Good morning everyone. We're going to call to order the August 22nd, 2024 meeting of the Economic and Workforce Development Committee and we begin with a roll call. Montenegro. Driscoll, here. Fixander's, here. Mohamed. Here. We have an agenda before us. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. here. Driscoll, here. Fixanders, here. Mohamed. Here. We have an agenda before us. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. Move approval. All in favor. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We have minutes for the July 25th, 2024 meeting. I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Approval. All in favor. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. a good presentation by our airport manager, Rich Lesnack. And we're joined at the table by our CDA managing director, Chris Ballestra also. And they presented just some background information on advanced air mobility and how that might affect us here in the city of St. Petersburg and Applewood at Airport. At that meeting, we talked about maybe forming a task force or advisory committee, and we want to continue that discussion today. So we don't have a presentation because we did that at our last meeting. But in front of the committee members and staff, I did draft just a draft mission of a potential committee because I thought that would be a good starting point for our discussion. And then I want to get into what type of committee do we want to form an advisory committee for a formal task force that would operate under the Sunshine Law and then Talk about pros and cons of those different types of committees and then we have some other things that Like what sort of staff do we need and should we include a aviation consultant in this. So in preparing for this, I went back and I reviewed the last task force that I served on back in 2003 on Albert Whitted Airport, the Albert Whittett Blue Ribbon Advisory Task Force. And I looked at their draft mission, and it was kind of general in nature. And so I kind of looked at that and tried to come up with just some pretty straightforward and simple language of what we would want a committee or a task force to do. So I'll go ahead and read it to so that people that are watching this can kind of follow along on what we're doing. And it reads the mission of the task force is to study advanced air mobility and make recommendations to the city of St. Petersburg on what should say, the St. Petersburg make recommendations to the St. Petersburg City Council on how it will be incorporated. Specific tax tasks include safety considerations, FAA guidance, regional connectivity, land use and zoning, infrastructure, and other related plans. So why don't we go ahead and open it up to any sort of thoughts, discussions of the committee on the mission of the task force? And any thoughts that you all may have when it comes to the types of committees that we have, or why don't we talk about the mission first, and then I'm gonna have Janine talk a little bit about the different types of committees. Anybody have any thoughts to start off? Chair, if you want. Yeah, thank you. And thank you for the topic, and it's such great importance. And I wasn't at the last committee meeting, so forgive me if I'm saying something that wasn't at the last committee meeting, so forgive me if I'm saying something that was covered at the last committee meeting, but I just wanted to let the committee know that the administration is fully on board, willing to participate in this and depending on how you structure it, have our staff members coordinating and working with the task force. I think you'll have some discussions today probably about how those members are selected and what kind of committee it is, but just wanted to let the committee members know that we are supportive and absolutely willing to engage on this with City Council. Okay, thank you. Vice Chair of Driscoll. Thank you. Before I start, I was wondering if staff had any comments to make on this? Any suggestions on your end? Sure. So I think administration has talked about this. And I think they would like to pursue it via a task force format. I guess they spoke with City Legal and they felt that was the best, that would be the best vehicle to do this under. And specifically to study areas, certainly have some potential suggestions for consideration in terms of maybe the scope of the study or the scope of what the committee would look at. I know one of the suggestions was that the Summigatz Task Force would maybe look at in two different time frames. We'll look at like a short-term time frame and then a long-term time frame. Because if you think about, you know, under the short-term, you're gonna have this initial rollout of the technology that, you know, I think we've had some discussions about the use of Albert Whittitt as maybe a proof of concept to kind of roll it out to the public, to kind of like play off of the whole the Benoit air craft event, Tampa St. Pete being the first commercial airline service. So, you know, the idea that, you know, if we were able to do something that would kind of connect to that and kind of show the technology and then as as the concept kind of starts rolling forward and gets more cement in place the general vision or consensus seems to be that the initial relot of this won't be a full-blown like air taxi where you just jump and go wherever you want it'll be it'll end up being more like a point point type service where you have somewhat limited routes you want to think it like a bus a bus service or or even like your own ferry it would leave say Albert Whitted at a certain time and go to maybe Tampa International and come back it would be more like a point the point I don't mean to interrupt it We did go through all that at the last meeting. So my real question here was if you had comments on the proposal that committee chair Montenegro has put forward and the suggestions that he has. So you've given us a little bit of that. And I think that's great. I do agree that this should be considered a task force. As we discussed in the last meeting, this is something that I believe we all agreed should be clear that there's a beginning and an end to it. Task force says that advisory committee sounds like infinity. And because this is something where we're behind already in being able to play in this space, so we have some catch up to do. And so I want to make sure that this is a committee that is named and focused on getting us caught up, figuring out what our role is going to be in this technology and in this new industry and really put a framework in place for us to go. All right, so I would definitely like it to be a task force and get this put together as soon as possible. Community Chair Montenegro, thank you for putting together these points of discussion. I do agree with the draft mission. I think that's important to look at because we've got a zero win on exactly what we need to do. Who we need to talk to, who we've got to have in this particular space as soon as possible. As far as the fact that staff is needed, I am not hearing that that's going to be an issue. Okay. And then their community chair, Montenegro wrote also here an aviation consultant. And so I'm wondering if that is someone who is part of Albert Wooded Airport already or someone beyond that. So I look forward to hearing more about what that means. As far as the size of the committee, I do wonder what the Blue Ribbon Task Force was comprised of, like how many members were on that committee. I like a smaller, very curated group. You know, not just people who want to sit around and talk about new tech, but people who are going to get this done. So we're talking about a small group that can be very productive. I think it should include someone from the St. Petersburg Innovation District whether that's Allison Barler, the executive director or someone that she appoints to be part of this, but I know that she has been in on these discussions already. So it makes sense to do that. A representative regarding economic development, I don't know if that would be someone from the EDC, Mike Swayze or someone else, but I think that the EDC should be invited along with the innovation district. And then I think it's important to have a business stakeholder on this task force. That would be, I think it would have to be a seat for someone who represents the business tenants of Albert Wooded Airport? Because we certainly want them to feel like they're being heard along the way and that they have some input. And that they are at the table and not on the outside of this looking in. I'm sure there are more, but those are just a few of the roles I think we should consider that it should definitely be part of this task force. And that's all I have right now. Thank you. Thank you, Nathan. Chair Fixan. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this. And good morning, everybody. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. So I'm excited for the possibility and opportunity for the advanced air mobility task force. I do agree it should be a task force and not an advisory committee. For some reason advisory committees don't seem to carry a lot of weight when we're talking about some of the things that we want implemented into the city's structure. The pros and cons, I think they're gonna be more identified as we go through the process. And I'm looking forward to administration in telling us what those are in regards to what it is that you're trying to get accomplished as far as that's concerned. I definitely agree on the aviation consultant, definitely agree on someone from Albert Witter since that's one of the points that we're talking talking about. As far as the size of the committee, I don't recommend the huge committee because the larger you start, the longer it's going to take to get anything done. And I don't think it's going to negate the fact that everybody isn't at the table initially. I just don't see a huge committee. I don't see more than five or six or seven at a time. But I think it needs to be specific expertise in regards to what it is that we're trying to do. And because we're going to definitely have open conversation with everyone in the community. So everybody will be able to have their voices heard. I just don't think the task force needs to be huge. That's just my two cents on that. And so I'm looking forward to you all bringing us a list of invitees as members of the task force. In regards to that, I don't know if on the task force we've done, like we've done in the past, had a member of council also be a part of that task force. But I just think that I'm gonna trust that you have the expertise in who should be included, should not be a large task force, the consideration of someone from council being on it. And sooner or the better, we get started. And I'm gonna look for you all to bring that information back. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember, that's not a hand before. What's it? Go ahead, Rachel. Well, I was just gonna comment to the point on the potential makeup, I guess of the task force. If, let me, I've got some thoughts before. I want to go. I want to go. Council Member Mohamed did you? Yes, thank you. And thank you for bringing this forward. A lot of what I was going to say has been said, it's the, I agree with the task force, not necessarily the committee. And then just a question about St. Pete, Clearwater Airport's role in this. Do we want to have somebody from not just focusing specifically on Albert with it, but we have another airport in the area as well. So maybe having somebody who is a state holder involved with St. Pete Clearwater Airport to see what they can contribute to it. And then everything else has been said. I don't think it should be a large task force, but also very focused to having them making sure that we have a right mix of subject matter expertise, that's the part of it. And yeah, that was it. Everything else has been called. Okay. Thank you. All right, very good. So let me kind of give you my thoughts on the size of the committee. And I agree with my colleagues on allow the specifics that they talked about. I thought the task force on the airport was a little too large. I think it was like 18 or 20 people. What I'm thinking in and I want, I'm thinking 10 people or so maybe a little bit more. My thoughts kind of follow what the city did when they created the Aberwooded Task Force. They had each council member appoint two people in the mayor appointed three or something like that. I can see a situation where we have council members appointing a person to the task force. So you get representation across the city. But there are some specific, some people with specific expertise that we may even have on the task force also. So that's my thought on the committee makeup and Rich, you've had some comments I wanted to just- Yeah, I was just throwing some potential ideas. Again, initially it's based off of your guys' comments from the last meaning. I think some of you guys already mentioned innovation district, Alson Barlow, potentially. Certainly Walt Dragars or the Friends for Upper Whitted or I think you mentioned an airport tenant, whether you'd want to have both one or the other. That would be a consideration, I think. City staff wise, certainly, obviously, I'll nominate myself, but certainly maybe somebody from planning zoning, engineering, or transportation would maybe good resources depending on the different areas that this will delve into. Also, I think somebody had mentioned forward panelists at the last meeting. this will delve into. Also, I think somebody had mentioned a forward panelist at the last meeting. So, maybe somebody from a regional planning organization, maybe an intent, whether that's Penal's County or something, a bigger, also a local developer. I think like a Heinz group or something where the whole vertiport concept, the long-term vertiport concept, anyways, is that, you know, these would get built into new developments. And so, you know, would it make sense to have somebody like that to kind of give that perspective? Certainly, if they're available, would a UAM operator even be willing to participate itself? That might be another one. And then of course, we already mentioned the potential, would you want to have a aviation planning consultant or not? So those are some of the ideas that work kind of thrown around. Okay. I'm going to get to you, James. Did you have a comment? Yeah, committee chair. And again, we're very flexible on this. We want to work with City Council. We're very supportive. I don't know if we were going to hear from Janine on, maybe how task force and committees have been set up in the past and what the options are. OK. We're going to get there. I wanted just to kind of get a sense of what people were thinking on who should serve and what areas of expertise we wanted. So my thinking rich with some of your comments on various experts, if there's a couple ways you could do this, if you put all these people on in addition to council members putting a person on and then the mayor appointing a few individuals, you could create a public councilman. The other, the thought that I have and the way that we did the previous task force on the airport was we brought those people in and they made a presentation to the task force and we got their expertise, but they didn't actually serve on the task force. So there's a couple of different ways to kind of solve the problem. So why don't we let Jeanine explain to us the difference between a task force and an advisory committee, the pros and the cons of each one of those. Sure, and it looks like you're landing shorter task force, but the advisory committee, one, you could have an advisory committee that's purely fact-minded, and that would be a committee that would not have to meet in the Sunshine Law, but would not be able to provide the types of recommendations that you guys have mentioned here today. And a task force is more in the line of a temporary board or commission of the city where they would actually make recommendations to administration. And the way that the prior task force was constituted in 2003 is that it was mayoral appointments with specific recommendations from various city council members. Of course, at the end of the day, city council confirms the membership of the task force. So there is a role for both the Mayor Administration and the City Council and making sure that the task force is constituted the way each side wants it to be constituted. So in 2003, that is the structure that was set up. We do have, of course, the provision in City Charter that says that boards and commissions are set up by a structure where the mayor points in the city council confirms. So you would have that authority at the end of the day as to what the membership was constituted of. So without going into a whole lot of detail on the difference because it seems like no one is looking at advice to make a committee. Do you have any questions regarding that set up in 2003 or? Vice Chair, Jessica. Thank you. So the task force you said is considered temporary. I was going off what you had mentioned here today. Okay. Just temporary. Put an expiration date on it. Just temporary, just so just that, is that gonna be required that we have an expiration date for it in order to call it a task force? It's not required. I was just speaking off the comments that you made. Yeah, because I'm thinking this is, we're not talking six months here. Right. But maybe two years. So we're still, it's still okay for us to call it a task force? It is. Thank you. It would be a task force, a limited duration. Yes. So we could set it up. We could set it up initially and say, and given Andy, I think this is important because I don't want this to be misunderstood by anyone as being something that will be ongoing. I want the I would like the appointments to be for that whole duration and not something where somebody serves a year and then we got to go through and pick another, that's not what this is about. This is task force. There's got to go through and pick another. That's not what this is about. This is task force. There's got to be some force in it. And that means that we have, we need people who are going to be committed for, let's say, two years. You know, so I'd like it to have that specific end date, like two years from the date that we, you know, from the date that we vote on this or or whatever. And then while I have the mic, the appointments by Mayor or City Council are both. Again, we want to keep this small. I do like the idea of having one or two citizen reps, as long as we're watching the total number. There are people I know who are at the community, who do not fit any of the categories that we've listed so far, who are very, very well versed in this subject matter and could be extremely valuable sitting on the task force. So I really like the idea of having one, if not two, citizen reps, because I would be okay with the mayor making those appointments and of course with city council's confirmation. And then I agree with committee chair Montenegri that a lot of the other types of people who've been mentioned sound like they would make great guest speakers. And you bring it with a task force, you bring in subject matter experts as they're needed for at certain points in the process. So I like that idea so that we can maintain that small group but still benefit from all of the great knowledge that's out there. Thank you. Okay. Okay. My recollection, Janine, on the airport task force back in 2003, because I was appointed by City Council member Bill Foster back then. He appointed to be, I by City Council member Bill Foster back then. He appointed to be, I know City Council appointed to people of peace. It has our city code changed where Council cannot appoint people to a task force. It hasn't changed and Britain has done some research on what different types of task force can commissions throughout the history of the city of St. Petersburg. The charter hasn't changed as far as the provision that reads it, the mayor points with confirmation of city council boards and commissions. And those are our bodies that give recommendations. And so if you're leaning toward task force instead of advisory committee, we believe that that falls within that provision where there is a mayoral appointment with City Council confirmation. Okay. All right. Brett, anything else to add? I think some of that, the appearance of that is the mayor had in a memo to council had previously said I want to conf- he was not able to attend the council workshop on this or the committee the whole and he had written to the council members in advance I want to confirm to you that it is my intention to appoint the members recommended to me by council to the committee. So I think they were they were appointments by council members in the sense council that they had been told in advance. I understand that you have the final say on this so who you tell me you want on it I will put on it because at the end of the day if the mayor keeps appointing people that council does not want the council can keep sending it back and back until the people that council want on it are ultimately put on the list of appointments. So I think it was a collaborative thing and I think that's consistent with the records. So there was a resolution made to create the committee and then there was a subsequent resolution when those appointments were confirmed by City Council. Okay. All right. Good. And this is the additional thing. This is different than what you see in the charter with redistrict to commission and charter review commission where it's very clear that council members in the mayor as elected officials make individual appointments directly onto it. And those resolutions by City Council recognize the appointments by individual officials rather than confirming them. So it's a very slight difference but there is a difference in the structure you see with those two charter commissions and what you see in the charter for boards generally and what you see for this board specifically in 2003. Okay, thank you. And then when it comes to appointing people to a task force like this, do they have to take an oath of office? Yes. Yes. And do they need to do a financial disclosure, or is that under the purview of City Council? That's under the purview of City Council? That's under the purview of City Council. And the resolution in 2003, I believe, yes, for that commission, there were 19 members. There shall be 19 members on the committee. All members shall be residents of the City of St. Petersburg. All residents shall be required. All members shall be required to file a statement of financial interest. So that was an elective decision by the board. The committee, City Council at that time. Okay. So I would just add, Chair, if it's the, if it's the well-to-committee, we're happy to get started on the work and work on the resolution. We would work with council members to get to your individual recommendations for appointments and get the process started. Okay, very good. When I'm going to Vice Chair, I've got us and then we'll go to Chair. Thanks, Anderson. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to, and I was listening and so if I missed this 30 second piece, I just kind of wanted to give my two cents on size of committee and the make up of the task force. Excuse me. I really like the idea of having appointments from city council members. Frankly, I'm very appreciative of that when we're talking about something in downtown. I think specifically to district one, I think the airports an important piece and I've heard a lot about it in neighborhood meetings and so very happy, I think our neighborhoods would be very happy to be a part of that discussion. Second, I just subsequent to the size conversation because I know it can get big fast and I know I heard my colleagues talk about it over the last few minutes. You know, I think there is a difference between voting members and staff and experts and so I just wanted to bring that up. I didn't hear it as a part of the discussion earlier but I definitely think, you know, whether we can get an operator to come in and be an expert to be able to ask and answer questions and give recommendations to the task force and then the task force makes those recommendations by vote. I think there's a difference there that you might be able to keep it in the size that this committee is looking for, but also have the expertise that I think the citizens of our city are looking for to make those recommendations because you know although I may have a couple of people in my district that fly I don't know they may not want to be on the committee it just may be people who love our airport and want it to continue to be better and that's okay too but they're going to want that expertise at the table and it just may not be in a voting capacity and so I appreciate you letting me give my input, just as I was listening, I thought that was one thing that maybe this committee could be discussing. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Chair, for your standards. Thank you. So I guess that's the consensus is that we do love the guest presenters, not being included in the count. And when I'd given my original count, that didn't include staff. So I didn't know what that number would look like. So I do agree with you maybe 10 or so, not too many, with that. So with that being said, are we trying to decide a number of the task force today, or are we going to consider administration's recommendation on that. I think, please. I think we can have some discussion. I don't necessarily see it need to make that decision right now. Yeah, we're flexible. There's gonna have to be a resolution, right? And that would be in the resolution. So we can certainly come back to you. I mean, just listening, I'll just share with you my thought, but we're completely open. If we did one suggestion from each council member and two from the mayor, that's 10. Yeah, I mean, that seems... So, okay, you said one from each council member or one from council, that's eight. Council members, that's eight. But how many are we gonna have representing council, not eight individual representatives on a council because then that's a that's gonna be a really big task for us. No, there will be 10 total. 10 total. But then what about the other I know we want to do guest presenters. Yes, but there are some you really want to sit to the table as a part of the task force. That's an additional number. So we already at council at eight with one each. Yeah, and we're we're completely flexible. I'm just throwing out an idea. Okay. All right. Well, whatever works for the majority, but that's going to be a big task. I mean, what has been done in the past, if you want a stakeholder of a certain area, then that would be your suggestion as a council member. Right. Yeah. OK. Yeah. OK. But I share a trust. Did you? I think I was last. That's a more OK moment. Thank you. And this is not necessarily about size. It's more about this specific task. Is it OK if we talk about that real quick and just thinking about the community and economic development aspect of it? I didn't see that as a task. You know just really studying what the impacts would be economically the community benefit piece such as you know of course we got to improve mobility reduced traffic congestion but really seeing how robust the enhancements to quality of life would be. And then also those who would potentially benefit, really seeing how broad this would go, because I think in our last discussion, we talked about how maybe super rich, just the cost of it. And so like, OK, we do all of these things. Who will actually benefit from it and how? I think that should be a part of the study in the discussion to see, okay, this segment of the population, whether it's job creation, with the building, whether it's opportunities for jobs, high skill development, but really just having a conversation about the community and economic development impacts, I think, should be included as specific tasks. And then with the appointments of for each council member, I was thinking the same thing that Janine kind of mentioned. So if we each have a pick, then we would zero in on the specific subject matter expertise that we wanted to to recommend but I'm still you know look again I guess this is a brainstorm no point I just wanted to say that we we completely agree with your first point you know as you know I think mayors and forms city council that he's decided not to go forward with the study that was discussed previously but we did want to internally look at equity related to the airport. I think this would be a way to do that through this task force, and we do want to thank the airport users because they've already taken steps towards that. We greatly appreciate that. I think you make a good point, and we can easily, if council had no concern with that, we could add that subject here. Okay, sure, that's good. That's absolutely. That was it. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair, Dr. Skol. Thank you. I just want to make sure that the intention of this task force doesn't get lost in our desire to make sure that as many people are invited as possible. This task force is not about Albert Wooded Airport. This task force is about advanced air mobility. Albert Wooded Airport just happens to be the potentially our greatest resource to attract and accommodate this new technology. Right now, we don't even have a company that's interested in working with us here. So that's what I want this focus time. What can we do? What we don't even know what we have to offer yet. We're still looking at that, right? And things are moving so quickly. That's why I keep saying we have to catch up. But this task force is supposed to look at how this can happen in St. Pete. And I want it to be laser focused on that. Once we have somebody, once or once we have a clear picture of who we can attract and for what purpose within this space then comes the workforce development, the job creation, the different applications which go well beyond air taxis for rich people. I mean this is disaster aid, this is delivery services. I mean, the exciting thing about this is that the possibilities haven't even been fully fleshed out yet. But this is our chance to get on board right now and make sure that we are available out there. And I would fully agree. I think it's critically important that any such group put together not only have the expertise, market, professional and other, but be very nimble. This subject is going to evolve greatly. It's not going to look the same in two years, let alone five years as we think it's going. We don't know what we're talking about right now. And that's, I think, the goal is ultimately to be lean and vulnerable in terms of the team relative to providing recommendations back to the Marin Council, to get us in a position to attract businesses. At the end of the day, the business is going to decide where they want to go. And so we want to make sure that whether it's in zoning regulations, you know, incentives, there's a laundry list of ways that we can help for lack of a better term incentivize this to become an integral part of St.P. And there's a process as we discussed. There are you discussed. There's probably two paths that are parallel. One is the proof of concept. With Albuquerque Airport, we have existing infrastructure, which can be easily, hopefully, adjusted to accommodate this. But in the end, the operators have more or less told us that that's not where they want to be. They want to be in more business centers of the city. So I think there's a lot of ways to do that. And I think it would be helpful to let Rich explore the consulting opportunities, people who are in the business specifically, that can help advise the committee. Thank you. In real time, up to date information, because it's gonna involve, when does the FAA next set of recommendations come out later this year? Well, that's the design circular. Actually, they've put it off to 2025. It is an update. They did put out an engineering brief, but that's more design. Design, really more design standards than it is an update. They did put out an engineering brief. That's more design design. They laid on design standards than it is actual. Recommendation. Well, I think that you're your comment that we're hearing from some that they would rather be in a business center. I would highly advise them to visit St. Petersburg and take a look around at what's happening, especially in that part of our city. And they might find that that's exactly what they're looking for. So it's a great way to show everyone we've got work to do. And I want every member on the task force to be laser focused on this. The categories that we've talked about, this is critical. I would rather see you guys come back and say, Alison Barlow said it should be a part of it. Because you know what? You know who's been responsible for bringing more businesses and jobs, innovative companies and their employees to St. Petersburg. Tell me who's done more than Allison Barlow. And she is always on this stuff. She's like the most successful geek in the city of St. Petersburg when it comes to this tech stuff and innovation. We have to see if she'll be on it before anything else. You know, and the EDC, I mean if this is a part of our future economic development plans, I wonder why we have an EDC. So I don't know how, I want you all to figure this out. I don't think we have to sit around and figure this out this morning. But I'd rather see you come back and say, all right, out of these categories we've discussed, we've got innovation district on board, we've got EDC. Well, we have Whit Blanton or someone from Forward Penelope is going to be there. I think that's a wonderful idea. You know, whoever else, you know, Walt, I don't know. We have a core right now that doesn't leave a whole lot of room. I think having one or two citizen reps, one by the mayor, one by council, that's fine. I don't care. I just want to make sure that it's somebody who doesn't just want to be able to say that they're on a board. Because these, because, and the application process really needs to, I'm looking at our council chair because you will probably be the one sending this out and reviewing the application announcement. But I hope that there will be some input there so that the application includes a strong preference for someone who is working in the like the air advanced air mobility or has some kind of relevant experience that would show us that every person at that table is going to be extremely valuable. We just don't have time and we don't have time to have something that's super loose. We've got to be focused on this. So that's all I have. I know I'm talking a lot this morning. Chair, just to let you know, we'd be happy to work on a resolution and come back to the next committee meeting and that would give you something in writing to discuss. Right. I wanted to just to float out there to the committee. I would be glad as Chair of the Egonaut of the Workforce Development Committee to work with the administration, tighten up the mission statement, and maybe work on, you know, some of these people to come back to our September 26 meeting with the resolution and maybe a list of potential members of the task force. So when you get your list together you're going to send it out prior to the meeting. Okay. And I will also say I just wanted to concur with Council Member Mohammed. I know that we don't want to start broad, but the conversation needs to start from day one. If we want it to be included in day 5,000, it needs to be included in the conversation in day one. Because if we're going to go out and look for contractors and look at three people that are going to provide this service, they need to know what we're expecting from, from day one, from the job. But not saying, well, let's just find somebody who ever comes in or they're gonna have to be able to come in all in. And so when we make those requests, that's what we're looking for. They might not specifically be on the task force, but the mission statement and what we're looking for from that contract, there needs to be clear. It's not a contract. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Our CDA administrators at the table, Mr. Corvitt, do you have any thoughts that you want to share with us? Good morning. Appreciate the conversation. A lot of what I was going to say has already been covered. I completely agree with council that we want to keep the task force limited in number, as a administrative nurse that we're certainly flexible. I think the idea is when rich and Christian, I had a conversation and we talked about some of the areas of expertise. The idea that I had in mind when I was saying that is I agree we want this task force to be efficient. We want them to be effective. We want them as councilmember Driscoll is as mentioned we're a little bit behind the time so we need to be able to get up to speed and do it quickly. So my thought with the areas of expertise were so that we could hit the ground. The reality is we do have something to offer for this industry. We don't necessarily know all what it is. And that's why I thought maybe having somebody from the advanced air mobility to understand what would be attractive to them in preparing on what we already have and saying, here is a package, but also from an infrastructure perspective, what do we need to do, which is why we thought having engineering at the table. But now looking at it, we could accomplish that by having that group be advisors. They don't necessarily have to be on the task force. But I absolutely believe that we have to have, so people participating with the expertise so that we can get the answers and we can move this forward. So we will work on a resolution, but this is really good feedback. I appreciate it. All right. Very good. Any other committee members have any comments? Legal? Do we need to take any action? We do not. Okay. Rich Cress, anything else on this topic? Thank you for the opportunity. And we'll get together and tighten up the mission and the mission of this task force, and I hear what everybody says, especially, you know, and I'm naming this task force. I want to make it clear too. I want to, my name that I came up with was the St. Petersburg Advanced Air Bumbility Task Force. Keep it very, very, not abriated. It's a city task force to study advanced air mobility. Very good discussion. Thank you. We'll move on to our next item. It's a, we're gonna continue our discussion on the municipal services center and rejoined by Aaron Fish, our real estate and property management director. Before he comes up, you know that'll be a spam, right? St. Pete Pete air mobility. I didn't think about that. Me either. Just, he's on his phone. It's a phone, yeah. We have two aids. It's a phone. It's a phone test. It's a phone test. I'm already unhappy with this. Thanks Ed. Great name. Didn't think about that. Yeah. Aaron, good morning council. Let's get serious about this MSC. And I'm going to commit a chair. Yes, this is a follow up discussion based on a previous discussion we had at this committee in July on the MSc building. Based on the previous discussion, we did get an appraisal for the building in June of this year. That appraisal resulted in an estimated market value of 19,250,000, and that was based on the city selling the building at its highest and best uses of development. The appraisal results were discussed at the last committee meeting, and in that meeting there was a mention of having a follow-up discussion to look at what a current sale the building might look like. In response to the comments in the last meeting, real estate did take a look at what it would look like potentially for the city to sell the building now, and have to lease the building back for a period of time until a new MSc building could be built. That estimated time is about five years for design and construction of a new MSc. We looked at the current downtown office market and the lease rates, which are a wide range of lease rates that go from anywhere from $24 a square foot up to $45 a square foot. So based on those lease rates and on a five year lease for 150,000 square feet, which is the size of the MSC, that equates to anywhere from 18 million to over $33 million in lease payments that the city would potentially incur over the five year period of time. During that time, the city would still require capital improvements to the building, to remain in the building. To give an overview of what we're looking at from expenditures for those capital improvements, we've estimated that for the next five fiscal years, we would be spending approximately $13 million on the MSc. We currently have approximately $6.5 million available today, and we have just under $7 million proposed for fiscal years, FY 25 through 29. Current CIP projects underway to the tune of approximately $4.5 million is in the largest project out of this is the replacement of two cooling towers, 25 air handlers, the related controls and our chilled water line valves. The GMP proposal for that is finalized, is expected to come to council here shortly. Currently we are working on the scope for the Water Proofing Project. This project is done every 10 years. It's been 10 years since the project was done last. Not only includes the MSC building, but it also includes City Hall and the Annex. The basement column, which was pointed out in the Harvard Jolly report, the MSC building that also includes City Hall and the Annex. The basement column which was pointed out in the Harvard Jolly report, we are still working with the structural engineer to get the scope drafted on the fix for that column. The structural engineer, excuse me, and the contractor have been at the building to assess the column currently. The ideas that we remove the crack concrete around the steel column assess the condition of the steel and then if no damage is present in the steel we would be putting concrete back around the column. Engineering is working with parking and transportation currently to address the spalling and cracking in the garage at the MSC. The scope of that work has been finalized and parking and transportation will be funding that part of the project. Within the next five years, the additional CIP projects that we have planned include the replacement of two 240-ton chillers, elevator upgrades to replace critical components of the elevators, which are approximately 30 years old now, replacing the generator, the fire pump, and related equipment, replacing the 121 fan coils in the building, and some ADA upgrades, which are mostly related to the restrooms, replacing water booster pumps, fire-larmed devices, and then eventually replacing the roof and some fire sprinkler piping. To summarize, in looking at what a sail leaseback might look like, it's certainly something that would be up for negotiation with a potential buyer, but a sail leaseback, including what the lease rate might look like, what the lease term would be, and what the maintenance responsibilities would be between the parties, that would really dictate what the value would be to a potential buyer developer. The leaseback costs may be greater than what the city could achieve in a sale price at the present time. We are working on the current capital improvements, regardless of a sale today or sometime in the future we would still project to require capital improvements in the building to remain in the building on an interim basis while a new MSC is being built. And I'd be happy to address any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Aaron. Vice Chair Driscoll. Thank you. And page seven with the plan projects. So the current projects underway are costing approximately 4.5 million here You've had it written bet on the next slide For plan projects within the next five years. You don't have a dollar amount here. What is that amount? So the the total amount that we had planned for The next five years was approximately 13 million So plan for the next five years was approximately 13 million. So the difference between the 13 million minusing out, you know, the approximate expenditures that we currently are incurred. So that includes the 4.5 that we've currently allocated. Yes, there's there's yeah, roughly Yeah, it's roughly nine for the second page. Yeah approximately nine million dollars. That's the easiest way to Okay, they're four and a half now another nine on the way Okay So then on the next page on the summary, I've got some questions about the lease back costs. It says that the lease back costs to the city may be greater than the amount the city will realize by selling. At the building's worth, if it's appraised at 19 million, isn't it fair to say that we're pretty close to the same problem by keeping it? And in the agreement that was not approved by City Council. The previous agreement regarding MSC and the construction of a new one, the city, it was proposed that the city would sell the property to the developer and there would be a leaseback. Correct. For up to five years, under market rate to give time for the new building to be built. It was low. I don't have all my all my research with me. Yes, but I know that it was like it was like so-for-cushion change compared to market rate. It was it was definitely lower than market rate. It was for was contemplated that the first three years in that agreement were at a nominal rate to the city, then it went to 1.35 million annually to the city, the city was to be responsible for all of the maintenance and repairs at that time. I will say that the structure of that deal, there were some incentives financial incentives for the developer to negotiate that way because they were also the developer on Right new MSc and taking a developer fee on that in this scenario The city could certainly self-perform this development and not engage in a developer and have to have that be a factor So there were certain nuance to the deal that that the city didn't go through with that that factor into why that lease rate was lower Mm-hmm But that's not to say that you couldn't negotiate the same deal today because this is a pretty prime piece of property. And I have a feeling that if someone wants it, if we have a buyer, we have a good negotiation on that. I mean, you put it out there and you say right up front. We got to have it for it. You got to lease it back to us for at least three years. And they're going to, if they want the property, they're going to work with us on that. I mean, it's understandable. We've got to have a place to be until the new and is constructed, which I do think we should self-perform. I mean it's understandable we've got to have a place to be until the new one is constructed which I do think we should self-perform. I am very much in favor of that. It does save us money and the the proceeds for part of the proceeds from this can go into that. That least back thing that's a negotiation point and all three of you are really good at it and You will get something below market rate. I just know it. I just know it look at the deal that was done before You can get that without having to deal with all of those other pieces that we did not like about the deal before so that's what I'm thinking about that and The opportunity that we that we have right now, it's not going to last forever. We know that even as popular St. Petersburg is, that economic downturns happen. Real estate downturns happen. I believe that now is the time for us to get as much as we can out of this because we clearly need the money for other things. And I get worried every single, as the years go by, I get more and more worried about MSC. And how long we really have left and the employees that have to do with working in, you know, standards that are below them, they deserve better. So that's where I'm at right now. I'm still, sell baby, sell. And I look forward to hearing what my colleagues think. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If I, oh, please, sir. No, no, I just wanted to say this is a good discussion and I appreciate it. And I think there's an added element to this, which is separate but tied together. And this whole discussion about MSC has made me realize that I don't think that we have done a good enough job discussing and communicating with Council or non-enterprise CIP issues. And you know the things we're working on related to fire station, fleet, Enoch Davis and so forth. So I don't know if a Council member would be interested, but if there was a new business item to come to a committee, whether it's this, BFT, PS and I, and just give feedback from council on kind of the administration's priorities on non-interprice VIP and give feedback from council on your priorities. I think that could not only help inform this discussion a little bit, but inform our together actions going forward on CIP. So I just put that out there. Why don't we go to Council Member Mohamed and Demico? Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate those remarks around the negotiated rate for leaseback because I've been across the rent versus ownership conversation is always big in my mind and I'm not sell baby sell them hold the whole baby hold because they're not making anymore but if we can get to a place where it actually makes sense then you know it will be a consideration but my you know my first thought is always don't sell grandma's house unless it makes a whole lot of sense and hearing what I've heard so far it just didn't make sense because of the numbers didn't really work and so really still kind of mulling that overworked my way from it. Thank you. Thank you. Administrator Corbin. So this is a great discussion and I appreciate the confidence that Council Member of Driscoe has in our negotiating skills. I actually have had a conversation with a few developers. We haven't had any offers, but obviously we would want to negotiate a deal where, and I think, and I want to speak for Council Member of Driscoe, but I think that the idea of putting money into a building that eventually we know will probably be demolished seems like it's not a good use of funds. The issue is, and this is a gift in the curse, but we've been really successful in stretching out our systems, Aaron talked about the elevator. We've been really good at making things last way past or right at the edge of their useful life. So we're at a point where we have to make a decision about how we move forward. And one thing that we absolutely won't do is compromise the safety of the building. I worked in MSC for 15 years and by no means is it a you know class A beautiful building but structurally I want because I know our employees watch these structurally the building is safe and it works in MSC every DA so if you start seeing air and not show up to work then you should be concerned but structurally the building is sound but I do agree it's time for an upgrade. The issue is that, and even speaking to developers, there's going to be a balance no matter what we do. So we could absolutely negotiate at least rate where the rain is below market, but that is going to affect the ultimate sales price that we get. And the reality is that the vast majority of the maintenance items in the area in this team are working to be creative on, how can we do these things in a more efficient, less expensive way. So we're looking at a variable system where it would extend the life without replacing the entire system to try to save, bring that number down from the estimated 13 million. But the reality is some of these things have to happen whether we own it or we sell it and somebody else owns it and that comes at a cost. And either we're going to absorb that cost through doing the work ourselves or we're going to absorb the cost through the developer reducing the amount that they're willing to pay us because they're either going to get reduced rent or they're going to have to do the maintenance themselves. So because there is no way to get around what has to happen in the next five years and if we could magically snap our fingers and be ready to be in a building in a year or two, it would be another scenario. But the reality is we have to be there for at least five years. If we, and we've already started the process to look for, you know, what the next step is as far as the new MSC, but it would be at least five years, we're going to absorb that expense. I don't foresee a developer saying, we'll just cover that for you. It's going to come out of the price. It'll be factored into the lease, but in one way or the other, the cost will be passed on to us. While I don't have a magic, I don't have a crystal ball about the future of what the real estate market will be. I will say that if we can list the property, I believe property values will go up, but we do have economic downturns, and it's hard to know what's going to happen next. But if we were the list of property closer to the time, we were ready to exit. We could command a better price. I think if we're asking someone to purchase now, but hold on to this asset that ultimately they're going to want to demolish and rebuild and or maintain it for us or we maintain it at a reduced rate, that cost is going to get passed on. So at least at this point, and I'm still open to, I'm not closing the doors to possibilities, but from conversations that I've had, I don't see a way where we come out better just because the five years of maintenance has to happen. And we can try to improve on the cost, but that work has to be done. That was really all I wanted to share. I share it just cool. You make a really good point. So we stay, not hang the first day I'll sign yet. I can't believe I've made it to saying that out loud. We stay. Not hang the first sale sign yet. I can't believe I've made it insane that I'm out. There's a gun. Can we start on the new building? Because yes, we have five years of maintenance that's going to have to be paid for. I think that's what you just said. We have a new building that needs to be built. Can we please get started on that? Let's get started on that? Let's get started on that then Along the way we're going to figure out or we're going to get that offer that's going to make everything make sense to Pull the trigger on the sale of the building or repurpose it or whatever comes up But we've got we I think we can all agree we need a new MSC Have you done a space needs analysis on it yet? There's actually a meeting next week. Ah, progress. We're meeting with the directors, and we're going to understand that again, we had a space needs previously, a lot has changed. Yes. So we're going to look at how the building is currently being used, potential changes, and also how can we be most efficient with our space. So for example, if you have two employees in the same role and one works from home, two days a week, another one works from home, two days a week is there a possibility that they could share it on this, for example. So we're gonna look at all of that to make sure that we design exactly what we need, but not more. And that's that conversation that's happening now. And I think if I could add that that goes to the other point that I made about maybe a new business item I mean we've said that we think that probably the next round of penny is the best funding so it's for a new MSc It's gonna be a significant expense, but if city council has a desire to talk about expediting that then I think we need to talk about the Non-interprice the IP picture look at some of these other things and talk about priorities Okay, I agree. I agree. I think, and it is like, maybe the timing works out great for that. But I think there are things we can do in the meantime that pre pre pre pre planning stuff. Yes. You know, and really looking at not only how much space we need today, but are there some services that are offered in the current MSC that maybe Could be done in a different city-owned building in our city where for instance a contractor with this big truck and all of his stuff that needs to get a permit Instead of trying you know trying to figure out where to put the truck downtown Can pull into a parking lot somewhere. We've got a permit. I mean a Permit office the the parking of where you pay your tickets and get your sticker Could couldn't that be somewhere else? And it gives us an opportunity to actually spread out our city services and kind of increase the activity and our presence and the fact that we're out there for people just by being in places that make sense. I think it's a good discussion to have. Yeah, so actually work on that space needs analysis. I hope those kinds of things will be taken into consideration. There are some things like the City Attorney's Office needs to be next door, you know? But there are some options here. And I think then we would be looking at a smaller build. Guess what? Then maybe it doesn't cost so much. So when you think you might be able to come back and tell us about that space needs analysis. Because I'll do the new business unless the committee cheer is going to do a new business item and feeling it. He's in the home stretch. He's going to have a new business item from this guy every week until he's done. So get ready. It's the coroner's move. So I want to ask if we could look at something maybe the October or later. Yeah. We could come back because I do want to make sure we expand the conversation to what you brought up about. Does the existing setup where all the city services and one building is that necessary or is there another. Another model that makes more sense that would be more efficient for the new building? Yeah, yeah. And I know I'm not the first person that's ever thought of that. So I think even if October would be, I would be agreeable to that. And I think even if it's a less than 10 minute update on how that's going, as long as we're seeing forward progress like this, to me, that feels like a win. So thank you. Thank you. So Aaron or James, so has there been a cost benefit, cost benefit and analysis done of this building and the CIP costs? And not a direct cost benefit analysis, no? I think it was Vice Chair Driscoll at a previous discussion that talked a little bit of she used an automobile analogy, you know, where you have a car that engines go and transmission is going. And, you know, do we want to invest and put a new engine and transmission in this car or should we you know, sell that car? I think in this scenario, I'm not going to cut you out, Aaron, but in this scenario, in the car scenario, you can very quickly go trade in the car, give it another one, and drive away. Yeah, It's not that easy to trade out buildings. Right. So, while, I mean, even if our tour agree that it doesn't make sense to put the money into the building, we don't have a choice. We have to make sure the building is safe. Yeah. And that there is an expense associated with that. If there were a way, which is why I've had conversations with developers to say, like, let's think about this and let's be creative. But what would have to happen is that cost will have to be born by someone. So if we either we do the work and we carry the costs and that would allow us to negotiate a lower lease rate, or they do it, but they're at a minimum they're gonna pass that cost on to us. At a minimum, it'll probably be cost plus. So the fact that we have to do this work and we can't just trade in this building and move into another one tomorrow, that the scenario doesn't necessarily align, but I would agree that there is, you know, again, we're in a position where we've, fortunately or unfortunately, stretched the life of some of these components where now we have to do something. Yeah, I think it's important to note that we understand where you're coming from. We don't like it either. And in hindsight, it would have been great to do this study 15 years ago. But we're trying to deal the best we can with where we're at. Right. So I just want to get just a couple other questions answered because I kind of feel and I appreciate what we're all in agreement where we got a situation that we're uncomfortable with. It concerns me that we've got a five year CIP estimate of $13 million. And then we know after that there could be more. And what kind of a throwing good money after bad type of situation with this building. So Aaron, can you remind me after five years, what's the estimate for the next five years of CIP? So when we looked at this initial five years, really what the plan was, was what's it gonna take to get us 10 years? So the items that we picked out were the most critical items to take care of as early as possible, so that we could get as much benefit as we could out of replacing those items while we're still in the building if we were in the building for longer, say, than five years. If we were in the building for up to 10 years, we're even longer. A lot of these building critical components would be replaced and would give us a much better foothold in going into the future of the building should we have to stay there. So I would say after this first five years, most of the big ticket items would be purchased and replaced at that point. And then of course, we never know. We always have things that come up on the building that could be have to be replaced. That's the unknown piece of it. But what we do know based on our 30-year history with the building is these critical components, they have to be replaced now. The great thing about the building maintenance team is that they've been very diligent in the maintenance program as Administrator Corbin mentioned. And what that's done is it's prevented us from having to replace a lot of these components. The 25 air handlers that are in the building, they have a 12 to 15 year lifespan in a salt air environment. We're on 30 years. Should have replaced them 30 years ago, but our diligence in the maintenance program has extended the life of those. So in some ways over time we've actually saved a lot of money by our maintenance plan that we have in place. It's just such that we're at a point where we do have to replace these items. So from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint we've saved a lot over time, but at some point any mechanical system needs replacing and that's what we're going to write. Okay. All right. Good. And then my last question, which concerns me is the, that column repair. That just seems like a big unknown. And it gives more. Yeah, the structural engineer, we did have a scan done to determine what was inside the concrete. And there is a steel column that's in there. The structural engineer at this point has not raised any red flags as far as they're being any real structural problem. It looks like that the crack in the concrete was due to some water intrusion. So they are drafting the scope of work now. The scope of work will entail taking the concrete off of that steel column, assessing the steel column. If there is any damage to the steel column, then at that point, the structure engineer feels that we would just replace the damage steel if there is any, and then put the concrete back in place. But there is no indication from the structural engineer at this point that any additional columns would need to be put into shore anything up. They really haven't shown a lot of concern at this point. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for that information. I think that's going to do it for our agenda today. I'll be putting in a new business item on the capital leads for non-interprise CIP. So is anybody else have anything for the go to the order? The Economic and Workforce Development Committee meeting is adjourned. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. 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 it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. . you Thank you.