##VIDEO ID:b5rMpWcSkBI## I now call to order the budget special session meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs on Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 at 6:30 p.m. City Clerk Roll call, please. Vice Mayor Coleus here. Commissioner Eisner here. Commissioner Koulianos here. Commissioner DiDonato here. As a reminder, the purpose of tonight's meeting is to get additional public input regarding fiscal 2024 2025 budget. Item number one, resolution 202433 adopting the final millage rate for tax year 2024. Mr. herring will will review procedures required by state law. Then the city clerk will read the resolution in its entirety. Yes. Thank you, vice mayor. Florida Statute 200.065 sets the procedures for the adoption of the millage rate and budget. The final millage rate must be approved before the final budget. The final millage rate for tax year 2024 is 5.37. The same as the previous year. The final millage rate of 5.37 is 7.71%, above the rollback rate of 4.9858. The rollback rate is the rate that would provide the same dollar amount of revenues as the previous year. The increase over the rollback rate is being used to fund personnel and operating costs, and that is a required a discussion on the final millage rate. Thank you, Mr. Herring. City Clerk Resolution 2024 Dash 33 A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, adopting the final millage rate for tax year 2024. Whereas a public hearing was held on September 18th, 2024 at 6:30 p.m. to adopt the final millage rate. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, that one. The ad valorem millage rate for tax year 2024 of the city of Tarpon Springs is hereby established at 5.3 700, a 7.71% increase over the rollback rate of 4.9858 to. The city staff is hereby directed to notify all pertinent governmental agencies of the provisions hereof, as required by law. That is, the reading of resolution 2024. Dash 33, in its entirety. Thank you, Miss Jacobs. Are there any public comments on this item? It are there any zoom comments? We don't have anyone attending zoom at this time. Thank you. Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion to approve resolution 202433, adopting the final millage rate for tax year 2024. So move chair, if there was no further discussion. Roll call please. Mr. Donato. Yes, Commissioner Collins? Yes Commissioner. Eisner. Yes. Vice mayor coleus. Yes. Item number two. Resolution 2024-34. Adopting the final budget for fiscal year 2024. Dash 2025. Mr. herring will review the procedures required by state law. Then the city clerk will read the resolution in its entirety. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The final budget for fiscal year 2025 for the city is $86,155,894, an increase of $9,733,103, or 12.7% above the adopted budget for fiscal year 2024. The majority of the increase is for capital expenditures of the city, and that is required reading for the budget. Thank you. Mr. Herring. City Clerk Resolution 2024 Dash 34 A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, adopting the final budget for fiscal year 2024 2025. Whereas a public hearing was held on September 18th, 2024 at 6:30 p.m. to adopt a final budget. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, that one the City of Tarpon Springs annual budget for Fiscal year 20 2425 is hereby finally adopted to the city staff is directed to notify all pertinent governmental agencies of the provisions hereof as required by law. That is, the reading of resolution 20 2434. In its entirety. Thank you. Ma'am, are there any public comments on this item? It are there any zoom comments? We have no zoom attendees at this time. Thank you. Hearing none the chair will entertain a motion to approve resolution 202434, adopting the final budget for fiscal year 2024 dash 2025. So moved second. If there is no further discussion, roll call please. Commissioner de Donato. Yes, Commissioner. Colonies. Yes, Commissioner. Eisner. Yes. Vice mayor. Yes That concludes the budget. Special session. Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Okay. I now call to order the special session agenda for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tarpon Springs on Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 at 6:36 p.m. Miss Jacobs Roll call, please. Vice Mayor Coleus here. Commissioner Eisner here. Commissioner. Collins. Commissioner DiDonato here. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to get additional public input regarding fiscal year 2024. Dash 2025 CRA budget item number one resolution 2024-03 adopting the final budget for fiscal year 2024. Dash 2025, Mr. Herring will review procedures required by state law and then City Clerk will read the resolution in its entirety. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This for the final CRA budget for the city for fiscal year 2025 is $1,013,703. An increase of $123,273, or 13.8% 13.8%, over the adopted budget for fiscal year 2024. This increase is due to taxable values increasing 9.12%, which is being put towards CRA projects within the CRA fund. Thank you, Mr. Herring. City Clerk, this is CRA resolution 2020 4-03, a resolution of the community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, adopting the final budget for fiscal year 2024 2025. Whereas a public hearing was held on September 18th, 2024 at 6:30 p.m. to adopt the final budget. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, that section one, the Community Redevelopment Agency's annual budget for fiscal year 2024 2025, is hereby finally adopted. Section two the city staff is hereby directed to notify all pertinent governmental agencies of the provisions hereof, as required by law. That is, the reading of CRA resolution 2020 403. In its entirety. Thank you. Ma'am, are there any public comments on this item? I t are there any zoom comments? We have no zoom attendees at this time. Thank you. The chair will entertain a motion to approve resolution 202403, adopting the final budget for fiscal year 2024. Dash 2025. So move. Second, if there is no further discussion, roll call, please. Mr. Donato. Yes, Commissioner. Collins. Yes. Commissioner. Eisner. Yes, vice chair. Coleus. Yes That concludes the special session agenda. Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m. I now call to order the special session agenda of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs on Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 at 6:39 p.m. Miss Jacobs roll call, please. Vice Mayor Coleus here. Commissioner Eisner here, Commissioner Collins here. Commissioner DiDonato here. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for discussion. Direction of the proposed charter amendments. And right now, we are going to go to public comments. Are there any public comments? It are there any zoom comments? There are no zoom attendees at this time. Thank you. Agenda item one discussion and direction on proposed charter amendments. City attorney. Yes. Vice mayor. Thank you. Commissioners. As you know, at this point, you have been presented the changes proposed by the charter Revision Commission. And at this point is the opportunity for comments to be made to the charter Revision Commission by the board regarding the changes they have proposed. That is solely what this section that we're talking about is about. This is not the determination of what you may choose to add on any referendum. It's just comments for them. I know I wasn't here when the review went through, but I'm here to answer any questions that you may have and to clarify anything along with if there's any proposed action taken by the board. I would recommend it be done by a motion. Second, and then a majority vote so we can bring that back. Time Thank you. City attorney. Vice mayor, do you want to go through each section and determine whether there is any proposal? I'd be willing to go through each. I believe they had 22 items or 22 potential questions listed, and I'm not sure if how the rest of the board would would like, but I wouldn't mind discussing each one if needed. How does the rest of this board feel, Commissioner Eisner? Are you referring to just the ones that are underlined or the changes or the changes? Commissioner yeah, that would be the ones we would talk about. I just wanted to be sure I've gone through them already. I only need to look at one, but I'm happy to go through them all. If we want to do that, I'm okay either way. Okay Vice mayor, do you want me to take the commission through it? Yes, please. Okay The first one that we're looking at is under section three, limitation of powers. Under this section, there are three changes. The first one is under B which talks about again this is a limitation of powers for the commission. And how you have to act accordingly under B which is the acquisition by the city of real property under the power of eminent domain. This limits the action for eminent domain to water and sewer utility easements, public rights of way, public parking and storm drainage improvements, it was recommended to add dredge and spoil sites as a potential use for eminent domain. How does the Commission feel about that? If you want to go down the line, like I said, I'm pretty much okay with I've gone through all these already and I've watched all the meetings. I only have one issue with one of the things. So with me, I'm okay with that. So you can ask, I just, you know, as I understand the charter, it's a very delicate document. So I just want to, we only go through this so many times and believe it's important that we do try to look over each item that may be changed that way, we all agree we can decide how we're going to present it forward, but you know, if there are any issues, I think we need to go over them. I would just like to ask Mr. Salzman, I get my concern, having gone through this multiple times and going through this amount of changes, what is the ballot going to look like? Can you give us some kind of idea, the ballot that's puzzling to me, right? The ballot is going to be extensive, that is the tough part. When you do this now, you only do this, you know, you don't do it that often, but there there are a lot of ballot questions that will be on here. This particular one section that we're talking about was really just to add some potential that the city may look at. But you're right, there's going to be a lot I don't know, the average voter is going to. I respect the Charter Review Committee. Don't don't get me wrong, but it's going to be pretty extensive to go through for the average voter. You are right. Normally in the past it's always been like a few 5 or 6 key things. And so if we can well, I mean, if the commission as a whole and I didn't mean to interrupt you, if the commission as a whole wants us to bring back that, hey, we would like you to maybe limit this, we can bring that information back to them. Yeah. City attorney, if you can. So the purpose of tonight's meeting is for us to discuss their potential charter change recommendations. We're going to send it back to them to let them know about how we feel about each one. We also have the ability to send it back to them. Maybe for us to decide whether we even like it as a ballot question, there is nothing wrong with you giving direction to go back, for us to go back and say, you know what? We only think that we should have this one, this one and this one, there's nothing wrong with that. So it's however, the board wants to proceed, and the way I understand it, we can change it. We can add to it, we can subtract from it, but you cannot. The. Well, you you can propose those changes. Correct. They have they're independent of you. So their final action will end up being referendum questions. You can have rival referendum questions. That's where I was going to go next. Yes. So even if we have these 20, referendums, we could actually and this is just hypothetically speaking, we could actually have 40 some odd. You could, you could have as many as you propose. Don't get scared. That was just a suggestion. I wouldn't do that. But, I mean, you can act. You can actually, add your own to it. That is correct, but I do understand also what Commissioner DiDonato said. It's going to be a lot of explaining to do. And remember, we provide education only on these issues, so there's no opinion, right? That's correct. Okay. Well, I guess I'm going to I have a couple of different viewpoints. There's so many potential charter amendments. I believe that we need to discuss them all. And we may as a board decide, hey, to go back to the committee and say, you know, narrow down, narrow down to 50% of those maybe or so. But, you know, as of right now, I do I don't mind seeing the acquisition of, you know, real property for dredge and spoil sites. The problem I have with that is, with the situation we have with potentially the one property, if we do purchase it. I mean, have we already fulfilled the charter with that one piece of property with for dredging spoil sites? So I don't know if that. Go ahead. May I suggest that as we go through this we create two lists. One list would be does it really have to be? And other lists would? Yes, definitely. Please, maybe we can start there. We're not saying no, we're just saying could you just look at this and realize what it's going to be like on the ballot? That's that's my concern because I, I know in the past, if you go and put too many things before they sometimes they don't even vote, they don't know what to vote for. So I don't want to complicate it. I want to get it done without complications. So if we can do that, I would suggest that that change go into the maybe, maybe list. No. And I would agree. That was some great comments and input I would like. I think that's an easy route for us to go together and I understand I understand why they're suggesting it, but we don't even have the property yet. So yeah, I agree, I'm that's what I'm doing as we go through these, I'm making a list of my maybe ones. And then at the end, maybe we could all say, okay, what are the ones that we all kind of commonly agree that maybe are, could be eliminated or that's what I'm doing as we go through them. Okay I think that's a great system. Mr. Saltzman, do you want to continue? The second one is under H. And what H does is it increases the amount of purchase from 350,000 to 500,000, this is the purchase, sale, exchange, conveyance or leasing of real property, or any interest thereof, excluding parks, recreation and waterfront property except for the purchase of a some less than $500,000, which is approved by the affirmative vote of four members. So in essence, this would have saved us in prior purchases without having to go to referendum. And it's also saying that you will identify the funding source, in this particular when you when you are purchasing property and I think the thought process behind that is that if individuals know where you're getting the money from, they may or may not have a concern to come to your meeting and talk to you about it, whether it's borrowing or something along those lines. Well, the funding for this item, I believe, would be in the general budget where it usually is. But the what I think is important on this one is the increase from the 350 to 500. That is, this amount was changed last time, I believe, from 250 to 350. And the way the commission looked at it was that's just too low. Based on the change in, you know, property values. But that certainly is one to consider. Oh, go ahead, Commissioner. Actually, from what I heard and I'm sure you you were there. So I know, they were actually discussing 750. Yes, they were, but the issue that came about was whether you can get, the referendum passed that that amount of money. So that's how they settled on 500. Okay Have a good memory for this kind of stuff. I don't know how you want to do it. I I personally think I can see the need for this. I would think it's, it's more important I agree. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I personally think the amounts too much. I don't want us, you know, the city being able to buy properties at, you know, half $1 million here and there as needed for, for certain things without the voters voting on it. I think we have a fiduciary responsibility for them. And you know, a property of that size. Can a few more months to get the voters to decide would wouldn't be an issue for me. So I wouldn't mind seeing up to 420,000, which is a 20% increase because it's still a lot to me. But I want the voters involved as much as possible. On property purchases. So I believe it should go no matter what. But that amount is for me up to decide. I don't think we're going to find much. That's 500,000. Most of it's well over that. Yeah, we've talked about. So I'm I'm good with 500 and that's fine. Yeah. We got we got majority with 500. So yeah. So we're good with the identifying the funding source. Also I think that's important okay. The next one under this section was was one of the last ones we added actually real property purchased by the city by public referendum or real property which has a value equal to or greater than the maximum value. The city may purchase without requiring a referendum, may not be sold, swapped or traded without first receiving approval by a public referendum. I think that sounds straightforward, and it's just making sure that the public has the right to make a determination as to whether property should be, either, you know, obviously sold or traded, that is acquired by the city. How does this board feel about it? Commissioner Eisner that was a last minute decision at the ninth hour by John Trapani. And that was an excellent, comment because you just don't want to have, you know, if we have other properties, you don't want to have to be able to, sell or trade different values. That should always be according to the residents. So I thought that was a great, find. And I was in agreement to when he suggested it. Okay, Commissioner, that's that's a necessity. Item. Okay Everybody's good with that. We'll start that in as a something that everyone's okay with. Could we go back to the dredging spoil for one second, please? Just go ahead. You know, I know we were saying that we don't really need to have that once we get the dredging soil, boil site, but, we won't have that until this referendum is, until that vote goes down. So if the vote doesn't go down, this becomes a valuable item. If it does go down and the residents approve, then of course, it becomes a no issue. So that's why I believe they put that in in the first place, because even if it's not this particular, spoil site, it could be another spoil site that we may need to do. So I really don't want to just forget about that. No it's not. It's on the what we would bring forward. It's on the maybe list, which is, it's not something that you are, saying has to be on there, but it's up to the commission on that. Okay. That's the way I took it. Is what the. That's the way I would take it. I would just we're trying to make some idea of what the battle would look like primarily. So. Right. Exactly. Taken 22 a charter amendments to the voters is going to be a lot. So we're going to have to really decide where we're going to go from there. So thank thank you all, next city attorney. Okay, so we are at, section eight, this is, board of it's section three of yours. No, I'm lying to you in section three, which is section eight, board of commissioners. Composition, duties, responsibilities and powers. There are several issues on the first one is under D, and the idea was you have to adopt a city budget, obviously, as you just did, what they wanted in this section is in conjunction with reviewing the charter for funding requirements, basically making sure that when you're doing the budget process, you're looking at the charter to make sure that those issues that the charter requires or the charter, discusses is something that you're looking at when you do your funding. That's what that section was put in. I have a question. Are you bringing in all of the oh, no, the Scrivener stuff. I'm not bringing in righ. That's what I wanted to know because I was at that first one. And you lost me with that one. No, I went through, yeah. There's some scrivener's things on here. They're just noted because, okay, I got you gramma. So I don't know how everybody feels about in conjunction with reviewing the charter for funding requirements. I mean, I just feel as a board that should go without saying, but as a board learns more, maybe it could be another responsibility for new officials to come on and understand. I mean, the question vice Mayor, is really this on some of these things? Do you need that in the charter versus just your policies? Yes. We're going to do that when we do the budget process. That's one of the things we're going to ask, you know, staff to do versus a mandate. And I think that's how you have to look at it. I would like to see this as a maybe question, but the rest of this commission will decide my only question on it. Would that be a policy procedure measure as opposed to a charter item? That's that's my I mean, I think we need to follow it, but does it need to be in the charter? That's my question. I don't think I don't think it's necessary. I agree. Okay okay. Then we go down to I in I deleting to review and update every three fiscal years beginning October 1st, 2023, a citywide strategic plan, and the reason why the three years was removed is because I think this is one because it's done, the time period that was put in here, 2020, you don't need the time period. This was more of a just cleaning it up section. Not not not under the addition. I'm talking about the part that was stricken. The addition was, and it's pretty specific. And there was a lot of time spent on this as a result of the effects of population growth, environmental changes and impacts, including the introduction of invasive species, the city of Tarpon Springs shall maintain a sustainability plan and committee, which shall provide for the improvement and maintenance of the environmenta, social and economic vitality, vitality of the City of Tarpon Springs and allocate adequate resources to implement the plan. While the Commission knew that you have a sustainability plan, they felt that it was this would give it teeth that it was not receiving. But it also gives, you know, the sustainability, committee has no power. So how do you have teeth with that? Well, you're adding teeth in it in that you're going to and this was a lot of debate back and forth, but you're, you're going to recognize the idea is to take care of some of these invasive species that are coming in, and removing them and making sure they're maintained and so we don't have a problem in the community. I personally don't want to support this. I think it's I don't want to say a. There are other charter questions that I think can take precedent. And, for the structure of our government, that's a code enforcement issue. And I think, we shouldn't even put that on the charter amendment. So we would put this unless somebody says otherwise, we'd put this on the no list, how does the commission feel? I agree, yeah, I think it's, I don't like things in the charter that talk about the rationale for why it's in the charter. You know, when you say as a result of effect, it's like extra words that aren't necessary, you know, here's what's here's what's required in the charter. You don't have to give background of thought of why you're putting something in the charter. I think it's just a it's just way too many words that I think it's the thing. It's not necessary. Just like the vice mayor said, this could be handled in other, other venues of the city, so I would take it out. You're saying this is a policy procedure situation? Yeah, that's what I feel. Yeah. I just I don't believe it's a it rises to a charter. Standard. So again, I'm going to just share with you I did get to see every single one of these meetings. There was a lot of discussion about this. On the one hand, there was a discussion that said less is more. Every single person said less is more. And yet we've got 22 items in there. So you know, every idea that somebody else brought up, someone said that shouldn't be in there. So we have to as a final, at least from our my opinion is we do have to scrutinize all these things because the charter was was called word salad. A number of times. And yet, there was just more and more being put in with good, you know, rational decisions of why it should be in. But, you know, again, we have to go back to 20 some odd items to hand to, residents, I just think we do have to reduce it down to something where people could be explained and not. It's not, you know, people reading Moby Dick. So Okay. All right. So I have that one, on the. No. And then the next one, I depending on what the board says, I kind of feel how you're moving with these, is to review and update the comprehensive plan and coordination with the state required evaluation and appraisal review cycle, conduct an interim review of the city's comprehensive plan at the midpoint of the state mandated evaluation and appraisal cycle. So I would assume, unless you tell me otherwise, that this kind of goes the same as the one above. Yeah, I think that whole paragraph that whole hours is different, what we have in front of us. Mr. Saltzman, is different than what you we don't have the A, B, C, H, I and that kind of thing. At least mine doesn't. You know, I don't. It's on page six. I don't have that page. Page six. Commissioner, page 606. All right. It says the same, the same stuff, but it's just. Yeah. Okay All right, no problem. I got it. So, again, this is I mean, this is one of those things where you, as a board have to look at. This is kind of stating what your responsibilities and powers are. Again, in the charter, as opposed to your own policies and procedures that you might adopt or direction that you give to staff telling them what is important and what you want reviewed and done when you put it in the charter, it becomes a mandate that you have to do, versus what you internally decide to do and or direct your departments to do. And that's what you what you have to look at in this situation. Well, can I ask you, this city attorney, as of right now with our comprehensive plan and as it's, we just had the second reading, so it's finalized, right? The comp or comp plan. So I believe that. Right. And I believe that your, your department goes through all these things and looks at this adequately. I think it's something that you are mandated to do anyway. And isn't that something we could possibly have in our rules and regulations? Yes. So let's go ahead, Commissioner, again, I did listen to why the reasoning behind this and the reasoning behind this was nothing to do with that. It had to do with a timing to coincide with the other items that the planning and Zoning Board had to deal with. So that things don't overwhelm them. That was what I got out of the reason for the change. It wasn't. It was, because we'd be constantly doing updates, so that's why they decided to change it from the 3 to 5, whether we put it in or not. I mean, we're just giving them too much more work and that's what I got out of that part. So I'm happy to change it to five, just because I think three is too quick. Well, we're we're on the one above that. Say that again. No, we were speaking about the three and five. No, no, I don't think we're talking about the comprehensive plan to review and update item j j I think they just put as state required because I think with the comprehensive plan, the state requires them to do it every eight years. Right. And the original in the last, the last charter, they had every three years. Right. So when they relooked at that, Miss Vincent made the suggestion if that was going to stay in, to at least put that it was when the state required it. So they're not doing it every three years and then having to do it for the state every eight years. Okay. Then I'll retract what I said. It's no comment on that one. I'm okay with whichever we decide. And now you're ahead of the next one that I've already spoken about. But are you? So you're okay with that one? I'm okay with I if that's. Well, you're okay with J. Yes. Correct. But I'm also okay with I as well. I you all said no, it's a l. But that was about the addition, not about the subtraction. So you all are okay with I with the removal of the language but not the additional language. Correct Right. So I have that on here. Okay. With I and with removal. Okay. I have a little bit of I want to explain something here. I and J yes kind of look exactly the same to me. And I'm just saying that's why I took it that you guys would take the same position that you did on the other one. I'm in agreement with I now, I see J is completely different. It was renumbered or read right. I had to renumber them based on the additions right. Okay. I see the difference now okay. Because I have an N next to I, so I would assume that, that you're looking at J and saying the same thing that you said in the addition on I. Right. Is that something that is going to be done by the department? I'm good with that. So are you okay with that? That would be a no on on J because it's something you would do. You don't need in the charter. No on J yeah okay okay. That's more of a policy and procedure. I would think. Right. Yeah. Okay, then we go to K to review, update, retire, abandon or deem completed all city master in action plans every five fiscal years beginning October first, 2024. Basically requiring the city to go through and look at all those things that are out there to make sure they're either, complied with or that they are, abandoned, you know, not to just leave things out there that are not being done. And again, I don't know if you all look at this as a policy one or not. Maybe it is, but I, as I understood when I watched some of the meetings, they were concerned that that it wasn't being done. And they thought by putting it in the charter that this would mandate it. But but again, my concern is just having so much for the voters. I just I mean, is it is it a valid thing. Yeah. But to me we should be maybe there. In my opinion, this is a policy that you should mandate. Yes. You should have your departments look at these things and say, okay, where are we on this? Give us an update and let's eliminate those things that we're not going to do or, complete those things and give us a target date. And that might be something that you want to do at the beginning of your fiscal year when you sit down and start discussing what you're going to do with the updating updated year, I'm going to classify this one as a yes, maybe, okay, maybe no, you said a yes, maybe yeah. I took that as a maybe. Then l is to review and update instead of three years. Every five years, the citywide strategic plan. And that's what I was speaking about earlier. That's that's the that you agree that the five years is better because it extends and coincides. Right Yeah. I have no issue with that, Commissioner Kelly. Yeah, I'm good. Yes. Okay. So with eight. Yeah okay, the next so is just, scrivener's things, page eight, the top part is scrivener's all right. Section four, which is section 11, which is terms of office, qualified qualifications, date of annual elections. You probably saw that there was a lot of time spent on this. The intent of this was a couple different things. And Irene can add if I'm missing anything, but I think you saw that there was a couple concern. One, that individuals knew, what elections were coming up, what seats were going to be available, and that they had adequate time, so that we gave enough additional information so that people would put in to run or consider it, we had spent a lot of time on trying to figure out the time periods, because those vary depending on what's going on with the election, this language, I think we didn't we I think we finally updated this at the last meeting. We had to clarify it because Irene, sent us in information to make sure we did it right, if I could just add. Yes Currently it was for the longest time. And the qualifying days are set in the code. So if this is passed, we would have to go back and do also an amendment to the ordinance. I don't have a problem with extending it. I did do, a survey of all the surrounding cities, and the average was from two weeks and a couple were 30 days. I don't have an issue with the 30 days. The notice, which I explained, and I don't have an issue with it. It's up to the this commission. But, sending a first class mailer, we do post information on our information on our website and also do a legal ad showing telling about the election and what positions are open. They felt that that wasn't enough to get enough people to run for office. So they're requiring that a first class mailer be sent to all city registered voters. That's not one per household. That's all registered voters. So by putting all that information to, you know, there is an additional cost to that. Do we know what that is expensive. I know a one per household mailer depending on the length of the mailer. If it's a postcard is about $8,000 and we have to do that anyway. If there's a poll place change, not it doesn't say about the offices up for election and things like that, but it it would if it's a poll place, change it would be by law. So for say that election could have a poll place change that we have to do a mailer one per household, and then we would have to do this if it's a candidate election. So depending on the length of the flier, the minimal would be 8 to $10,000 for a one per household. As far as the voter should note that, I mean, if you're voting on this thing and you don't realize the cost, and so you can decide if it's a waste of taxpayers money, it depends on if it's a half page or full page, and this is to every voter, not one per household. How does this commission feel? I mean, I have some comments, but I'm just going to wait to see how Commissioner Eisner well, I again, I watched this. It was extensive to even understand, let alone to try to pawn this off on our poor residents, to decide. So I think even if it does go to the residents for a referendum, and it's no offense, I don't think they're going to understand it because I had trouble understanding it, when, you know, my I learned that when something isn't broken, don't try to fix it. We've been running it like this for a long time. I really don't think we have more problems trying to get, volunteer boards than we are to get people to run for office. If you want to run for office, you know how to do it. So to try to give people, you know, more time or to changes, you know, it's ideal in the ideal world. But, you know, I just think who's explaining this to the to the people. It's very difficult to understand. So that's my comment. Also, I just wanted to add that, you know, it's required by law that we do a notice of an election, on the third week and the fifth week prior to the election, in addition to that, we as a city do an ad for qualifying as well that basically says the dates of the election when the qualifying period, which is how long can we post the other on our website? And, you know, it's available for anyone as they come in two, three weeks, is was what we do now qualifying period. Currently we do. It's eight days. And like I said, my issue is not with the 30 days. I if it's whatever the board would like it to be and how we work, that is it depends when the ballot language is when the final ballot language is due and I work backwards, I work a calendar. When elections come about. So currently it's the eight days are according to it's our code says it's 100 and it begins at the 112th day prior to the election. And it goes to the 104th day of the election. So it's only a eight day period currently. So we would if y'all want this, which is not an issue to me for the 30 days, all we would do is change the code to adjust the 112 and 104 days, so it gives it a 30 day period for someone to. But at any time I explained to the charter, even though we have a qualifying period, the only thing you do during that qualifying period, as you all know, is we do like a three step process. So you could come in years before and find out information you can. We give your cards to you. So you're kind of pre-qualified prior to that qualifying period, and the only thing you do in your qualifying period is you pay. You know, we can accept the fees. The state assessment or the city's, fee. Qualifying fee. Until that qualifying period. And then, the only other thing, you know, you do in that eight day period is you, you sign, how you want your name on the ballot. But even though it's eight days, you could do it at any time prior. Thank you. Ma'am Commissioner Kelly, yeah, I think this is total overkill, you know, it's the year 2025 coming up. We've got all kinds of ways to communicate with people. We've got social media, we've got all kinds of ways that we could increase our, opportunity to communicate, you know, saying, putting in our charter, you know, first class mail, it's the charter is not supposed to be this, like, you know, minutia of thought. It's supposed to be it's supposed to have broad context to it. So this is a this is a no to me, a complete no. Thank you. No, I agree with go ahead, Commissioner, I just I agree with Commissioner Kelly on this. That was, you know, that's the way I saw it. Also, we do live in a state of the art, and this is more so tailored to the antiquated way of snail mail and it would be. It is. And it's just it's a it's a it's a wasted, cost, because 99% of what we get in the mail these days, we just throw in the garbage. So, I mean, and that would get thrown in the garbage. So I really think if you're looking to go and run for office, you know how to run for office. Come on. You don't have to run for office. You shouldn't be in office. Having just gone through the process, I can I can echo that. And the clerk's office does such a great job. I mean, you, you know, when, when the qualifying period is I have no problem with lengthening it a little bit, but 30 days might be too much. But I don't want to. Do you know, 2 or 3 per household which is going to in theory happen. I, I don't think that that's necessary. Maybe we can broaden it and use the community pages and things of that nature, which I know Michelle does a lot of, but we could increase that area. But I don't want to the cost are getting to be astronomical at this point. Anyway I agree with this commission. I just just like Commissioner Eisner said, if you want to run for office, you're going to run for office. And so, you know, it's I don't think sending a mailer out to let somebody know 30 days before is going to incentivize them that much more to, to run. So I would not like to see this presented at all. I have it down as a no. Okay. Me too. We're we're at, section 12 zoning powers. There was the other ones that were scrivener's just to, and we're talking about the elimination of, special exceptions. So the sentence is really 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 composed of five members and two alternates, who shall vote in the absence of a regular member to hear and decide appeals solely from administrative staff decisions. The suggestion is to strike for special exceptions and leave the rest of the language. And for variance variances to zoning and land use regulations of the cit. Do you wanna make that just a Scribner? This one is, because special exceptions are not really heard by the board of Adjustment. And I believe that was the recommendation of that's what I wanted to write, that the recommended. Yeah. This was recommended by staff. Well, there's no way to define what special exceptions are either. What page are we on? We are on page ten. The top paragraph, which is, section 12. Zoning powers. And it's just a removal of something because it's not being done. I'll put this as a maybe, but I just think it's so minute of a situation if we're not if the Board of Adjustments isn't coming across these special exceptions that, I just don't want to waste the ink. And for the voters on other questions that have a little bit more importance to them. So it's really one that if the board is in agreement, this is one that's just really not needed for the language, for the referendum that we're doing. We agree. I agree it was a maybe or what I'm putting it on the maybe list, but giving the reasoning that it's not needed and it's part of the, you know, making the referendum too long, there may be enough for me. So section, section 14 is the next one. Internal auditor. There is an addition, to this section, which is under under under I, to add asset manager and city attorney report all findings of noncompliance issues to the city manager. And the city attorney to review before being provided to the Board of commissioners. This was in light of I think, the issue that came up this past year that there wasn't enough checks and balances before it came to you in a way that caused maybe more problems than we could have handled. But it's in the procedures now, this, this, this is what happens now. So this is just the way you're doing it already? Yes So that's the key. We're doing it internally. But it wasn't in the charter. Does it need to be legally? No. It was a policy or procedure that is correct. Okay You know we did make it a polic. Yes. So, I think we I think we went to some of the no. Or maybe this I would say no because we've we've already gotten it in and I don't want I don't want potentially one situation to be the reason for a big charter amendment or a question added to it to and for the residents. Focus on these charter amendments when they're voting on them, they save it. If we don't have enough, right. This is already a policy. So that would we'll address it that way okay. Do them I put it on the no list okay. The next one is section 16. This is the city manager acting city manager. So there's a couple of things in here. Let's go to the first one which is G and under G. It is having keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city and then adding prioritizing future capital improvement programs and make such recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the affairs of the city. So it's adding that the city manager would have to use that prior prioritization, of capital improvement programs. Isn't that being done right now? Yes. It's been it's being done and has been being done. I didn't hear anything in the testimony. It's you're saying policy or procedure? Yes, I agree, Vice Mayor. It's a no, I think I think it goes without saying that to not even be in the charter. So you know, so this will be a no. Yeah. That it's already being handled. Already Okay. Then there was a decision. Then we spent some time on this adding a assistant city manager, as a formal position, we have an acting city manager position. And that's when the city manager is out of, the city limits. But this would be someone to appoint as the assistant city manager, subject to the approval of the board of commissioners as a full time position. Vice mayor, I, I, Commissioner Eisner. Just so you go ahead, Commissioner. So this I was dead against, and I'll tell you why it should be up to the city manager whether they want to have a assistant manager or not. And this was something I brought up when Doctor Carey was here, it should be up to that person. It should not be up to the charter. Some people are more comfortable working on their own, and they don't really. They're not, you know, if there's issues that come about, you know, then the city manager has to correct that problem, through possibly even suggestions of the board. But you can't force somebody to have an assistant. I just don't understand that. Well, I think our current situation is, you know, there's several different times where, you know, chief Young police chief Young may be the acting city manager for a few days or Fire Chief Young may be exactly the acting. When, Mr. Lacourse is gone for whatever reason. Because. Or, Paul Smith, depending on what may come up for the next few days, or, you know, where we're at. So. And this board approves the, the choices of, of up to three that the city manager brings to you. You approve those three people that can act in that capacity. So it's a partnership, as it should be, between the city manager and his bosses. The commission to do that with. And again, this can take this is absolutely something that should not be in the charter. This is so far it should be in the charter. It's beyond things. Because again, I know a lot of managers and they give you 5 or 6 different ways to accomplish that. But not by this. And who knows what Mr. Rudd preference is. Who knows what my preference is, who knows what situations change in three years? If someone else came in and doing different the mandate in the charter, that's something this board and the city manager does not. Not in a charter. I have more I wanted to add to that. The other thing you have with this kind of situation is you need one person that the buck stops here. Once you start putting assistant managers in, you have multiple people making requests, and that's when confusion comes. So and so told me the assistant manager said this. The city manager said tha. And you know, it just makes for confusion. You need to have one person in charge. Unless that person is so overwhelmed that they need help in doing what they do, well, that would be as it is now if right? I've always felt anytime a city manager came to me and talked about it, we decided how would they or she wanted to go about it and we did it right. But it shouldn't be. Doesn't have to be tied to the charter, right? Exactly. It shouldn't be forced. All right, Mr. Glass. No, no. Okay. This is a no. Yes Yes, it's a no. Yes. Okay. The next one, which was spent a lot of time on. And now that I'm looking at the question, I think the first paragraph will have to be amended. No matter what we do. Well, if, if, unless these two sections are eliminated, but I a lot of time was spent on this and, it was recommended that the city manager, this is the city manager based on what the recommendation was for that position. Fire chief and police chief are required to reside within the city limits. The city limits were defined a little broader because there are many parts in even in the unincorporated area down Klosterman that are considered part of Tarpon Springs, so it was an attempt to expand where individuals can live, but they're still within what is considered the boundaries of Tarpon Springs. That was the first one. I don't think there was really a lot of controversy on that, the second one is the one that was a little more controversy on, and that so I would ask that maybe we should take the first additional one first and under residency and see if everybody's okay with that. Let's, let's do them separate. Okay. So section 20, the first one about having the city manager fire chief and police chief within the city expanded city limits. Is I believe we have that right now. You do. It's just expanding the city limits. As in just some of the unincorporated pockets of Tarpon Springs and, yes, and Vice Mayor. It's also limiting, or it's changing what the first paragraph was because we had the requirement of the city manager or assistant city manager, city clerk, administrative services director, fire chief, police chief and public services director, development director and planning and zoning directo, within the city limits, so, so, okay, so this we're actually going to be removing reducing the amount of people. Yes. Until you get to the second one. That's right. But there's another question that I want to throw into this, okay, they had here ten miles of city hall. This is for an emergency situation. We would never be going to City Hall. We would be going to the police and fire. I'm sorry, Commissioner, I think we're just going to say vice mayor suggested we take them separately. Sorry So the first paragraph would just be the city manager, police chief and fire chief within the expanded areas. I hate getting ahead of myself. No, and not now. I understand why you. The two come together at the same time. I mean. I mean, I don't think there was much just to bring you back into it. There really wasn't, much disagreement. If any, on the on the first paragraph, because those are the individuals that need to live within the city, and if the commission is okay with that one, I think everybody pretty much knows those are the what do you think city manager in. Let's go ahead. So my whole thing was that was fine. And this is where you got to get to two because I thought what would have been fine in part B was that the people not named up above the public services director, development director, planning and zoning, all those people that were taken out up there were given a broader scope down there with this mile limit, and I thought it was good. But when I made sure there was a clarification, what they did, which I'm very surprised all that group of people did this. And this is the one area which I cannot imagine the way they changed it is. And I and I asked Mr. Saul to make it clear, you are talking about all department heads that are not listed above is the above paragraph, which is those ones you took out of having live in the city, but now you're giving them a farther radius, which is better for them. That's good, but their intentions made. No, no. This goes for all department heads. So now you're taking the department heads that have never been in the charter for residency or anything. These poor people out there that's been doing this hard work, all of a sudden you're putting the, the, the finance director, you're putting the, the cultural affairs director, you're putting all these people in a residency thing and you're trying to call it, well, you can live within this much. Or if you move, we have people like Janine Lewis who lives away, away. If she wants to move to another neighborhood out there, she can't do it because she's got these requirements. So what you're going to do is lose a gem that we hired and got here. And yes, she travels from afar, but she's a gem. There is no justification of any other city. There is no reason of anything. Go wrong. Why you would throw other department heads in a residency requirement. They're archaic. People aren't. Even. Then they're sitting there giving city managers ten mile, 15 mile radius and stuff to hire one all over the place everybody's going away from and all of a sudden we're putting something that hurts the city. It hurts the man taking my place because when he replaces the next three job openings, you're putting restrictions where Oldsmar and Clearwater and Dunedin, they'll be dancing because because they're going to have to live in the city and they can hire them. Go. It just is something that's hurt the city. It's going to hurt the city manager. It's in the city. And I can't understand why they would do it. You put the names above that we've identified in many years of the charter. We identified those other people, public services for some, for some good reasons, some I don't quite, but they're okay. There's some good reason. So you do A and you do B to cover those people. You're there. You don't throw in all the people who had no idea this was coming on. You didn't talk to them about it in your charter. You didn't talk. By the way, we're going to throw you into a residency and if you live outside, it's okay. But you can't move because if you move, you got to move. In the city, they didn't involve those people and how they set their when, when the attorney tried to call to qualify that and just he can describe it was just a dismissal of what he said. We were pretty clear on it. That's what we're going to do. And just, you know, one of the one of the committee, you can watch the film to see which one. It was just completely dismissed it. And yeah, we've snuck in this thing to get all the apartment just like that. The same people that want all police officers to live in the city, which would have been impractical and we'd have been the sheriff's department now because you never would have got there. The same people 20 years ago that tried to do that stuff. This is this is just so bad. It's it. I don't want to go out on my meeting riling people up and be quiet and stuff, but but this one hurts. The city hurts. The ability to put somebody in is going to affect us for years. If they change the language to all department heads named above that were in the restriction list before and give them more duties, it's fine. You throw people in for absolutely no reason they can justify there would be no reason you could justify why you throw all the department heads in there to do that. That is the that is the thing we should. If it gets on the ballot, you'd be out there with signs campaigning to vote no against it because it absolutely makes zero sense. Yeah. Mr. Collins, you know, you know, I was thinking of a hypothetical. So Janine Lewis lives across the street from her mother. Her mother dies and she inherits her mother's house. She can't move in it. She can't move in that house. Wow. That's true. Yeah I mean, what are we doing? You know, we. It's hard enough to find good people, and we're going to narrow this scope down, narrow our our population of people that could work for the city. I mean, we've got we've got people that, you know, Ron Herring has never lived in town. You know, he's out somewhere. I mean, he we get great service from him, Janine Lewis, same thing. So it's. Yeah, this this whole thing's got to get this is a this is like my big X, like big thick x, Commissioner Eisner. Yeah Well, this is unfortunately archaic thinking. And today, you know, the whole purpose of having people be near is in the event of an emergency. And this none of those people have to be here in the event of an emergency. And even if they are, if there is an emergency, there's zoom calls, there's phone calls. I mean, we're dealing with, decisions on horse and buggy. That's what I see. And, you know, you just can't change that, the city manager will tell you we have harder. Hardest time trying to find qualified people that even want to work in the city. And now we're taking our good people and putting restrictions on them. Even if you grandfathered in, you're still dealing with people that you can't get here, and you didn't even deal with the ones that are on, you know, two and 3% interest rates on their home. And now they have to sell their home to move in. I mean, it's just, I know this was to try to do, this was their goal, and I know this it was to try to bring camaraderie. And, they should come here for First Friday and we should all sing Kumbaya when we go to the wine society and everywhere else. But, you know, that's not the real world. And, you know, we have people that travel outside our town to frequent Dunedin and elsewhere, and we have people coming here this whole purpose is needed for one thing and one thing only. The event of a hurricane or the event of a natural disaster. You need to have the people that make those decisions at your fingertips. Other than that, we really don't care. We shouldn't care if they you know, I know Trish drives in from quite a distance and she does it early, super early in the morning so she doesn't have to deal with traffic, you know, that's just how life is these days. This was an idea back in the day, and not now. Trish ain't going nowhere. I just want to. I just want to clarify. Go ahead. Commissioner, there are three paragraphs that I'm looking at under residency. Right. We're talking about the third one. Okay, but but the first one is that staying. It's staying but will be modified depending on what is ultimately decided. So are we supposed to pick the second or third one or both? The second one I got consensus that that everybody was okay with the second one. Removing the assistant city manager, but leaving the manager. Police chief and fire chief as being required to live within. That's what the way I heard it. But I want to make sure because sometimes you're muffled and I don't always hear. No, that's the third one. I'm getting direction that it is not necessary. One thing I would also add, just so that people consider, a lot of times department heads and directors are not going to necessarily frequent your restaurants, because they don't want to be seen out there or, or depicted as, you know. Right. So frankly, the opposite is really true. People want to live in another city because while they work for the city, it's not necessarily a good thing to be seen out and about at some of the events that aren't city sponsored events. Trying to say it in a nice way. They don't. They're not going to go to the bars. They're not going to go to the restaurants, and again, I hope the board just rethinks. I know I ranted on this stuff, but they wouldn't listen when I when they wouldn't listen when Andy brought, they wouldn't listen. How to fix it is you're helping the ones not mentioned. You've already got ones that pass charters including some of these people on this board that were in other charter boards. These are people they deem should live in the city to take those ones you didn't mention and move them down to whatever the radius from City Hall, you're still helping them because you're expanding it from living in the city to giving. If they put those people up above, like it says here, all department heads who are listed above. But I wanted to clarify because it but they made it clear that it's all department heads, so if they would just name those people, we got the four that have to live in the city, which are all emergency managers, all proper, all good, and then those other 4 or 5, they would be in this category here. And then the ones who have never been in it are still never in it. That's the easy fix to put those names above into this B portion and to be fine because you're helping them. I can agree with that. But it seems like the first, very first paragraph and the second paragraph contradict one another. To me, they are not clear at all. The city manager I understand, he said, and I brought up and he he brought it up also, and I, I restated it the if we take the people from the first paragraph that are not the police chief, the city manager, and fire chief, and we put them in within ten miles, that seemed to work for at least the city manager and how we looked at it. But by adding all department heads and directors, there's the concern that we won't we'll lose people and we won't get people to apply. I would think we would, because it's going to be some people can't. I know, like you mentioned, police officers and firemen, a lot of them don't live in this city because they can't afford to. Right. There are a lot of people that live, a lot of firefighters, police officers live in Pasco County, where they can afford to live and, you know, commute in. And, and that's true of a lot of departments and it's not just Tarpon Springs. It's every city. And further, you can go from city limit to city limit in this town. And depending upon the time of day and the road you take within minutes. Right. So I think the ten miles should be measured from the city limits and not from City Hall. That that's something that should be changed. Yes. That'd be nice too, that we haven't talked about. That was another suggestion, but that one wasn't neither one of the suggestions that the city manager made were accepted, they didn't even talk about them. We talked we talked a lot about this. No, but they didn't talk at the time. When you asked to change them, they just dismissed them. And that's because the quote was, it's pretty clear what we said, and it's not what he said. They they didn't listen to that portion. The last one, they just dismissed even looking at it, which is the problem. And that was one individual. But you had the rest of them on that board who should have said, well, wait a second, this is an important issue. They sat there and let it go. So, you know, but but they can fix it easily by putting those names above up there. And I think it's fine then, because you're, you're, you're giving them more of a range because he kind of, kind of. So I my understanding from the board is that as written, it is a know. However, how does the board feel with the city manager's suggestion that we take the department heads mentioned in the first paragraph, put them in the third paragraph, and instead of saying all department heads, it's the department heads mentioned above and expand the ten miles from the boundaries. Yeah, I'd like to see it. 20 miles. 20 miles. I mean. I'm and I prefer him to take it out and not have the ones up above. But this is the compromise. Yeah, I would, I would too, but if it's a compromise, yeah, I think it should all be, should be taken out. But we as a slowed down for a second. When you say all things should, we should all be taken out. You're talking about all department heads and directors. Yes. And then given the ten mile, there shouldn't even be a limit, is what? Okay, that'd be nice. But if we're in the sake of getting somewhere in between, everybody can live with. That would be a fallback. But. So I think you got the ones living in the city that need to be in the city, and the rest of them can get for emergency purposes. They can the fire chief and police chief. I think both told them, the rest of the people you got, the people getting there that needs to be there. So yeah, I, I still think there's a conflict in paragraph one to paragraph two, but there, there is. I will change that. Commissioner It needs to be cleaned up. Yeah, I'll change it. I noticed that too. I agree with you. All right. Because at the same time, I mean, where does that leave the city clerk with these changes? She would actually go down to part three, right? The city clerk would go down to part three. Yes Okay, now, vice mayor, do you want me to also offer, the 20 miles if they're willing to look at that? I know everybody's upset about the third paragraph, so we have a couple solutions. The one the city manager said, the one the, vice mayor has said, I can go back with them. With all of them. Just to clarify, my first choice would be to throw it out. But if there has to be a compromise, the compromise would at least be people who knew they had residency requirement from the start. Well, you know, before I got in the office, I would have said, everybody needs to work in this, live in the city and so, you know, all department heads. And I said that before, but you know, times are changing technologies, you know, has us more you know, not in our desks all the time. You know, right in front of our desks. So it's, it's ever changing. And plus, we want we want the best of the best, and I don't want a few miles to make a difference in that. And people coming in and applying to the city and working here. So what is this commission? Think about the radius. I mean, I don't want nothing less than 20 miles. If at all. You know, how does the rest of this commission feel? I think it should be greater than than ten. And then from the city limits, not city limits. Right. What do you think, Commissioner Eisner? Well, I know they spoke about the city limits and the issues that came about is our boundaries are so warped on Klosterman versus the areas that they decided to make it a one city like city Hall. I thought it should have been, the police station anyway, because that's more centrally located, but I'm really against putting any sort of limitations of how far you are. I mean, if I have to go back to Covid, everybody worked from home and we seem to get the city running, when I was in Australia, there were whole buildings that nobody showed up to because everybody worked from home. I mean, you know, if your job details that you have to be in, then you need to have, a distance away and the distance away is really for, again, for emergency services. It is not that you could complete your job because there are people that leave for in the morning to get where they have to be by eight. And there are people that leave the 10 to 8 to be there at eight. So it's up to the person to whether they show up to their location of where they're neede. Not for us to sit there and decide how far they want to commute. I still don't understand it. I know there were times when I was up north that I it was a ten minute drive, and it turned into a two hour drive. I mean, does the person say, no, you can't work here. I don't want to put restrictions on the restriction should be for emergency services, a hurricane, a natural disaster and nothing more. And Commissioner Collins wouldn't like any. Go ahead sir. Oh I, I agree. I I take paragraph three and scrap it completely. I don't even think a compromise is in order. First of all, we talked about our city manager having some discretion when he's interviewing people for these positions. And he knows where they live. He's going to make his, his or her decision, you know, I was an audit manager for a CPA firm in downtown Tampa. I lived in Tarpon. I drove, what is it, 26 miles to downtown Tampa. I got there every day. I put my ten hours in a day and went home. When I went home, you know, they don't care where I'm coming from. They just want to make sure that I got there and did my job, so I just, I don't I don't like these at all. I mean, again, we're it we're we're just shrinking the population of choices that will have to fill positions. And I don't think we should be putting any further, handcuffs on our ability to hire good people. So if some guy lives in you know, Carrollwood and wants to work here. So what? You know, he's here on time, he does his job and goes home. And where do we how many? I mean, up north. There's people that live in Connecticut. Vermont? They work in downtown New York, okay. They travel 2 or 3 hours. That's just their business. I, I, I was, I had a gig in, in Orlando, for five years, and I got up. I left my house at seven, got there at nine, stayed till 530. Got home at 730. You know, I didn't it was, you know, I it wasn't the healthiest thing for me because I was stopped at like five fast food places on the way home because I was. But anyways. But you know, they didn't care. Was I there doing my job? Yeah. Did I show up every day? Yeah. They were happy. You know. They didn't care how long I traveled. I just I don't like the whole concept. So. So I think that for section three with the miles, I think that just needs to be removed in general, that we have a consensus from this board that no radius of miles. My only question is now, does, we tell them no on that one portion and then we agree to the city manager, fire and police chiefs then like for example, where does that leave the department heads? Like the city clerk's. We will fall into the no radius as well in a few. Right. We would correct the top paragraph and basically the emphasis would be that the city manager, the fire chief and police chief must live within the expanded city limits. And no one else has to. I'm okay with that. How's the rest of the commission feel? So I'm okay with that. Okay okay. The next section is under purchasing and finance general. So there's a few different things here. One is expanding or increasing the city manager's authority to expand instead of 25,050 thousand. I think that was looked at as 25,000 is just not not enough in today's, purchasing issues. And these are for budgeted goods or services, and this is without competitive bidding. Now, remember there is a Florida statute that requires, certain competitive bidding. And that's what we would go to. As you can see in the second one talks about $50,000 or more, according to state statute. So, the thought here was that 25,000 was just not enough. And I, I agree okay. So everybody's okay with that. I can only see that being if we don't approve it just people coming up here to speak on consent agenda items that should go without saying. So okay. There is a deletion. Deletion Okay. It was deleted. It was deleted. Under the requirement for monthly financial statements shall be made available in the office of the City Clerk and collector and quarterly financial statements shall be made available in the public library number one Irene, aren't these posted on our website? And this was a request by Mr. Herring. Right. So they are posted online. We post these anyway and it doesn't. It's not necessary and shouldn't be in the charter because like you said, we've advanced in technology and so people aren't going to the library to look for these things. We can either send it to them if they require it, or we post it on the website and it's quicker and this is just something that we don't need to do. So that's why that was put in there. Is the board okay with that? Yes yes yes. Okay. This next one, we spent some time with section 26, the sidewalk Improvement Fund. So, they want number one, a, improvement plan by 2027. And then if you go into, about the withdrawal, what they're looking for is, frankly, a plan to be in place to, fix the sidewalks that has been in place. But there's this fund that they want to use these monies from the fund and ultimately deplete it so that the funds are being used. Don't we do that now? So the, but and I don't know how much is it, do we know now? It's just the we do 100,000 and we can take 100 for 100 to make 200. It's a one on one match. This changes it to for every one of our 100,000 that we can take 300,000 from the fund. So it increases the sidewalk fund so that things are improved quicker. That's in general what it is. So I have a question. City manager, let's say you got $300,000. You have the manpower to put in 300,000 worth of cement and sidewalks. Well, again, it says up to 300,000. So we may be a situation. We have the manpower to do 200,000, not 3 or 300. With our our 100 match, we would do the match to our capability of that. We could put it in or contract to have it in, which is why it's important. It's up to for 100 you can get up to 300,000. So, so, you know, we could can we add at the city manager's discretion? Well, it it's implied in there, by the way it's written, and you improve it when I bring it to you. And I put the 100, we get 200 or whatever from them. You you approve it. So it's the city manager and commission approved thing to do. Good. Well, can we start with what's my ramp to try to get in from outside on the sidewalk? Yes. We I mean, this is, this is a really looked at as a win win for the city, if they're like like you mentioned, Commissioner, if there's an ability to, do more improvements during the, the year, then they'll be done and there's money to do it. So, I think there's a big concern by the, the commission that, that sidewalks really needed to be. I mean, that we have some problem with some sidewalks. They need to be updated a little quicker. It's just words. But I need to get a clarification in the past, the sidewalk investment Fund was two streets and Sidewalks Investment fund was $2 million. And we were basically spending the interest from that and matching it. And that's where it was coming from. Yes. And now they're saying they want to deplete that whole 2 million. Well, they're saying that they want the money used and that it should ultimately just go back to a budgetary item once it's depleted or it's, you know, right. What they did was change that to let us use 100,000 per year at time to dip into the principal. I'm okay. I'm okay with increasing the amount of sidewalks that we do. I have no problem with that. But if we're going to deplete that $2 million down to zero, that's ideal. But then my experience has been if getting it back in the budget and the reason why that 2 million was put there was so that we had money every year to do sidewalks. And until that time they weren't being done on a regular basis. So I don't know that depleting that fund is what we want to do. Again, Commissioner, there is more of a I mean, the commission really needs to do that on an annual basis. There are liability issues that come across with sidewalks that are not maintained. Well, I agree, what what myself or or what Charles Rudd will do is not okay. We know we got whatever is left. 1.9 million. The purpose is not to deplete it. But if we need from the 100 100 match, we need another 70,000 to do a issues that are very Ada. I'm okay with the loss of what we've got another 70 we can dip in. So why they were talking about spend as much as you can. That's not what a good city manager. That's not what Charles Road would do or I do. But there may be a case where we need an extra 50 or so and we can do an extra group of sidewalks to school routes or something, and we do it then. But the job is not to deplete it. We've just got that extra money to do it. If in the budget process, for example, like we property values have gone up the last 2 or 3 years, maybe we can slide some more under there out of the budget. But I, I don't want to deplete that account because I was here before we had that account. And I remember things were not getting done. And it's not that I don't want to. I do want to do them. I want to increase them. I want sidewalks where there aren't sidewalks, etc. plus, as you said, Mr. Saltzman, they we the liability was we need to do it. So I'm not against spending and improving sidewalks. I just don't want to put that fund down to zero. Well, I think, Commissioner, what the what the committee looked at is really they want the sidewalks done. So if there's money there to do sidewalks, they want it to be used. And I agree, but I understand exactly what you said, but I, I'm just trying to give you the feel for how they. Can I make a comment here, please? So you have to go back to when these, money was put in. If the interest rates at the time were where we were making big interest rates and we were utilizing the money, that's a great thing. If it's a 1 or 2%, then and we're leaving money, they're putting risk of liability. If somebody's getting hurt, then it's crazy talk. And I'm not saying what you're saying, I agree with you, but things change. And if sidewalks are deteriorating faster than need be, we may have to spend more money, and that doesn't mean depleted. That means borrow more money, which is what I think you're saying. Our budget. Yeah, I agree with that. But budget more money so that things get taken care of, but, you know, right now, interest rates are not, supplementing what we utilizing. So you might have to not have a $2.1 million, threshold. You may have a 1.7, you may have a 1.5, but at least we need to utilize that to get ahead of having people trip and break their necks. So that's my and remember this language says until the fund is depleted the fund may never be depleted. Correct. If you do it you know correctly. It's done correctly. Yeah. Everything has to be done within reason. I just want to make sure that you continue to do it. Sure. And this board controls that because you'll say no on when I bring it forward to you. You'll say, no, we're not. That's too much. We've dipped into it. So is everybody okay with those, proposed check changes? Yes. This is one that we. Is this one okay that you will you want as a referendum to spend more? It possibly. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I have a question. City manager or city attorney when it says just above that, just above the two. Minimums, it said the city shall adopt a sidewalk improvement plan by 2027. They were saying that there wasn't a specific plan. The concern was that it was just arbitrary as opposed to saying, we're starting in the, you know, this end and we're going to move this way, or we're going to do this section, and then we're going to do that section. That's what they were looking for. It's a policy thing. We already have one. Now it is. It would be easy to do it a plan for there. But again that's a policy thing. This is already in place. So I could say that was here what two months ago in the process of the budget and said that he felt he could he could do what needs to be done for 600,000. I specifically remember that. Now, whether or not we've got 600, 600,000 is a different question. But there's definitely a plan to get. And you remember when I said we're going to start immediately to look forward and look what our needs are in the next 2 to 3. And we're going to have that. We already told you, we're going to have you that plan. I don't need the 2000 or Mr. Rudd doesn't need the 2027, yes. We were already doing surveys to prepare, especially if we get this ability to have some extra money, a little bit extra money to get the most severe. And we got there's a rating basis that's a where everything is rated for Ada for that. And and that's how you get a point system. Just like the roads here. And you do you spend the money until your most your most serious ones. Are you. And you spend that money until it stops. Yeah So that is already in place going on now. So that's another one of those things. That's a policy decision. And you know it can be in there. It doesn't hurt anything. It doesn't necessarily need to be because I told you at budget time we're doing that now to prepare for the next 2 or 3 years and to really get them done. And in a priority basis of the need and the danger and the safety aspect. Thank you. That's the way that's the way I remember it, that we had a rating system. So we knew what was poor and what was a three and what was a two and what, you know, and I think we get that pretty much every year. And, and, and we also are allowed to correct it or change it. What. So yes, I think it's a little redundant wording, but so if so, that first sentence that was added we're going to recommend no on that because it's policy, already in effect. And we do it through the rating system. Yes. I mean I have Mr. Duncan sent me the sidewalk priority report about not even a month ago, if that. So there is a process for it. So exactly, and so then the other one, we're okay with the three adjusting to them. Okay. And what he misses, I make the call to him and let him know. Yes, he does. Okay, so we're at section 30. This is under the initiative and referendum. There were a couple changes. One change was to lower the requirement of verified signatures from 15% of the qualified electors to 10%. The other change was to okay, the language says such referendum election shall be held within 90 days from the date of filing thereof, I think Irene brought up and discussed this, that and we all discussed the fact that if we have to call for a special election, it's very expensive. Irene, do you remember what the amount is? Roughly So, it used to be you can call an election within 90 days. However, now that the supervisor of elections does not support elections, they tell you when you can have elections. So that's why we changed the language to say at the next city or county election. So whichever came first, because otherwise the cost would be pretty extreme for. Yeah, it depends if you're doing a piggyback election versus a standalone. If we had to do a standalone I, it would be more than 35. Oh yeah. Easily stand on the election is closer to the $40,000 mark. Right. That's what I had been told before was around 40,000. So now what? We thought that language would be good as far as the threshold, the 15 to 10%. What are the rest of the municipalities requiring? Did we do. I'm sorry. Did what are the rest of the municipalities doing generally between the 15 and ten. It's more towards the ten. Yeah. They it ranges, I think ours was we have let's say we have approximately 20,000 voters. So if someone was challenging something or you're bringing back a, initiative referendum, they would have to get a petition of at least the way it stands now is they would need 15% of the last registered voters that you have on the books at your last election. So that would be roughly that was 3000 versus 2000. And if we can get 2000 people to sign an official petition for whatever it is, you know, then I think it would be important enough for the voters. It's. Yeah, 15% with this talent and the way the voting blocs are, I don't think can ever really happen. So I wouldn't mind 10%. It's just seeing the importance of adding it to a charter question. So are you saying maybe on the 15 to 10 I'll let this what is the rest of the commission think? Right, okay. What do you think, Commissioner Eisner? I don't think it's necessary to present for a vote. You don't think the percentage is necessary? Yes. Well no, no, I'm saying that we you got to have some kind of number. I would be willing to go with 10%, but as a maybe to present to the 10% on the maybe list. But is everybody okay with putting the election, at the next city or county election as opposed to the 90 days? Yes, yes, yes. I also would like to see what the numbers are or where we are, because I'll see if I can try to find it. I did do a presentation. No, no, I didn't mean that. I mean, I meant the numbers of how many yeses versus I will tell you that, that in a second. I'm sorry. Yeah. We're writing them. Yeah. Because as we get closer to the end, there's going to be more no's. Well, we're almost at the end. I know that, right now you have. Okay on three. Okay. On three. I okay on the removal of eight, I, section eight L is okay. Section 20, the first paragraph is okay. Section 23 is the increases. Okay. Section 26, except for the policy part is okay. And on 30, this part is okay. So you're talking about one, two, 345678. That you are okay with. That I mean maybe, maybe there are one, two, three, four. Five. And now we're within reach of people, city attorney, what was that? I believe the final one on or the final two on page 14 on page 14? That we just agreed to or. No, you're looking. Well, we did the next the, referendum for the next two. Its amendments. Yeah That's scrivener's. Okay that's just language. The last. Okay. It's the last one that you're on, which is City Hospital section 33. And that was just a clarification that it was just to give the specific name. That we're contracted with the city has a lease with Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc, not with Advent Health North Pinellas, which is what which is a DBA. So our lease is specifically and so the idea was to that we should correct this to reflect who we're leasing with. I have no issue with it. So is everybody okay with that one? Yep. Okay That's it. From what your response will be to their proposals, will type this up and present it to them, with the rationale that the board has presented to us. Irene, do you want to go over the timeline for everything? So once we get this, the we'll give it back to you. The charter Revision Commission. And they will have meetings and they'll decide whether they're going to amend those things or if they don't want to change anything, they don't want to change anything, the final report has to be adopted verbatim by them. And the first reading would be on November 19th, and the second reading would be December third. Depending on which way they they go, then it at that point, the board could decide whether they're going to have their own questions. On some of those items, after that, the, the resolution with the ballot language and the questions will be formed. And that would go before this board on December 17th and given to the county for the election for March 11th of 2025. I would recommend that after we find out what they're going to do, that we, set up either before one of your regular meetings or after one of your regular meetings or a special meeting to discuss if the commission wants to have their own charter, referendum questions, then I believe we would have to do. If that's the case, we would also have to allow, because it would need two readings as an ordinance prior to the ballot resolution. I mean, you could just put it on after a regular meeting if you want to just say yes. There are things we want to discuss. There may not be anything that the board wants to do, it could be added, you know, and if that's true, then we don't have to have any kind of special session. I have a question for you, Irene. How would this, view on a ballot? I mean, would it say commission recommendation versus according to the charter? Yes. The question we have to show how it was proposed, whether it was initiated by the Charter Revision Commission. It could be a public initiative or it could be a BOC initiative. Got it. Okay And then whichever, if you if you were to have a question and you had two contradicting questions, whichever had the higher vote would prevail. Of course. So I mean, I it wouldn't make sense to have anything until you hear what they say in response to what you've said. And then we can see if the if the board wants to do something. For the record, I just want to say to the Charter Review Committee that I certainly appreciate all the time that they put in, and have a tremendous amount of respect. I served 3 or 4 different times on that committee, so I know the work that's involved, I think more so than ever. I also understand that if we have 20 something items on, on a, on a ballot, we, we it I don't think it will work. In the past we've had that 10 or 12 and I think you probably don't have the stats on it, city clerk. But there were there were some that were just skipped over. People just didn't bother, so I think, you know, we want to explain these in the language best we can so that it is understood. And I would say to the Charter Revision Committee, many of the ideas that they brought forth, I think are certainly valid and, and we've, we've identified them as policies and procedures. Some of these things were already doing, perhaps they just weren't aware of it, but I indeed want to thank them. And I want them to understand at least my logic here. I just don't think we can present 20 something items to the public. They did put a lot of time in and they spent, and they went through everything. And we had that discussion also. They're cognizant of it. And I believe also they will be bringing back they also have a list of recommendations that they want to bring forward at some time to the board as well, that they did not choose to put in the charter as a charter change. Right. Just suggestions for you all to consider as policies and procedures. So, okay, so with us, would we be until we hear back from them. And could this be a situation where we say we don't like these items to be presented at all? And they say, well, we don't care what the board thinks. They could possibly still send all 22 items. Oh yes. Wow. I see that as a very antagonistic and I, I hope that that's avoided, so I mean, it would be tough for us to even think of any charter amendments you know, for us to come up with. So let's see how that all plays out. I was interested at some point, and I even talked with the city manager, and this may be a rules and regulations for us as a board, because when I took it to the charter revision, that I mean, they looked at me and said, well, what you're saying any individual commissioner couldn't be rogue and go and do it. And I was just focusing on that sometime, you know, once a year during our regular session meeting, we as a board decide, you know, we maybe have a liaison between one of our board members with our grant writer or whatever, but we and I know we already do it, but there are certain other projects and capital improvement projects we need to try to get appropriation funding as well as grant opportunity in any way we can. And I'd like for us to make that extra step in reaching out to our state and federal representatives. And I'd like to memorialize that in some type of rules or procedures for this board and future boards to have one meeting, you know, several months before this should all even be presented to these, for their budget cycles and everything. So that's something I wanted to work on. But like I said, when I brought that up to the charter Revision Committee, they they took it in a direction of one individual. Commissioner can go rogue, but we can't do anything without all of us together. You know, we don't set the millage rate individually. We don't, you know, do any of that individually. So I wanted that as a responsibility. But, it wasn't taken as well as I hoped. So I'm hoping something like that can happen in our new normal. And in fact, this I think the second meeting in October, we're going to bring that to you because we were told at the beginning of November we should go visit the police. So I believe you're going to have an agenda item to address that. Just what you said. We're coming forward and saying what should we bring to our legislators to bring forward and to memorialize that we do this every year, and it's on the timing of when the legislators tell us, okay, we need your it might not be the same. And it's different. It's been there's been some in July. And this one we were told come the beginning of November. So but the more allies that each year before the appropriation time that we bring that forward to you and again from listening to you, you know, we're going to bring that forward because it's a good thing. It's something we should do, put in policy and do it's a good method to do. So we will be, I think, the second meeting in October, coming to you with some ideas of what we meet with, what we meet with the, the representatives on, and then so, so anytime in the next three months, you know, we can memorialize that. But we will be doing that for this year, and we can memorialize doing it in future years as a policy that we do. It's simple, good and easy and I appreciate it. City manager yeah, just, you know, I appreciate it. Other yeah, I have I understand both sides of the rogue business, first of all, it wasn't defined what rogue was because I heard it, second of all, I definitely think that, there's been issues in not only this, you know, not this board, but in boards all along where people have sent out things on their own. I just think if at minimum, if somebody wants to initiate something, we should all have eyes on it through the city manager so that it is at least even if you don't agree with it, you need to be able to lay eyes on it and not be, not not say no, I don't want that to go because I think we have to speak out of one voice, but yes, you know, they did not actually, because I was listening and I did not hear what, you know, rogue was there's a lot of definitions for that. So, you know. Sure, is there any other comments or discussions on charter amendments, potential charter amendments this commission may want to talk about, or anything before we go to board and staff comments or, this concludes the special session agenda. We are now going to board and staff comments, police Chief, now this is officially Mark's last meeting now, right? Yeah. Hopefully you're not going to have another one in the next 12 days. I think we can work it out, just, thanks for 31 great years of working with you. You've been my boss this whole time and been great. I'm going to miss you. Appreciate it. I know you're not going to say that along the way. I know, remember, the first next meeting on the first is all about Mr. Rudd and the passing of the torch. So you've got three months to. But I appreciate it. I appreciate what was said last night. I know some of you who didn't want to overwhelm me and have me big headed, or waited till today to do it. I just want to see you cry. Yeah yeah. His face is getting red or somethin. City attorney I didn't realize that that that was tonight. But I would say the same thing when Mark, contacted me and asked me to help out as interim, working with him. And I've known him for a long time. Back when I was a prosecutor and he was a police officer. And I've enjoyed it, immensely. And I think you have done a wonderful job, and I'm happy we got to work together towards the end of our career. Yes Thank you. Fire chief. I, too, would just like to thank Mark for everything over the last 36 years of my career, I worked with Mark even before that, playing softball, it's been an honor. And I treasured all the mentoring you've given me through the years and the little backroom talks that we won't discuss. But. And it's just been a pleasure, and I've learned a lot from you, and I wish you all the best in your next chapter. Thank you. You should have seen us warring when we were on the union going against each other, and you should have seen the wars we had. You never thought we'd. But that was just business. And when it was done, we put it away. And city Clerk, I do want to echo what everyone said. It's been a pleasure working with Mark. We've known each other for a long time, and, as police chief, I've worked with him and as city manager, and he thinks he's getting away from the dais. But I moved over here, so we could still leave him, make him sit at the dais. As long as he's here. That's great. City manager, Mr. Licorice. Oh again, thank you for all of you. Every one of you, past ones, I'm going out like I want to go out. I'm going out my way. I'm going out. Positive. That's all you could ask for after all these years. And again, I'm around for three months. I'm not going anywhere living. I may get to be in that audience and stuff there and watch you all. And, so I appreciate it. We got a lot of Mr. Rudd's got a lot of work to do in three months that try to give every piece of knowledge I know about people, places, things in here. But I'm real happy with who's coming. I think he's going to be great for the community, and it's just going to be a pleasure. Turn over that torch and watching him get sworn in and, to carry on the good work that myself and staff and has done. So it was a good choice. It's a good future for us. So that's all you can ask for and be happy about. So thanks. Thanks to everyone on this board and some of the ones that are on this board now, for along the way, I appreciate it. Thank you. Mr, Commissioner DiDonato, I only thing I would add is, you know, I've said it to you both publicly and privately, you will be missed. And I just thank you for your service. I said most of it last night, but, you'll definitely be missed, young man. Thank you, Commissioner Collins. Yeah, Mark, I you said it last night, and I'll say it again, but I started on the police pension board when we were in this building back here. And you were chief and, you know, I've never been yelled at by somebody and enjoyed it as much as you and, you know, I'm going to miss you, but I think we have a friendship that's going to last beyond your tenure as city manager. So I look forward to maybe going to a hockey game or doing something with you and keeping that together, because I definitely value your your wisdom and your guidance, you know, Mr. Rudd's got some big shoes to fill, I hope he can yell like you, because I like it so anyways, you can teach you how to have a more diplomatic way of doing it, but he'll accomplish the same thing. Chase me out of here. Maybe not, as I don't have any time for you. Get out of here. I love it. He's never told me that once, so I don't know how much. I don't know how much you bug him. Commissioner Eisner. He's never said that to me either. So it's, I'm going to take a different aspect, you know, and I've said this to Mark many times, to understand the type of job that he has to deal with is not an easy job. You know, people sit in the audience and they just think that he has a magic wand and everything gets corrected. According to, the person's request. What I've learned here is that every single, decision is always going to be somebody who agrees, and there's going to be somebody who disagrees. I've learned to respect the fact that you think things through, and you try to come up with the most amiable decision, and you stick with your guns on those decisions. It's not I've not seen you cave to, relentless behavior. I've seen you listen and you've rebutted and you've you've explained yourself. One of the hardest things is to get an analogy across where the two parties, equally hate you accordingly. I mean, that's literally what it comes down to. And I think, you know what I mean. Yes, so I've had a an eye opening, deep respect for you, I, you know, I've argued with you, I've yelled. I've. Well, not really. I'm not a yelling type person, but, you know, you've seen my displeasure, I've said things that, you know, as I've grown, maybe I can, you know, say I apologize to some of the quick responses, but, you know, I've gotten to understand how you operate and how you think. And as you know, I've defended you to multiple people because I tell them, well, I appreciate your comments. And whatnot, but you know what? That's not who you are describing, can't change everyone's decision either. So but I will tell you this. I have the utmost respect for you, you'll be missed, I was extremely touched that you want to be my driving Miss Daisy chauffeur while I get my surgery done. But all kidding aside, it is probably the hardest job in the city, you have 20 some odd thousand people and, you know, I like to say that, you know, most people swear by you and some swear at you, and that's a good way to finish up, I really think you do a decent job. You do a good job, you have no malice towards people, and you're always willing to listen. And it's not an easy task. It's, the buck stops on your desk, so I've watched people come up and scream at you and whoop and holler, and sometimes they're right. And sometimes they're wrong. But, you know, you take it like a man, and I take my hat off to you. So I thank you for your hard work. Appreciate that very much. Thank you. And You know, Mark, Mark and I, I grew up with Mark's son. I mean, from John and I from Sunset Hills. Yeah We, you know, we were really good friends. Come over to my house for my birthday parties, which I got pictures of them, Trevor's there too, and, you would take us to the Tampa Bay mutiny games. Remember those indoor soccer? Professional soccer. So, you know, we're from Tarpon Springs and I just mean it the way I mean it, you know, I, you know, I grew up together with his son. You see me grow up as an adult, you know, life is life. Or, you know, and it's crazy to see how you know what I thought before has, you know, changed. And, you know, I've. I believe I've earned your respect. And you've definitely earned mine, and you've been a great mentor. I've been able. I feel like I can call you now if I ever need to talk to you about any advice for the city. And I know you'll give it to me. And you know, the most transparent up front. And give all the information needed for me that's in my best interest, but also for the community. And even if not city related, I feel like I could talk to you about anything. Absolutely And so, it's been a great thing to work with you, I hope, I never, you know, once we got in, I tried my best to not act a certain type of way with you. And after so many months, it really just became natural, just having a good relationship. So, you deserve the utmost respect, professionalism. Very thankful that you decided what you wanted to do. And, we, you know, we're here now. This board appreciates everything. Everyone in this community knows you. You know? So, this may be your last. I guess, official meeting, but you're going to be somewhere around here, you know, we might have. We might even ask you to come up and say something from time to time, so who knows? But appreciate your service. Appreciate you watching, us grow into into this position that we are, that we're in. Just thank you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, thank you, there are no further board or staff comments. This ends the special session agenda meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Item number one. Thank you.