##VIDEO ID:1GLZ9OXvASc## public market parking, dredge and spoil sites, and storm drainage improvements. So there were there there were all I'm sorry, we put the dredge and spoil sites in, but there were a whole list of things that were identified in there that they could do right, that they can do. And we were adding to that right. I mean, again, this is not a major, but I guess this is not a major one one way or the other. Yeah. But I think what Carrie's trying to say and not put words in your mouth, Carrie, is what we're seeing in front of us isn't reflective of what the charter says today. Right. So it looks like it's track it. Yeah. It looks like, well, we can do something for storm and drainage improvements and dredge and spoil sites, but all this other stuff is also missing. So, you know, we identify specifically what they can use do with eminent domain. And that's not reflected in this question. Well, the changes that you have suggested are reflected in the question. The final question hasn't been drafted, but we did the general. Well then why aren't why is storm drainage improvements there? I will tell you in a second. Why does it not say acquisition by the City of real property under power of eminent domain to include dredge and spoil sites. Sorry, I got my engineer hat on today and two cups of coffee in my. Oh, no. Whoa! That's how I read it. You didn't add it. You didn't tell us about it. I read it like you read it. Yeah. Okay, let's see. Thank you. Our choices right now are to accept what we gave them to look at or to not. You're right. Your choice is to continue on with the language that you. What we're doing today is you're deciding whether you're going to make any changes. Otherwise we will continue with the language that you voted on. So the question really becomes you now have the comments today of the BOC. Do you want to continue with the language you have, or do you want to make any changes that that's what we're here on today. I did we send to them, Carrie, how many changes, how many questions did we how many questions we potentially send? You just said I thought I said nine, but I could be. I want to make sure I'm right. Is that right, Michelle? I thought they were talking a lot more. I thought they were meandering around like 18. No, there's 14, 14. Yeah. So. All right. So this I'm sorry. So this section read. Yeah. So this section reads the acquisition by the City of Real Property under the power of eminent domain exclusively for water and sewer utility easements, public rights of way, public parking and storm drainage improvements. And we added instead, instead of stopping at storm drain improvements and dredge and spoil sites, the question so that, you know, you're looking at a truncated version under the BOC review, the question itself will have all that language in there, and the it will have all of this, all of that. What I just read to you. Okay. All right. And then we'll have the additional language of dredge and spoil site. All right. So right now what I would like to do on this one since there was a question on it, let's get a motion on the table to either accept or not. And then we'll continue discussion and then because let me I hate to interrupt, but because the BOC is okay with H and I do you just want to do a motion on all the whole section. The whole section three. In other words, because the BOC is agreement with you. Well, it says question one and question two on under section three. Yeah, I is on question two. H is on question one. Yeah. See that and the read Andy. Yea. Well it's not really two questions. Oh all right. It's not really because the way it's under section two. So the ordinance says proposed amendment of three h limitation of power. We have it as one one section under the ordinance. Okay. But but if you want to do it separately I have no problem with that. But the how many questions would there be on the referendum on that? B h and I how many questions would only be one unless I have an issue with that, because somebody may not want to give them the eminent domain to do the dredging soil, but they want to do they say, okay, we'll give you the 500. It needs to be separate questions. And then we're checking with Irene on this. And then the real property too is there is a word limit. You know, there is a word limit. When we draft the actual question. So we want to make sure we're right in the information we're giving you. And Mr. Penny's point is very well taken. These are very three very separate issues. Right. And if one part gets voted down by the community, the other two, that really should be well then we could we could do them as separate. I don't think that's a problem. I think everything is separate. Well, and it is true that we probably should as we're talking. We probably should do them as separate because it would affect all three and they are separate. So why don't we, for your purposes, why don't we vote on them individually? So instead of BOC okay. With question one, I would go up to s really you could say it but it's we'll have to we're still stuck based on word limitation and all those things, how we draft it. That sounds like a double negative. Hey, didn't it? Hey, Mr. You guys say whatever you want and we'll just do it. It's starting to sound like kind of an elitist thing. Yeah, yeah, I mean, only we know what's right. Oh, yeah. That's right. I mean, a 15 word limit in the title and 75 in the body. So they'll probably be individual questions. Just so you know, we don't like hearing no. Yeah. Did I say no. That was a mistake. Yes. That was a mistake. Thank you. Was it would be three separate questions. Yeah. Yes. There's no reason why we can't make a motion if they have to ignore it. Because it actually sounds like you are correct on how we will do it based on based on the idea that these are separate issues. Oh, I like that. We are correct. You are correct. Let's continue. All right. We have a motion on the table to accept b h and I s a r and s separate questions. So we have it. Seconded. Do we have any further discussion on this. No further discussion. Well well I'll just I'll just say that I think the dredge and spoil sites clause is right in keeping with the intent and the kinds of things, you know, that are already mentioned. So it makes perfect sense to me. Yes, I, I yes, especially considering what, what Mr. Saltzman said in terms of some of the city's limitations due to recent event, I agree. All right. Are we ready to call the vote? I mean, we call vote on that. Yes, Miss Jennings. Yes, mayor. Yes. Vice chair calling us. Yes, chair. Yes. Okay. If we move to the next one, which is section eight, board of Commissioners. Composition duties, responsibilities and powers. So d d was looked at as you know, the language, current language is to adopt a city budget as prescribed by law. Period. You have added, in conjunction with reviewing the charter for funding requirements. The BOC said that should be policy versus in the charter, because that's how they they should be doing this, but they've never done it. And that's why we brought it. That's why we wanted it up. Because you have these charter things in the charter where where funding is required and they never the budget never reflected the requirements of the charter. So that's why that was put in. Okay. But let's talk about that for just a sec. Second, was that more along the idea of the sidewalk issue or was that additional issues it was had to do with special some of those other plans. The comprehensive plan, the strategic plans, the sustainability plans had to do with the broad range of funding requirements that haven't taken place. And since the BOC changes, all the time, unless you have it in there, they don't really know that. I think it was pretty clear to all of us that there are a number of things, number of issues in the charter that are not being addressed. And that's why what we discussed and that's why we put this in there, they have to do it. If it's in here, how much clearer can we do? It didn't matter when they're elected or how long they're in there or anything. That's the Bible for them to run the city that is correct. And until it is policy, I mean, once it's policy, once it's set, once we see it in action. Okay, well, then take it back out. But we're not seeing an action this way. Yeah. And I think I, I think I know what happened on that last thing about, about the one question under section three, the it's a section. And now they're doing the same thing on section eight. Those are all those were all separate questions. You can't take a section and say we're going to change the section. You got to oh no, you're right. You are right. That was my mistake. Okay. No problem. I was trying to think of I was actually trying to think of a way to reduce the number of questions. Right. But let's that's your argument with the board of commissioners. Well, no, that's just my in general, trying to make sure that we do it in a way that it's that we have everyone looking at the issues to make sure that they're addressing what you're proposing. Right, right. The most important thing here, and I don't want to lose my perspective on it, is that everything we're getting back says. Should be policy. It's policy. It it apparently can't be because it's not being addressed that way. So if the public reads it or understands it, I think we're going to see every bit of this that we've talked so far about past. Right. Well, let's move to the next one. Well, why don't we do this? And I have a suggestion on the next one to go ahead. John, want to do a separate. So when you say the next one, are you talking about the next section or. No no, no, I'm talking about I, j k and L yeah I mean I think we should review each one of these and then have you vote either. So when I listen to the, the board of commissioners, just addressing this, they were this is too many words. This is too long, this is too etc. We I'm just going to say my understanding from what we wanted. We wanted to see that the city manages the strategic plan, the comprehensive plan, the and the sustainability plan in conjunction with each other, in line with each other. And they're they're updated periodically. I mean, that's that's what we wanted. And then we had a lot of words change because the, the timing and the alignment. ET cetera. I don't see why we can't delete I, J and L and then with according to Mr. Saltzman's suggestion, just keep k and then list the three plans that have to be coordinated. Well and they all go, just so you know, they are in the process of being brought forth to the board and as is required and coordinating. And those are those are more mandates that are state required anyway. So if your point is if the argument is that the city is not doing this well, the city is required to do it. So whether you put it in the charter or you don't have it in the charter, it's still require. So the state has a mandate to do this. So you have to do it. Yeah. In other words, the periodicity. Yeah. Well I think the state only has the requirement on the comprehensive. Well the comprehensive plan you're right. The comprehensive plan C I said you're right. The comprehensive plan has a lot of, you know, fingers that come out of that when you're doing the comprehensive plan. There's a lot of other issues that are required as a result of the comprehensive plan. But I would tell you these next sections are things that are required for the city to do. Now, if your point is, again, the city's not doing them well, that's more of the city needs to do it. Right? Right. And so as opposed to whether it's in the charter or not, in the charter, it's still a requirement. Yeah, I, I in listening to that discussion and I went back to what really needs to be in the charter. We don't need to put anything more than they are updated every five years. And what those three plans are and how they're coordinated, like I, I got to tell you, I however, you are going to respond to what I'm going to say. I don't think the additional language is, is I've ever seen that kind of language in a charter. Right. Well, that's what I'm saying is a this is a position, right? This is a position statement, right? No. And I agree, that's why I'm going to go back with my recommendation that we delete, we eliminate I, J and L and go back to K. Wait. You were going to eliminate L. Let me finish. It's k k is our overarching paragraph. It says review update, retire, abandoned or deemed completed. All city master and action plans. Every five years beginning October 1st, 2024. And then we list those three plans. The Strategic Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Sustainability right that accomplishes what you're asking, period. And so it's short, concise, complete. We don't need all this other stuff. To me, that makes a lot of sense because I think this additional is just is language that you wouldn't necessarily put in a charter. I'll move the chairman's recommendation. I'm sorry. There was a move. We moved the chairman's recommendation. Second. Thank you. Okay. You're winning a lot today. I, I have been thinking a lot about this Mr. Salzman. Okay, so just so we're all on the same page. We understand what we're doing with that. Yep. Okay, just just so as part of your statement, we are still striking the language in I am we're striking the all of I right. All of J right. All of l we're keeping k and we list the three plans. But what I'm trying to clarify under I is that you're not you're striking your addition. But we're still striking I in its entirety. Yes. Okay. I just want to be clear. What's that. What about D. That's that's that's separate. Yeah. I think you need to. I think you were keeping D, right. Yeah. Yeah. We still need to vote on that part. But I move, we keep D. But anyway, on the other one. Yeah well we can amend the motion if it's okay to say we're keeping D, we're adding the language that the chair has said and we're striking those other sections that could be all part of one motion except do you accept the motion change. Do you accept the second? All right. We're all in agreement. Michelle, would you call the vote, please? Yes, Miss Jennings, yes, Mr. Tear penny. Yes, vice chair. Yes, yes. Okay. We're going to section 11. And at this point, I would ask John to leave because this is his section. Okay. Well, I'm just going to say one thing, Mr. Saltzman. Your comment here on K may be list is what got me thinking in that direction. So good on you. Thank you. I needed something. That's right. Well, I'm giving you that carrot right now. Good on you. All right, 11. Mr. Should we call a break for one of us? So I could leave? No, I think Irene spoke a lot at regarding this issue that we really are mandated by state statute on how we do this. That's not true. I know John was going to say that. I just don't believe it. It's the hill to die on. This is John's I know this is his okay. Here, let me just say that. Can I have the floor, madam Chair? Yes, please. Okay, Tina, I'm not picking on you. Can you tell me when qualifying opens and ends this year? No, Joan. No. Kerry. Well, I'm sorry, the question is, can I when qualifying opens and ends this year? Oh, it's like. Ending is like for the March 1st is like coming up in a week or two, something like that. Can you tell me the dates exactly. Yeah. No, it's not in my calendar and it's not on my hand. So no, I can't tell you. So you all have, but I also don't have an interest in running. But you all just as involved citizens. You just all made my case. You guys are involved more than most of the general public. And you can't tell me it happens to be. It ends the day before Thanksgiving. Yes. I mean, it's a week. It's a week. I was going to say that too. So my point is you have a one week qualifying period. It's the week before Thanksgiving. What do you think people are thinking about? Oh, should I run or family coming in, etc? Yeah, I say we leave it. It's a I said from the very beginning, my two things were to protect the, the citizens and encourage more participation in government. So I allege that this encourages participation in government by making people more aware of what's going on in the community. And as far as mailing things and difficulty on the clerk's office, there are services that you just hand them the thing and say, send this to everybody in Tarpon Springs to every household in Tarpon Springs, and they send it. And I think Jack Latvala's firm used to do that. Or maybe still does, but so there's no real stress to do this. It's a and it's an insignificant amount of money to do it. You know, when you do bulk mailings. So I think there's two parts here. Right. You wanted the mailings to go out so people would be aware. Right. And I think that's important. The second part is you want to have the qualifying period expanded. So it's not all jammed around Thanksgiving. Well at all or I don't care what time of year it is, I think one week qualifying time is too short. Sure, that's right. So I, I think one of the things that they were talking about is that that the statement, as it's put in is very confusing. The qualifying period, 30 days prior to the qualifying period. Well, if it's confusing, it could be rewritten. So it's not confusing, but the concept of having a notice to the general public, right. That's, that's and I guess 30 days prior to the beginning of the qualifying period of 30 days, if you want to make it less confusing, make the qualifying period 45 days, right? No, I, I but okay, so let's break this down. I think it's the words qualifying time and qualifying period. I think that's the confusing part. It's it is. And even the commissioners got a little hung up on that. I, I am all for notification. I think that's important. But I'm also thinking these are actually two very distinct things to be decided. So you want to break it down to two questions. I think it should be two questions for that. We can do that. And I think that it should it if there is a way to rewrite qualifying time and qualifying period. So it's more qualified. So it would help the population understand what we're talking about. Oh, can I ask why the BoCC asked to remove this. What were their arguments? I, I believe that the argument was one that we follow what the requirements are and that it becomes a little more burdensome on the clerk's office. And you could correct me if I'm wrong on that. The second thing is, I know I have to put this on the record. I know John disagrees with me and he might hit me, but I don't. But I have never seen anyone who has interest in running for office not get involved to see when this when the issues are. I mean, I just have never seen it. I have and so in in all the years I've done this, it's always been people start showing an interest at least 12 months before an election occurs, to see they start coming to meetings. They start, you know, getting involved. They start saying things and then at at public meetings, we're always talking about I mean, city clerk tells you what what's coming up. And we have that information. So this is a pretty involved city from public watching the meetings and doing those things. So that's the only, you know, statement I would make. I mean, I understand the John's position and y'all's position on this, but I've just never seen this as being a major issue. It's a terrible issue in Tarpon Springs. Well, I have I have a personal dog in this fight that I will put forward, and that is that I am not. I am in an HOA and so I don't see a water bill and a lot of city information goes out in water bills. That's true. I don't see any of it. Yeah. We discussed that when we brought this up. That's right. And that's one of the reasons why why that was really important and put in here shall be sent to all city registered voters very specifically. Well, those are right. Those are two different questions okay. So again, like you said there are two different issues here. One is the notification and one is the expansion of the qualifying time period. Yeah. The notification would be where the mail goes. And I think that's completely different. And they should be two different questions because you are trying to you have two different, you know, issues here. Should we expand qualifying time. Should we give notification I mean the those are separate I'm for leaving it in with but bifurcating the two questions. And one says that you're notified each each registered voter is notified 30 days prior to by direct mail. And you know they use bulk mail. That's fine. Okay. And the second question is that the qualifying time should be expanded to 30 days. That would be a good second question. Yeah. Second question. That's a motion. That is a motion. Is it. Seconded, seconded. I'd like to also add the sentence that it should be posted on the city's social media site and announced in a press release, and that speaks to just additional that's already done that that's already done. In fact, Irene just sent the ad for this qualifying period. Great. Okay. Yeah. We so that's already done. You don't have to worry about that. We need to keep that language in there. Then. I don't think we need it in there. It's redundant. We do it anyway. That last sentence, I mean, I could see taking that last sentence that's highlighted out. Yeah. Which one is that. The information is already posted and they are doing it and announced in a press release that is done automatically. Oka. So is it okay to remove. Is that part of the motion. Let's talk about that. Yeah. What what constitutes a press release just went out in the newspaper right in the newspaper. Newspaper circulation. But is it a classified ad or is it a no no, it's a legal ad in, you know, those Wednesdays and Sundays legal ads. Okay. They've always had them. We haven't changed that. Yeah. I think what we wanted to see was the mailing right to the registered voters. And I think we need to keep that in. I also, but I think that that second, that last sentence that reads information shall also be posted on the city's social media site and announce in a press release I they're already doing it. That is process. It's not something we need to put in the charter to force it to happen because it's already happened. So I'm okay with losing those words. Yeah. And, Mr. Saltzman, are you going to be doing a work hard to show how effectively we reduce the number of words? Since I do know that one of our esteemed commissioners was very concerned with that. So. Okay, just so that we give you the insight from the city clerk. The board felt that this section was the reason why they wanted it removed is they felt it was not broke. So why why fix it? The first class mailer is expensive, right? That was the other issue. We recognize it, but they are not reaching all the city voters. Well, let me also let me also say that as someone who is on autopay for city bills, I never see any of that stuff either. And I imagine that's a growing percentage of city. So let me speak to the last sentence at least, because this is justifies what you were just talking about. Irene said. We run an ad on Sunday for the March election, and it has been posted on the website for months already. So that's being done. So that one you should feel comfortable removing. Okay. Yeah, I'm I am comfortable with it. If everyone else is. Yeah. All right. So that all right. So that's part of the motion the removal of the last sentence. And then bifurcate the first two. Right. Right. Two questions. Can you please make that first question so it's not confusing to the voters. We will. Well this is your language I don't think we can change I mean it has to be what you vote on. Well, I understand, but if it's two questions. Actually, this isn't our language. This is what you wrote from our discussions. Well, I'm going to point that out, John. If it's two questions, it takes out the confusion. Right, right. I yes, I think it does. Two questions. But I would rather say I would rather have it. I got to tell you, I think it's cleaner by doing it. The two I think it makes, I think it's clean to say the qualifying time for the office of city commissioner shall be 30 days prior to the qualifying period. So really it's time and period is not as confusing if we just limit it to the one question. I think when it becomes a bigger question, then it then it seems a little more confusing. Okay. All right. So the motion wait a second John, do you want to restate what after I, I read it again I can see why it's confusing the qualifying time for the office of city Commissioner shall be 30 days prior to the qualifying qualifying period. I think that's not what it that's not what we said. We said that we would notice the public 30 days prior to the qualifying period, not the qualifying time. It shouldn't say qualifying time. It should say notice for the notice for the qualifying time, notice of the qualifying notice of the qualifying time. Notice shall be given to the. Are you saying it said should say notice of the qualifying time for the office of City Commissioner shall be 30 days prior to the qualifying period? Yeah, that was changing it from seven days to 30 days. That was the first change. And then the second one was when does the notice go out? It may be I think it should be 30 days prior to the qualifying time, as opposed to the qualifying period. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. And I think you need to put the mail. The mailing should be the first question because that's what happens. First you get the mail, first it tells you and then it's followed by the qualifying period of 30 days. But I think I think in this is something that that's the problem that we discussed. The qualifying period is state is set by state statut. Well, these you have to work backwards from your election date. Right. So the qualifying period. So that's fine work backwards but just extend the time. So it's not written right Andy, let's go back to the beginning. Let's talk about the first sentence. Do you want to change that. Say notice of the qualifying time. No I think that where it says the second sentence, a notice by first class mail should be sent to all city registered voters 30 days prior to the qualifying period. Identified all Commissioner. That's that's right. That's oka. So the second question is that should be the first question. Okay. And then we're going to take out the information. Shall also be post on okay. The second question would be qualifying. Qualifying time shall be extended from seven days to 30 days. Well that's in the discussion. What the period should be is what is in here. So it's going to be the seven day thing will be gone. Okay. So but but what we're I think what we're on the same page is that we're going to give people 30 days to qualify. I'm just here some years. There's three commission seats. Right, right. And now all of a sudden people get they're going to get they either don't like the way the town is going or something motivates like three candidates for three seats. Now you have nine people coming in and they're all going to qualify in one week. I don't buy that. A lot of them pre-qualified. John. No, I just, I listen, I was around when this was changed in the, in the amount of candidates running for city office dramatically dropped to where how many times in the last few elections has there been no people just walking in? No, no, nobody running against them? I don't think that's healthy, that it's an incestuous, incestuous. You. I think I think we're all in favor of expanding to the 30, the 30 days, the question is, is we're asking the attorney to make that qualifying time. This is a question for me to put it right after the notice. It's not that. It's that I need to make sure that Irene is comfortable with how the language reads, but I don't have a problem switching the two sentences. I think that makes sense. And the second thing, I just want to make sure, John, that okay, so the qualifying period right now is seven days. Correct. Right. Right, right. And we're asking for that to be expanded to 30 days. Right. Well, you know what? Okay. Yeah okay. So we do the first question is a notice by first class mail. Fine. We get rid of the last sentence okay. Qualifying period is set by code and is currently eight days. Okay. So they want so you want 30 days prior to can we can we put in there. It shall be an additional 22 days prior to the qualifying. So it's a full 30 days. Let's don't confuse it. Let's just leave the second. What's going to now be the first sentence as it as it reads right and just simply say qualifying period. Shall be 30 days. So in other words, the soonest the first class mailing gets sent out that starts the clock on the qualifying period. No, no, no, that's the notification period, right? The qualifying what we're saying is we're expanding the qualifying time. But it says qualifying 30 day period. Period. Yeah. Not prior to the to the qualifying period prior to the qualifying. Yeah okay. So in the no the second sentence reads I mean the first sentence reads fine. After the second sentence I you know, I think it's still confusing to use qualifying time and qualifying period. Since time and period change one to notification period. How about how about the time to qualify for the office of City Commissioner? Right? Or how about applicant shall do the you know, 30 days prior just really change it. But yes, it just needs the qualifying time for the office of city Commissioner shall be 30 days and not not prior to the not prior to the qualifying period. It's it should be shall be 30 days period. The that prior to the qualifying period is what's confusing everybody. Exactly. So you take you just just the qualifying time for the city office of city commissioner shall be 30 days. Period. Period. Okay, okay. Is that going to be a problem for anyone? No, I'm waiting to find out. Okay. So it's 30 days prior to the qualifying period and then the. So we're defining that as the 30 days. And notice shall be given 30 days prior to that time. Correct? Yes. But the first sentence, that's how it's going to flip the sentences right. Okay. We're good. Yes. Okay. I like and I do think that makes it easier. Yeah. This was a section we all struggled with because of trying to get the language to, to coincide with the language that is currently exists in the state statute. Okay. So you have a good handle on what that new language is solid. Would you read it for Mr. Trapani so he can modify his motion? Oh yeah. You have a motion. So we're doing three things. When we do this, we're changing the second sentence to be the first question. A notice by first class mail shall be sent to all city registered voters 30 days prior to the qualifying period, identifying all commission seats open for election and indicating who currently holds the seat and their eligibility for reelection. The second the next sentence is stricken, the second question will be the qualifying time for the office of City Commissioner shall be 30 days. So that's B, that'll be B, yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So move. Second. You second. Okay. Any further discussion? Yes. No. We are now. We are now changing something that the board said remove. Yes. Now were you going back to them and telling them that. So it's tough luck for them. Why are we in here then. Here's why. You're hearing the comments that the BoCC said to consider in your suggestions. Number one, number two, the BoCC has the right to come up with their own questions that could be contrary to yours. I agree. So you are considering the box comments and deciding whether or not you you want to adopt what you already have adopted some of them. So that's why we're here. Yeah, I knew that part of it. But that that was a friendly question. Okay. So that's a process question. If you have further process questions, you are are you in line with what we were doing? Yes. I'm very much in line. All right. So we have a motion on we have it. Seconded. Let's go ahead and call the vote on that. Yes, Miss Jennings. Yes, Mister Chair. Penny. Yes, vice chair. Yes, yes. Okay. We are at section 12. Zoning powers. You have stricken for special exceptions. So the sentence reads. Provided however, that. Well, the Board of Commissioners shall have all powers concerning land use as may be prescribed by general law, provided, however, that the Board of Commissioners shall appoint a Board of Adjustment to be comprised of five members and two alternates, who shall vote in the absence of the regular member to hear and decide appeals solely from administrative staff decisions. Your striking for special exceptions and for variances to zoning and land use regulations of the city. It was recommended that this was not needed so that. Why did we do that? And refresh my memory, I think it was brought up that that special exceptions are not addressed by the Board of Adjustment. Yeah. My note here appeal to the Board of Adjustment does not hear that. So you were trying to clarify that Renee Renee came and spoke to us. I guess the argument is since they don't hear them anyway, what does it matter if you leave the language in or not? Well, this could be an easy gimme to the board of commissioners, since they're not doing it anyway, and we'll hit it on the next charter review. And that's why if you want to do a gimme, is that what you're saying? Well, I'm just wondering if we might need a gimme form, you know, so that they give it I mean, so it's not needed. Again, this goes to the do you want to have an question? Is it necessary to have this as a question. That's really what we're talking about okay. So is it possible to make a motion. Yes. Please. Do I make a motion that we accept the Board of Commissioners suggestion not to include this and to possibly have them listed. Okay. Any further discussion? Call the vote, please. Michelle Duval. Yes, yes, Mr. Chair. Yes. Vice chair. Yes, chair. Yes. Section 13 interference with administration. The Board of Commission is okay with your striking that section. I don't think we need to vote on it then. No, you do not. Okay. Section 14, where you added City attorney to review before being provided to the board of Commissioners. This has already been added as a policy since the last issue occurred. So that has been an adopted policy. That's why they're recommending it not be in there. Jimmy. That's that's your court. Oh, that's that's not the right page. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Did you have a question? No, I. Some people are more versed in different parts of the charter and operations, and I would I want to hear what Jimmy says about it on the internal order. Yeah. I mean, it was a pretty good dust up, as I remember. I. You guys are going to get me on the internal order, which upsets me because. Who does their internal auditor report to? Board of commissioners. Board of commissioners. Right. Who manages the board? The. Listen. What happened in the past? It's pretty disgusting to me that that was all wrong. And nobody on the board of commissioners stopped it. Well, it was being promoted by it was member of the board of commissioners. Yes. And that's my city attorney is the only one who can say this should not go to the board. It has to go through the policy first. But it is a policy now. They've adopted that as a policy as their policy. Here's the thing. It goes to you that's their policy. We have in their report all findings of noncompliance issues to the city manager. You could say, well, there's a policy on that too. So that should be eliminated as well. Right? I think what we saw was such an egregious it was bad situation that having it in the charter, at least for the next five years, I think is critical to make sure that that process is followed. It has to be followed. I would totally agree. I feel strongly it was just egregious. Yeah, it should be. I think the language of adding you or whoever sitting in your chair is important. It would have probably eliminated some of that stuff. Maybe. I mean, it was ba. Understood. You're going to leave that in so you, you you don't have to take any action. What do you think, Jimmy? Yes, I think it has to be left in if this the only one who can stop it is the city attorney. By advising the Board of Commissioners. You should not be doing this in the public. This is not the way it works. I mean, if I was going to remove something, I'd remove the city manager. Sorry, that struck me as. You can make a motion for that. No, you don't need a motion. By the way, City Manage, I'm really glad you're here. And I like you. So we're good with that section. The next one, section 16, you added under G prioritizing future capital improvement programs. That's already a policy of the BOC. This was one mark. That may be a policy, but let me just give you an instance. When this referendum came up about buying property, yes, there was no prioritization of we're $5.5 million could be spent. It was just let's do this. And now we're hearing from commissioners and the city manager that do we really even have the $5.5 million to spend? So they didn't prioritize? Do the sponge docks need to be fixed first? The spring Bayou, the whatever. So I mean, they're not do they. They're not doing it this way. They say they're do they are the policy, but they're not doing it well. And remember where we are. So we're under city manager and we say keep the board of Commissioners fully advised as to the financial conditions and future needs of the city. So that's that's inclusive in that. I mean, that's part of what the responsibility is prioritizing future capital improvement programs doesn't change the responsibility as to the financial as to what you were saying, which is the financial condition and future needs of the city, along with John on this one. I think it should be left in. I look at I look at this as the most important thing is our future capital improvements and. I don't see that happening. I see us judgin, juggling money around in the budget to make things happen that now have to happen. It's imperative that capital improvements are paid for upfront, not take money out of other. But that's not what this says. Prior prioritizing future. Well, you want to say I mean finance. Well let me just say this to you. How does that change what happened? This language wouldn't change what the referendum question was proposed. This doesn't stop that from occurring. How would it change? What has happened? It would change the fact that you're not taking money from another budget to meet a capital improvement. If the city manager doesn't know what capital improvements are needed in this town, why the hell is he a city manager here? I don't disagree with what you're saying, but again, this is the city manager shall keep the board of Commissioners fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city. So. But how does that change if the Commission says we want to purchase a piece of property, it doesn't change what the city manager's responsibilities are. He's still doing his responsibilities well, can't control what the commission does. Well, Andy, here's the deal. It says as to the financial condition and future needs of the city. Right. Okay, so here's this basket of the future needs of the city, right? Right. The basket. Which one is number one? But that's not his call. That is his call. The second the second sentence, the second part of the sentence prioritizing future capital improvement programs. So you're taking the basket, then you're taking them all out and you're listing them. So, so that the board of commissioners and the city manager and the citizens all know we need this, this, this, this and this, and this is the priority of how we see it. And the city manager and I'm sorry, I didn't mean so. The city manager says we need a new fire truck number one. Number two, we need to fix the sewer system. Number three, we need to do whatever. And the Board of Commissioners says, thank you. We're going to buy some property. My point is, he has the obligation to tell them these things anyway. It doesn't change what they're going to do. We agree that the city commission can override the city manager, even if he gives them the proper recommendation, he can override them. But what this does is at least it's they have in front of them. He could say, here's the priorities that we've adopted. Now, if you want to take the one that's down here or the one that's not even on the list, and it's over here in left field, right field, and do it, that's fine. But here's your priorities. But how does that change the language that says, keep the board of commissioners fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city. I just went over that. You got the basket of future needs, right? But it's not prioritized. It's just the basket. Right. And I think that we have also seen that that basket has not been populated. We've been very you know, the city's good at addressing what our current needs are now. But that future vision needs to be developed and improved. I think the language is that's already there states that. But I understand your concerns. You can call you know the qualifying opened soon. I'd have to move. Can you qualify just a little. Then it won't qualify. It's just I think it's there. I understand your point. I've made my argument, your honor. I think you've been heard. You've been soon to be judged. Apparently, I'm losing this argument. Well, I think that so in defense of Andy. Yeah, we have a longer history of activity than he does in the city. That's true. So from my perspective, it needs to be there or it helps it. Maybe it helps. I don't think it'll cure anything, but maybe it'll help. We have all I think we're all on the side of minimizing the language in the charter. I think we believe that we've made a lot of decisions based on that, but we've also and we've also removed things from the charter that in the past were issues, but were then added to the charter to make sure they were acted on. And once they became acted on and they were policy and we saw it happening, we have taken out sections that represented that. Correct. This one, I think for now is it makes sense to keep in because we have seen the issues in the next charter. I mean, if we're seeing things that are if the planning is being done appropriately going forward for the next five years, it can come right back out. But I think there's a very qualified concern with regards to how future improvements are identified, how they're measure, how they're assessed and tracked. I mean, we, you know, something breaks. Yeah, we fix it. That's not a future capital improvement. That's a maintenance issue. And I think we see a lot of unpaid maintenance that become in someone's mind a future improvement. But that's not what that is. But there is a future plan that's adopted by the commission. I'm your honor, I have another argument. There is a future plan that's adopted and it's an ongoing plan that occurs. And it's supposed to be five years out. Yes, I understand you're saying that those things aren't being acted on. I got it, but there is an adopted plan. Okay, well, I think the to you know, this isn't the Supreme Court or anything, but to the rebuttal to that would be I'll stipulate that they have a plan. But do we want to go ahead and add that plan to the other list. Listen, they also well he's saying they have a plan. I think what we're saying is it's not prioritized. And this does prioritize it. Here's here's we're already changing section L no K K or L. And let me go back. Sorry I don't mean to go back but I'm going back under k k under section eight. Right. We talked about review update retired abandoned and deemed completed. All city master and action plans every five years. Right. We can add a prioritized future capital improvement plan to that list and meet the intent of this paragraph G and honestly, what you're saying, I think has more weight to what you're trying to do. If you're having the city commission prioritize it versus the city manager. But I understand what John's going to say, which is that this is, you know, it should be looked at and planned based on the person who is responsible for the budget and those things in the future. The it should be looked at and planned by the person who is there. 365 days a year, and runs the ship. It's a basic thing of this. The Board of Commissioners does policy. The city manager does administrative, the city commission probably doesn't know what the capital improvement program should be, because there's storm water, there's expansion of the treatment plant, there's closing the landfill, there's the seawall at the docks has fallen in. I mean, those are administrative matters, and that's why it's under the city manager versus Kerry moving it back to the commission. It's okay. So the city excuse me please. And the city manager should tell this board at a budget session, right, that we have to fix the drainage at the sponge docks. It's going to cost us $18.5 million. I put that in the budget and then it gets done without the prioritizing these things. The board's going to change it every time somebody calls them and says, oh, I got this big hole in my street, can you come and fix it? Okay, so I got two here. Are we keeping it? I know I would say keep it. I think there's been some very good arguments for keeping it under the egis of the city manager. All right, we're keeping it. Move on. Paragraph three three. They do not want an assistant city manager required. Oh, really? There's five of them up there already. What do we think? That one was pretty clea. Not only. No, but hell no. Is that what I'm hearing? I think they were pretty strong on this one. Even stronger than that. Okay, you know what can you tell me just briefly why it's not needed. We have people that we put in those positions. You're adding an additional pretty extensive expense to the city by doing that. We've never had a problem with this before. This is one that doesn't need to be fixed. But the town we just because something never happened in the past doesn't mean okay. We just had a disaster and we didn't have a problem how it was maintained. I mean, really, what bigger decision is there than the disaster? We just had? Where I see the deficiencies, we had two. We had a day maintenance, day to day operations where I see the deficiencies, but we had but we have department heads that do that there. You may not agree with how that's being done, but that doesn't mean we need another layer of administration. It just means that the city manager needs to be put that as a priority of getting that being done, that it's a difference difference from the president of the US and the vice president, right? No, the vice president, no difference at all. Vice president never does anything. Okay. So here, here when we discuss this, one of our concerns was we're a growing city, right? Yes. We are. We're growing in terms of footprint. We're growing in terms of collaboration with other municipal areas. The city manager job, as it was done in the past, is not necessarily going to be done that way by the new person that's in, and why not let that I'm sorry. Why not let if that's the occurrence, why not let the board of commissioners and the city manager? If that situation is needed, do that as opposed to mandating it. And that's where I was going to come from, right? I was going to suggest if there's a way to allow an assistant city manager, they're allowed, you could do it. Now. You can do it. No. I'm fine. I just think that you know, if the city manager has a need and he identifies it, I think we were all in agreement of being supported with that. We didn't want to preclude it happening by not having it in the charter. So they can do it, but you're mandating it and that again, I'll go back to what I said earlier. Right now, based on what just happened. We have financial issues. Yes. And adding a requirement at this point is probably not necessary. Right. And I have to agree with that. I think we've got a lot of expenses coming. And if they ar, if he's able to suggest and persuade and budget. Absolutely. And again, when you talk about budget and priority, if the city manager needs an assistant city manager, he's going to budget and prioritizing and give the reasons why he needs it as opposed to you mandating it at a time where maybe, frankly, we can't afford to do it. So I agree, I'm going to take it out. Take it out. I mean, I still think we were valid. All right. Can I have a motion to remove this paragraph? So moved. I have a second to second. It needed. No. Do we have a second? I'll second it. It's fine. All right. Any further discussion? What? Michelle? No. All right, let's make a motion in a second. The other way around. Okay. I'm sorry. I know you made the motion and we'll remove the paragraph. Yes. Okay. I just want to say one thing. Yes. Our our thinking and our premise was correct. I'm willing to go along with changing it just because of the financial condition of the city. But I think the discussion of why we put it in was because of the condition of the city, and that maybe there needed to be a the city manager focusing on big picture things, and that the day that the assistant city manager would be running the operations clean, you know, getting things done that haven't been done, deferred maintenance stuff to provide some additional assistance to the city manager. But anyway, I agree we need we need our city manager to be more forward thinking I think. So I think our thinking was right, but I think things, you know, we've had some issues, disaster issues. So okay, we take it out. And from my perspective, if they put an assistant city manager in at some point, at that point, he's not a charter official. That's really the only difference between having this here. That's that's correct. That's true. Okay. All right. So Michelle would you please call the vote on this? Yes yes, yes. Vice chair. Yes, yes. So based on the motion you just made, if we go to section 20. The board is fine with your language. Just removing Assistant City manager from the language you propose. Okay, that makes sense. That's one. That's not a problem. The second one is, you probably are aware if you watched the meeting, had a lot of debate, which we had debate here on, which was the same. I mean, I think it's pretty simple. The point is, is that if you're requiring all department heads and directors who are not listed above to be within ten miles of the Tarpon Springs City Hall, we are going to lose out on potential candidates. That requirement was discussed here in depth and was discussed by the BoCC with the same comment was mentioned. By the current, I mean the prior city manager as also an issue. So they're trying to give you what they see as the reality of candidates and that things have changed in coming in and out. But if you've got the priority of the city manager, fire chief, police chief within the city limits, that they don't see the need for these others, well, that's the point. And you, I know you've discussed it already. I'm going to make a comment. And what I heard in their discussion was that they wanted to retain the list from before and not expand it. The concern was that all department, all department heads and directors is too extensive, but they were okay with maintaining that requirement for City Clerk administrative services director, Public Services, director, Development Services Director, and Planning and Zoning Director, which would leave the language in there and just strike. What you've added. Well, we changed. No, we changed the no. That I'm sorry, ten miles is new. You're right. The ten miles is new. So the arguments that they. So this is like a moving you come up with one argument, they make another different argument. The original argument was that the they could not find they could not these people couldn't find affordable housing within the within Tarpon because tarpon had gotten to be so expensive and so we talked about a couple miles they made they made their thing on a little further. So we came up with ten miles. I think we're ten miles is I mean, I think I mean, ten miles is like almost a 52, you know, and ten miles going east is out into Zephyrhills. And so it's well, I think there needs to be some cohesion to the, I don't know, would you be okay with the other names that are in there within the ten miles as opposed to all department heads and directors? They seem to be in agreement with keeping those other titles. And then the issue was, well, what are the titles now? Let's change the titles. They change the titles. I know then that that was why we went with all department heads and directors, which is a very broad and that caused some angst. I think. Yeah. Well it's because the titles change. So do we put in. So, you know, if you're at that level, well does that really mean that all of them have to be there? I mean I can see that there. You know, might be exceptions to that rule. So do we. It's a hard do we adapt. Do we adapt the language that says instead of all departments heads, we maybe we can say that employees who provide the functions of city clerk, administrative Services director, Public Services Director, Development Services Director and Planning and Zoning director, where we're not calling them out by by name, but they were calling them out by the services they provide. So if names change, it doesn't matter. They're still required to meet the resident requirement at one time. Do you follow me? Give me some background. At one time, the original residency requirement said the department heads had to live within the city. Right? So what do they do? They change the title of the department heads to directors. Right. No longer required to live in the city instead of having. It's a semantics game, right? But if you say if the individuals providing that service, then you can have any title they want, they still have to meet this requirement. That does come. He's got more experience in this than me. So I mean, he he was involved in it. So I'll defer to his. Jim, you want to weigh in on this or duck under here. There's lots of room under here. I'm trying to get used to living at home again right now. Listen. Well, there's less houses now available. That's the point. Yeah, I think that it's very important that the people who work here live here. And. And I know it's hard to say. I mean, I agree with John. Ten miles is a long way. Any way you look at it, if somebody can't buy a house in a ten mile radius of Tarpon Springs, we hired the wrong person. And that was the original argument that for cost, the housing cost in Tarpon Springs. So we're saying ten miles out and you still can't do it. I don't buy that. Well, you're saying ten miles of city hall also. Well, the only point I would say there is that ten miles from the city limits are a little more, not a lot more, but a little more. Didn't didn't we raise the issue of defining the ten? We did. Yeah. And that's defined in the prior paragraph. And I mean, I could see city limits adopted instead of City Hall. We were really targeting City Hall or the emergency center, right. The EOC, when, you know, for the emergency responders, if we do this, this. You might as well not do it at all. Well, I understand both both ways, because when we put this up, the last time, there's a lot of places who are now in the city limits, right. That weren't before. And are going to be affected by it, or is it ten miles from there, or is the answer? The answer is. Ten miles. I mean, we agreed upon City Hall because you have to have a stable place to say to anybody who comes in here that applies for a job. You have to live within this area. But then again, is it as the crow flies or is the car drive that's the problem? Yeah, it's the circle. It's the it's the crow flies. So it's actually bigger than what you would think. But on the point made is I don't wouldn't have a problem with city limits. I mean you get a few more miles that way and the point is, is that the emergency people are here when they need to be. And then the question is, is will the city employees participate in the city activities? And that's I think that cuts both ways. Yeah. Because I will be honest with you, there's a lot of people that are not going to come into certain city, certain city restaurants. Yeah. Because you can't be seen necessarily patronizing one over the other. That and that's a true issue. Yeah. Whether you want to believe it or not, I've seen it so many times because people hey, look at Joe blows over at whatever bar again, you know, I mean, it just becomes it's just a true statement that occurs. But I mean, that's I'd throw that out for your consideration. Well, look at it this way. Look at how much we expanded it with this language. Yeah. Why not try it for five years? And if it didn't work. But I'm honestly, if you'll remember, the original, the original objection was that people couldn't find housing in Tarpon Springs. And we said, what about a couple miles? No, no, that's still not enough. Okay, ten miles and now it's now it's changing to something else. Now it's you're not going to get qualified people. So we go from an economic thing of finding housing to finding people. But okay, I'm going to I'm going to take us back to our discussion. The argument, the reason we went with all department heads and directors is because we were not we really we weren't getting we were concerned about the titles and titles change right when they had the discussion, they were okay. That that these other director levels were included in requiring to be closed. They just there was a problem with that core versus all right, that that makes it much more. And that's why that argument now exists. John. Right. So we would get we would get concurrence from the Board of commissioners if we continued with this. And I think we are fine with this. Our only issue was titles, right. And not knowing what the titles is. And it was easier for us to say all than to try to call that out. So I'm going to ask the city attorney for the language that we should use for that. I actually like your language. You like all know your language. My language, saying that the people who provide these services, these functions, you said so far is not broad enough for me. What's that? I said what you said so far, the list you came up with so far, I don't think is broad enough. Okay. What would you add to that? All. All. Well, time for a break. Sorry. Under the desk. No no, no. It's okay. So back to that. We've expanded it. So much. Let's try it. All right. We've expanded it ten miles from zero miles. Okay. And then I want to say one other thing. I see they want us to take out assistant city manager. That's actually in the original language. I would say leave it because if there is ever a city manager, assistant city manager brought in, we want them to adhere to this. So I would say at that point, so we leave 20. Do you like that point? So yeah, so is it everybody. So that's the question is do you want to leave 20 as you've proposed it. Yeah I do and try it because we've expanded it so much. Yeah. Remember it doesn't affect anybody. It doesn't affect anybody who's currently in position I know but it does. But we're going to have people retiring. It does. No. Oh no no. Because if they yes you're right. But within the next five years we're going to have people retire, right. Yes. I would just as soon be more specific about the people at this point rather than put all are you comfortable with using functions as opposed to titles? Joan, where are you? I like the idea of putting functions, but I think all works for me too. I don't think it. Do you want all? Yeah. Okay. Jim, I'm surveying. I don't know how we do all without a specific. I don't think this is a problem. I totally disagree that this is a problem because we have people who have worked here that I know have moved houses and didn't come in. Okay, that's. That's not what the ten mile marker is. Or or the utilizing the name, you know, it's how do we get people to want to live in Tarpon Springs? Well, some don't. It's because they have kids who want to go to a better school, or they have personal problems or just ten miles. If you can't find a place to live within ten miles, you went to the wrong place. So has your son found a place within ten miles? My grandson is the one who I mean your great. Your grandson. He's found a bunch of them, but his grandpa won't give him enough money for a down payment. Okay, that's my grandpa. That's not true. Because he's got more bucks than I do. Well, may I elaborate a little? Yes. You know, as as a parent, it is a big deal if you've got a kid already in school. Let's say in high school, it's more than ten miles away to pull your kid out. You know, of the of that it's a big deal for a family. And you would lose candidates who have those kind of family situations, which may be most of the people. I say try it for five years. If it doesn't work, the next group can change it. I'm fine with passing the buck. Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said. Oh, I'm fine with passing the buck. Try it for five years. You know, the thing is that, you know, you know, like what Tina said, we can always come up with, you know, that one case where somebody doesn't want to move their kids out of out of a high school? I get that, but okay, so somebody in the job market on that level, they're going to consider, you know, recruiting and moving. We have a sentence in here that says the board of Commissioners may temporarily excuse the residency requirement for such time periods. No one time period exceed one year as it deems appropriate in the best interest in the city. If we re-include that, then, you know, I think the intention is met without having to require somebody to yank their kid out of school. I can go along with that, Kerry. You can go along with that. Yeah, that would cover all the I think that would cover the problem. Yeah. Good with me. That's good. So we would need a motion on that. Yeah, I would entertain a motion that would keep assistant city manager in the first paragraph. You know you don't need you don't need to do that. I don't need to do that. Okay. I would entertain a motion that would add to the residency paragraph. The existing last sentence of the current residency paragraph that says the Board of Commissioners may temporarily excuse the residency requirement for such time periods. No one time period to exceed one year as deems appropriate in the best interest of the city. So second. Could save Michelle. Would you call the vote Kerry? What I said good save. Good save. I'm going to vote no. No. You're voting no. Wait a minute. Do we have to have we do have to have a quorum for this. We have a majority of those people that are here. We need four. So. Okay. Michelle, would you call the vote doctor? No. Miss Jennings. Yes, Mr. Tempenny? Yes, vice chair. Yes, chair. Yes. Okay. Section 23, Board of Commissioners is okay with the changes that you made up to the. Where are we? That's right. Yes, yes. Up to section ten on the. Okay. That's 26 okay. Yeah. We're good on 23. Now we go to 26. Okay. Where are we at. You're 23. You're good. It says section ten on the top of that. Section 26 okay. So this is the Sidewalk Improvement fund okay. So we're missing a heading there. Right okay. Your recommendation the BoCC said this is already a policy and priority done through a rating system, which is already adopted by the city. So the sentence of the city shall adopt a sidewalk improvement plan. It's already done. What we've seen, what the. Yeah, I know what you're going to say. Okay, here's some sidewalks. How much have we got? Money for? We'll do these. That's not that. Well, let's talk about. Okay. Let's talk about the fact that the last part of your addition is the bo. Fine with the city shall appropriate a minimum of 300,000 per year to be expended on sidewalk improvement during the year. The funds are budgeted. They're okay with that. So the amount withdrawn does not exceed 300,000 per fiscal year. So that language is fine. Really the language that you're putting in here is the city shall adopt a sidewalk improvement plan, which they already have a policy and priority. So that's the language that we're talking about that they don't agree with. Yeah. The issue is that I mean, they prioritize some sidewalks. They do not have a comprehensive plan. We had many people come and say, you know, around Spring Bayou, it's a mess here. It's a mess there. It's a mess. And it was not on any plan that we saw. This is you can't look at it independently. This was tied to the discussion of divesting the fund. Right. The sidewalk improvement fund. So that's what said okay, we'll give you the money. But you but by the time the money runs out, you got to have a new solid plan, right? They need to have a plan going forward. So then it can be budgeted and executed because this money is likely going to be gone. And you you probably recall my discussion on this before. If you don't remind me, the responsible life we have liability if we don't do this. Yeah, well they're not doing it. Doesn't matter. We've seen the condition of some of the sidewalks or the steps. Okay. So here's how I would say this to you. Sidewalks for the most part, are always a problem for every municipality because the ones that cause the ones that are a major issue have to be repaired, right? Which necessarily puts you back on when you go from community to community. Because if you just do, if we just said we're going to do this section of the city, then the one that we just had an accident and is broken, needs to still be done. You can't pass that one. So this is a changing function at all times for cities. The one where the tree just finally pushed through and we have a messed up sidewalk needs to be taken care of, even if we're doing that neighborhood. Based on the policy, I think, okay, I look, I just read it again. So we're talking about divesting of the sidewalk improvement fund, letting them spend all the money. Right? Okay. What? The city shall adopt a sidewalk improvement plan by 2029 is not a not which sidewalks we're going to do, but what vehicle is going to go into place, what funding is going to go into place to replace the Sidewalk Improvement Fund? In other words, how are they going to. It's a budget item, right? Yeah. How are they going to budget it? Where's the plan? Show us. Show us the plan. You got to have the it's a budgeting item. If you want to put a put that word in there, that's fine. But I think that's what it meant, right? Yes. Yeah. Because we they need to I mean with the fund gone I mean with how they are using it today, I'm not convinced that we have a bigger picture. I mean, I know the I know you guys, this is a big point for y'all. You spent a lot of time with this one. I understand, so if you want to leave it. We'll leave i. But I just want to be clear that it's not talking about saying which sidewalks to do. As far as the list, it's talking about a bigger picture thing of how much you know, a fund, how they're going to address it. So I'll throw the thought out again. Do we take the sidewalk improvement plan and put it back in the other section with our major plans? What about inserting funding in front of plan? Yeah, I think when you talked about it, you wanted this as a separate. You're giving them time because by 2029, we'll have depleted the depleted the fund will be depleted. So there has to be a plan in place to replace the fund. Right. Commission will address it. That was what your issue was. And then you increased amounts so that the fund would deplete right. And get hopefully in that time gets them right. So this does the language accomplishes what you were trying to do. So we leave it. I think we're to leave the language in there. Yeah. Because they didn't do it okay. Haven't done it for how many years. That's right. Okay. We're leaving the language. Move on. Section 3030 was on the maybe list. That was one. You know, I don't think the board had a problem one way or the other. If you want to do 15 and move it down to ten, I mean, I don't think that was I would like to leave it, considering you know, how how few 15% is just too much. It's some elections, 15% don't even vote, you know. So no, I'm with you. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's why we changed it to ten, right? Yeah. Right. And then section 32, the board was fine with everything. Also the same for section 33. And we are done with that. So we all right. So if we can move on to what's going to happen next. Okay. Did everybody get this. No no okay. So the next steps you've made some changes. So I will draft those up and we'll make adjustments to the final ordinance. Do we need to come back and vote on that or are those just go forward okay. The city clerk's office and I will be start drafting the questions. Do we have to review those? I think Irene said no, but we can if you want. I think we would like to. Well, does that have to be in a formal meeting or can we review them and provide comments back? Revision committee. The first reading of the ordinance proposed for the charter language has to be by November 19th. No, somebody better get busy and call us back. Right. That's the ordinance. That's the ordinance. Okay. That's the first reading. Okay. Remember the second reading can be I mean, changes can be made after the first reading before the second reading. Right? That's that's just pro forma. I'm not worried about that. I think we should see the questions. We I want to I want to suspend discussion for a minute because I would really like our sixth board member to come take a seat and join the discussion, but just put back you late, boy. It's all over with. Okay, so here's the meetings that you wanted. We will need to send meetings to do the following. Approve the ballot questions, the flier and all minutes. We have some proposed dates Wednesday. Okay. One less date. Friday, November 22nd at 10 a.m. Or Monday, November 25th at 10 a.m. Or 2 p.m. This is again to approve the ballot questions. The flier and all minutes. Converted into. Probably earlier. The better the 22nd. That's fine for me. I think I'm going to be out of town the 22nd. Are you going to be back in town on the 25th? Yes. Okay. What day of the week is that on? That's a Monday. At what time? Ten. Ten. 25th. Yes. Yeah. I'm out of town on both of those dates. Yeah. The difficulty for me is you know, would we had it at a certain date every, every week. It was easier for me to plan, but we could do it at two also on that Monday, if that's better for you, because that's closer to the time. That's probably better. I have to. Because I don't want to. I've missed several, and unfortunately it's. So go ahead and do what's most convenient and then I'll see if I can do a workaround. I mean, working on the 25th, which is the Monday, which is when we were meeting at two, would probably be is everybody I know the chair can make it. Can everybody else make it then. Yeah. So why don't we shoot with that November 25th at two okay. Is it possible for me to call in it is all right. She can call in. Why not call in? This room is not set for that. You. Well, you didn't ask for that. She didn't ask that. Oh I said, is it possible? Yes. It's legally possible. I don't know if physically if we can't do that, why not? It's my understanding that is the reason I couldn't call in today. Because this room is not set up for. Well, why don't we have it in a room that can be set up for that? Well, yeah, either that or just call somebody's cell phone and put you on speaker. I'm sorry. I can't hear you. Yeah, I mean, that's possible. Call Andy's cell phone and put him put you on speaker for somebody's cell phone. Yeah, yeah, I mean, that would work for me if that would work for the city. You could even put a microphone on the phone and a power cord on the phone. I think we could do Monday the 25th if I can do it via via remote. Okay. At 2 p.m. Yeah. Okay. Just to give you the after December 3rd will be the second reading of the ordinance. So after what you do on the 25th, that'll be finalized on December third. Okay. December 17th will be a resolution calling for election and ballot language for the March 11th, 2025 election. That a meeting for us? No, this is just telling you time periods. Okay. December 18th, the ballot information will go to the supervisor of elections and the election will be March 11th. Okay, Andy, when's the first reading of the ordinance? The first reading is November 19th. And remember about the first reading we have to do that so we could get it on the right time. Right. The first reading is a pro forma because it can be changed, which it will be on anything you do on the 25th. Okay. So we will amend the ordinance if you make any changes on the 25th. Okay. Do you anticipate. The board of Commissioners putting their own language? I have no one has spoken to me about doing any of their own language. I did not feel from the meeting that we had that there was any proposal for any language. Now that being said, of course they could, but I didn't think that any of them had such a concern over what you were proposing. Well, we did accept one of their suggestions. Well, you accepted a couple of them. Yeah. So I, I, I mean, they had the opportunity, but I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe they would. So our next meeting is November 25th, 2 p.m. Legally, I will be able to call in. I will need to be provided with the information on how to do that. Right. And the vice chair will run the meeting. All right. I'll let you run it over the phone. You can't give up. I'm happy to do that. No, she cannot run it over the phone. Is that true? That is true. Put me on mute either. Just like she can't make the quorum. We have to have a quorum without her. Yeah. Two minutes. Okay, hold. Can we take a two minute break? Sure. Yeah. He's gonna yell at me for something. Okay, that's a break for all of us. We will break for about till 12:00, and I don't think we've got much more to do. So we should be able to be done by 15 after. So all right, let's take a break till 12:00. Okay. Seats I'm going to go ahead and. Continue the meeting at 1155 here. I just need to make a clarification on the language for the ordinance will be will not be changed. But you will look at the question and the flier to make sure those you will make changes if you need to for those. Okay. So and that is what you are proposing for November 25th. Yes. Does that have to happen after the first reading? Yes. Only because we can't do the timing, the first reading and the second reading are required within a specific period of time to be concluded in order to get it to the supervisor of elections. Yes, but you're saying that we have to have we have to wait until after the first reading to review that information. Well, just from a logistics standpoint, I don't think we would have anything for you. I mean, today what I was going to say is the eighth, I'm available next Wednesday. I see the 20th. What, you mean the 13th? Yeah. Irene's out till next week because she's been sick, so I will not be meeting with her until next week. Let's see where we are. And you're talking about meeting on the. I'm available Tuesday as well. I know it's a one day to turn it around, but I can't. How about the 13th? You say? Yes, please. Can we check with Irene? I'm out of town. Oh, you're out? Yeah. Okay. Why don't we just patch in by phone? What's that? We're not going to cut you out. We'll patch you in by phone for the language. Well, I'm. I'm exploring the possibility. Are you going to be. You're going to be gone the 14th. Yeah. Yeah. We need to be here. Actually, let me just confirm that because I'm thinking I'm gone on the 14th. I might be here on the 14th and just see. Great. Come on. Because. Oh, you guys aren't going to be here Monday anyway, right? No. See, Monday, the city's closed. Yeah. So that makes it really hard. Yeah. I'm. I'm gone on the 14th. So we stick with the plan. The ordinance, not the questions. Say that again. What are we reviewing on the 13th? We're we're reviewing the we're actually reviewing the flood. The questions and the flier. I would leave it the date we have. I don't think we can do it any sooner. Honestly. The 25th at 2:00. Yes. If you wanted in good shape, everything done, that should be fine. Okay. And that's all you have from me. Okay. The. That's the next step. So there's one other thing here. We have our list of recommendations that I don't want to fall by the wayside. So I would like to consider a date to reconvene in January because the last time we spoke, Irene indicated that the recommendations would need to be written up by the city attorney for the board. Not a problem. So do you have the current list in the summary? I believe it has not changed. It hasn't changed. And I, I have it and I believe Irene has it also. All right. And if there's any question, just contact me. I have that on my computer for you. Okay. All right. So can we look at some time later in January. Yeah oka. Going to now open the floor to public comments. Mayor Pro do you have anything you'd like to add? Concerns. Can you come to the microphone and make sure the green lights on so everybody can hear you? Yeah, I was just concerned about the employees living in the city because I'm a firm believer that we need our city employees as close to us as we can, because with the far northern part of Pinellas County and I know where I live, I have Clearwater policemen bringing Clearwater police cars to my neighborhood. Largo law, there's a fireman that lives next to John's parents house. And the other day I saw a Saint Pete utilities maintenance director's car on West Bayshore. Moving in. And I don't know what their policies are, but to me, that's too far away. When you hold a position that important in the city. So I'm glad that you've got it like you have it. And it's a very important thing, because to get up here in a storm like we just had, or to get up here in a hurricane, it's very difficult with what's on the roads today. Thank you for your insight. Thank you for your insights. Okay. Board and staff comments I'm going to start with Michelle. Do you have any comments? No. Mr. Saltzman, do you have any comments? No. Thank you for all your hard work. Everyone okay, Mr. Chair, do you have any just wish, Miss Irene a speedy recovery. Yeah. Mr. Curtis oh, wait a minute. We were going to take up one. I apologize. It's more of an editorial than a than a comment. So I don't know if this is the most appropriate time to. This is on the city hospital section 33. Yeah. And unfortunately I wasn't I wasn't here for that particular section. Otherwise I would have been able to add a lot of insight into that. You know, I, I really don't have any issues with what you've proposed. You know, the hospital foundation is just basically a shell at this point. Advent health and whether you left it at Advent Health or the shell, it really doesn't matter. But one of the things I did watch the meeting and, you know, one of the comments was with regard to the hospital and this is more commentary than anything, has nothing to do with this, is that there was a comment that the hospital is not safe, and I took are you talking about there was when they were talking about no, no, it was this meeting. Okay, that the hospital was not safe and I think it had to do with the evacuation and then I don't know if it was you, Mr. Collins, that suggested because they, they they promised to replace the windows and stuff like that, and they may have done that, but but I just may they may not have done that. But one of the concerns that I or one of the issues that I want to bring, because it's a words matter. And when somebody you know, in a public forum says the hospital is not safe, what does that mean? You know, does it mean it's not safe in health care or is it not safe at all? You know, and just to understand and maybe a lot of people in this community don't know, but, you know, the hospital's invested 20 to $30 million in a new emergency room. They had to put in a new plant that cost about $18 million for the for the hospital. They had to redo the entire mechanical system for the hospital at 27 or $28 million. They had to put on a new roof. They have spent this year alone, between 40 and $50 million in community benefit health care. That's uncompensated health care. So when we look at the efforts or you look at the efforts of replacing the efforts of the hospital, that's another $20 million. The hospital is safe. The building is safe. Can there always be some hurricane proof? Yes you can. There's you can always improve the building. But my concern was that in public comment that somebody says the hospital is not safe. Really? You know, got to be careful with words because words matter. And when you look, we have a quality hospital. They've invested, if you look at it, over $100 million in the infrastructure itself that benefits the city. And that's not at a cost to the city. So just that we're aware, you know, anybody watching this, you know, when they hear that those words that the hospital is safe. So I just wanted to make sure that I put that on the record. That's all. Thank you very much. I was there this week for my mammogra. Mr. Koulianos, would you like to make any comment? No, this is Doctor Boukouvalas. No comment. No. Miss. Well, again, I'd just like to send my best ivory and I hope he feels better soon. Yes. Our best. I mean, I want to make a couple of comments. First off, this has been a great board to work with. We're not quite done yet, but we've, I think, achieved a very significant milestone today. Our work was reviewed by the Board of Commissioners, and we've responded back. And it today's meeting really represents a significant milestone in our work. So thank each of you for bringing your experiences, for bringing your perspectives to hear, to bear on everything we had to consider in this charter. I think we've all shown our love and dedication to this city, and I look forward to working with everyone again in whatever projects we wind up sitting at. The table with each other. So thank you. Yes. Mr. I have one more question, and I know we can't go back and peel back the onion, but this past storm showed us something, and what it showed us was, you know, whether or not it's addressed in the charter or not. But but give it some thought for maybe future is because there may be too late. Is empowering your commissioners and or staff with emergency powers, for example, for example, the fruit bowl area, having the you know, and I think the city did a good job going to resolution about trying to bypass the Historical Preservation Board to get these things more on track in a faster time as far as permitting and stuff. And, and I don't know if that needs to be codified in a city charter, but state statute. But okay. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. I just want to make sure that that was addressed because we had no concerns with that. Yeah. Yeah. No, that that's our we have a good charter. We have a good set of elected officials. We've got a very dedicated city staff and executive branch. I mean we went through a lot and kudos to the city. Yes, we went to the staff of the city and the employees of the city because we were up and running a lot quicker than a lot of communities. And that's a tribute to pre-planning and what, what the city has already put in place. So I also want to say these these meetings require a lot of work from the city clerk and the deputy city clerk. So I wanted to thank you very much for your dedication and time. I thank you very much, Mr. Mr. Saltzman, for all your research you've brought to us your patience as we work to understand some of these issues and not minding getting beat up occasionally, really appreciate your your good humor and the guidance. I just want to. John. Well, you know, I was going to have to move positions on a couple of occasions, but I'm glad we didn't have to do that. Anyway, with that, I am going to adjourn this meeting at 1208. Done. I didn't realize that. Too bad everybody. The lightning strike on my last flight. So. --------- ##VIDEO ID:h00wgP8Gg-I## e e I'll keep these two back here in case gentlemen show up I I'm not going to put I'm not going to let the board be put in those positions I call to order the charter revision commission for Friday November 8th 2024 10:04 a.m. Michelle would you call the rooll please root I'm here Mr colis here Dr Bales here M Jennings here Mr cuscus Mr Seaman and Mr chair panning here maybe they're trying to find parking thank you very much all right we have two things to do today uh uh on our agenda um uh talking about the board of uh Commissioners comments um so first thing I'm going to ask did did anyone um not watch the video of their meeting I didn't watch it you watched it or did not you did not watch it I did not watch it and I have some questions about why sometimes okay yeah the I had asked uh Irene to send out the link to that video um so everybody would I don't know if that happened thought it did it did I don't know I mean this was like a while back because oh oh well I was out of far out of town okay no it's not not a problem um our esteemed City attorney I'm sure will fill us in on every lovely detail and I did I've watched it like twice and with SE with highlights probably three and four times so um Mr Salman would you like to walk us through this well and let me say this generally I think there is when it was reviewed by the board they also looked at the issue of how many questions do we want to put I think that was fundamental um because you know even from the last election we just had there's a lot of referendum questions sometimes you don't get the people really paying attention or or caring about so I think that was a fundamental thing let's make sure that we use what we need to use and maybe some of these other things you know not um so so I think that's important but on the same token I would say the board was very comfortable with the majority of things things that changes that you're going to make um so I thought that was good there were some some that they looked at as policy um versus maybe you know changing the charter but I I think they fundamentally looked at everything and saw that you know these were reasonable things and and you'll see that from the boc review document so where are we right now in terms of the questions so right now the questions have generally been uh no I mean how many are would we be putting to the voting public with our current I nine nine and I want to say we had 15 in this last election so nine I don't think is an unreasonable number that's my personal opinion yes sure okay just for historical reference and precedent in the 83 part a revision question to the public there were 20 questions and 17 passed 20 Questions 17 passed in the past Charter TR in 83 Revision in 83 revisions just like what we're doing there were 20 Questions put before the public and 17 passed so um my position would be I'm open-minded to hear if they make an argument that maybe we didn't see that perspective and change it I'm not so much open to reducing the number of questions just to reduce the number of questions and and and I don't want you to I don't want you to think that that was their mindset because it wasn't but it is something that we all think about so uh I'm going to agree with Mr Tara pany 100% I know don't fall over John I'm not um I did get a lot of too many words too many questions has to be fewer um out of out of the video um so I'm I'm Mr salsman I'm very happy happy to hear your assessment of it um I do think there are a couple well one major place where we could tighten it up but in general we have discussed and analyzed and thought about and discussed again each one of these things so if we still feel they are of importance I I don't think that looking at the just the number is it should be a driving factor for us so that's where I'm with you on this um so how would you like to to uh present this information Mr salesman I figured we would go through the uh boc review document um which uh Michelle has provided everyone and which we have on the board um the the highlights here that represents our highlights and then you had it doesn't show here on red um but the like underneath uh B you say maybe list you have comments after each one of them and those are your comments you have not changed these are the this is how the board came out on these issues like for example the first one maybe list is it one that has to be no do they have a problem with it no is there too many kind of thing right um so they didn't have a problem with it but it was just is this a necessary one okay and have you eliminated any from our original we have changed nothing from what you have proposed other than the red the comments that the boc said okay thank you all right I'm handing it over to you why don't you walk us through it okay so section three is limitation of powers um you know the additional language of dredge and spoil sites so the acquisition by the city of real property under the power of eminent domain storm drainage improvements and dredge and spoil sites again not a problem with it it's just a question of is that important enough to put as a referendum question I would assume you all will say yes I wasn't for it to begin with so I know that was your that was your suggestion to begin wasn't it I went along with the majority but it's if the majority wanted to change their mind you're not going to hurt my feelings I me remember we the majority voted that we wanted to see this included so that's no yeah I'm yeah so remember just so you know here here's how the question will kind of or the ordinance will come out proposed amendment to section 3H of the city Charter to increase the limitation threshold on the purchase sale exchange conveyance or leasing of real property and to include dredge and spoil sites under the power of eminent domain by the city yeah that's a good question so that is one question that is one question that will have um these three sections okay and and note that the boc was okay with h and I so that was a non-issue okay so it's only really do you want to put dredge and spoil sites on there if you don't boc is fine with you not putting it on there Bo's fine you know they didn't have a a real big they would have just put that section under doesn't have to that makes sense okay yes question yes with the purchase of the stamus property is that now move has that been approved yes yeah by okay um and that's the other thing I would point out to you we hate to put anything in the charter that's for a specific you know incident because we talked about that early on removing things that were no longer you know relevant I'm I'm going to put it back to Mr terap pany does the purchase of the spoil site by referendum change your opinion on this at all well I remember I wasn't for the city being able to do oil purchases by by imminent do domain at the time you were not I'm sorry because it seemed to me that we were setting the this we were setting ourselves up to having the Board of Commissioners circumvent the will of the people so if the if the uh if if the per if the referendum had failed and then the Board of Commissioners Circle back and said well we're going to we're going to buy it anyway then I thought that was not appropriate but then so it it did pass right so we're at a position where it passed the question was it authorized the city to make the purchase okay didn't it didn't demand that they make the purchase it authorized them to make the purchase in the past I will tell you that there's precedent that the referendums have passed and the Board of Commissioners did not purchase the property that was approved in referendum I'm not saying that's happening now so what I'm saying is in deals it's not a deal until the deal is done so so but now we're back to square ones and in in a mental exercise where it's square one so do you want to leave it in there in case something Foo barbs with this and that they still could go somewhere along the river or somewhere and find a an alternative site you know for um so um I mean if we're talking the only thing if we're talking about expectations you know I based on what we just went through I don't know if there's I mean there's some expenses obviously that the city has that were not expected so if you're worried about them maybe purchasing something or doing that in the near future um I would have you take in consideration that we're spending money on fixing what the storms have caused it's going to affect the city for quite some time so it's not like they're going out you know this one was already the stamus property was already in effect there was nothing that could be done to change that going out um but that it's just a consideration well from my perspective if you look at the total paragraph that we started with um it's not represented here um it was acquisition of the city real property under the power of eminent domain exclusively for water and sewer utility easements public rights away public Mark uh parking dredge and spoil sites and storm drainage improvements so there were all there there were all I'm sorry we put the dredge and spoil sites in but there were a whole list of things that were identified in there that they could do right PR that they can do and we were adding to that right um I mean again this is not a major but I guess this is not a major one one way or the other yeah but I think what Carrie's trying to say put words in your mouth Carri is what we're seeing in front of us isn't reflective of what the charter says today right so it's hard it looks like it's it's it's hard to track it yeah it looks like well we can do something for storm and drainage improvements and drudge and spoil sites but all other stuff is also missing so you know we identify specifically what they can do use do with eminent domain and that's not reflected in this question well the changes that you have suggested are reflected in the question the final question hasn't been drafted but we did the general well then why are why is Storm drainage improvements there tell you in a second why is does it not say acquisition by the city of real property under power of enant domain to include dredge and spoil SES sorry I got my engineer hat on today and two cups of coffee in my oh no whoa so I read it you didn't add it you didn't tell us about that I read it I read it like you read it yeah okay let's see thank you so our choic is right now are to accept what we gave them the look at or to not you right your choice is to continue on with the language that you what we're doing today is you're deciding what whether you're going to make any changes otherwise we will continue with the language that you voted on so the question really becomes you had now have the comments today of the boc do you want to continue with the language you have or do you want to make any changes that that's what we're here on today how many did we send to them Carrie how many change how many questions did we how many questions potentially s oh I you just said I I thought I said nine but I could be let make sure right is that right Michelle I thought they were talking a lot more I thought they were verandering around like 18 no there's 14 14 um yeah so all right so so this I'm sorry so this section reads yeah so this section reads the acquisition by the city of real property under the power of eminent domain exclusively for water and sewer utility easements public rights away public parking uh and storm drainage improvements and we've added instead instead of stopping at storm P drain improvements and dredge and spoil sites the question so that you know you're looking at a truncated version under the bocc review the question itself will have all that language in there and the it will have all of this all of that what I just read to you okay all right and then we'll have the additional language of dredge and spoiler all right so right now what I would like to do on this one since there was a question on it let's get a motion on the table to either accept or or not and then we'll continue discussion and then are because let me I hate to interrupt but because the boc is okay with h and I do you just want to do a motion on all the whole section the whole uh section three in other words because the boc is is agreement with you well says question one and question two on under section three yeah I is on question two H is on question one yeah see that and the red Andy yeah well it's not really two questions oh all right it's not really because the way it's under section two so the ordinance says proposed amendment of 3H uh limitation of power we have it as one one section under the ordinance problem but but if you want to do it separately no problem with that what the the would there how many questions would there be on the referendum on that uh b h and I how many questions should only be one unless I have an issue with that because somebody may not want to give them the imminent domain to do theing soil but they want to do the other they say okay we'll give you the 500 it needs to be separate questions and then the we're checking with Irene on this because and then the real property too there is a word limit you know there is a word limit when we draft the actual question so we want to make sure we're right in the information we're giving and Mr T pany's point is very well taken these are very three very separate issues right and if one part gets voted down by the community the other two that really should be well then we could we could do them as separate I don't think that's a problem I think everything is separate well and it is true that we prob should as we're talking we probably should do them as separate because it would affect all three and they are separate so why don't we for your purposes why don't we vote on them individually so instead of Bo okay with question one I would go up to B and say that's question one okay so we could we could vote on them I mean I I mean you could vote on them however you want we're going to draft the question well it's true okay so Mr tanan you're suggesting I'd say that um I would move we' leave B in leave the dredge and spoil sites in and leave H and and I and but there separate questions but that just for the motion of moving this thing along instead of three different motions there's yeah a motion to be B stays H stays I stays okay is that your motion second that's a motion do you want to also add that sear be three separate questions well you we you can't control that we have to do that because because there's some I mean we'll probably do that anyway is what I'm saying to you but it's really you could say it but it's we'll have to we're still stuck based on word limitation and all those things how we draft it that sound like a double negative didn't it you guys say whatever you want and we'll just do it it's starting to sound like kind of an elitist thing yeah yeah I mean only we know what's right oh that's right I mean a 15-word limit in the title and 75 in the body so they'll probably be individual question just so you know we don't like say hearing no did I say no that was a mistake yes that was a of the motion was there' be three separate questions yeah yes there's no reason why we can't make a motion if if they have to ignore it because no it actually sounds like you are correct on how we will do it based on uh based on the idea that these are separate issues oh I like that we are correct you are correct I will let's continue all right we have a motion on the table to accept B hni s and uh ask separate questions so we have it seconded do we have any further discussion on this no further discussion well I'll just I'll just say that I think the dredge and spoil sites um Clause Is Right in keeping with the intent and the kinds of things you know that are already mentioned so it makes perfect sense to me yes keep it in I yes especially considering what what Mr solsman said in terms of some of the city's limitations due to recent events agree all right you ready to call the vote call vote Dr uh yes M Jennings yes yes by call yes yes okay if we move to the next one which is Section 8 Board of Commissioners um composition duties responsibilities and Powers so d D was looked at um as you know the language current language is to adopt a city budget as prescribed by law period you have added in conjunction with reviewing the charter for funding requirements the boc said that's should be policy versus in the charter because that's how they they should be doing this but they've never done it that's why we brought it brought it up because you have these um Charter things in the charter where where funding is required and they never the budget never reflected the requirements of the charter so that's why that was put in okay but let's talk about that for just a sec second was that more along the idea of the sidewalk issue or was that additional issues it was had to do with special uh uh some of those other plans the comprehensive plan the Strategic plans uh the the sustainability plans had to do with a broad range of of funding requirements that haven't taken place and since the boc changes all the time unless you have it in there they don't really know that I think it was pretty clear to all of us that there are a number things number of issues in the charter that are not being addressed and that's why what we discussed and that's why we put this in there they have to do it if it's in here how much clearer can we do doesn't matter when they're elected or how long they're in there or anything that's the bival for them to run the city that that is correct until it is policy I mean once it's policy once it's set once we see it in action okay well then take it back out but we're not seeing an action this way yeah and I think I I think I know what happened on that last thing about about the one question under section three that the it's a section and now they're doing the same thing on Section 8 those are all those were all separate questions you you can't take a section and say we're going to change the section you you got to Oh no you're right you are right that was my mistake okay no problem I was trying to think of I was actually trying to think of a way to reduce the number of questions right but let's that's your your argument with the Board of Commissioners well no that's just my in General trying to make sure that we do it in a way that it's uh that we have everyone looking at the issues to make sure that they're addressing what you're proposing right right I think the most important thing here and I don't want to lose my perspective on it is that everything we're getting back says should be policy it's policy it it apparently can't be because it's not being addressed that way so if the public reads it or understands it I think we're going to see every bit of these that we've talked so far about past right well let's move to the next one why don't we do this and I have a suggestion on the next one too go ahead um want to do with separate um so when you say the next one are you talking about the next section or no no I'm talking about I J okay K and L yeah I mean I think we should review each one of these and then have you vote either so when I listen to the um the board of commissioner just uh addressing this they were uh this is too many words this is too long this is too Etc what we I I'm just going to say my understanding from what we wanted we wanted to see see that the city manages the Strategic plan the comprehensive plan the um and the uh sustainability plan in conjunction with each other um in line with each other and they're they're updated periodically I mean that's that's what we wanted and then we had a lot of words change because the the timing and the alignment Etc I don't see why we can't Le i j and l and then with according to Mr Salman's suggestion just keep K and then list the three plans that have to be coordinated well and they are going and just so you know they are in the process of being uh brought forth to the board and as is required and coordinating and those are those are more mandates that are state required anyway so if your point is if if the argument is is that the city's not doing this well the city is required to do it so whether you put it in the charter or you don't have it in the charter it's still required so the state has a mandate to do this you have to do it yeah in other words the on we're about well I think the state only has a requirement on the comprehensive plan well the comprehensive plan you're right the comprehensive PL see I said you're right the comprehensive plan has a lot of you know fingers that come out of that when you're doing the comprehensive plan there's a lot of other issues that are required um as a result of the comprehensive plan but I would tell you these next sections are things that are required for the city to do now if your point is again the city's not doing them well that's more of the city needs to do it right right and so as opposed to whether it's in the charter or not in the charter it's still a requirement yeah I I I I in listening to that discussion and I went back to what really needs to be in the charter we don't need to put anything more than they are updated every five years and what those threee plans are and how they're coordinated like I I got to tell you I however you are going to respond to what I'm going to say um I don't think the additional languages is I've ever seen that kind of language in a charter right well that that's what I'm saying this is a this is a position right this is a position statement right no and and I agree that's why I'm going to go back with my recommendation that we delete we eliminate i j and l and go back to K wait you were going to eliminate L let me finish it's k k is our overarching paragraph it says review update retire B or deem completed all City master and action plans every 5 years beginning October 1st 2024 and then we list those three plans the Strategic plan the comprehensive plan and the sustainability right that accomplishes what you're asking for period and and so it's it's short concise complete we don't need all this other stuff to me that makes a lot of sense because I think it's additional is just is language that you wouldn't necessarily put in a charter I'll move the Chairman's recommendation I'm sorry there was a move I mov the Chairman's recommendation second thank you okay you're winning a lot today I I well I have been thinking a lot about this Mr Salman okay so just so we're all on the same page we understand what we're doing with that yep okay just just so as part of your statement we are still striking the language in I mhm we're striking the length all of I right all of J right all of L we're keeping K and we list the three plans but what I'm trying to clarify under I is that you're not you're striking your addition but we're still striking I in its entirety yes okay I just want to be clear about D what what about d That's that that's separate yeah I think you need I think you were keeping d right yeah we still need to vote on that part but move we keep D um but any on the other one yet well we can amend the motion if it's okay to say we're keeping D we're adding the language that the chair has said and we're striking those other sections that could be all part of one motion accept do you accept the motion change do you accept the second all right RA in agreement uh M would you call it out please Dr yes Jennings yes Mr ter panning yes yes yes okay we're going to section 11 and at this point I would ask John the leave because this is his section okay well I'm just going to say one thing Mr Salman your comment here on K maybe list is what got me thinking in that direction so good on you thank you I needed something giving you that carrot right now I'm good on you all right 11 Mr should we call a break for one of us so to leave um I'm I think Irene spoke a lot at uh regarding this issue that we really are mandated by um state statute on how we do this that's not true I knew John was going to say that I just don't believe it it's the hill to die on John I knew this is his okay here let me just say that can I have the floor Madam chair yes please okay um Tina I'm not picking on you can you tell me when qualifying opens and ends this year no Joan no Carrie well I'm sorry the question is can you tell me when qualifying opens and ends this year oh it's like uh ending is like for the March one is like coming up in in a week or two something like that can you tell me the dates exactly yeah no it's not in my calendar and it's not on my hand so no I can't tell you so you all have but I also don't have an interest in running but you all just as involved citizens you just all made my case you guys are involved more than most of the general public and you can't tell me it it happens to be it ends the day before Thanksgiving yes I mean it's a week it's a week I was GNA say that too so my point is you have a onewe qualifying period it's the week before Thanksgiving what do you think people are thinking about oh should I run turkey family coming in ETC yeah I say we leave it it's it's a I said from the very beginning my two things were to protect the the citizens and encourage more participation in government I allege that this encourages participation in government by making people more aware what's going on in the community and as far as mailing things and difficulty on the clerk's office there are services that you just hand them the thing and say send this to everybody in Tarpon Springs to every household in Tarpon Springs and they send it and I I think Jack lat Vala firm used to do that or maybe still does but so there's no real stress to do this it's a and it's a insignificant amount of money to do it you know when you do bulk mailings so so I think there's two parts here right you wanted the mailings to go out so people would be aware right and I think that's important the second part is you want to have the qualifying period expanded so it's not all jammed around Thanksgiving well I all I don't care what time of year it is I think a one week qualifying time is too short sure that's right um so I I think one of the things that they were talking about is it's that the statement as it's put in is very confusing the qualified period 30 days PRI prior to the qualifying period Well if it's confusing it could be Rewritten so it's not confusing but the concept of having a notice to the general public right that's that's and I guess 30 days prior to the beginning of the qualifying period of 30 days if you want to make it less confusing make the qualifying period 45 days right no I I but okay so let's break this down the words qualifying time and qualifying period I think that's the confusing part of it it's it is and um even the commissioner SK hung up on that um I I I am all for notification I I think that's important um but I'm also thinking these are actually two very distinct things to be decided so you want to break it down to you want two questions I think it should be two questions I'm for that we can do that and I think that it should it if if there is a way to rewrite qualifying time and qualifying period so it's more qualified um so would help the population understand what we're talking about uh can I ask why uh the the B asked to remove this what were their arguments I I believe that the argument was one that we follow what the requirements are and that it becomes a little more burdensome on the clerk's office and you could correct me if I'm wrong on that um the second thing is I know I have to put this on the record I know John disagrees with me and he might hit me but but I have never seen anyone who has interest in running for office office not get involved to see when this when the issues are I mean I just have I've never seen it um I have and and so in in all the years I've done this it's always been people start showing an interest at least 12 months before an election occurs to see they start coming to meetings they start you know getting involved they start saying things and then we at at public meetings we're always talking about I mean city clerk tells you what what's coming up and we have that information so this is a pretty involved City from public uh watching the meetings and doing those things so that's the only you know statement I would make I mean I understand the John's position and your all's position on this but I've just never seen this as being a major issue it's a terrible issue in Tarpon Springs well I I have I have a personal dog in this fight that I will put forward and that is that I am not I in an HOA and so I don't see a water bill and a lot of City information goes out in water bills that's true I don't see any of it yeah we we discussed that when we brought this up that's right and that's one of the reasons why why that was really important and put in here shall be sent to All City registered voters very specifically called right those are two different questions okay so again like you said there are two different issues here one is the notification and one is the expansion of the qualifying time period yeah the notification would be where the mail goes and and I think that's completely different and there should be two different questions because you are trying to you have two different you know issues here should we expand qualifying time should we give notification I mean those are separate I'm I'm for Le leaving it in with but bifurcating the two questions and one says that you're notified each each registered voter is notified 30 days prior to by direct mail and you know they use bulk mail that's fine okay the second question is that the qualifying time should be uh expanded to 30 days that would be a good second question yeah second question um that's a motion that is a motion is it seconded uh seconded I I'd like to also add the sentence that it should be posted on the city's social media site and announced in a press release and that speaks to just additional AO fact just sent the ad for this qualifying perod great okay yeah we so that's already done you don't have to worry about that we need to keep that language in there then I don't think we need it in there it's it's redundant we do it anyway that last sentence I I mean I could see taking that last sentence that's highlighted out yeah which one do the information shall also be posted on theity social media site and announc a press release that is done automatically okay so is it okay to remove is that part of the motion well let's talk about that what what constitutes a press release uh it just went out in the newspaper right in the newspaper newpaper circulation but but is it a classified ad Michelle or is it no no legal ad you know those Wednesdays and Sundays legal ad okay they've always had been we haven't changed that yeah I I think what we wanted to see was the mailing right to the registered voters and I think we need to keep that in I also but I think that that second that last sentence that reads information shall also be posted on the city's social media site and announc it a press release I I they're already doing it that is process it's it's not something we need to put in the charter to force it to happen because that's already happened so I'm okay with losing those words yeah and um Mr San are you goingon to be doing a work hard to so show how effectively we we reduce the number of words since I do know that one of our esteemed Commissioners was very concerned with that so okay just so that we give you the Insight from the city clerk um the board felt that uh this section what the reason why they wanted it removed is they felt it was not broke so why why fix it um the first class mailer is expensive that was the other issue we recognize it but they are not reaching all City voters let me also expensive let me also say that as someone who's on auto pay for City bills I never see any of that stuff either and I imagine that's a growing percentage of city let me speak to the last sentence at least because this is justifies what you were just talking about um Irene said we run an ad on Sunday for the March uh election and it has been posted on the website for months already so that's being done so that one you should feel comfortable removing okay yeah I'm I am comfortable with it if everyone else is all right all right so that's part of the motion the removal of the last sentence and then bifurcate the first two right right two questions um can you please make that first question so it it's not confusing to the voters we will well this is your langage I don't think we can change I mean it has to be what you vote on well I understand but if it's two questions actually this is an our language this is what you wrote from our discussions well you point that out John if it's two questions it takes out the confusion right right I yes I think it does two questions um but uh I I would rather say I would rather have it um I got to tell you I think it's cleaner by doing it the two I think it makes I think it's clean to say the qualifying time for the office of City Commissioner shall be 30 days prior to the qualifying period so rarely time and period is not as confusing if we just limit it to the one question I think when it becomes a bigger question then it then it seems a little more confusing okay all right so the the um motion wait a second John do you want to restate um after I I read it again I can see why it's confusing the qualifying time for the office of City Commissioner shall be 30 days prior to the qualif period I think that's not what it that's not what we said we said that we would notice the public 30 days prior to the qualifying period not the qualifying time the it shouldn't say qualifying time it should say notice for the um notice for the qualifying time notice of the qualifying notice of the qualifying time um notice shall be given to the uh you say it said should say notice of the qualifying time for the office of City Commissioner shall be 30 daysi PRI to the qualifying period yeah that was changing it from 7 days to 30 days that was the first change and then the second one was when does the notice go out it may be I I I think it should be 30 days prior to the qualifying time as opposed to the qualifying period is that what you're saying yeah and I think you need to put the the mail the mailing should be the first question because that's what happens first you get the mail first tells you and then it's followed by the qualifying period of 30 days but I think the qualifying period is is something that that's the problem that we discussed the qualifying period is state is set by State Statute number of days you have to work backwards from your election date right the qualifying period so that's fine work backwards but just extend the time so it's not right Andy let's go back to the beginning let's talk about the first sentence you do you want to change that say notice of the qualifying time I think that that where it says the a the second sentence a notice by first class mail shall be sent to All City register voters 30 days prior to the qualifying period identifying all commission that's that's right that's that should be the first question okay um and then we're going to take out the information shall also be posted on okay the the the second question would be qualifying qualifying time shall be extended from 7 days to 30 days well that's in the discussion what the period should be is what is in here so it's going to be the 7day thing will be gone okay so but we're but what we're I think what we're on the same page is that we're going to give people 30 days to qualify I'm just of some years there's three commission seats right right and now all of a sudden people get they're going to get they either don't like the way the town's going or something motivates like three candidates for three seats now you have nine people coming in and they're all going to qualify in one week I don't buy that a lot of them pre-qualify John I I just I listen I was around when this was changed and and the amount of candidates running for city office dramatically drops to where we how many times in the last few elections has there been no people just walking in no no nobody running against them I don't think that's healthy that it's an inous in you inous Bo I think we're all in favor of expanding to the 30 the 30 days the question is we're asking the attorney to make that qualify time this is a real hard section for me to write the notice it's not that it's that I I need to make sure that Irene is comfortable with how the language reads but I I don't have a problem switching the two sentences I think that makes sense right and and the second thing I just want to make sure John that okay so the qualifying period right now is seven days correct right right right and we're asking for that to be expanded to 30 days right well you know what okay yeah okay so we do the first question is a notice by first class mail fine we get rid of the last sentence okay qualifying period is set by code and is currently 8 days okay um so they want so you want 30 days prior to can we put in there it shall be an additional 22 days prior to the qualifying so it's a full 30 days let's don't confuse it let's just leave the the second what's going to now be the first sentence as it as it reads and just simply say qualifying period shall be 30 days so in other words the soon as the first class mailing get sent out that starts the clock on the qualifying period no no no that's the notification period right the qualifying what we're saying is we're expanding the qualifying time but it says qualif period period yeah prior to the uh to the qualifying period prior to the qualifying yeah you okay so in the no the second sentence reads I mean the first sentence reads fine after the second sentence I you know I think it's still confusing to use qualifying time and qualifying period since time and period change to notification period vir how about how about the time to qualify for the office of City Commissioner right much CLE or how about applicant shell the the you know 30 days prior just really change it but yes it just needs the qualifying time for this office of City Commissioner shall be 30 days and not not prior to the not prior to the qualifying period it's it should be should be 30 days period the the that prior to the qualifying period is what's confusing everybody exactly so you take you just just the qualifying time for the city office of City Commissioner shall be 30 days period period okay okay is is that going to be a problem for anyone no I'm waiting to find out okay so it's 30 days prior to the qualifying period and then for office should be 30 days and notice shall be given 30 days prior to that time correct yes but the person that's how we're going to flip the sentences right okay we're good yes okay I like that and I do think that makes it easier this was a section we all struggled with because of trying to get the language to to uh coincide with the language that is currently exists in the state statute okay so you have a good handle on what that new language is solid would you read it for Mr terapan so he can modify his motion oh yeah you have a motion we're doing three things when we do this we're changing the second sentence to be the first question a notice by first class mail shall be sent to All City registered voters 30 days prior to the qualifying period identifying all commission seats open for election in indicating Who currently holds the seat and their eligibility for reelection the second the next sentence is stricken the second question will be the qualifying time for the office of City Commissioner shall be 30 days so that's B that'll be B yes okay yeah okay so move second you you second okay any further discussion yes no we are now we are now changing something that the board said remove yes now were you going back to them and telling them that so it's tough luck for them why are we in here then here's why you're hearing the comments that the boc said to consider in your suggestions number one number two the boc has the right to come up with their own questions that could be contrary to yours I agree 100% um you are considering the B's comments and deciding whether or not you you want to adopt what you already have adopted some of them um so that's why we're here yeah I knew that part of it but that that was a friendly question okay so that's a process question if you have further process questions uh you are are are you in line with what we were doing I'm very much in line all right so uh we have a motion on we have a seconded let's go ahead and call the vote on that yes M Jennings yes Mr chair Penny yes yes yes okay we are at section 12 zoning Powers you have stricken for special exceptions so the sentence reads provided however that well the Board of Commissioners shall have all powers concerning land use as may be prescribed by General law provided however that the Board of Commissioners shall appoint a board of adjustment to be comprised of five members and two alternates who shall vote in the absence of the regular member to hear and decide appeals solely from administrative stash staff decisions you're striking for special exceptions and for variances to zoning and L use regulations of the city it was recommended that this was not needed so that uh why did we do that Andy refresh my memory this I think it was brought up that that special exceptions are not addressed by the board of adjustment yeah my note hear appeal to the board of adjustment does not hear that so you were trying to clarify that Rene Renee came and spoke to us about that I guess the argument is since they don't hear them anyway what does it matter if you leave the language in or not well this could be an easy gimme to the Board of Commissioners since they're not doing it anyway and we'll hit it on the next start a review and and that's why you want to do a gimme is that what you're saying well I'm just wondering if we might need a gimme for them you know so that they give give it I mean so it's not needed again this goes to the do you want to have an this question is it necessary to have this as a question that's really what we're talking about okay uh so is it possible to make a motion yes please do I make a motion that we accept um the Board of Commissioners suggest question U not to include this and to possibly have them listed second any further discussion call a vote please Michelle Dr yes Jen yes CH P yes chair yes CH yes section 13 interference with Administration the board of commission is okay with your striking that section I don't think we need to vote on it then no you do not okay section 14 where you added uh City attorney to review before being provided to the Board of Commissioners this has already been added as a policy since the last issue uh occurred so that has been an adopted policy um that's why they're recommending it not be in there Jimmy that's that's your Court been that's that's not the right page I'm sorry Mr chair panty do you have a question no I or comment some people are more adversed in different parts of the charter and operations and I would I I want to hear what Jimmy says about it on internal auditor I mean it was a pretty good dust up as I remember I I you guys are going to get me on an internal auditor which upsets me because who does the internal auditor report to Board of Commissioners Board of Commissioners good who manages the the board of the listen what happened in the past it's pretty disgusting to me that that was all wrong and nobody on the Board of Commissioners stopped it well it was being promoted by it of by them yes and that's my City attorney is the only one who can say this should not go to the board it has to go through the policy first but it is a policy now they've adopted that as a policy does policy here's the thing it goes to you that's their policy we we have in there report all findings and non-compliance issues to the city manager you could say well there's a policy on that too so that should be eliminated as well right I think what we saw was such an regious it was bad yeah situation that having it in the charter at least for the next 5 years I think is critical to make sure that that process is followed it has to be followed I I would totally agree I feel strongly it was just aous yeah it should be I think the language of Aden you whoever sitting in your chair is important it would have probably eliminated some of that stuff maybe I mean it was bad understood so you're going to leave that in so you you don't have to take any action what do you think Jim yes I think it has to be left in if if this the only one who can stop it is the City attorney by advising the Board of Commissioners you should not be doing this in the public this is not the way it works I mean if I was going to remove something I'd remove the city manager mhm sorry that struck mus you going to make a motion for that need a motion by the way city manager I'm really glad you're here and I like you so we're good with that section the next one section 16 um you added under G prioritizing future Capital Improvement programs that's already a policy of the boc this wasit a that may be a policy but let me just give you an an instance when this referendum came up about buying property yes there was no prioritization of where $5.5 million could be spent it was just let's do this and now we're hearing from Commissioners and the city manager that do we really even have the five and half million dollar to spend so they didn't prioritize do the sponge dos need to be fixed first the spring value the whatever so I mean they're not do they're not doing it they they say they're do they already a policy but they're not doing it well and remember where we are so we're under city manager and we say keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised as to the financial conditions and future needs of the city so that's that's inclusive in that I mean that's part of what the responsibility is prioritizing future Capital Improvement programs doesn't change the uh responsibility as to the fin as to what you were saying which is the financial condition and future needs of the city well I'm with John on this one I think it should be left in I look at I look at this as the most important thing is our future Capital Improvements and I don't see that happening I see us judging juggling money around in the budget to make things happen that now have to happen it's imperative that Capital Improvements are paid for upfront not take money out of other but that's not what this says PRI prioritizing fusure well you want to say I mean Finance well let me just say this to you how does that change what happened this language wouldn't change what referendum question was proposed this doesn't stop that from occurring how would it change what has happened it it would change the fact that you're not taking money from another budget to meet a capital Improvement if the city manager doesn't know what Capital Improvements are needed in this town why the hell is he a city manager here I don't disagree with what you're saying but again this is the city manager shall keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city so but how does that change if the commission says we want to purchase a piece of property it doesn't change what the city manager's responsibilities are he's still doing his responsibilities can't control what the commission does well Andy here's the deal it says as to the financial condition and future needs of the city right okay so here's this basket of the future needs of the city right right the basket which one's number one but that's not his call that is his call the second the second Senate the second part of the sentence prioritizing future Capital Improvement programs so you're taking the basket and you're taking them all out and you're listing them so so that the Board of Commissioners and the city manager and the citizens all know we need this this this this and this and this is the priority of how how we see it and the city maor and I'm sorry I didn't mean so the city manager says we need a new firet TR number one number two we need to fix the sewer system number three we need to do whatever and the border commissioner says thank you we're going to buy some property my point is he has the obligation to tell them these things anyway it doesn't change what they're going to do I agree that the city commission can override the city manager even if he gives them the proper recommendation he can override them but what this does at least it's they have in front of them he could say here's the priorities that we've adopted now if you want to take the one that's down here or the one that's not even on the list and it's over here in left field right field and and do it that's fine but here's your priorities but how does that change the language that says keep the Board of Commissioners is fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city I just went over that you got the basket of future needs right but it's not prioritized it's just a basket right and and I think that we have also seen that that basket's not been populated we've been very you know the city's good at addressing what our current needs are now but that Future Vision needs to be developed and improved I think the language is that's already there states that but I understand your concerns you can qu you know the qualifying opens soon I'd have to movey just a little then it won't qualify it's just I think it's there I understand your point I've made my argument your honor you've been heard you've been soon to be judged apparently I'm losing this argument well I think that in defense of Andy yeah we have a longer history of activity than he does in the city that's true so from my perspective it needs to be there or it helps it maybe it helps I don't think it'll cure or anything but maybe it'll help we we have all I think we're all on the side of minimizing the language in the charter and then we believe that we've made a lot of decisions based on that but we've also and we've also removed things from the charter that at in the past were issues but were then added to the Charter to make sure they were acted on and once they became acted on and they were policy and we saw it happening we have taken out sections that represented that correct this one I think for now is it makes sense to keep in because we have seen the issues in the next Charter I mean if if we're seeing things that are if the planning's being done appropriately going forward over the next five years it can come right back out but I think there's a very qualified concern with regards to how future improvements are identified IED how they're measured how they're assessed and tracked I mean we you know something breaks yeah we fix it that's not a future Capital Improvement that's a maintenance issue and and I think we see a lot of unpaid maintenance that become in someone's mind a future Improvement but that's not what that is but there is a future plan that's adopted by the commission I'm I your honor I have another argument there is a future plan that's adopted and it's an ongoing plan that occurs and it's supposed to be five years out yes I understand you're saying that those things aren't being acted on I got it but there is an adopted plan okay well I think the to you know this isn't the Supreme board or anything but the rebuttal to that would be I'll stipulate that they have a plan but I also want to go ahead say they they listen they also well he's saying they have a plan I think what we're saying is it's not prioritized and this does prioritize it here here's here's we're already changing section L no k k or L let me go back sorry I don't mean to go back but I'm going back under k k under Section 8 right we we talked about review update retire abandon and deem completed all City master in action plans every five years right we can add a prioritized future Capital Improvement plan to that list and meet the intent of this paragraph G and and honestly what you're saying I think has more weight to what you're trying to do if you're having the city commission prioritize it versus the city manager but I understand what John's going to say which is that this is you know it should be looked at and planned based on the person who is responsible for the budget and those things in the future the should be looked at and planned by the person who is there 365 days a year and runs the ship well it's a basic thing of this the Board of Commissioners does policy the city manager administr it the city commission probably doesn't know what the capital Improvement programs should be because there's storm water there's expansion of the treatment plant there's closing the landfill there's uh the seaw wall at the Docks is Fallen it I mean those are administrative matters and that's why it's under the city manager versus Carrie moving it back to the commission it's okay so the city excuse me please the city manager should tell this board at a budget session right that we have to fix the drainage of the sponge dogs it's going to cost us $18.5 million I put that in the budget and then it gets done without the prioritizing these things the board's going to change it every damn time somebody calls them and says oh I got this big hole in my street can you come and fix it okay so I got two here are we keeping it I know uh I I would say keep it I think there's been some very good Arguments for keeping it under the egis of the city manager all right we're keeping it move on paragraph three three they do not want an assistant city manager required oh really there's five of them up there already what are we I think that one was pretty clear they the not only know but know is that what I'm hearing I think they were pretty strong on this one even stronger than that okay can well can you tell me just briefly why it's not needed we have people that we put in those positions you're adding an additional pretty extensive expense to the City by doing that um we've never had a problem with this before this is one that doesn't need to be fixed but the town we just because something never happened in the past doesn't okay we just had a disaster and we didn't have a problem how it was maintained I mean bigger decision is there than the disaster we just had where I see the deficiencies are we two dayto day M day to day operations I see the but we had but we have department heads that do that there you may not agree with how that's being done but that doesn't mean we need another layer of administration it just means that the city manager needs to be put that as a priority of getting that being done that it's a difference difference from the president of the US and the vice president right no the vice president do anything at all vice president never does anything okay so here here when we discussed this one of our concerns was we're a growing city right yes we we're growing in terms of footprint we're growing in terms of collaboration with other Municipal areas the city manager job as it was done in the past is not necessarily going to be done that way by the new person that's in and why not let that I'm sorry why not let if that's the occurrence why not let the Board of Commissioners and the city manager if that situation is needed do that as opposed to mandating it and and that's where I was going to come from right um I was going to suggest if there's a way to allow a assistant city manager they're allowed you can do it now we can do it I I'm I'm fine I just think that you know if if the city manager has a need and he identifies it I think we were all an agreement of being supported with that we didn't want to preclude it happening by not having it in the charter no they can do it but you're mandating it and that again I'll go back to what I said earlier right now based on what just happened we have Financial issues yes and adding a a a requirement at this point is probably not necessary right and and and I have to agree with that I think we've got a lot of expenses coming and if they are if he's able to suggest and persuade and budget absolutely and and again when talking about budget and priority MH if the city manager needs an assistant city manager he's going to budget and prioritizing and give the reasons why he needs it as opposed to you mandating it um at a time where maybe frankly we can't afford to do it I agree I going to take it out take it outan I still think we were valid all right can I have a motion to remove this paragraph So moved can I have a second second it you no do we have a second second it it's fine all right any further discussion what Michelle the other way around okay I'm sorry move the paragraph Yes okay I just want to say one thing yes I I thinking in our premise was correct I'm willing to go along with changing it just because of the financial condition of the city but I think the discussion of why we put it in was because of the condition of the city and that maybe there needed to be the city manager focusing on big picture things and that the DAT the C assistant city manager would be running the operations clean you know getting things done that haven't been done deferred maintenance stuff to provide some additional uh assistance to the city manager but anyway I I I agree we need we need our city manager to be more Forward Thinking I think agree that I think our thinking was right but I think things you know we've had some issues uh disaster issue so okay we take it out and from my perspective it if they put an assistant city manager in at some point at at that point he's not a charter official that's really the only difference between having this that's correct that's true okay all right so uh Michelle would you please call a vote on this Dr yes yes yes yes so based on the motion you just made if we go to section 20 uh the board is fine with your language just removing assistant city manager from the language you propos okay that makes sense that's one that's not a problem the second one as you're probably aware if you watched the meeting had a lot of debate which we had debate here on which was the same I mean I think it's pretty simple the the point is is that if you're requiring all department heads and directors who are not listed above to be within 10 miles of the Tarpon Spring City Hall we are going to lose out on potential candidates that requirement was discussed here in depth and was discussed by the boc with the same comment was mentioned by the current I mean the prior city manager as also an issue so they're trying to give you what they see as the reality of of candidates and that things have changed in coming in and out but if you got the priority of the city manager fire chief police chief um within the city limits that they don't see the need for these others that's the point and you I know you've discussed it already I'm going to make a comment and what I heard in their discussion was that they wanted to retain the list from before and not expand it the concern was that all depart all department heads and directors is too extensive but they were okay with maintaining that requirement for city clerk administrative Services director Public Services director development services director and planning and zoning director which would leave the language in there and just strike what you've added well we changed we changed the I'm sorry the 10 miles is New you're right the 10 miles is New so the arguments that they so this is like aov you come up with one argument they make another different argument the original argument was that the they could not have find they could not these people couldn't find affordable housing within this within tar because Tarpon had gotten to be so expensive and so we talked about a couple miles they made they made their thing on a little further so we came up with 10 miles think where 10 miles is I mean think I mean 10 miles is like almost a 52 you know and and 10 miles going east is out into Zephyr Hills and so it's well you I think there needs to be some cohesion to the Comm I don't know would you be okay with the other names that are in there within the 10 miles as opposed to all department heads and directors they they seem to be in agreement with keeping those other titles and then the issue was well what are the titles now that's they changed the titles H they changed the titles I know then that that was why we went with all department heads and directors which is very Broad and that caused some angst I think yeah well it's because the titles change James so do we put in so you know if you're at that level well does that really mean that all of them have to be there I mean I can see that there you know might be exceptions to that rule so do we it's a do we adapt do we adapt the language that says instead of all Department's heads we maybe we can say that um employees who provide the functions of city clerk administrative Services director Public Services director development services director and planning and zoning director where we're not calling them out by by name but they we're calling them out by the services they provide so if names change it doesn't matter they're still required to meet the resident requirement listen at one time do you follow me give you some background at one time the original residency requirement said the department heads had to live within the city right so what do they do they changed the title of the department heads to directors right they're no longer required live in the city why instead of having it's a semantics game right but if you say if the individuals providing that service then you can have any child they want they still have to meet this requirement that does cover got more experience in this than me so Ian he he he was involved in it so I refer to his Jim you want to weigh in on this or duck there's room under here there's SI of room under here I'm trying to get used to living at home again right now listen well there's less houses now available that's the point yeah I think that it's very important that the people who work here live here and and I know it's hard to say I mean I agree with John 10 miles is a long way any way you look at it if somebody can't buy a house in a 10 mile radius of Tarpon Springs we hired the wrong person and that was the original argument that for cost the housing cost in Tarpon Springs so we're saying 10 miles out and you still can't do it I don't buy that well you're saying 10 miles to city hall also and the only point I would say there is that 10 miles from the city limits are a little more not a lot more but a little more didn't didn't we raise the issue of defining 10 did yeah and there that's defined in the prior paragraph and I I mean I could see City Limits adopted instead of City H we were really targeting city hall or the emergency center right DC when you know for the Emergency responders um if we do this this you might as well not do it at all well you I understand both both ways because when we put this up the last time there's a lot of places who are now in the city limits right that weren't before and are going to be affected by it are is it 10 miles from there or mhm uh the the an the answer is 10 miles I mean we we agreed upon city hall because you have to have a stable place to say to anybody who comes in here that applies for a job you have to live within this area but then again is it as the crow flies or is the car drive that's the whole problem with yeah it's a circle it's as a crow fli so it's it's actually bigger than what you would think but the point made is I don't wouldn't have a problem with City Limits I mean you get a few more miles that way and the point is is that the emergency people are here when they need to be and then the question is is will the city employees participate in the City activities and that's I think that cuts both ways yeah because I will be honest with you there's a lot of people that are not going to come into uh certain city certain city um restaurants because you can't be seen necessarily patronizing one over the other that and it's that's a true issue yeah whether you want to believe it or not I've seen it so many times because people hey look at Joe Blows over at uh whatever bar again you know I mean it just become it's just a true statement that occurs but I mean that's I'd throw that out for your consideration well look at it this way look at how much we expanded it with this language yeah when I tried it for five years and if it didn't work but I'm honestly the if you'll remember the the original the original objection was that people couldn't find housing in Tarpon Springs and we said what about a couple miles no no that's still not enough okay 10 miles and now it's now it's changing to something else now it's you're not going to get qualified people so we go from an economic thing of finding housing to finding people but okay I'm going to I'm going to take us back to our discussion the argument the reason we went with all department heads and directors is because we were not we we really we weren't getting the we were concerned about the titles and titles change right when they had the discussion they were okay that that um that these other director levels were included in requiring to be close they just there was a problem with that core versus all right that that makes it much wor and that's why that argument now exists John right so we would get we would get concurrence from the Board of Commissioners if we continued with this and I think we were fine with this our only issue was titles right and not knowing what the titles is it was easier for us to say all than to try to call that out so I'm going to ask the City attorney for the language that we should use for that I I actually like your language you like all no your language my language saying that the people who provide these Services these functions what you said so far is not broad enough for me what's that I said what you said so far the list you came up with so far I don't think is Broad enough okay what would you add to that oh well time for a break sorry under the no no it's okay I'll go back to that we've expanded it so much let's try it all right we've expanded it 10 miles from zero miles okay and and then I want to say one other thing I I I see they want us to take out assistant city manager that's actually in the original language I would say leave it because if there is ever a City man assistant city manager brought in we want them to adhere to this so I would say stut that good point so we leave 20 H you like that point so so so is everybody so that's the question do is is do you want to leave 20 as you've proposed it yeah I do and try it because we've expanded it so much remember it doesn't affect anybody it doesn't affect anybody who's currently in position I know but it we're going to have people retiring it does oh no no yes you're right but within the next five years we're going to have people retire right yes I I would just assume be more specific about uh the people at this point rather than put all are you comfortable with using functions as opposed to titles John where are you uh I like the idea of putting functions but I think all works for me too I don't think you want all yeah okay Jim I'm surveying I don't know how we do all without a specific it I don't think this is a problem I totally disagree that this is a problem because we have people who have worked here that I know have moved houses and didn't come in okay that's that's not what the 10 mile marker is or or the utilizing the name you know how do we get people want to live in tarp and springs well some don't it's because they have kids who want to go to a better school or or they have personal problems or just 10 miles if you can't find a place to live in within 10 miles you went to the wrong place so is has your son found a place within 10 miles my grandson is the one who yeah he's found a bunch of them but his grandpa won't give him enough money for a down pay okay Granda that's not true because he's got more bucks than I do well may I elaborate a little you know as as a parent it is a big deal if you've got a kid already in school let's say in high school it's more than 10 miles away to pull your kid out you know of of the of that it's a big deal for a family and you would lose candidates who have those kind of family situations which may be most of the people I say try it for five years if it doesn't work the next group can change it I'm fine with passing the bck yeah I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said oh I'm fine with passing the book try it for five years you know the thing is that you know you know like what Tina said we can always come up with you know that one case where somebody doesn't want to move their kids out of out of a high school I get that but okay somebody's in the job market on that level they're going to consider you know uprooting and moving we have a sentence in here that says the board of commissioner ERS May temporarily excuse The Residency requirement for such time periods no one time period exceed one year as it deems appropriate in the best interest in the city if we re-include that then you know I think the intention is met without having to require somebody to yank their kid out of school I can go along with that K you can go along with that yeah that would cover all the I think that would cover the problem yeah good with me that's good so we would need a motion on that uh yeah I would entertain a motion that would uh keep assistant city manager in the first paragraph you don't you don't need you don't need to do that I don't need to do that okay I would entertain a motion that would add to the residency paragraph the existing last sentence of the current residency paragraph that says the Board of Commissioners May temporarily excuse The Residency requirement for such time periods no one time period to exceed one year as deems appropriate in the best interest of the city second good save Michelle would you call a vote Carrie what I said good save good save I'm gonna vote no V you're voting no wait a minute do we have to have we do have to have a quorum for this though we we have a majority of those people that are we only need four so okay um Michelle would you call a vote Dr maval No Miss Jennings yes Mr ter panning yes Vice chair colan yes chair R yes okay section 23 Board of Commissioners is okay with the changes that you made up [Music] to where are we that's right yes yes up to section 10 on the uh okay that's 26 okay yeah we're good on 23 now we got a 26 okay where are we at you're 23 you're good it says section 10 on the top of that's section 26 okay this is a sidewalk Improvement fund okay so we we're missing a a heading there right okay your recommendation um the the boc said this is already a policy and priority done through a rating system which is already adopted by the city so the the sentence of the city shall adopt a sidewalk Improvement plan it's already done what we've seen not the yeah I know what you're gonna say like okay here's some sidewalks how much have we got money for we'll do these that's not that well let's talk about okay let's talk about the fact that the last part of your addition is the boc is fine with the city shall appropriate a minimum of 300,000 per year to be expended on sidewalk Improvement during the year the funds are budgeted they're okay with that so the amount withdrawn does not exceed 300,000 per fiscal year so that language is fine um really the language that you're putting in here is the city shall adopt a sidewalk Improvement plan which they already have a policy and priority so that's the language that we're talking about that they don't agree with yeah the issue is that I mean they prioritize some sidewalks they do not have a comprehensive plan we had many people come and say you know round Spring by you it's a mess here it's a mess there it's a mess and it was not on any plan that we remember this is you can't look at it independently this was tied to the discussion of divesting the uh fund sidewalk Improvement fund so that's what said okay we'll give you the money but you but by the time the money runs out you got to have a new solid plan right they need to have a a plan going forward so then it can be budgeted and executed because this money is likely going to be gone by then you probably recall my discussion on this before if you don't remind me a responsible Li we have liability if we don't do this yeah no well they're not doing that it doesn't matter have you seen the condition of some of the sidewalk or the steps okay so so here's how I would say this to you sidewalks for the most part are always a problem for every municipality because the ones that cause the ones that are major issue have to be repaired right which necessarily puts you back on when you go from Community to community because if you just do if we just said we're going to do this section of the city then the one that we just had an accident and is is broken needs to still be done you can't pass that one so this is a a changing function at all times for cities the one where the tree just finally pushed through and we have a a messed up sidewalk needs to be taken care of even if we're doing that neighborhood based on the policy I think okay I L I just read it again so we're talking about divesting of the sidewalk Improvement fund letting them spend all the money right okay what the city shall adopt a sidewalk Improvement plan by 2029 is not not which sidewalks we're going to do but what vehicle is going to go into place what funding is going to go into place to replace the sidewalk Improvement Fund in other words how are they going to it it's a budget item right yeah how are they going to budget it where's the plan show us show us the plan you got to have the it's a budgeting item you want to put a put that word in there that's fine but I think that's what it meant right yes yeah cuz we they need to I mean with the fun gone I mean with how they are using it today um I'm not convinced that we have a a a bigger picture I mean I know the I know you guys this is a big point for y'all you spent a lot of time with this one I understand so if you want to leave it we'll leave it but I just want to be clear but it's not talking about saying which sidewalks to do as far as a list it's talking about a bigger picture thing of how much you know a fund how they're going to address it uh so I'll throw the thought out again do we take the sidewalk Improvement plan and put it back in the other section with our major plans what fing yeah I think when you talked about it you wanted this as a separate you're giving them time because by 2029 U depleted the F depleted the fund will be depleted so there has to be a plan in place to replace the fund right commission will address it that was what your issue was and then you increased amounts so that the fund would deplete right and get hopefully in that time get some right so this does the language accomplishes what you were trying to do it so we leave it I think we to leave the language in there yeah because they didn't do it okay haven't done it for how many years that's right okay leaving the language move on Section 30 30 was on the maybe list that was one you know I I don't think the board had uh a problem one way or the other if you want to do 15 or move it down to 10 I mean I don't think that was I I would like to leave it considering you you know how how few um 15% is just too much some elections 15% don't even vote you know so no I'm with you yeah okay well that's why we changed it to 10 right yeah right and then uh section 32 the board was fine with everything also the same for section 33 and we are done with that so we all right so if we can move on to what's going to happen next okay did everybody get this no no okay so the next steps you've made some changes so I will draft those up and we'll make adjustments to the final ordinance um do we need to come back and vote on that or those just go forward okay um um the city clerk's office and I will be start drafting the questions um do we have to review those I think Irene said no but we can if you want I think we would like to well does that have to be in a formal meeting or can we review them and provide comments back rision committee first reading of the ordinance proposed for the charter language has to be by November 19th oh somebody better get busy and call us back right that's the ordinance that's the ordinance okay that's the first reading okay remember the second reading can be I mean changes can be made after the first reading before the second reading that's that's just proor I'm not worried about that I think we should see the questions we I want to I want to suspend discussion for a minute because I would really like our sixth board member to come take a seat and join the discussion back you're late boy it's all over okay so here's the meetings that you wanted we we will need to set meetings to do the following approve the ballot questions the flyer in all minutes we have some proposed dates Wednesday okay one less date Friday November 22nd at 10:00 a.m. or Monday November 25th at 10 10 a.m. or 2: p.m. this is again to approve the ballot questions the flyer in all minute I'm good probably earlier the better the 22nd fine for me I think I'm going to be out of town the 22nd are are you going to be back in town on the 25th yes what day of the week is that on that's a Monday at what what time 10 10: 25th yes yeah I'm out of town on both of those States yeah the difficulty for me is you know would we had it at a certain date every every week it was easier for me to plan but we could do it at two also on that Monday if that's better for you because that's closer to the time that's probably better I have to um because I don't want to I I've missed several and and unfortunately it's uh so go ahead and do what's most convenient and then I'll see if I can't do a work well I mean working on the 25th which is the Monday which is when we were meeting at two would probably be is everybody neither of I know the chair can make it can everybody else make it then so why don't we shoot with that November 25th at 2 okay is it possible for me to call in it is all right she can call in you couldn't call in this room is not set for that you well you didn't ask that she didn't ask that oh I said is it possible yes it's legally possible I don't know if physically if we can't do that why not uh to my understanding that is the reason Irene couldn't call in today cuz this room is not set up for well why don't we have it in a room that can be set up for that yeah either that or just call somebody's cell phone and put you on speaker I'm sorry I can't hear you yeah I mean that's possible call Andy's cell phone and put him put you on speaker or somebody's cell phone yeah yeah I mean that would work for me if that would work for the city um you could even put a microphone on the phone um and a power cord on the phone um I can do Monday the 25th if I can do it via um via remote okay at 2 pm yeah okay just to give you the after uh December 3rd will be the second reading of the ordinance so after what you do on the 25th that'll be finalized on December 3rd okay December 17th will be a resolution calling for election in ballot language for the March 11th uh 2025 election is that a meeting for us no this is just telling you time periods okay December 18th the ballot information will go to the uh supervisor of elections and the election will be March 11 Andy when's the first reading of the ordinance the first reading is November 19th and remember about the first reading we have to do that so we can get it on the right time right the first reading is a proor because it can be changed which it will be on anything you do um on the 25th okay so we will amend the ordinance if you make any changes on the 25th okay do you anticipate um the Board of Commissioners putting their own language I had no one has spoken to me about doing any of their own language I did not feel from the meeting that we had that there was any proposal for any language now that being said of course they could but I didn't think that any of them had such a concern over what you were proposing well we did accept one of their suggestions a couple well you accepted a couple of them yeah so um I I I mean they had the opportunity but I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe they would so our next meeting is November 25th 2: p.m. legally I will be able to call in I will need to be provided with the information how to do that right and the vice chair will run the meeting you I'll let you run it over the phone you can't give up I'm happy to do that no she cannot run it over the phone is that true that is true put me on mute either just like she can't make the uh Forum we have to have a forum without her can we a two minute okay hold can we take a two-minute break sure going to yell at me for something okay that's a break for all of us we will break in for about till uh 12:00 and I don't think we've got much more to do so we should be able to be done by 15 after or so all right what's take a break till 12 o' okay e e e e e e e e e e e e e e seats I'm going to go ahead and uh uh uh continue the meeting at uh 11:55 here I just need to make a clarification on the um the language for the ordinance will be uh will not be changed but you will look at the question and the flyer to make sure those you will make changes if you need to for those okay so and that is what you were proposing for November 25th yes does that have to happen after the first reading yes only because we can't do the timing the first reading and the second reading are required within a specific period of time to be concluded in order to get it to the supervisor of elections yes but you're you're saying that we have to have we we have to wait until after the first re reading to review that information well just from a logistic standpoint I don't think we would have anything for you I mean today what I was going to say I'm available next Wednesday you see the 20th hm what you mean the 13th yeah Irene's out till next week because she's been sick so I will not be meeting with her until next week let's see where we are and you're talking about meeting on the I'm I'm available Tuesday as well I know it's a one day to turn it around but both I how about the 13th you're say yes please can we check with Irene I'm out of town oh you're out yeah K won we just patch in by phone what's that we're not going to cut you we'll Pat you in by phone for the language well I'm I'm exploring the possibility are you going to be you're going to be gone the 14th you need to be here actually let me just confirm that because I'm thinking I'm gone on the 14th I might be here on the 14th just see great come on because oh you guys aren't going to be here Monday anyway right no see Monday the city's closed yeah so that makes it really hard yeah I'm I'm gone on the 14th so we stick with the plan ordinance not the questions say that again what are we reviewing on the 13th we're we're reviewing the we're actually reviewing the FL the questions and the flyer I would leave it the date we have I don't think we can do it any sooner honestly the 25th at 2:00 yes if you wanted in good shape everything done that should be fine okay and that's all you have from me okay the that's the next step oh so there's one other thing here we have our list of recommendations that I don't want to fall by the way side so I would like um to consider a date to reconvene in January because the last time we spoke uh Irene indicated that the recommendations would need to be written up by the City attorney for the board um not a problem so do you have the current list in the summary I believe it has not changed it hasn't changed and I I have it and I believe Irene has it also all right and if there's any question just contact me I have that on my computer for you okay um all right so can we look at sometime later in January yeah okay um U I'm going to now uh open the floor to public comments mayor protos do you have anything you'd like to add con can you come to the microphone and make sure the green lights on so everybody can hear you I was just concerned about the employees living in the city because I'm a firm believer that we need our city employees as close to us as we can because it's the far northern part of pine house County and I know where I live I have Clearwater policemen bringing clear waterer police cars in my neighborhood Largo uh there's uh fireman that lives next to uh John's parents house and the other day I saw a St Pete uh utilities maintenance director's car on West Bay Shore moving in and I don't know what their policies are but to me that's too far away when you hold a position that important in the city so I'm glad that you've got it like you have it and uh it's a very important thing because to get up here in a storm like we just had or to get up here in a hurricane it's very difficult with what's on the roads today thank you for your Insight y did that thank you for your insights okay board and staff comments I'm going to start with Michelle do you have any comments no Mr Salman do you have any comments no thank you for all your hard work everyone okay uh Mr Cher pany do you um just wish M IRA you Mr cuscus oh wait a minute we were going to take up one I I apologize well it's it's more of an editorial than a than a comment so I don't know if this is a most appropriate time to do this is on the City Hospital section 33 yeah and unfortunately I I wasn't I wasn't here for that particular section uh otherwise I would have been able to add a lot of insight into that um you know I I really don't have any issues with what proposed uh you know the hospital Foundation is just basically a shell at this point Advent health and if and whether you left it at Advent health or or the shell it really doesn't matter but one one of the things I did watch the meeting and you know one of the comments was with regard to the hospital and this is more commentary than anything has nothing to do with this is that there was a comment that the hospital is not safe and and I took you talk about VI there was when when they were talking about no no it was this meeting okay um that the hospital was not safe and I think it had to do with the evacuation and the and then and I don't know if it was you Mr cleanis that suggested because they the uh they promised to replace the windows and stuff like that and they may have done that but but I just may they may not have done that but one of the concerns that I or one of the issues that I want to bring because it's a words matter and when somebody you know in a public forum says the hospital is not safe what does that mean you know does it mean it's not safe in healthare or is the building not safe at all you know and and just to understand and and maybe a lot of people this community don't know but you know the hospitals invested 20 to $30 million in a new emergency room they had to put in a new plant that cost about uh $18 million for the for the hospital they had to redo the entire mechanical system for the hospital at at 27 or $28 million they had to put on a new roof they have spent this year alone between 40 and $50 million in community benefit health care that's uncompensated healthare so when we look at the ephas or you look at the ephas of replacing the the ephas of the hospital that's another 20 million the hospital is safe the building is safe can there always be sub hurricane proof yes you can there's you could always improve the building but my concern was that in public comment that somebody says the hospital is not safe really you know got to be careful with words because words matter and when when you look we have a quality Hospital they've invested if you look at it over100 million in the infrastructure itself that benefits the city um and that's not at a cost to the city so just that we're aware you know anybody watching this you know when when they hear that those words that the hospital is safe so I just wanted to make sure that I I put that on the record that's all thank you very much and I was there this week for my mamogram um Mr uh kianus would you like to make any comment no this is Dr B no comment miss it well again I'd just like to send my best to iene I hope she feels better soon yes our best to I me I I want to make a couple of comments um first off this has been a great board to work with we're not quite done yet but we've I think achieved a very significant Milestone today um our work was reviewed by the Board of Commissioners and we responded back and it today's meeting really represents a significant milestone in our work so thank each of you for bringing your experiences for bringing your perspectives to here um to bear on everything we had to consider in this Charter I think we've all shown our love and dedication to this city and I look forward to working with everyone again in whatever projects we wind up sitting at the table with each other so thank you yes Mr I have one more question and I I know we can't go back and and peel back the onion but this past storm showed us something and and what it showed us was you know uh whether or not it's addressed in the chart or not but but give it some thought for maybe future is because it may be too late is is empowering your Commissioners and or staff with emergency Powers uh for example for example the uh uh the the fruit bow area having the you know and I think the city did a good job going the resolution about trying to bypass the uh historical preservation board to get these things more on track at a faster time as far as permitting and stuff um and and I don't know if that needs to be uh codified in a city Charter but State Statute is it but okay I just wanted to make sure okay I just want to make sure that that was addressed because yeah we had no concerns with that that yeah yeah no that that's our we have a good Charter we have a good set of elective officials we've got very dedicated City staff and executive branch I mean we went through a lot and kudos to the city yes we went through a lot of the city and the employees of the city because we were up and running a lot quicker than a lot of communities and that that's a to uh pre-planning and and and and and what what the city's already put in place so I also want to say uh these these meetings require a lot of work from the um city clerk and the deputy city clerk so I wanted to thank you very much for your dedication and time I thank you very much M uh Mr solsman for all your research you've brought to us your um patience as we work to understand some of these issues and uh night minding getting beat up occasionally um really appreciate your your good humor and uh and John never hit me I just want to put John well you know I was going to have to change move positions on a couple of occasions but I'm glad we didn't have to do that anyway um with that uh I am going to adjourn this meeting at 12:08 done I know too bad not everybody lightning right all my landscape while e e e for