay. It's $50 million of community benefits, not in today's dollars. It's throughout a 30 year period. And frankly, I think that money should be upfront. And frankly, if you're going to say you're going to give us $50 million in community benefits, it shouldn't be discounted from the price of the land. You should increase the price of the land by $50 million, and thank of us $50 million, and then you could say you're giving us $ 50 million in community benefits. But discounting the price of the land and then putting that you're giving 50 million dollars in community benefits over 30 years time with conditions is not the same. So for those who don't understand that it's simple. We have discounted the land by $50 million. And they're giving us $50 million in community benefits, who's actually paying for that. And that's a rhetorical question. I'm not gonna cover the affordable housing issues that have been covered already. I have the similar concerns about affordable housing, the CABAC recommendations. And let's see, in terms of race, because I haven't heard from race, it would be nice to hear what the agreement is with Himes from Rays and how you set up your businesses. Good morning, Matt Silverman. Good morning, Matt. The race have an entity, a preexisting entity that is part of our parent company called RRE Opportunities LLC and that will be the raise party to the Heinz Historic Gas Plant District Partnership, which is the DBA that we have filed together. Are you all planning to give us a copy of your agreement? No. OK. So you're not planning to give us a copy of your agreement between Heinz, so we have no idea what your agreement is We're not gonna get your financials correct correct. So when I say that if something's not in agreement. That's not required Okay, thank you That's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Just want to make sure before I go to vice chair girders council member Muhammad you had no questions No questions Just brief remarks. Thank you Madam Chair And thank you administration high raise for the changes that you have made the responses that you have Included based upon council feedback The milestones for development is appreciated in the details around current community benefits. The minimal increase to green space and the pledge to build to lead, and also some of those changes that require council approval. But I do still have concerns, my fundamental concern of selling the land and then selling it for below what is worth. The picking and choosing of parcels and also one of the things that I lifted up was around the mix of the affordable housing, the AMI. I didn't see any changes to that when we talked about where the greatest need is for affordable housing. I didn't see any adjustments to that and I'm still working my way through these documents. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Gertis. Thank you Madam Chair. Both the city raise hines. Thank you and I would echo some of my colleagues' comments that I think, you know, these documents certainly reflect that we've been heard. I want to go back to 5.2 for a second, and I don't know. Legal, this may be a question for you, and it's really just around my understanding that Councilmember Floyd's point point because I remember Administrator Burtus bringing something up when we were first talking about this at the original cow. And so when we talk about the subsidies or incentives that are incentives that may be necessary to develop standalone affordable workforce housing, we could use the discounted land value as that incentive, and if it was within the realm of what a deal has been in the city of St. Petersburg, then we've done our part, right? Am I saying that correctly? I think any time that we provide land value that's considered part of our subsidy So for example on the bear creek development we paid approximately two million dollars For that property we did additional subsidy on top of that and those two things combined are combined subsidy Yeah, so when we say similar to other deals with similar financing structures we'll be looking at both those things okay, and so This is totally hypothetical and we may not have done this before and if we haven't just tell me. But if we decided that the discount of the land value, that was enough incentive based on administration's feeling to get that land deal done, then we still can hold them to this threshold of the minimum development for affordable and workforce housing, just on that stand alone, right? They still have to hit the minimum whether we said yes or no based on more incentive, and we can still hold them to this. The way I see this happening in practicality is they will identify development. They will notify us of what the required subsidy is. We'll make a determination based on our review. We could notify them that we believe that the subsidy is already satisfactory. If they would disagree, I believe that would probably go to dispute resolution and mediation. And ultimately, there would be a determination made based on the evidence and the facts. Okay, and so that's, I think, where I go to legal words. If administration made that case where they said, okay, the land discount was the incentive, and we were not gonna provide over and above incentive of that, and we ended up going to dispute. This, based on the language and current city deals how it's how it's worded we we feel strongly that we would be in good standing there we could hold them to that yes okay because I I totally understand council member Floyd the the point you're making but I also think there's a point where it's yes there is affordable housing because we've discounted the land. And so if we can, if that is within that realm, then I do think this agreement provides that. And so I just wanted to go over that quickly. Council member Driscoll, I really wanted to thank you for bringing up the 16th Street overpass. I don't, you know, I think I talked, I briefly talked about it in our last cow. When I talk to the gas plant descendants, up most importance. Up most, top three. And so I'm really happy we had some slides up. I think that shows, I think that goes a really long way and that connectivity is so, so very important. I really only wanted to bring up one more thing and this is this is probably for Heinz-Rays. In my in my follow-up conversation with descendants, some things had changed in the MLB since my first meeting with them and my second meeting with them. Meeting, if you follow baseball, we integrated stats with Negro leagues in the MLB. And I think it brought something up in that community that, you know, when, because we showed a video the last time, we have a history of the Negro Leads here in St. Petersburg. And a lot of those players couldn't stay in hotels. They had to stay in homes in South St. Pete. And it was brought up that it would be a great honor to theme one of the hotels that were to go on this property about the Negro Leads and Jackie Robinson, I think, you know, long history of St. Petersburg. And so I don't expect it in these documents, but I think it's important that we're listening to them. And so I wanted to bring it up, see if you had any comments about that openness to that conversation. Obviously, you guys are continuing to talk with the descendants. I don't think that's going anywhere. It's certainly not from my perspective. But I do think when we are talking about the history of this site, they're the ones that have the perspective. That's certainly what I've learned in a couple hours. I've spent with them over the last month and a half. And so I just wanted to get your perspective on that. Sure. Just to clarify one comment you made, you made the comment that our conversations with the descendants aren't going anywhere. I think you meant to say they're not going away, because we're going to be fully engaged for decades. You're not moving the needle at our foot. We absolutely plan to move the needle. And again, Everold talked about the fact that we have engaged Walter Hood as one of our architects. And he is very specifically working with Gwendolyn Reese, working with our outreach team as it relates to the gas plant descendants and really focusing on how do we appropriately recognize those, you know, that group of, you know, citizens and the whole Negro League stat integration. From my perspective, it just gives us, you know, another tool in our tool belt as something that we can put into the overall design mix for the project. And maybe that's not the name of a hotel, but that's featured in a hotel as part of the entry processional or some element of the green space that we have in front of the hotel, between the hotel and the ballpark. So for us, it absolutely, we view it as an opportunity and the dialogue with the descendants and how we mix in those sorts of elements is something that we can do now because we're at the beginning of design. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. And I think, you know, you hit on it where it it where it's not just going to be one piece that's going to really honor the history, both of St. Petersburg and the gas plant descendants. You know, I think that's first and foremost. I think our goal is really to do a combination of elements that are throughout the project that are really the baseline. It's the background that you see is an homage to the history of the gas plant district. And then we want to couple that with significant features that give people a chance to pause, to reflect, to honor. So I think for us, it's more of a holistic solution than just plopping art and a plaza. Yeah, and I think for us, it's more of a holistic solution than just plopping art and aplaza. Yeah, and I think in addition to that, if you take the Woodson Museum and you combine that with the exhibition space that we expect to have at the ballpark, there are opportunities for us to continue to teach history and talk about the spring training history here, the Negro League history here, Major League Baseball history, and have that as a living, almost museum to the baseball history in our city. Yeah, thank you for that, Matt. I mean, yeah, you look at the top 10 hitters of all time now. I think five of them played here. It's pretty incredible. And so, and thank you for reading up the woods in. This is the last point I'll make and just because we're in the sunshine, I'll give a quick update. We're actually getting an update of the woods in the museum tomorrow at Taurus Development Council. They have put in an application for capital funding to be able to move on the Woodson Museum very quickly. And so that application will come to TDC for vote in September, assuming these agreements are agreed upon and put into place. But we get an update tomorrow about that Woodson, and then we're expected to vote in September at TDC, which would send that vote to the Board of County Commissioner so just why we're in the Sunshine Fair did I give everybody an update That's all I had thanks Mountain Chair. Thank you I want to make sure before I close out with my comments that we Have another round because I don't y'all leave him saying she didn't give me the opportunity to speak and she cut me off. So I just want to make sure everyone has had the opportunity to speak. And I have to say, Mr. Corbett, oh my gosh, I was expecting more. I'm anticipating that we're going to have a long presentation. But I think because we've had the conversations so much in detail, I want to thank the administration and thank you for the presentation and giving us information that we need, whether we agree or disagree, you provided it and I do appreciate everything that Council and the raised have done. So before I open it up for round two, I am going to echo with not my closing comments, but to echo some of the things that I've heard my colleagues say and some notes that I actually took in response to some of the presentation. When I see, for example, you know, because we are a city that we need to definitely be more environmentally conscious. And when I see terms such as, let me find it, when we talk about our trees and our canopies and things, and the phrase is used that we will replace it based on the city's requirements at that time. Is it the time of the signage of the agreements? Are we going to continually move this needle as to what the city standards are? Because the city I'm hoping are growing. I'm hoping we're going to elevate it. We're going to evolve into a more green city. I want to make sure that we're going to be in those current compliance. It's not just with the category that is sustainability, but also with our canopies, our trees, our water resources, is that going to be a moving needle? Yeah, Madam Chair, I think it's right before 6.1.7, I think we're referring to, and it will constantly evolve, it'll be the then applicable standards with respect to replacement trees. Okay. And I guess I didn't get that from the the verbers that was there because it didn't say anything to current. It just says, um, applicable to the city's true replacement requirements. And it didn't say at that time or in future. And I just didn't translate it as that. So I just need that statement. So I might be a grammar nerd, but there's no might about it. I think probably we'll add a hyphen there it should say then applicable with a hyphen in there to make it clear that we're talking about those standards at the time. At the time. Yep. All right thank you. I also want to acknowledge the city's role with a lot of the things that we're asking for in this particular agreement. You know when we talk about ensuring that we're asking for in this particular agreement. You know, when we talk about ensuring that we use minority businesses and apprenticeships and things of that nature as a city, I want us to move forward in knowing that the equitable opportunities for our constituents, especially local talent, to remain here and to be competitive for you to realize those resources that we developed them here at home. You know that we continue because I don't want raise high as to come back and say we looked, we looked and we couldn't find anything here locally in St. Petersburg to provide that 10% or 15% and going back to that I am going to commend Ray's Hines for agreeing with the apprenticeship piece. But I think that apprenticeship piece was the dagger in my heart because we've been working on that piece citywide for years, not two, not three, not four, but years. And it was going away with the stroke of a pin. Everything that we worked in, we weren't working on it specifically just for this project but citywide projects as a matter of fact and one of the questions that I had for administration when that happened was it is a good look I appreciate all that you have committed to doing in regards to apprenticeships but I'm still trying to struggle with not enforced, of course, but not trying to go outside the law. But how we can ensure that those good faith efforts are being made. How can we ensure that those good faith efforts are being made? Because I'm going to tell you, you know, we appreciate the changes that's going on with that, but that piece is my biggest concern. One, if we're gonna have to stop the resources, here for you to actually pull from. And two, how can we ensure that good faith effort is documented somewhere between the relationship between the city and high. I see Mr. Andrew coming forward and I would love to get that response because that part was really important to me. Mr. Andrew, if you don't mind, maybe I'd like to hear from Mr. Deema prior to Mr. Andrew. As much information as possible. Sure. Thank you, Chair. Just from the plain language of the agreement, we've got two things in there that speak to monitoring. One is an annual report that speaks to the documentation of the measurables as to achieve one of each of the community benefit obligations set forth herein. With respect to good faith efforts, however, the second monitoring or backstop that was put into the agreement here requires a report on the good faith efforts that were expended by developer at each of the minimum development requirement interim deadlines. So that's where the city's gonna be able to see cumulatively how the developer has sought out to achieve the certified business and other good faith effort based requirements. And Jack here, Michael, you can jump in if I misstate it. But I think there's a difference between the legislation saying, hey, if somebody's coming to you in your regulatory capacity, they want approval under the zoning code to build something, you cannot mandate these things. But in this case, the city is negotiating with the high raise as part of a contractual agreement we're providing a discounted land price. The city is acting as landowner so we're free to put in these agreements that they've agreed to comply with the apprenticeship and the other disadvantaged workers things. So the city does have the ability to enforce those. We're not relying on their On them volunteer, you know we can enforce it. We're not relying on them to say well. Yeah, we intend to do it So you can trust us. Okay, because my my response in the initial conversation was there is no or You know there there's no or you know we can give a good faith after it and we couldn't but there's no or You know as far as what the city could, so you just answered that question because it is very important that our local workforce is just that local workforce. And this being one of those major projects, we have to ensure, because there was so much conversation about it, I could not let that go. I do know Mr. Andrew, I wanna go ahead and let you address. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you once again, Andrew. Frazier best source consulting. Again, generating wealth for our citizens and our community is important and vital for this project. And voluntarily, the group has committed to not only the numbers but also doing quarterly reporting and making sure that we're measuring the programming and that we're getting the outcomes and the results that we that we need to see. Part of the other changes that you saw in the document was that any substantial changes that happened to the intentional equity and the commitment to the CBC have to go before this board. If we're not measuring, we're not going to be able to improve what we're doing. So we are committed not only to the apprenticeship piece, but also with our workforce development as well as our supply of diversity planning. And please know you're going to be held to that because that work of our interiority, voluntarily to me, here is a whole lot of weight with promises. Because we've had this conversation, and I'm glad Vice Chair brought it up. This whole project is happening because of the descendants period. And I don't want us to lose that. I've heard, you know, conversation about, you know, Booker Creek and the things that go along with it. And all of those things are wonderful. But I still hadn't heard anything about legacy garden. Those that are said to be still buried under the parking lot. I still hadn't heard about it this year and I'm sure that the Woodson is going to tell an excellent story of our history and the legacy. But I don't want us to lose that. You know, so I'm glad that their conversation has been brought up, but I do want to hear more about the legacy garden and what that should be looks like to those descendants. Because I heard the term about symbolically, we have a lot that we have to pay homage to in this project. So I would love to hear about the legacy garden piece and what that piece looks like. I'm going to ask everyone to come up and help us out. Good morning Madam Chair. I'm going to talk about holistically what we're doing, starting with honoring those who have been buried there. The city will still continue to do their studies. We understand from the studies that happened a few years ago that there are bodies there that we need to be honored. That location is actually just north of the underpass we were just talking about. So that is being kept clear of any building in order to have a commemorative location at least a park. So that is being honored. The other thing that we're doing in terms of telling the story, not only in a historic gas plant, but as extends throughout the rest of the city, is working with Miss Gwendolyn Reese and the portion of extending the is working with Miss Gwendolyn Reese and the portion of extension of extending the Afghan Meredith Heritage Trail as it goes from the west of our site today from the deuces all the way throughout and part of that is us working with Walter Hood to provide pieces that we commemorate and we honor some of the buildings that were there. You might recall from the last cow, and when we were talking about the landscape, you saw some things in the ground that commemorated the historic gas tanks in terms of how the planting and the paving would be done. So that's that. But of course, in terms of the museum being an anchor and a gateway that only talks about what's happening in a city, but what's happening in the statewide. It's something that's quite important to Heinz-Rays. Heinz-Rays has provided significant amount of resource even from the point of getting to the L.O.I. My team personally has been working to program that museum to make sure we understand not only where it's located and it's approximately to the orange belt railway, which talks about African Americans actually building that and how can we tell that story in an exact building because it's so adjacent to it. So there's a significant overall 86 acre commemorative effort that we're doing design-wise and we'll continue to do. And as Brian mentioned, it'll get feedback from the community as we have as we presented as we start to go vertical. So we're quite proud of it. We understand that this project has always been about design, policy and storytelling. And the descendants and the folks of the historic gas plant has been up most importance in terms of power programming this. So we'll continue to work on that and visuals will come out if this were to be approved moving forward. Okay, quick question. I've heard the word honor and have we had a conversation about excavated art? If there's something there are people that are buried there, I think we owe them the honor not to continue to build over them. Have we had that conversation? I'd pass it to Brian Kaper to talk about the ongoing studies that we're doing there. Is Brian here? Yeah, very. That's all. Good morning, Council of Bryan Caper, Economic and Workforce Development Director. So we continue to do analysis on the Oakland Cemetery. We are doing expanded ground penetrating radar. Effectively, what we have done in the past was ground penetrating radar for the area, the boundaries that were the former Oakland cemetery. In that, it identified four areas that there was a disturbance. That could mean anything, really. But the next step is to do ground truthing, which is to dig on the site, to determine what is actually there. And if that disturbance aligns with remains. Because of where those were located on the very edge of the site, it was recommended by our consultant to do expanded ground penetrating radar to go a little beyond the site, the former site, just to see if there were other areas of disturbance that also should be looked at as well. That expanded ground penetrating radar is actually occurring this week. It was scheduled to happen a couple of weeks ago, but unfortunately due to weather delays, it did push it back slightly. So that effort is ongoing right now. We expect to have that report completed sometime later this fall. And once we have that identification of if there are other hotspot areas, we will then come up with a plan of how to address it, which will include ground truthing to actually determine if there are remains on the site or not. Okay. Okay. So thank you for that update. Because when we say we wanna pay homage to the descendants, you can't get anymore honorable than that. So thank you for that. And I'll leave that there in regards to the development. Are we ready for round two of development? Because the plan is we are going to break for lunch at noon. And again, I have to thank James. I thought we were going to have a much longer presentation because I planned on camping in, you know, pillows and all night. But we're going to have, do we have round two for the benefits for you? So before we're going to have do we have around two for the benefit space before we move on to the stadium additional I see two hands up are they the stadium or because once I officially closed the this piece this piece councilmember Floyd thanks I just had one comment on what councilman burger girders brought up about subsidy a very good point the only thing is is that Berger, Gertis brought up about subsidy. A very good point. The only thing is is that with minimum development requirements written the way they are, a bulk of the housing will be offsite could be the majority, likely to be the majority, as well as 99-year ground leases on the on-site housing. So there's no subsidy for the land in those portions of affordable housing. And so what you're describing is very minimal based off of how the deal's currently structured, but I do appreciate you bringing it up. Thank you. Anybody on the developments at Council Member Driscoll? Thank you. There were a couple of great points that were made by Council Member Hanoetz and I tend to agree with her. So I wanted to bring those up. First, in Article 6 regarding the sustainability, it is true that it can be read that we're simply stating that the developer has identified opportunities for sustainability strategies. So I'm not sure if we can agree to add a word that tightens this up and solidifies the commitment. I'd be happy to talk to the city attorney about this offline if you choose to. In 6.16 I mean the way I read it it says yes they identify these strategies but it does say to be deployed in the project. Right that's kind of how I was reading it so I want to make sure this is tight enough. We can participate in that conversation and satisfy the request. Okay. Thank you. And then the other, the other one was in article 15 with the right to It sounded like the issue was that this can take place and the developers not obligated to provide notice. It's not about approval. It's simply about providing notice. And I wonder if we can get notice. I mean, it sounds pretty simple when this is a transfer for a Heinz affiliate that remains a Heinz affiliate or in a Rais affiliate that remains a Rais affiliate or in a raise affiliate that remains a raise affiliate or an Alender investor. Just having that notice I'm wondering yeah so let me respond and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Harrison and ask him to be fine with a change there so you know we expanding a little bit on what the earlier conversation was as you pointed out this is talking about a Heinz affiliate transferring to another Heinz affiliate, or a Reins affiliate transferring to another Reins affiliate. It does not require notice to the city of those, either one of those transactions. In the possibility of there being a different transfer from a Heinz affiliate to a non- Heinz affiliate without providing notice would require the Heinz affiliate, raise affiliate, and the purchaser to all be violating this section would believe that alone. But to your point, this is not even requiring approval. Well, right, we're just asking for notice. So I'm wondering if it'd be okay to have notice. I think the concern was if there's a lot of this done for trust in the state's planning or bringing in investors, I think the concern is they might have a foot fault and not give us notice because it's not something that they consider substantive. Mr. Harris, I'm wondering if we can add something. You said it exactly right. Yeah. So I guess the question is though, would you be willing to provide notice of any transfer from an affiliate to an affiliate? I think so. So I think going back to previous part of this conversation, if we do something that is not permitted by the agreement, we would be in breach of the agreement. And so that is the protection for a counterparty, is that we would be in breach than you would have, where everybody is available to you. But we're not, we don't want to be in a position where there is a foot fault that causes us to be in breach of this agreement. And so that is part of the reason for it. From time to time, we have transfers, we have reorganization of the company, new sister brother subsidiaries are created, and so we want to have that flexibility to be able to do it, which the document provides. Yeah. And from our. You're asking about a permitted transfer. Right. Anything. Yeah. Right. And from a practical standpoint. This is my opinion. I'm not concerned about not having that notice. The reality is if Heinz or the race were no longer involved. is if Heinz or the race were no longer involved, people on the street would end up knowing that. You would tell, we'd be able to know if Heinz was no longer involved in this project. We would want to. Well, I think just from a practical standpoint, I think we would know, the question might be, well, how do you enforce that? We could go to court and say they're in default. If we didn't see the underlying agreement, a court would be able to look at the underlying agreements and determine whether they're in default or not in default. I just think the likelihood of them evading and defaulting intentionally under this sentence is not likely because it would take three different parties to commit that breach. So that's just my, again, that's my take on it. Okay. And to the other point, I do think developers and I'm less than a baseball owners, but because of trust in the state's planning and just bringing in investors, there are a lot of changes that are made that doesn't change the who controls, et cetera. And I would be worried about committing a foot fault if I had to give notice every time we brought in a new investor or change the beneficial owners. So I think that's their concern. It makes sense. official owners. So I think that's that's their concern. It makes sense. I'll thank that gives me something to think about. But thank you for that further clarification. That's all you. We're going to stay on the stadium redevelopment. Council member Hanover. Thank you, Sharon. And let's go back to that real quick. I mean, we can speculate as to what can happen. But the issue is how we get that information. And your position is we just have to eventually go through a court. When I'm trying to say is, or a court can force them at some point to provide us information, then what my point was is, how can we verify whether or not it's an affiliate? Who is in control? And they may not have to get financial private information. There may be ways to do that where they can show that they are in control. Right? Correct. Okay, that's all, thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we are, is everyone? Okay. You've asked your questions. We can move forward. Speak now forever. Oh, you piece. Chair, if I can just bring it in. And I'm getting rid of ask administration. Is there anything else that you would like to provide for council in regards to the development piece, administrative gurus? No, no chair, but I would just like to inform council members that Mr. David Abrams from Intercircle is here with us today. He will be here Thursday, but he does have a hard stop at around 6 p.m. so I wanted to give you that information today. So if you have questions for him, today might be the better approach. So just wanted to let you know that. Any other input from administration in regards to the redevelopment project? Ray signs. Yeah, if I could, because I know the next section is gonna be focused on the ballpark. I just wanted to, and several council people have said this. I just wanted to add my sincere appreciation and thanks to all of you for giving us the opportunity to spend time with you like we have over the last several months listening to all the questions and the range of questions. And it's made us better. And it's made us better and it's made our team better and it's made the project better. And, you know, we're proud to be entering into this partnership with the City of St. Petersburg, subject to obviously the vote moral or Thursday. But I also wanted to just touch on the fact that so many times as a city council, you sometimes only hear from people when things are going wrong and things are challenging and things that people are unhappy. It takes a different tone when I really just want to tell you what a fabulous job your staff, your administration has done, they've logged thousands of hours. They've been responsive to us, morning, noon, night, weekdays, weekends, you know, and the outside council they brought in, the outside resources they brought in. This has really felt, I mean, it's been 18 months and it's felt like a partnership from day one and I just want you to know how proud we are to be partnering with the city of St. Petersburg and just what a phenomenal job your entire staff has done. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. And again, I am very appreciative for all the intensive work that council members have done on this and all the efforts that we've given to the constituent serous and things that by no means that are all the way there, that we feel so it's at the finish line, but we know that it's gonna be a working progress. And I want to thank you so much for negotiating and listening, because this is a big difference from what we were first presented, and we appreciate that, but I work with these council members, and they're gonna be around to ensure that the things that we're asking for are actually going to be done. And I appreciate each and every one of them for their questions asking for everything that they've done to ensure that this project meets the needs. And so before I close on the redevelopment piece with Councillor McGarrett, who's going to open us up, Mayor Welch, I didn't know if he wanted to have any remarks about the redevelopment piece as we move on to the stadium. I do not, Madam Chair. I think you summed it up. We listened, we responded. These agreements are better because of the council's issues and we're looking to move forward. Thank you so much. So now we will go into our Q&A for our stadium piece and we're going to stop at noon. So Councilmember Gabby, if you'd like to open a sub, thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. So no surprise, I'm sure I'm going to dig into the sustainability and resiliency piece that will be the focus of my questions for the stadium. So section 7.3CV went from a quite lackluster sentence to an entire paragraph. And I want to really dig into this today because there is a lot to unpack here. Some might say that one paragraph is not enough to address, but I think we need to have some very high level conversation about the intricacies of this paragraph. So I first want to start out by just asking legal the difference in the language as was presented to us prior, which is that design and construction that generally align with requirements of lead certification, and it has now changed to, Stadco will use good faith commercially reasonable efforts to achieve lead certification. So can we dig into the differences between that language a little bit so that it's very clear what the new language means and does not mean. Understood, Councilmember. I think there's a significant difference between generally a line and what is stated in here. It's up to all of you to decide from a policy standpoint if the benchmarks are adequate. On the legal side, from the language, from the point of view of the language, I think digging down into this amount of detail is much more clear of an enforcement standpoint, rather than just generally a line. And the addition of the language of good faith, commercially reasonable efforts, also allows us to measure a specific effort against a legal standard. So if we feel similar to what came up earlier, if we feel like there is not a good pay commercially reasonable effort, then we go to dispute resolution and say we don't think you did enough. So it's part objective criterion. It's part that catch all that we feel like makes this more clear, more enforceable, the rest of it obviously is up to you. The rest of it's a policy decision, right? Right. And then for practicality and process purposes, as they're going through their permitting process, is that when these checks and balances would come into play to verify that indeed the plans that are coming forward, the way that the construction was done, that all of those things are being met. Does that fall under the permitting? If I could maybe address that real quick. I mean, I think this is one of the key roles that Scanska will play for us as our owners representative is that while prior to permitting, they'll be reviewing schematic design, they'll be reviewing schematic design, they'll be reviewing design development, they'll be working with the architects. So we'll have information on these issues well before they submit for perfect. So we've able to mitigate any sort of disagreement as to implementation of this particular paragraph, we'll be able to mitigate that early on in the process. Okay. Well, I mean, to my, you know, what I said earlier, there's a lot to unpack here inside of this. And I think kind of at the heart of it for me personally from that policy position is understanding the basic differences between resiliency and sustainability. And the importance of both inside of this particular paragraph, and I will agree to disagree with those who advocate strongly that lead certification is the only way to build a resilient and sustainable stadium. And the reason that I would disagree with that is because for me, in the research that I have done and my knowledge of what lead certification actually brings, it does not touch on the issues of sustainability specifically that are necessary in my opinion for this asset. I would point people to a white paper that was released by the University of New Haven regarding the assessing of resilience of lead certified green buildings. And that white paper, anybody can go care to go and read it and understand that lead quite truly is about sustainability. It is about all of these other things that you read in here around EV charging, about solar, about battery banking, all of those things very much necessary, but lead does not make that possible when it comes to the resiliency pieces. It just doesn't address those things. The hardening and all of those things, quite frankly, can be overseen by other entities that create certifications as well. There's one called the fortified certification that is specifically for commercial buildings. I've shared this with administration. I believe that you've passed it on to the rays and to hines. For me, there needs to be a marriage of the two. And I would much rather look back on this after it is built and be proud of the way it is built versus being proud of a placard on the side of the building that says leads certified because I don't know that that gets us to where we really truly need to be. I wanted to dig in a little bit because I had a fantastic, I'm not even gonna call it a one-on-one, it was a group meeting with populace, Kimbley Horn, the raised representatives from Hines, the administration very closely after we had our last cow when this came up. And we had some very, very honest conversations about what it means to be lead certified and what it doesn't mean around the resiliency piece. And a lot of that is actually laid out here in this slide. But there's one very specific piece. And if people from populists are here, I am on 15 of the PowerPoint slide. Hello, nice to see you on person. Yes. So we talked about this. And I very pointed said to you when you on person. Yes. So we talked about this and I very pointed said to you when you showed me this language and it said risk category three building code. My exact response to you was we just said in a committee of the whole where I was told this is going to be built up to category four which is what we in layman's terms think of for hurricane ratings. And now you're saying risk category three, tell me the differences in that. Help me understand what that means to someone who's only going by, okay, we've got a category four coming at us with X amount of wins, will this building withstand? And so I really want you to take this opportunity to dig into the building requirements, what the wind loads are, the difference between the wind loads on water and land that you explained to me. I learned a lot that day everybody. So I really want you to understand this piece of it, critically important to the hardening of the building. All right, thank you. My name is Dylan Richard. I'm with Walter P. Moore, the structural engineer of the building. All right, thank you. My name is Dylan Richard. I'm with Walter P. Moore, we're the structural engineer for the project. So, risk category three, that is a category that the building must be designed to. That is something that has a substantial risk to life if there were to fail. So, anything building over 5,000 people, all the towers, the big buildings you see in downtown St. Pete, those are all built to risk category three. Risk category four is the next level up. Those are buildings that are critical for storms. Those are your police stations, those are your infrastructure buildings. Our building will be designed to a category four hurricane, mid-level category four. That is what's required by code as a risk category three building. So what you see in the code is a wind mile per hour that has to be met. That is an on land speed. What's important is that's not equivalent to what you see on the news. What you see on the news is an on land speed. What's important is that's not equivalent to what you see on the news. What you see on the news is an over water speed. But the important thing to realize is both of them equate to our building as being a mid-level category for hurricane. So the resilience piece to this is that our building needs to be able to bounce back after a storm of head. And it needs to be ready to serve the community. So there's some key things in our design that are going to address all of that. First and foremost, we're in a wind-borne debris region and we have to have the envelope of this building be protected such that flying debris is not going to penetrate it and get in. So that is one thing that will be hardened on the building is all of the facade that goes around your windows, your panels, so on and so forth. Another thing that we have that hardens this building is just the wind speed alone is it is substantially strong structure to be able to handle and stand. is substantially strong structure to be able to handle and stand. Another component is water. This building is being designed above a hundred-year floodplain for both City of St.P. As well as a category five storm surge event. So storm surge that were to come into the bay, we've even elevated that to make sure the water stays out of the building. The point is when the storm has passed that you can come into this building safely and it doesn't have water damage and the infrastructure is sounding ready to go. The other components that we have for resiliency is onsite solar power as well as backup generators to be able to serve the building immediately. During baseball game day operations, the building has a command center that's used year round. That command center can also be converted and used for post storm operations. So the building is up and ready to go, and that is the resilience piece. And that is very much different from the sustainability as you alluded to. Thank you. Thank you for that explanation. Because I think that's important. And I have said from the very beginning that if I were to vote to make sure that we're going to put this money forward, that this asset has another benefit to us. And in day and age, when we could have a major storm any moment, now I think more than ever, building an asset like this and investing those funds, it's critical that we have these pieces. And so just understanding that piece of it into those intricacies gave me a lot of relief to know. And then from a business standpoint, I mean from the information I just shared that I've done the research on, for every dollar that someone invests in these sort of hardening, they actually could save $4 in response afterwards. So from a business point of view, it makes sense that you would all want to build it this way. You don't want to invest that amount of money, especially with you being responsible for the overruns, and then turn around to have a major storm the next season, and now you've lost all of that money. So I think, you know, from a policy standpoint, it makes sense for us that it would be built this way, but from a business standpoint, it makes sense for you guys too. So it's a win-win when we put these things the way that we have now into writing so that we can all be held accountable to them. We agree and our insurance providers also. They do. Your insurance provider will love this. Yes, absolutely. And since that's also your cost, I'm sure that helps as well. So we'll thank you for all of that. You touched on the information you had shared with me about the solar. Your plan's already for where that will be located on the two lower level roofs. The battery storage, I know you guys have to work through that with the constraints of the space because that does take up quite a bit of space, but I know that you're committed to doing that. And then also the command center. I was actually gonna ask about that in exhibit B1, the base approved baseline program. I was kind of curious that operations and support center that we talked about is that where that response area would be housed? You mentioned, you know, we'll have an area where we can stage and we can kind of run some of the responses. That is right. And that that piece will actually directly be connected to the solar banking so that that can be up and running. The solar banking, not only it connects to the grid, but it also can connect to the building in a post storm. Very good. All right. Well thank you all for your depth of information for explaining it to someone who you know very much needed that to be brought down and simplified. I really appreciate it and I think I'll leave it there Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Floyd. Thank you. I actually only have four things here written down to bring up in this more of the conversation. We'll see if it ends on that by the time I'm talking. But there's only four things written down here. The first two actually are just quick questions for legal. Last time we had this discussion about the stadium, there was two things that I was aware of. And I think, oh, I'm two things that I was focused on. Everyone was aware of them. That were not quite resolved yet, some definitions. So the first one was team home games. You all feel comfortable about what was decided if you could speak to it just a little bit? Sure. Thank you, Council Member Flaug. We do. As I told you in the reason that it was highlighted last time as we weren't quite in agreement yet on the team home game definition, that was a critical importance to us. We had discussions with the team and major league baseball and we're very comfortable with that definition now. Okay, cool. And then the other one was the insurance language and operating your agreement. So if you could speak to that too. Sure. Similar answer. The reason that it was highlighted is we weren't yet comfortable with some of the changes that were proposed. I know there's still some back and forth. There was at that time and it continued for a bit after that. McCall work closely with plays in our risk management department and we work through all those issues to some of the language that you saw. We had concerns about, was removed. He also was worked with them to try to address particular issues that they brought up, but none of them caused us concern at this point. We had some issues wanting to make sure that because insurance was part of the obligation of STAGCO that the obligations were not diluted in any way in the agreement, or there were too many connections to cost, et cetera. And we worked through all those and feel comfortable with them now as does risk management. Okay, great. Thank you very much. All right. Then the last two things I have are things that didn't really change. And so I just want to get confirmation. You know, throughout this process in the and in these last road lines there was no changing changes to the amount of funding going towards the stadium we're still at the same level. Yes sir. Okay all right yeah just wanted to highlight that. It's been my main point of contention in this whole conversation. It still represents one of the largest stadium subsidies in MLB history and that's where the core of my frustration comes from and my concern. And so I just wanted to highlight that that has not changed at all. And then the other thing I think I was hoping we could get a little change on. So what we did is tickets to the community. I know that we got it up to include all city employees, which is a very good thing. I was hoping that we could talk about tickets to any member of the city that wanted one. I see that that did not get negotiated in. And then I had a point that was like I didn't feel comfortable with us being able to use this for tickets from the city for free when not all of the members of the public could get to in the city. And so I see that all of that's been the same except for this employee ticket thing. And so I just wanted to reiterate like that, you know, I would be more comfortable if like, you know, not saying we couldn't use the tickets at all, but we had to pay for them because the public has to pay for them. And it doesn't feel right that we sit up here and vote to give so much taxpayer money to a stadium that we then get to go to for free. And so I just wanted to reiterate, you know, that's what I would like to see in the agreement. Thank you, Councilmember. I just want to comment on one point that you made related to the city employee tickets and each city employee being able to get a ticket We've had some discussions and I'm gonna ask Mr. Walsh to come up if he can because this is in the city promotional plan and the way it was in the current Plan was under the existing tropic can of field by tropic can of field exists and mr. Walsh and Team have been working on that so I'm gonna turn that over to him to give you an update cool Mr. Walsh and the team have been working on that. So I'm gonna turn that over to him to give you an update. Cool. Thank you, City Council. And as I'm doing Walsh, Chief of Staff to Mayor Walsh, as Rob mentioned, originally in the agreement and discussions with Jackie, it was just for the extension of the Tropicalanafield agreement. So the agreement that was going to govern the remainder of the Tropicalanafield site, that that was going to govern the remainder of the topic in a field site that is actually going to be extended throughout new agreement. So it will be tickets for all city employees. There isn't a hard and fast number. It will depend on the amount of city employees that we have. So we're excited about that and the raise of agreed to honor that in the next agreement as well. So I can I'll ask that so you'll see right now in the, what Mr. Walsh is referring to, the same language that is under the traffic kind of field promotion, which is the promotion that exists at the time the new stadium is being constructed. That same language will essentially be copied and pasted into the following section, which is the stadium improvements operation phase. So like he indicated that those tickets will start essentially upon the effective day of this agreement for both the current term of the current use agreement and then continuing in the future stadium operating. I appreciate all of that information. And I'm really grateful for the way that we've done city employees. I just do want to leave on the note that I think, yeah, there's an issue with us as elected officials and appointed officials being able to have an influence in what happens here and then being able to attend the games afterwards. It just I don't prefer that. I prefer not to have those optics in this agreement. But having done that, that was my four questions. Chair, I would like to suggest I know we're supposed to break in 10 minutes, but I don't know how long the questioning might go. We might not be here for much longer after lunch. I just want to suggest that, but I'd support whatever you decide to do. Thank you so much. Council member Montenegro. Thank you. I wanted to start on page six. Under... Well, quick question Council member. Do you, how many questions do you have? Because we were slated to take a lunch at noon. We can do 1230. Or we can continue on until all questions are done. Because I'm looking at your binder, so. You brought it forward. I know any head for more binders that you all do not see. So council member Cory, let me go ahead and because I was just gonna go ahead and let you go, but now that I think about it. Well, I'm not gonna go through every page. You all should see these notes on his binder. What is the will of, okay? You want to go through it, do you want to break it down? I like to keep moving But that's just me because I don't mind moving because whatever's it, you know I need to take a bio break but what other than that I'm good on So we'll we'll continue through councilman Montenegri is that okay? And then we'll we'll take a break thank you council, Councilmember. Councilmember, are we on the development and funding agreement, Peach? Yes, we are. Thank you. Page six under subparagraph D, term and commitment of Statco contribution amount, subparagraph three, it says, or waiver, this talks about Stat Go contribution amount, it talks about waiver by the city or county's after. Is that administrative waiver or is that something that needs to come to council? Yeah, yeah, it's in that section councilor. Yes, it would be an administrative waiver. Okay. And then there was language added on page 8, 13, and 16 that addresses credit facility being extended to Team Co. I don't know if this is a Tom question. I could certainly. Can you talk a little bit about the credit facility? Because that language wasn't in your before. Yeah, and I'm happy to start the response and maybe Mr. Wheeler or Ms. Dyer would like to chime in. But that's really clarification. This is kind of what we always assumed would happen. But effectively, if Team Coe enters into a credit facility to make a contribution to the Stadco contribution for the total transaction, we just wanted to make sure that there was gonna be some transfer loan, somehow those monies are gonna get from the team co to the STADCO obligation in the construction trust fund agreement. So like I said, we had already assumed that that was going to happen. This is a clarification that we are gonna require that we see evidence that there is gonna be that transfer of resources from the STADCO obligation or team co-obligation to the STADCO. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for that. And I thought that was the case, but I wanted to clarify. Going to page 22, it talks about Major League Baseball approval. And this morning when I came into the office on my desk, there was a letter from Major League Baseball dated July the 12th. Does this letter that we received satisfy the requirements on page 22, subparaphrath F? It does. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then I too had some questions about insurance. Some of them are just kind of big picture questions. So I don't know if Blaze is around some somewhere. There he is. I'm not going to go into a whole lot of specifics, but I had some and I know that we have on page 52 some information on insurance and then exhibit D-D-1. There's a lot of questions on insurance, but the big picture questions that I have is on the existing trop. I take it the way I read it. The city continues to ensure the trop through the end of the 2027 season. And then beyond that, it's- Laysman's all over risk management for the city. Beyond that, no, we will not be ensuring the drop. So that's ironed out in the stadium operating agreement where the raise will now be providing the property insurance for the stadium. For the new stadium, but so they're going to pick up the insurance on the drop also. The existing drop, it's all going to be until it's demolished, we would cover the insurance on it or decide at some point. That was my question. So we're going to continue ensuring the drop until it's demolished. Yes, got. OK. And then we have the insurance during the construction phase. And can you talk a little bit, there's a ton of information in here on the insurance. Can you talk a little bit during the construction phase because it's on page 52. It does talk a little bit about when that insurance starts. Just so the insurance that's in the agreement here is going to cover us during the construction phase, right, covered the entire entity during the construction phase. What we do early on with all construction projects or any project is we evaluate what the risk is and determine what the insurance is are and something like this is obviously fairly complicated and we wanna make sure there's no gaps in coverage. So what you see before you is our attempt to minimize the city's risk during this project and the raises attempt as well. the city's risk during this project and the raises attempt as well. Okay. All right. And then my last question came up as a result of Councilmember Gavards questions on the hurricane category for the new stadium. I don't know if Mr. Richard is still here. Just a quick question that the, at the Committee of the whole meeting that we had on the stadium we were shown a lot of pictures and of a lot of glass to allow the stadium to be open. Is there going to be a lot of prep work or any prep work that's going to have to be done before a major storm to any prep work that's going to have to be done before a major storm to protect all the glass around the state. So the glazing because we're in a wind debris region, glazing has to be impacted. So up to a certain level, it has to pass a test that's called a large missile impact test. And then above that is a small impact test. So the entire enclosure will be rated glass that will be able to resist flying debris. All right. Thank you very much. Those are expensive windows. Yeah. There are expensive windows. Okay. thank you. Thank you, man. Wow Thank you, Councilman for my In the right at 1150. So we're gonna go ahead round that up to 12 and We will take a 30-minute break if that's okay with everyone. So we'll resume back at 12.30. See you soon. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. How are you? you . you I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Oh and the Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. to to the Oh, yeah. . you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. the I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful Thank you. . . . . . . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. and Thank you. you you I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go to bed. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby you and and and the and I'm going to be a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. Bye. and and . . Thank you. I'm . I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you you you you you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you I'm going to do a on the top right corner of the head. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. . you . you I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to put it on. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Yes. Yes I'm you you you you you I have 1230 and we are going to resume today's committee of the whole and we were in discussion Q&A of the stadium portion of the agreement and is there any one that has questions that they want to councilmember Driscoll. Thank you and again thanks to all of you for working to make the changes that were requested. The one thing that has stood out to me in the changes is the changes that we requested was in Article VII and that's regarding the sustainability and resilience elements of the stadium. And council member Gabbard made a good point regarding the resilience side of it. What's still kind of hanging out there for me is the language around achieving lead certification and the fact that that's not specific. So they're silver, they're gold, they're platinum. And I was really hopeful that there would be at least a minimum that can be committed to on this. The section states that Stanko will use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve lead certification for this stadium. So really we're just asking for that good faith effort. When I look at some of the other projects, some of the either hinds or populous has been involved in, the certification has been achieved in other places. One that really stands out is, of course, the Climate Pleasureena in Seattle. I'd love for someone from populace to talk a little bit about that because they were able to achieve lead silver, which these days is really just like entry level certification. So it's like the minimum level that you can get. But on top of that certification, the arena is notable for its ambitious sustainability goals, including being the first arena to receive the International Living Future Institute's Zero Carbon Certification. It's powered entirely by renewable energy with onsite solar panels, and it also features extensive water conservation measures and public transportation incentives. These are things that are really important to St. Petersburg too. And so it's difficult for me when I look at this language and I understand the spirit of it. It's the letter of it that still seems to be lacking for me. Now, in our last committee of the whole meeting that still seems to be lacking for me. Now, in our last committee of the whole meeting about the stadium, I said that with lead, it's not the only thing you can build to the standards without spending the money to get the certification. And so I left it open to what you all could discuss and come to agreement on. But now, seeing that this is still so loose, I feel like we really should zero in on a level that we can at least expect will be attempted. Considering that it's not required, I understand the need to manage expectations, but we want to be able to expect more than what's in this language. I do. I'll just speak for myself. So I'd like to hear a little bit more about with all of your experience and all of the achievements that you've had. I mean, the Seattle, I think that was the one that you had that's in the US. There are international projects that really just went above and beyond what the lead standards would have been. So help me understand this part of it a little bit better. Yeah, so let me start and then Mo Head can talk a little bit more about his experience with climate pledge. You mentioned meeting the standards and that's what we expect and believe we will do just by building to the category three risk classification for the city. We believe we will meet the standards of lead and we expect we'll be close if not achieving silver. That is just by the standards that are required to meet building category risk three. And so there are certain parts of lead as you acknowledge that have nothing to do with the sustainability for our area. And so we are trying to balance that out while still meeting the checklist and being able to check it off and say that we have met those standards. Some of those standards are arbitrary or things that are outside of our control per se, distance to public transit stops. It's not something that we can influence. It's part of the lead certification. And so that one isn't as relevant to us, but there are others that are, and I think that the building category three actually requires us to get to a point where we will be at or above lead silver. So that's if we're just trying to demonstrate that. There are many other ways that we can be sustainable, that won't be captured with lead, and that's where populists come in and will be invaluable in doing so. Yep. Further, I could. Hi, everyone. My name's Moeth Metham. Global Head of Sustainability at Populist. And yes, I did work on climate pleasure arena as well. So it's a set of strategies and it's a set of items that you do when you collate them all, they result in a certification. And a lot of these buildings that you mentioned and the exemplars of sustainability, even in America, you know, Golden One Center, Arena comes up in Sacramento all the time. I'm sure you can relate to the Mercedes Benz Stadium at Lanna Falcons, it's a bigger stadium, and then of course, climate bledgerina. They're all very different and unique. Firstly, the climate here, and this location here, is significantly harsher and requires a lot more on the resiliency side than any of those locations required. If you look at Sacramento, it's a mild, dry climate. They can open the building up. They do have renewable energy on the roof. But guess what? 40 miles away from the city, the owner has solar farm. That's where bulk of the PV goes, that they've attributed to the arena. Therefore, they can say, hey, 100% of the arena is powered by solar. Well, they do have some on the building as well. And they have about, I would say, 1.2 megawatt on the arena side. So that's pretty significant number. Klanafalcons, of course, great. You know, they achieve lead platinum. But remember, those two buildings that you have on your list, and you're talking about, the Chief Lead Platinum on version three. Version three, the energy code or the energy baseline on your list and you're talking about Achieve Lead Platinum on version three. Version three, the energy code or the energy baseline was ash rate 2007. We are going to be designing our building at a minimum, our stadium to ash rate 2019. That by itself is 35% more stringent in terms of energy requirement, in a much harsher climate, than in a mild climate that we are just talking about back in the day. So those are the differences of version three, and then that building also has significant on-site solar about 1.2 megawatt or so of PV on the building. So that's great. Now comes to climate pleasure. It's not powered by 100% on-site renewable. It's a mix of on-site renewable, which is about 1.1.2. So you sing the trend about that much. They fit on-site. And the rest of it is working with the utility company on off-site solar. And then third part is buying some renewable energy credits, therefore, but in Seattle, the difference is how the electricity is made. 97% of the electricity generation is fossil fuel free. There are very few cities in America, all the world over, where we have such clean electricity. So they had that going for them. Right? So there was almost no carbon impact on the operational side or the energy needed to run the arena, even the hockey side. Guess what? That second piece is it's an existing building, historic building, and we kept the roof. That's almost 250,000 tons of an existing roof that remains in no new material. So that's the second area where carbon comes in. So that's another win for that building. So going in, operational energy would be close to zero, embodied carbon, almost negligible because it's an existing venue. So they had several things going for it, plus being it doesn't get milder than Seattle as well in terms of climate. So they do have rainwater harvesting, they have a 15,000 gallon system that's used to make the ice and therefore it's called the greenest ice in NHL. Now coming to our building, I'm going to just leave lead to the site, but I'll give you exactly a few things we are going to do on this project as of today, which is early design, state, schematic design, right? Matt already said, if we go through with all the strategies we are implementing on resiliency and a few things on sustainability, we would be lead certified if not close to silver. That's our tracking on our own, voluntarily that we are doing behind the scenes. On site solar, we are gonna be about 1.5 to 2 megawatt, which will generate about 3 million kilowatt hours of free, clean energy on this building. That's where we are tracking today. That by itself puts us at number one in all of MLB ball parks. They may be three, four sports venues in America that have more solar than we will by the time we are done. So that's huge, right? On top of that, So that's huge, right? On top of that, rain water, completely different animal in Sacramento or the places. Seattle rains mildly, 15,000 system. We are looking at at least 1.2 million gallons system of storage of stone water. And guess what you're going to do? We're going to treat that. And we're going to use it for the number one user or water on this site, which is going to be cooling towers. That help dissipate the heat for the chiller plant. So we're going to reuse that. And the additional amount of water that we have, we're going to use it for landscaping. So just a few listing of a few strategies. I'm going to have two more items that I'm going to say. Evie charging came up, so I'm not going to talk about that. The two biggest things that either lead or the right direction to go now, today's day and age, and all of sustainability. And I'm looking at all my venues across the globe, is to track your operational carbon. And the second biggest thing is to track embodied carbon, which is all the materials that go in, the big one, concrete steel, aluminum, glass, and insulation. They all come with a carbon impact, and that is just getting started and underway in our industry. We have absolutely no idea how to account for carbon on those materials. California, starting two weeks ago, just made it mandatory to account for all embodied carbon and all projects going forward. It is in their building code. We are already going to be doing that. So that helps us start a conversation with our contractor, with our construction manager, with the subcontractors. How can we be mindful on the embodied carbon side. As we select our concrete mixes, where we source our steel from and our glass from and aluminum from. And then you heard, Congressman, Councilwoman Gavad said that resiliency sometimes hurts the sustainability piece. Because we are hardening the building in terms of concrete and glazing. Guess what? That'll increase the embodied carbon. So we are balancing both here in our climate, which is really harsh. And did I miss anything? I don't want to miss anything. And these are going to be mandatory reports because we have enforced those on ourselves. We report this to American Institute of Architects at every design stage. And when we complete those reports, we are happy to share those with you. So you can see how we attract you. Thank you. Does that help? And yes, it's very impressive. So thank you for taking the time to explain that with all of your experience and other projects that you've been involved in. Is this one that you feel like you're going to be most proud of this one? I mean, is this... Yes, I'm going to be very proud of this. 100%. I think a balance of sustainability and resiliency is critical. We are just getting started. I think you're're gonna have a conversation with a subcontracting market very soon, and they're gonna be aware of what this embodied carbon direction that we have. The whole industry is just starting to take right now. You know, usually it was, I energy efficiency, energy efficiency. Let's operate the building more efficiently. That was the conversation for the last 20 years. We are looking at that and embodied carbon, which is about one shot deal we have. Once the building is built, that's it, right? And we're going to look at that as well. So it's to start the conversation in the community. I think after this building is done, the community is going to be better informed, the building construction, material community is going to be better informed. So that's going to be, I would say, the indirect benefit of this building and this process that we're going to bring to the community. I think in addition to that, excuse me, those indirect benefits are something that we want to champion in the new building. And we want to talk about the way we operate the new building, the way we serve food, the way we manage our waste. All of that is going to be a story and is going to be an opportunity for us to educate, especially kids, about how to operate in an environmentally friendly way. So the construction is an important piece of that, and we'll talk about that, but the operation and how we manage 2 million plus people coming through our doors every single year is a big part of it. And we've already started to look at other partners, other facilities across the globe who do a really good job with that so that we can prepare for that because it's not just the building itself, it's how we operate over the next 30 years and what we do with all of the materials that we're going to go through just to operate the building. Thank you. It says here that Stadco will conduct energy and embodied carbon analyses of the stadium during the design development documents and construction documents phases to identify opportunities to minimize the stadium's energy use and greenhouse gas emissions and provide written confirmation of the completed analyses. Can you give us a timeline on that? Like how long will that take? Oh no, these are gonna be reports that we're gonna issue at the end of each stage. So the Sematic design package that went out for pricing just recently went out. So we're going to build the models off that set. So it takes, I would say, 46 weeks to get it done. And then we're going to do that for ourselves. So I would leave it up to Matt when you want to share that with the committee. That's fine. Yeah, why would we have them? We have them. We're happy to share those so you can see how we compared to today's energy code. And we can even put in something like, how does it compare to maybe lead version four baseline? Maybe even lead version three, where a lot of these exemplars of sustainability and sporting world exists in America. So yes. And I'll tell you, embodied carbon modeling. As far as I know, no other than you has gotten it done so far, I just told you, California just made a building code starting two weeks ago. And that's the first state in all of America that has made that mandatory. So I'm assuming it's gonna make its way to the rest of the country, but not yet. But yeah, we'll share that. There's no baseline established, right? Just like we have an energy code that tells me at worst what your building needs to operate at, there is nothing in the embodied carbon side says, oh, for a 28 or 30,000 ballpark in St. Petersburg, this should be our embodied carbon. And let me see where you are at, right? And I can show you here, but this is where we are. We have 5, 10, 15% better. There's no benchmark baseline. So we are developing that as well, through our extensive history of sports and sustainability. Yeah. Great. Thank you so much. This is very helpful. I look forward to seeing the guidelines and the analyses when it's ready. Thank you. Thank you. I have no other council members on my list to speak. Is there anyone else that have any questions for the stadium piece? Okay. Vice Chair Gary. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I'm anter here. Very high level. Obviously, every time we bond, we're taking on some shape form of risk. But between you and the rest of the team, we're not, I'll use an industry term. We're not over leveraging here. No, I don't believe so. Based on the forecast of, you know, the generation of revenue within the TIFF at 7% that we've planned, and we know we have that guaranteed entitlement of 3.125 million that is largely unencumbered but has typically been pledged for debt so it has no operational impacts. Additionally, the guaranteed payments for land take down a 50 point. So we've cobbled together a series of cash flows that are consistent with and can cover the debt service. And just while I have the mic for a second, in October when we first met on the term sheets, we were forecasting total debt service of $704 million on all the bonds to be issued. When we came back in first cow again in April, that number had come down and recently we just checked with our underwriters and what with our financial advisor. That number continues to go in the right direction. I think the total estimated cost over the 30 years is in the 680, 675, 680,000. I don't know what million I should say. I'm sorry. I've had that problem today, that lopping off some. Let's both. So I think to answer or to go back and answer the question, no, we're not over leveraged to say. It's a big lift, but it's a manageable lift. And you're happy with the forecast that we've done and believe them to be conservative and feel like we're in a good spot there. Yeah, and Anne could probably speak about this, but just on that 7% forecast, we've done some sensitivity analysis and 95%. Confidence, we think that 7% is super conservative. Yeah, Anne, you want to? Leave it in on, actually, I have my numbers in front of me. So, you know, I've been involved on this project for quite some time now. I've done a lot of financial analysis. I know we had an approach for all risk mitigation to the city as well as backspising our ability to ensure what called the resiliency, the financial resiliency of the city. Looking at from a long term perspective, I'm very comfortable with the project, the financial piece. I'm comfortable that we can have and manage the debt. And I'm based upon my projections. As Tom said, I did some sensitivity analysis to it. Based upon the current numbers, we are even at 7% we're still actually very, very conservative on what we're doing. I did the numbers at 5% look great as well. So I'm confident based upon all the analysis that I have done that, as we proceed with the bond issuance, again, not saying that something catastrophic can't happen, but based upon everything that we know right now, it is definitely affordable to the city. Thank you, Ann. You're welcome. David, thanks. Welcome. Nice to see you. You too. So I know from a dollar perspective, this agreement, when you combine it with the county, is a large contribution to the overall state. But from having done some research, the overall percentage is frankly, average to below average from contribution for immunosupposities standpoint, would you? Yeah, again, David Abrams from Inner Circle Sports and Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Council members, Mr. Mayor, thank you for having me here. It is roughly in line with, but you're looking over decades. There's not been a lot of new baseball stadiums, you know? Yeah, since 2020, right? From a baseball stadium perspective, it falls in line. But I mean, if you look at the basket of stadiums being done over the past few decades, I have a few examples. I figured somebody would ask this question. So I'm leaving out California because they're largely privately financed projects. So I'll mention that because I think I said that for your, for your, for my entertainment. Yeah. But like, amway center and this was not an article that we, or something we produced. This is an article that I recently got off Moody's reference that in one of their recent updates on stadiums. So this was done from January of this year. And it's, Amway Center was 480,430 million of that was public funding. So that's the arena in Orlando. Marlon's Park, 634,376 million was public from the county, 132 from the city. So largely public, publicly financed. In Georgia with the World Congress Center where at campus where the Mercedes-Benz Stadium was done, it's deceiving. It was a $1.6 billion project. Only 200 million was public financing, but there's a substantial amount of revenue coming from the hotel tax that actually goes into fund operating costs and catbacks. So if you added all of that in there, it's a higher percentage. I don't think you get quite to the 40 or 50 percent, but it's much higher than what it says. The truest park is you've talked about here, 672,300,000,000 came from the county and Converland County Improvement District. In Michigan, little seizures, arena was 862,000,000 and actually that's not accurate, that's more than the arena, but that is also infrastructure. Around there, 324,000,000 of public funding, 538,000,000 of private funding. But funding, 538 million of private funding, but of that 538, 200 and some million is really infrastructure in the development district around that. In Minnesota, for Target Field, it was 550 million, 392 million came from Hennepin County. Also in US Bank, Stady M 1.1 billion 348 million from the state 150 million from the city of Minneapolis. In Nevada in Las Vegas stadium authority 1.97 billion actually that's not right. It's more 1.8 billion 750 million came from public funds. I'm only going to go to one or two more in Tennessee, which is a more recent one. That's for the football stadium. $2.1 billion. $500 million in state bonds, $700 million in Metro and Nashville bonds, the rest from the team and the team is covering CAPEX and cost overruns. Arlington, which is, as you mentioned, an older, you know, 2009 baseball stadium, 1.15 billion, 473 million in public financing. So, oh, that's the football stadium, I'm sorry. I didn't have the baseball stadium in that list. So, roughly, you're looking at between a broad band of between 40 and 60% of public financing, and the ones where there is public financing, and in deference to Councilmember Floyd, you know, in California, there is very little public financing. Generally, it becomes infrastructure or land contributions, if anything. All right. Some. I appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. I just know sometimes we get caught up in the number 2024 compared to 2019. Very different numbers. But I try to trend towards the percentage. I just want to. I think those percentage, you're roughly in line if not maybe a little bit better than what I would say is the national average. I look at a lot of things when I start these and again I've had the opportunity to sit in front of all of you for a number of years now. It's affordability, it's what it provides to the community, it's how it impacts the overall development, what you're trying to accomplish so it's not generally just the percentages that is one metric and you know it's not the only metric. No, I certainly appreciate that. Okay. Okay, I just had two more things and this is probably for administration. So 287.5 million capped, nothing more. We have no more risk expense or just want to double down on that for a second. Yeah, I think it's very clear in the agreement that all repairs, all capital maintenance and the property insurance or the responsibility of the team. Okay. And so getting into the funding agreement, every operation management, operations management maintenance, CAPEX, insurance, all that, them. So for example, in 2025, when we're subsidizing the TROP, I $2.2 million from a transfer to the General Fund to the TROP Canterfield Enterprise Fund, we won't be doing that. No, that's correct. The only expense we will have are related to the police costs outside of the stadium, which we've discussed. And the team doesn't make a contribution to that, but there will also be a payment for us. Yep. Tom, did you have something? No, sorry. I just wanted to be here if there were others. Yeah. That's all I have. Thank you, Mountainshire. Thank you. Council member Hanover. Thank you, Chair. And, David, if you can, if you don't mind coming back up again, sorry. Tom. Sorry. Get a move. I I just want to have a long discussion on the whole weather, not you should be investing in a stadium deal. People have different opinions about that. But you threw out a lot of numbers in different stadiums and how much is contributed, right? What we don't know about those deals is what are the budgets of those communities? Right? What are the percentages from the different municipalities, whether it's a city, whether it's a county, whether it's a state, whether, and that really does matter. I agree, 100%. So I mean, I'm just very careful about when you throw, you know, when people throw percentages area, it's kind of standard or whatever, but you gotta get into the details to see all the other factors that I think are important. And that's just one point. And I know you kind of had touched on mine, but I wanted to highlight that. There are more things and to just look at, well, this is the average percentage of deals. I would agree. I'll give you a really good example. And I brought up Tennessee as a good example. They're probably the largest public funding of any sports facility in the United States, you know, recently for the Titans New Football Stadium. And a lot of that had to do with two things. One is the state wanting to have a covered stadium so there could be more events in a high tourism city. And two is that Metro Nashville was responsible for all CAPEX for that facility and the cost, the ongoing cost of CAPEX that would have come from the general fund. They not built a new stadium would have put a dent in their credit rating. It would have hurt them financially. They would have had an unknown number potentially. But over the course of the term of the Titans lease, it was in the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of CAP-X to maintain that building and wouldn't have increased the amount of events in there. So, I mean, so you're right. Councilmember, the situation is really specific to affordability, but it's also you have to look at what everybody's responsibilities are. Right. Right. And those responsibilities, as Councilman Gertis mentioned, you know, were capped here at the city. Right. But that's just one part of a deal. One point. Because like you talked about all these other deals, not all of them come with 65 acres of land. No, but a lot of them. Right. And that's part of the deal. My point is there are lots of aspects of it and I just want to make it very clear just because there are other deals where municipalities gave money, the percentages aren't necessarily what should drive people's decisions. I think that's accurate. Yes. That's all my point. It's a bigger picture that you have to look at. It's always a bigger picture, right? And this is why it takes three years to come to a conclusion on something like this. I mean, it does take a village, right? I mean, it takes a long time to have discovery on all sorts of things. And I commend this body for having done that work because not only, you know, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood, finance. I mean, there are so many things that, you know, probably three years ago, I was only thinking, well, how much are we going to pay? And not thinking about all of the other things that go into it. Well, thank you. Thank you. That was all the questions I had for you. And I just, I want to make some general comments. I'm not going to go into other details on this part of it because I think at the end of the day We're going to have another meeting where we can discuss those issues in terms of what the business side of the deal is I've already outlined some of my issues with the agreement and the business side of the deal those numbers haven't changed Obviously there have been changes to this agreement, but the business terms themselves that I've brought up up issues for they haven't changed I just think it's pointless to have a discussion about today. We're going to have another discussion about this in two days from now. So with that being said, thank you, Chair. And thank you, everyone, for your work on this. Thank you. I see no further requests to speak. And do you see the smile on my face? So if there being no further requests to speak, administration, do you have any closing remarks? Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm going to end by agreeing with Council Member Elizabeth Set. I'm looking forward to the meeting in two days to talk about where we are. I'm excited about where we are, and I want to thank Council for your due diligence and all your feedback and input. And I certainly want to thank my team and our partners at Heinz Rays for all the work they put in. So this just came back from, is it Brown's trophy? Yeah, Brown. So I had sent this, so I started talking about the, where were you two years ago, notice that I got. This is one of my Marie Kondo survivors, so this survived from me cleaning out all my dad's old stuff. I don't know if we still have a St. Pete downtown improvement corporation, but we did in July of 1984, in July of 1986. This is July 24, 1986. And it's the vision from the St. Pete Downtown Improvement Corporation of what those 86 acres would look like. And the only thing you see there, didn't even have the name for it to sun coast on that time. They called it the multi-purpose stadium. And it has a question, what's the most exciting thing about this picture? The answer is that it really could happen and in downtown St. Petersburg. And they crossed through could and put will in with writing. How far our vision has come in 38 years of my math is correct. I did go to Lakewood so I'm really excited about the vision we've developed together now and looking forward to our conversation in a couple of days. Anything from our team? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So thank you, colleagues. I want to make it clear that all opportunities to have the conversation was given today. So if a time limit is implemented on Thursday, I hope everybody will be okay with that because we do have a lot that we want to cover on Thursday. I hope everybody will be okay with that, because we do have a lot that we want to cover on Thursday. So again, with no one having any further requests to speak, I want to thank everyone that came out today. I want to thank everyone that made themselves accessible to our questions, comments, and concerns. Again, I want to thank my colleagues for many, many hours of concern and study and for note tabs that have been utilized in the process by Council Member Mottonare. But I do appreciate everything that everyone has done with that being said. Our cows are here. Thank you chair. you