It's unlawful. I'm calling the charter review Commission to order on Monday, June 17th at 2:01 p.m. Welcome all. Michelle, would you do roll call? Doctor. Roop? Yes I'm here, Mr. Collins. Yes, doctor. Yes Miss Jennings? Yes? Mr. Curtis is absent and excused. Mr. seaman here, Mr. tear. Penny here. Okay. Let us move on with public comments. Is anyone from the public here who has a comment they'd like to share with us? Four minutes at the podium. Okay, we're going to skip on, let's go for approval of minutes. Let's start with the May 29th, 2020 four minutes. We did that last week. Am I have I got the wrong one in front of me? Oh, sorry. Did I say the right date? June 24th I think I said June 17th. I apologize, I'm calling to order the Monday, June 24th meeting of the Charter Revision Commission. Thank you very much, the approval of the June 10th meeting, move to approve the minutes of June 10th. Second, any discussions? All in favor? Aye Any against? No motion passes. Okay. All right, the chair and the committee welcome, Commissioner Koulianos to talk to us again about building heights. Now, the commission had asked to have you come back. That was at the meeting I was not at. Is there something in specific that we were going to ask him about? Aside I understand that there was something about building height restriction. We wanted John to talk to us about Giuliani's. I'm sorry. Commissioner Giuliani's brought up that he thought it might be appropriate to have building heights. Right. And it was a that's a pretty complex issue to put in the charter versus and we talked to the planning director also, and I think why we wanted to hear again from John was that I am having a really difficult time hearing you. I don't know what you want me to do about that. So Mr. Koulianos, Miss Vincent did not think it should be in the charter, so we thought maybe we should. And but she did provide us some information that there were 2 or 3 communities in the state that had, some type of restrictions, not municipal wide, but. And they were, Key West was a historic town, and I think Saint Augustine maybe in, Mount Dora? Mount Dora, I can't remember them all, but so the idea was, is to let him flesh out his idea a little more so that we're not just rushing through this thing and either adopting things or discounting things, but having a meaningful discussion about what his intent would be and whether we agree or not. Given that the planning director, which this to me is a planning item, didn't agree or she she thought it was okay in the land development code, but so as a courtesy we said let's bring John back and let him flesh out his idea. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I listened to that meeting. There was so much of it, though that was not understandable because it wasn't recorded. Well, so I just wanted to clarify that it was about building height and it wasn't a different topic. And I'm going to if I've got any of this wrong, you can correct me, what we heard from Renee was that, there are building height restrictions throughout the city, but she does not as yet have an overlay that shows that. And Doctor Ruth, may I add something in response that goes along with what John says? Well, I was just rereading that earlier before the meeting, and I did a very quick, very quick search on on building height restrictions in charters. And I found that there are a number of cities in Florida that have building height restrictions in their charters. Holmes Beach, Mexico Beach, actually, Mount Dora went went, I didn't I wasn't able because it was so quick to find out if the referendum went through. But that's something she gave us, as in their ordinances. But it went to a referendum about being in the charter, too. So it is something that is in charters in Florida and probably elsewhere around the country. So that is an option. I have some notes if you want me to from that. Yes. Let's let's just refresh everyone and then we'll let John have the floor and go further, quickly. Major concerns are density and traffic. In Tarpon Springs. Can the ground support high rises? Recommendation was one story variance above the current, heights. Two stories would require a supermajority, any building five or more stories would require a public referendum. Except government buildings and hospitals, any, well, for the public benefit and to prioritize capital improvements. That's what I have. Are you ready for me? Okay, so I'm caught up. You're caught up? We're all caught up. Okay, so let's let's let's go over this. The town. I can speak, as an elected official who has campaigned for office, who's lived here. For since 1973, that with near unanimity. Nobody that I've spoke to once tall buildings in Tarpon Springs . Okay. I'm let's get right down to the brass tacks, this this charter amendment recommendation is not one that would impact us in the in the immediacy. Like, it's not something right now that people we have. I don't think, our, our smart code, our land development code doesn't have any buildings over five stories in those documents now, but they could be changed by a three vote on the board of Commissioners. If we want to secure our town for the future, then this is a charter amendment that I think would be well received by the community. I'm not going to debate, exceptions, little minor exceptions on this development or that development. I'm not trying to throw a wet blanket over the town. I'm trying to throw a warm comforter over the town so that we know and we can feel secure, that our town is what what most and almost all of us want it to be. It doesn't mean that this charter is a living document. It could be changed later if a if the community decides they want to go high, then there's going to be another charter revision committee and they can change the charter. But I think it is responsible to make it difficult , I'm not concerned about a, a potential developer who may have who thinks this is an obstacle to something. I'm thinking about the city as a whole, I've got a granddaughter probably in my life. We won't see five story buildings. And if there is one, we're giving them a mechanism to get there. But it's this. It will be the residents who decide . I heard in one of the I believe it was your last meeting, you guys got into a whole thing about the residents know better. The residents are smart and I agree they will make a decision. If there's somebody that comes up and wants to build seven stories and it has such a, you know, collective benefit to the community, then then they'll have they'll have a mechanism, but it's going to be difficult. We're putting a significant speed bump up to height. The height in this town. I didn't speak to one person when I was running for office where I asked them, and I'm, you know, I'm still running. It's like I never stopped running. But I didn't talk to one person where I said, and I asked this. I know it sounds like a silly question, but it's not. When you moved here from New York, Illinois, Ohio, wherever you came from, did you move here hoping there would be bigger buildings than there are now? And I didn't get one person saying, I wish there were not one. I think five stories is a fair amount that allows for, for, for decent development. It will allow for, for boutique hotels. It would allow for, housing, it would allow for multi use. It will allow for a lot of things. And, and again in the smart code and in the land development code, there isn't that many places to build five stories anyways, but they can be changed. And all I'm saying is it can't be changed. That I'm talking about public input versus public decision. That's what when I put that, that PowerPoint up there and I don't, I don't care about the whether it's a supermajority of this or a majority of that. I don't really I, I think I as in hindsight, I think I got too much in the weeds. I think this is about and you guys work, you guys worry about the weeds. I think this is a, and I want this to be something where I the reason I'm trying to convince you, I'm going to have an opportunity to make this case when it comes before the board of commissioners. Right But I want this to be made. I want it to be a unified, proposal to the community. Okay So that's why I'm doing the sales job with you. Because I respect your committee, very much so. I think that it's. I think it's something that would be received very well by the community. Extremely well. I don't know anybody who wants higher buildings in five stories. And if they do, they'll have a mechanism. It's going to be a little difficult, but it should be difficult. It shouldn't be an easy thing. And again, I showed you Clearwater and Clearwater had, a public input. They had meetings and such and fine. I'm just saying it's we have we make we have public decision making on items like buying this, stamps property. Right We got that's going to go for the referendum. And we wouldn't have a public referendum to fundamentally change the footprint of our town. Really. So that's where I'm at. Ask whatever questions you have. Do we open it up? The five stories encompasses what height? Well, that's something for you guys to work out. I mean, I to me, I'm thinking, probably 11ft a story. Maybe we're going 55, which is close to the height of the tarpon turtle. Excuse me. I'm tower, turtle Cove, Tarpon tower . Okay. Tarpon tower. Yeah. No the turtle cove. Turtle. Turtle cove. Yeah. Turtle cove is, I think, 53, I believe. So and that's and it's five stories of boats. Any idea, you probably dealt with some of this in the real real estate world. What's the average height of a high story of a five story? I think they they work off 12. So it's about 60ft. 60ft, 12 foot two. The city's existing code. The conflict I see John comes into. You were saying that, you didn't want to let them go more than a story or two stories or three stories with certain parameters. Right? Right. So I think there are places in town, the existing code allows up to 75ft, specifically in the docks area. So they could have accommodated a hotel as my interest. I'm, I'm not positive, but I think that's accurate. So the comments that I made to my comments last time were. That it's I understand I understand scale, which is what you're talking about, the scale of a community and compatibility to a community and the ability to not tie everybody's hands but still move forward, still keep scale. My thing versus our difference is right. You want to catch the whole school of fish, you want the whole net over the whole town. And I, I could see it in the historic district and in the Greek cultural district, because those are already defined areas by map. And at least it would be a place to start and try. And if and if people, you know, it allows the city to have some opportunity for a bigger growth along 19 or, things like that. But I'm not making a judgment call. I'm just against your, your theory. But I mean, we have a six story building along 19 the hospital's six stories, so I think in appropriate areas, you might want to have a little bit more flexibility for investment opportunities to, for the town, but I get the scale part. And I certainly agree that in the National Register district and in the district, I think Tina drew up the cultural Greek cultural district that it's a good place to start. And like you said, it's not big enough. It could always come back and review it and expand it, but it would be, it would be something the well, hospitals would be exempted. That was exempt. Hospitals and government structures and government structures. You know, there could be a water tower, government structure and hospitals will be exempted. That's those are just my comments. I did look, there's a three story building at a, MLK and Safford. Those apartments, they're they're kind of that's a nice scale. If you want to make it three, then we're fine. I'll go three across the town. I'm just saying inside the. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. The cultural district, I would, you know, might not be opposed to three if it were limited, but but when you go citywide I it's a it's a bridge too far for me right now. Well you have you have a different mindset than I do. I'm again I'm talking about I don't want a seven story building on the docks. So I wasn't I mean, if I was telling you that was your example. So that's what the code says. But I think five story across the town, you know, when I was proposing this to different people, I was I was getting most most of the comments back were, oh, let's make it four oh, let's make it three. I'm like, no, no, five spline five is good. And again, we're talking about we still the elected officials still create the smart code, the land development code. They'll still decide those as if we're going to go big. We're going to go over five. Then it has to go to referendum. That's it. It's simple as that. I don't think it's that, it's that complex and I don't I think if we think of every exception, a growth exception, I think we're going to talk ourselves out of something that's going to be important for our future. So let's so I, I and again with, with, I don't I didn't watch miss Vincent's, you know, conversation with, with you folks. So I don't know whether she, she didn't tell me that she was against this, idea because I had conversations with her. But that's fine. She's not a decision maker. And she, you know, she's she's an administrative person. And all due respect to her, we're we're the people making laws. So I, I and we have to and we have to I'm telling this is what I'm I promise you. This is what the residents want. The residents are happy having this, having our town stay a smaller town than Clearwater, Dunedin, and all those towns south of us, we have the lowest amount of density per per mile of population anywhere in the county. And we like it. We like it. So let me ask the city attorney a question. There are places I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure, Andy, that there are locations at the docks that have a 75 foot, height limit. If this if the city did this and they reduced it to five stories, which is somewhat lower than the 75ft, is that some kind of a taking? Okay, then then there's going to have to be carved outs. Well, and that's what I'm saying John is like, well that that's I'm, I'm giving you a big idea. You guys get in the weeds of the idea, okay? I'm just throwing I'm throwing a big idea out there. I, I'm not micromanaging this. And, you know, you guys get in the weeds on it. And if you come back and you and I, if you go back to my meeting. Okay, I know I, I get frustrated at the board of commissioner meetings, too, because I tend to speak in nuances. And guys can't quite handle that. If you go back to my thing, I said, I'm throwing this idea out to you. You guys work on it. You work with your attorney. You guys. I'm just saying it's going to be popular and it's going to be effective and it's going to be helpful to our town and work on it. If we have areas that exceed that, we can always grandfather that. Yeah, let's. Well, let's well, that's let me just finish. Let's let's can you do you mind allowing the rest of the board to have some questions, and I'll come back to you. I promise you I'll have more time. Okay Blood oath. Okay. All right. Let me ask you, John. Let me ask you, John. Sure. I know we have our roles here that we're tend to play out in our theater of life. But what do you what are you afraid of? Of having, some restrictions on height. I'm not afraid of anything, John. I was the one who asked that you come back so that you could embellish on your ideas. I appreciate and understand scale. I think it's a valid point to have a community have scale. I just the only issue you and I have are on the same idea of scale. Yeah. You want to go whole hog. I want to go to the loin. I just want, I want it I want to start the process of protecting the town from excessive growth. You I think you and I agree, you know, I don't think there's very many people in town that appreciate the history of tarpon more than you do. Okay. I know that you and I have had many conversations about the history of tarpon. So we agree. Let's try to come up with something that helps protect our town. That's all. Sounds good to me. Let's do it. We get started somehow. I, you know I'm I government is best served when good people disagree and find common ground. I may want to throw a whole big blanket over the whole town. John doesn't want that. Maybe you guys, some of you, others don't want it. And then we find we find some place where we can have effective government and be effective. And yet I'm. I'm a compromiser. But again, I want to. But you know, my goal is to protect a town. And I know it is yours too. So here we are. I know we banter back and forth, but and we've had these bantering outside of this room. But I respect you and I. And I know where you're where your heart is. So, Well, anyway, I'd like to say that that I think you're absolutely on the right track. And it's my perception that people are in this town because of their, interest fascination in, appreciation of its historic character and its sort of its, its low key charm, you know, and allowing great growth, the difference between tarpon and Dunedin is tarpon is a place that has maintained its history and heritage. And Dunedin has become nice, generic USA, anywhere USA, and has totally eliminated any of its heritage, you know, and it also allowed, for instance, that Hampton Inn to be built over the objections of, of citizen input because it obstructed the view of the bay, you know, but the council went ahead and did it. We same people, same fritzsch, the same guy, Tarpon turned it down. And I mean, when I hear the Tarpon Tower is only six stories and you're suggesting five stories, and with a simple one story variance, you can get right there. I mean, it seems like a no brainer to me that that would be the will of the people. But we can't. I understand the need for more buildings, and I believe you can exempt certain areas when you do this, like along US 19, for instance, which would make a lot of sense to try to, to keep that kind of development in a place that's already experienced, you know, tremendous development and keep the rest of town sort of in its more historic, community character. Would you say that better than I did? You know, I go, I go out, I go, I, I run out at Howard Park about five times a week, and I, I, I sneak in before they actually open. I kind of Jimmy my way into there and, and so usually I'm there when the sun's coming up and every once in a while, if you anybody follows me on Facebook, you'll see my little pops. I'll just say, good morning, Tarpon Springs. Right. And I always take a picture of tarpon and it's just the sun coming up and then I look across over at the Dunedin Causeway and I see their stuff and don't think they wouldn't love to do that along. Tarpon. I mean, I know you say there's houses. I hear this story. I it's like, oh, we're we're already built out what are you worried about? Like again, I brought when I brought my PowerPoint up here, I showed you they could buy an entire neighborhood and go ten, 15 stories up and absorb their land costs in. No. With no problem. And then you don't think that there aren't developers who would love to build a condominium overlooking our beautiful beach and our we have the most water of anyone in the county. We have the best looking, most beautiful sites in the county, and they don't think that those apartments wouldn't sell for millions of dollars overlooking Howard Park to have their own beach out there, to have this beautiful view to, they would so. So just let's do something. Let's do something now and then we can we'll put our head on our pillows knowing we did. You know, that's that's our job, you know. And I'm not up here campaigning. I'm up here talking from my heart. We're here and then we're gone. Right? Our lives are, you know, especially like I'm. I'm going to be I'm 69 years old, so before you know it, boom. That means one of our old timers just passed away. And I was telling Jim Collins, I said, Jim, we're next. You know, it's just it's how it's going to be so often in our lives, there's opportunities to do something that is bigger than ourselves, something that's true transcends our time here. This is one of those things we do a little. We do something now. We protect the future, and we sleep good at night. Thank you. Can we go to the next person, John, would you like to? Yeah. Well I especially agree with Tina, but I also wanted to throw my own personal opinion in that water. Views to me are priceless. And once you once you start building up obstructions to that view for the general public, you're really negatively impacting, a community. Where I used to live, they were obsessed with building up the waterfront along the Hudson River for the reasons you cited. You know, the apartments were going for ridiculous amounts of money. And somebody wrote a letter to the editor, the. You know, imagine you've just paid top dollar to go to a hit show, and you're sitting in the orchestra waiting for the curtain to go up, and suddenly somebody brings in a herd of giraffes and puts them in the first row. You know, that's what we have to avoid. We have to avoid, you know, blocking views, blocking access to the waterfront. Don't you know, as Tina said, you know, we've maintained our, you know, the culture and the heritage here, but we've also obtained our accessibility to the Gulf and to beaches and just those sunset views are just amazing. So I agree, that's my. And you've seen I've seen it. You've seen it happen and it happens. Oh yeah. And it's like that all of a sudden the town changes like I when I put that PowerPoint and showed the hotels and motels that we stayed at as a kid, and now what's there now? There was a decision made somewhere, but it wasn't it. It was input citizen input. It was not citizen decision making. And that's the only thing I'm asking for. Let's put a speed bump, let the citizens decide if they want to do something special. They want to do something big like that. Go. That's that's going to be we can't control everything from now till, the eternity. But we can make it a difficult, because we all agree. I think there's not a person here that doesn't agree that we like what we have, and we need to protect it the best we can. Understanding that there's always going to be progress, but we need to. But like Tina said, we need to preserve and progress. We need to do both. So are you done? Yes. Thank you, morale. Can I get you to. Yes. Share your thoughts. I want to make sure, John, there's kind of two parts to this, I think is I understand it. The first part would be the to have a one story variance that would still go to the Board of Adjustment. I don't care about that. And seriously, I don't care. I, I through that I in in hindsight I wish I'd never threw that in there because it just complicated the matter. You guys decide I want some kind of height protection. How we get there, what we do. If we do that, then it doesn't really matter about having supermajorities and all that business. That's a that's fine. I'd like it. Yeah, but I don't care. It's really. Let's do the big the let's do the, the heavy lifting and put the overall protection on the town. Okay, okay. The small stuff I don't care how, I don't I it's the mechanics of it. I don't want to get hung up in that, that you guys decide that. Well that that makes it a little bit simpler because I was trying to figure out how to fit those pieces because it's well, you got you got board of adjustments, you got board of commissioners, you got this. And if we just say five stories, then they're all they all have that that condition on them. And if there are carve outs and then you have carve outs, I like the one story restriction. That's if you like it, go for it. I'm I really liked building the, well and to, to be able to go one story under what we had talked about, it was still Board of adjustment and I'm not sure there shouldn't be something more than Board of Adjustment. Even at the one story level. Okay, but but I agree, I think that's I think, Merle makes an excellent point. That's why it's it it's easy for me to throw the idea out there. You guys have the hard job because there's a lot of mechanisms here. I think we talked about that when I was here the first time there. It's you know, and that's why we have to work closely with our attorney to make this happen, because there's a lot of you've got all the codes, everything's going to have to be kind of tweaked to have this work. But it can. I believe it can because I to research and there are communities that that have those . And the funny thing, it was Rene Vincent who told me about the communities that have those restrictions. So I would you're listening, Renee, I would suggest, and I don't recall her indicating she was against it. I think she said it was something that she felt like might not be might not need to be in the charter, I think was something like what she what she said. But I'm thinking since she knows the ins and outs of that code better than anybody, probably that, you know, if we want to move forward with this, we might ask her to actually draft the language and figure out the details of how it works, to propose something to us and work with Mr. Saltzman. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Jim, did you have any follow up? I have some questions and follow up. Okay. First of all, somebody talked about a 75 foot current height. We have, I think, Jimmy, at the, parts of the sponge docks allow 75ft. I think at least the Pappas site did. Okay I think is that 75ft from grade the. That's from the parking. That's from Dodecanese. Up Because you're already you're already up on it. I'll ask Joan to share what she shared with me. Okay And that, the height of the five story building can vary depending on building codes and design specifications. Typical estimate for the height of each story in a building is about ten feet. A five story building would be approximately five times 10 or 50ft tall. Actual heights can be can vary based on factors such as ceiling, heart, architectural design, and local building codes . And I think what John's talking about is 75ft is what they said. I think I don't know where the seven if he's talking about 75, but is it 75 Street up? Yeah And the asphalt up to the top of the roof right. Yeah. And Joan, just so you know, the city's code and the National Register district requires a first floor of it's either 12 or 14ft so that it. So those things right. These are averages. Yeah. Yeah. But so I was actually thinking around that is around 11 with the five story concept. That is I think the point we're trying to make. Okay. No no you say so it was in that article. Yeah. It's only 15ft about what Joan was saying. But that's okay. I think realistically and in today's world, in today's construction, we probably need to allow 12ft at least a floor. Yeah. And the city's code says that in the National Register District that the first floor, I can't remember. It's either 12 or 14ft on Tarpon Avenue to match what's there. So, are you finished, yeah. I I'm going to turn it back to Jim so he can continue his questions. I, I have mixed feelings on this okay. And not that we don't need some things that are a little higher than normal. But my problem is what I'm hearing is of all the different things that could happen. And give them an extra 10ft or 12ft, depending on where they're at. Why have a why, say, five stories? Because everybody's going to put everything on the roof, okay? They're all most of the big air conditioners and fire suppression systems are up there where you can't see them. That's got to be part of the 75ft. It can't say, well, we got 75ft of this and if there's something in there that changes that, if somebody can come in and say, yeah, okay, but we still have this things we have to put up there, you know, when a elevator goes to the last floor going up, the other stuff you're talking about, you're talking about 75ft city wide. Yeah, you're talking about citywide 75ft. I know I don't think it should be citywide. I think we should set a some place on 19 from place to place, end to end. And that's it. I don't think it's going to work real well because I, I also read the plan that the county and the state have about when they come through with their specialty roads and the next 15 years, nobody's going to build on that road. And have a motel. It's going to be a double decker. If I read it correctly. And a lot of walk off, places where people can just walk across because of the density of the, the cars. But if we're talking about 19, if we're talking about seven, five feet max and they have to plan what they want within that 75ft, I don't have a problem with it. I don't think anybody's coming to build them either. But that's fine with me. But I think because of all the supposed things that may happen or what they may need or can't, can't live without, it needs to be in the charter. So it can't be. Nobody can say, well, go to the planning and zoning can't go. People to the planning and zoning and say, hey, we need eight more feet to make this work. Now, if it's 75, it's 75, or don't put it in there or don't have it, let them go with what they're doing. I'm the bad guy, right? Well, but are you talking would would you like, would you be in favor of a 75 foot building on Tarpon Avenue? No. Okay, so you're saying in in saying on 19. Well, then then you guys talk about carving it out. Oh, I don't have a problem. I think carving it out at all. But yeah, that's that's up to you. I want it to be right when we put it in there because somebody will come some day and say, I just bought this property, we're going to tear it down. This is what we want to do, but we really need more height before they tear it down. They need to understand you're not going to get more height, but we should. Yeah, we should have a number of stories and an absolute height. Maximum height? Yes, Barry. That's if you can't do that, it's no good. You know, we talk about because you touched on in that last comment you touching on property rights right. You know and property rights are I, I own property down the street and I believe it's zoned for three stories. I bought it with it zoned for three stories too. And that's what I expect, that if I develop that property, I'm going to put three stories. Now I that's my right. That's my property. Right That's what I bought. Now do I have a right to ask for five stories? Sure I have, but the city doesn't have to give me five stories. But I have a right to the three stories I bought. I'm good with that. If they say no, then say no, I don't. I'm not going to push that issue. But that's what I bought. So nobody's taking property rights from anybody. If a developer comes, I if, if you gave me a choice on making things easier for the developer to go build a big building or to throw a speed bump for the builders to build big buildings, I'd rather go with the speed bump if you're going to yield towards somebody, I'd rather yield to the residents than yield towards the developers. That's just where I come from. So I think it's important that whatever we do is very definitive, and we're giving them a mechanism. They can go to referendum and get it changed. If they can sell it to the community, then they sell it to the community. If they're going to build something that's going to provide all these jobs and the community wants it and that's what they want, then they have a right to vote on it. That's all we're saying. Let the let the citizens decide if they're going to fundamentally change the, the, the look and the and the density of our town. That's a big deal. You know, it's you know, my wife and I, you know, want to go get a, you know, I don't eat regular meat, right? So I want to get an impossible Burger from Burger King at 5:00. And you know, when, you know, I used to be able to go to be able to get to 19 in 5 minutes any time of the day. Now, you go there at 5:00 and see how fast you get across that the highway and get across alternate 19, which is backed up almost, you know, to the past the monkey farm and you got all that. It's different. This is what I'm telling you. This is what the residents want. The residents want aren't controlled, growth in Tarpon. They don't want this. They don't want a ton more people here. It's just the way it is. I didn't invent this idea. It's just the way it is. But it's. I agree with him. I like my town the way it is the best. And. But we're again, we're going to progress. We're going to have things are going to happen, but it's going to be I want it to be controlled. And I think the residents want to control. This isn't about me. They're going to have a right to vote on this, on these charter amendments, and it's going to be their decision if they think that we're hampering them. And if they don't, if they see it as throwing a wet blanket over the town, well, then they'll reject it. If they think it's throwing a nice warm comforter over the town, then they'll accept it. That's how it's going to be. So that was it. You're done? Yes. Okay. I'm going to throw my oh go ahead I have one one more thing. Kind of that we kind of touched on talking about the, the just typical variance situation. And this probably isn't our purview. It's a question maybe for Mr. Salzman, but, I mean, in my mind it's equally important to make sure in areas that are much lower height, like two stories now that that it's a little more difficult than it is right now to get a variance for to add a story or two to, to that, and I'm wondering, one step that would help with that somewhat is if, if to go up one story, say it had to go to the Board of Adjustment, but then go to the BOC for final approval, like some things do, or like a lot of things do under under the PNC board, I think that would help make it a little bit harder, because it's pretty easy from what I see, come through us after the fact on P and Z, people pretty easily are getting, one story height variances in some cases where if it had to go to you guys, they might not have been approved in the first place. I agree, but that's probably more for y'all to deal with and for us to if it's if it's going to be in the charter that over, then then you guys would deal with that. But I promise to come back to Mr. Trapani. I'm fulfilling that promise. Would you like to continue? Thank you for being patient. While the rest of the board had comments except me, first, I'll just take a second. I just want to provide some background because Tina, Joan, Carrie, Merle wasn't here at the time when Jim Collins and I were served on the commission in the 70s, the entire our coast was zoned like 30 units, 15 to 30 units per acre. All of Florida Avenue, where all the doctors live, where there's, you see, one high rise and another. Those had already been constructed and we down zoned all of that property. Jim and I and George and I forget who else helped us but the property across from your old house, Carrie was not owned by the city. It was owned by the Spanish family. It was owned 15 units per acre. And we negotiated, negotiated with the Spanish family and bought it as a city park. So our record of, trying to limit the growth is a proven track record. So I don't want anybody to misunderstand that. I'm out trying to anyway misunderstand. But John's thing is, there's a lot to consider. Jimmy, hit on it that 19. We don't know what's going to happen. The plans I saw were 35ft to the to the drive lane. So And that's why I that's why I'm saying or offering that we stick with the to start and then somebody can expand it. If they want that we, we stick with the. I don't know that there's any really I don't know that there's any zoning above five stories in most of town, with the exception of some height from this for a hotel at the Sponge docks. So most of it would be under the five Tarpon Avenue I think is two. So I don't want to see a five story building on Tarpon Avenue. But my point is, if we stuck with the National Register District, the Greek Cultural District, to start with and let see what happens with 19, what the final plan is, maybe they will put an overpass, maybe they won't. But the heights are the heights that exist in the land development code today. Don't allow a whole bunch of height around town. Now, I know that John's thing is that can be changed by the will of the commission, and that's a true enough statement. And, so but if we started somewhere, I think, and then expanded out as, as it needed, but I don't think there's this, I don't think there's people standing in line to come build big buildings around here. So but I certainly want I appreciate scale and I've done what I could when I was younger to, to eliminate, growth on, on, vistas along the Gulf and in, in the bayou in the historic district, so I'm for it. I just I'm troubled by this giant umbrella. And when it could be more surgical with maps that are already physically in place, it makes it easy to drop it on, I think. But again, like, I'm sorry. It's okay, John. I mean, it's. And Renee recognized she she owes us. I mean, she owes that she needs to do that that the map height plan, I mean the building height overlay and that sort of thing. Yeah. I mean, I think it's I think you're, I appreciate hearing the history of it, and I appreciate having the opportunity to live in a town which feels like this. So do you want to wrap that up? Because I'd like to make a couple comments, I think that I think we could we could say it no matter what the whether you go with the two two districts or whether you go the whole thing is you could say not to exceed five acres or five stories unless, you know, with the exception of people who already have that entitlement. And so you don't get into a take home kind of situation, but and then you would, you know, then then like, say like downtown, I think you're John. Yours might be two stories, but that's for you to figure out, but Tarpon Avenue, say, is two stories. I know, because when some people wanted to build, there was they came around and asking about three stories, and it was kind of mixed whether they even wanted to see a three story building. So but I don't think it's allowed in the code. So if you said you can't have a five story building anywhere, I mean, it's still they can't build a five story building if the code only allows a three, and if they were allowed more, they couldn't go more than five. So it kind of works, I guess, without having to get into the thing of what John was originally talking about when he was hadn't fleshed out his thinking about, well, if it's one, you got to do this, if it's two, you got to do this. If it's three, you got to do this, which we can just take that step out. Like having having that. Okay. So but again I'll ask you this question. Who can change the, the land development code. No, I'm saying who can change the who can change the land development code? Well, we're talking about the charter. No, you were talking about the land development code and the. And you say it already has a limit to two stories. Who can change it? But John, you didn't finish. You didn't. You didn't hear the rest of what I said. The code says it today. So if we put not to exceed five stories, then that's your worst. That's s that's your that's the point of. That's the point of my thing. That's what I said. Okay. So, you know, and I appreciate what you guys, you and Jim did. You did what? We're trying to do now is you made, you made decisions to protect the town, and we're just. Let's go one step further to protect the town. When you went back and you down zoned all those different areas, you did it for the betterment of the town. And this is a similar, exercise to put that the five story max again, they can go to referendum, but just make it a little more difficult. The board of the Board of Commissioners is, you know, it's. We you know, you look at right now the environment in in people wanting to step up to, to serve on these boards, to serve on the board of commissioners. Right? I mean, we're we're getting I walked in unopposed. Maybe it's because I'm such a dynamic character that nobody would even think to run against me or or it could be some or it could be. Or it could be some some form. No, this is on topic. So this or could be some form of apathy. I don't know, I don't know. I would like to think the former. But you know that I'm it's probably not so you know so it's getting harder and harder to get people to step up and run for office. And so we're getting, you know, we need, you know, and so, so to put that much power in three people that could change this town in a very big, fundamental way, it I think we need to put a little, little roadblock. And that meaning going back to the, to the to the voters. So, and, you know, and, and I would have to live with those restrictions as well. I mean, a project would come up if it goes over five and, you know, I would say, well, it's got to go to the voters, even though if I might be for that project. But I got to go to the voters and there's nothing wrong with that. So that's all. That's all I'm saying. But thank you so much for I still have my comment. Oh, you would like to make. I'm very patient. I'm sorry. Yes I think it's a great discussion. I think this is an important topic. I look through the sustainability plan, focus. That's very environmental. It's not talking about, at least from the high level. I did not delve into the 100 page document, but I read what was sent over by Irene, they're very environmentally focused. So sustainability. I we need to give that teeth. We need to also address this, I believe, I really, identify with the public input versus public decision, and, you know, we heard a lot of discussion last week from Mike about, well, we could do this with an ordinance. Yes, we could do it with an ordinance. However it's much harder to change the charter than it is the ordinance and the public decides what's in the charter. Ultimately they don't get quite that control over what's in an ordinance. So I think this is this is one example where putting it in the charter, I think, is very important for our city, I also wanted to talk, just for a minute, on the, what John showed me the five story Max. We can adopt that, and we can adopt a maximum height limit of 75ft. So that takes care of both of those concerns, the other thing is, personally. I saw the development of the Navy Yard quarter in DC. They took out. Old boat yards because they saw an opportunity to generate a tremendous amount of revenue for the city of DC, and they didn't necessarily do it in nice ways to these old, you know, boatyard owners. And that, I mean, it's beautiful. It's, you know, it's huge thriving area. You know the Navy yards expand. There's the there's the ballpark there for the nationals. There's, you know, apartments and tall apartment buildings, tall office buildings, etc, where there used to be pretty much nothing except some old marinas and I would just be heartbroken to see looking across the river from the sponge docks that happened to the other side of Tarpon, you know, the other side of the Tarpon River. I'd be heartbroken to see that in a lot of our water vista areas. So I am I'm very much in favor of considering this as a charter, thing, for public decision as opposed to just public input. And I thank you for your time today. Thank you. And, we heard you. Thank you, I appreciate it. May I go ahead? Yes, yes. One more comment. And we can have extra protection for our historic districts or neighborhood conservation districts, because that may be coming up simply by saying in our language, except as otherwise, noted in the ordinances. And we could keep those areas down to a 2 or 3 story limit. Well, another thought that I had is we might actually be able to say something like any variance of height of over one story or anything over five stories, an X number of feet, whatever number we choose requires a referendum that covers everything it makes it match to the zoning district maps and all that, and it and it makes it very difficult for anybody to go up more than one story then. All right. Well, the method I've been following as we go, we talk about our our sections. There's one, we wind up having some low hanging fruit. We go ahead and make decisions on. And then there's the things that we wind up talking about a lot that I kind of let simmer right. We think about each other's opinions and perspectives and the history. And you know what? What the public comes and our, our elected officials have to say about it. And we eventually come to I think, very good decisions, and if anybody feels rushed on this with the process, please let me know. But this is one example where, you know, we've got you know, we've had a number of discussions and we will continue until we're you know, really focused. And I'm I think this discussion has brought us to a tremendous level of focus now, so I thank you very much. This this is one of the biggies. All right. Good. And I think the, Board of Commissioners did a very good job in the choices they made on this, on this committee. I think it's it represents a really solid cross-section of, of thought process in the town. And I, I think that's healthy. So thank you. Thank you folks. Later and next. But not least is our human resources director and, Jane Kniffen, who's come to talk to us about, civil board. Civil service board. Okay Thank you for coming. Thank you for your time today. You're very welcome. Can you pull the microphone down? You're very welcome. I'm glad to be here, basically, the civil service Board was created to conduct fair hearings for, permanent nonexempt employees who were either, disciplined, demoted or or terminated. That is the one factor that I consider probably the most important. The second, but far more, prevalent duty of the Civil Service Board is to proctor examinations, as I like to give you a bit of a history, because at for quite some time we have not had a civil service board, because we have been advertising extensively, and let me give you some background before, it might help to explain , I've been here 24 years, and in those 24 years we have had four people that have appealed and come before the Civil Service Board, of those, four were the sitting civil service Board upheld the city's decision. We like to believe that at least I believe in giving people, excessive due process in other words, you're it's not good enough anymore to tell somebody they're wrong. You have to tell them how to correct it, what they've done wrong first, how to correct it, and then coach them through a time frame. Whatever to help them improve. If you've done this properly. And many times, because we have a progressive disciplinary system, employees will either improve or they will fire themselves. Having said that, that leaves the majority of the time for the Civil Service Board to be proctoring examinations, which means they sit in a room such as this with with candidates and a member of the HR department who administers the tests, they are pre they're predetermined tests. Everybody gets the same questions. And in an oral board everybody's asked the same questions, there is a provision in the Civil Service Board rules that says if there's no, available person to proctor, we can continue the exams and since we haven't got a board, HR has taken over the function of proctoring. We have no horse in the race or any dog in the fight, my staff is very ethical, if they're not there, they wouldn't be here, we have no reason to allow people to cheat. They're out there, spaced out, we don't actually check their sleeves because the questions can be, can be they are job related, but some of them are basic questions. I'm trying to think of the last civil service Board hearing we had was in 2010. And that's been a long time ago. I like to think that we have offered them, in every disciplinary action that the city does, they apprize them of the process for appeal. So having said that, that's the Civil Service Board in a nutshell. And I'll entertain any questions or concerns you may have. I believe we brought you here because in our discussions, really we're down to three options. Either keep it in, remove it, or or basically, make a statement of, of rights, so to speak. So we wanted to have your opinion on what what you thought was appropriate for being in the charter with regards to, a grievance process. Etc. So I hear you have a process. You when was the last time someone went to the civil service Board, 2010, 2010? Have you found this important? And is this something that a civil service board, knowing that you've gotten your back pocket as a part of the, The dispute process, something that gives you great comfort, or is it a, you know, you don't really think about it much because it doesn't really have a cost to them, since 2010, there hasn't been much need for it, like I said, we do give we advise people of their rights so that they know they have the right to appeal to a civil service board, and we would have to empanel a board to, to, hear that, that their appeal, personally, there needs to be a, an appeal process there, you know. Absolutely. What form it takes, with your blessing, I think we'd like to go back and take a look at at what some other cities are doing, what's fair, even with the civil service process, if, the Civil Service Board can decide to hear the, the, the appeal themselves or they can, sublet it, so to speak, to a to a hearing officer from the Department of Administration, but having said that, the officer makes a recommended, a recommendation. The Civil Service Board still has to vote on it. And beyond civil service, the both the employer and the employee have the right to appeal to the circuit court. So there are processes in place. It just depends on whether, through the ages, we may may need to tweak it, I can tell you getting people is hard. Nobody wants to sit for 90% of the time, to watch people take exams, it's I won't say it's a waste, but I will say that the HR department is very careful because we realize that we are still following civil service rules, even though we don't have a board. We follow the rules because it's very important that, that employees get due process. They have a fair chance. And they have the opportunity to appeal. So that's my view on it. We can we can take it back and come up with some suggestions for you, I, you know, I like some time to think about it. I'm going to open this up to comments and questions from the board at this point. Jim, would you start do you have a program in place? Let's say you hire a supervisor who's coming in to work. He goes through the personnel system. Is there anything in there to advise him or train him in the rules and regulations of the management? Yes, we have we have , we actually have, we've had scenarios where we've had people in some of the supervisors to train them. All of our rules and regs and policies are posted on power DMs, on our computer system, we also have hard copy, we like to hold, individual training sessions as they come up, when they're, when there's a particular issue, we make sure that the, the supervisor knows what's appropriate and what's not, I can't say that we do it on a regular basis as, like, every month or so, but we when we have a need for it, when we onboard a new supervisor, we sit down and make sure they have a copy. In fact, all of the employees are given a copy or access the link to the all the rules and regs. How is what how do you handle if a. Resident calls in and say, hey, I saw this. These three guys lollygagging, sitting under a tree, I don't how would you handle that? The first thing we do is we do get some of those calls. Do we have to be careful that the supervisors, not one of those guys. Absolutely No. I'm kidding with you. No. Hopefully not, what what we do is we get as much information from the caller as possible. A lot of them don't want to give their names and phone numbers. So it becomes anonymous, which is. Which is fine, but, then we if given the information, what was the truck number? Where where they what time was it? We go back to the supervisor. We always do. And make sure that they investigate where was so and so where are they supposed to be? Sometimes they were sitting down, but I'll give you an example of what happened after. It was after one of our hurricanes, and we got a call from a very irate citizen who said, you know what, I see five guys sitting on a bench. They're doing nothing. Those five guys had been working 12 hours, steadily to pick up debris from a hurricane. So what you see and what what the truth may be can be different. But we do investigate. I've got to tell you, you got I can tell by your results that you're doing all the right things. I don't have any concern at all with what you're doing. My concern is doing away with the Civil Service Board and allowing a union, so to speak, come in because they they wait for that. And, and we don't need it here. No, thank you. I would agree. I do have a question. What is the progressive disciplinary system? Is it is that a sort of standard ? Well not aggressive. Oh, I said progressive. I think it's a method whereby you can connect different infractions of rules. For example, we have actually five levels one, two, three, four, five, five being a firing offense on first, first, commission. So you are able to take, an infraction that happens at that may not be related entirely. Totally different than another infraction. And it's a way to recognize them. For example, level one is usually a reprimand, a level two can be a warning, a level three can be a 3 to 5 day suspension. A level four, can be a five day suspension, and a level five is termination. So we can take those different acts, so to speak, or infractions and relate them because we assign a point system to them. For example, there's there are no points assigned for reprimands or verbal warnings. There are no points assigned for levels one, level one, level two. You start getting into, I think I'm trying to remember. Isn't that awful? We haven't had it too many lately. A level three is 20 points, a level four is 40 points, and a level five gets you 60 points. And in, 60 points in any two years is grounds for termination? Not necessarily, but it is if it's egregious, we had one, one employee that was maybe I shouldn't tell you this, but during the hurricane and I guess he got a little thirsty and he went out and was drinking beer out of the back of his truck. So, needless to say, when confronted, I think he would probably have been under the influence, but he ended up resigning before we fired him, we do offer the option of resigning because firing, it runs a red flag. Some employers calling and wanting to know if somebody's, you know, wanting to know a bit about their history. Fire ring obviously gives them pause for concern, we do what is called resignation in lieu of termination. In other words, if you don't resign, we will fire you, however, it would look better on your record. However, we also tell prospective employers that they're free to come in and look at employees as, personnel record. That's the part that's public record. So, you know, things can vary. They can be progressive little things that add up or they can be one, one massive, offense that. Well, I won't say it's unforgivable. It's not what we want here at the city of Tarpon Springs. Does anyone else have questions? Comments? Yes, Jen, the, Miss Kniffen, I'm sure that everyone is above board in your department and the highest integrity. So my thing has more to do with the psychology of the employees, especially from the mid-level down. Like if someone want, if they got a cited for an infraction and then they have to come to the people, they have to the system that you guys have in place now is the person has to come to the same people who cited the infraction for an appeal versus the true Civil service board. When you had a board that was actually in place and met, they appear to be a little bit more independent. I would think from the psych, I'm just talking psychological. I'm not talking integrity of anybody or anything. So I kind of I tend to go with Jim that it needs to probably stay and, be an active board. And I understand the problem. It's citywide on all boards. That's the that's the problem. What the city needs to do is really focus on the solution, which is a better campaign to let citizens know they can contribute to their community. And please get involved. And I don't want to preach too much, but the, so I kind of think, like, we need to gear this thing back up and make it, a viable board. And that way the employees feel like when they do apply, even though it's been a I mean, it's a it's a credit to the city that they don't have any infractions since 2010, but but then the other thing I wanted to point out to you on anonymous complaints, I don't believe since July 1st of 2023, the state law allows anonymous complaints, well, I guess that's Mr. Salzman's. It could be. We still investigate because we want to make sure our employees are doing are doing right by the citizens. And in answer to your people that are actually suspending whatever, that's why we keep the city manager out of the process, because he's the first step in the appeal. So they know that they can appeal to the city manager and then to the Civil Service Board. So I don't disagree with you that there needs to be something in place so that they have a degree of comfort, but I can assure you that we don't. If people get fired, they it doesn't come as a surprise because we have followed that progressive discipline, and, and I think we, you know, we do offer the, the alternative, and a lot of people realize we had, for example, we had somebody threaten somebody not too long ago, said he was going to shoot them, this person , fortunately for us, was probationary, but even then, had it not been, we terminated him. In today's day and age, if somebody says I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you, you and any his his defense was. I was just kidding. That was his defense. And we can't have that because as they're out there in the street, they're working the supervisor says, would you please, you know, start digging the hole to put this meter in? No, I don't I'm not going to get down there. And it's like, so I guess they're probably the supervisor probably said, well, yeah, you need to because you've got to learn. And it escalated from there. And finally, well, we said it a little stronger than that. I'm sure he did. I'm sure he did. So I guess my point is, is the independent board would maybe prohibit people from getting lawyers and lawyering up and, and things. So I sound like there's something wrong with that. You guys are all you guys. You guys are all great. If we can keep you in check, you know, we. But. So that's my position on it, I can tell you that in the Civil Service Board hearings that we've had, I and those those four people all brought an attorney, the Civil Service Board has their own attorney, because. And that would be the city attorney. And then the city itself has our labor attorney. So you have three people involved, and it becomes a very expensive proposition. But that's the way it's always worked. Merle, did you have anything you wanted to weigh in? I think everything's been answered. Okay. And same here, well, alrighty. That's it. Thank you, thank you, thank you for listening to me. Insights Very good. All right, may I recommend. Does anybody need a five minute break? Yes. All right. We're going to take what? We're going to take a five minute break until 320. I'm learning. Yeah I mean, personally, I'll just barrel through, I drive long distances in the afternoon. Okay. Well, I trained myself photographing weddings. Year old 20. What 23 is my niece ? Resume the meeting. Okay. So we have heard, from our invited guests today. Let me walk you through the information that I handed out earlier, and then we can go on with review and discussion of the charter sections, I'm continuing to update, my notes and sharing them with you with regards to some of the conversations we need to have, I in the past, I had kept, everything with regards to the sections together, the things that were open and the things that we had voted to accept. I've now split those up because it's too many pages. So we have one page, two sided. The sections under discussion, we have one page, one sided with recommendations from the charter Revision Commission that reflects votes that we have taken and the changes that we've agreed to. Every time I update this, the new changes are in bold to the best of my abilities to do that, and so anyway, that's, that's the two, matrixes that you got or the spreadsheets that you have. Okay, I had also provided did before on, on the second page of the changes I had kept a little running list of recommends actions to the Board of commissioners that were outside of what we were putting in the, in the charter, so that's now its own sheet. And then, I promise, last time for next week. And I actually got it done this weekend to come up with a summary, a better some three of the discussions and decisions we needed to make with regards to section eight, I will say this. I have not gone through all of the additional material, I know that there are, changes that. Mr. Trapani submitted, which, I have notes on, and I just did not get them in yet, but it had to do with, with, the noticing of the, registered voters. I think that's the only one. Correct I know it was there a second page two, a two part thing. It was the. Yeah. And the qualifier time. If you have an election, you notice the public. Right? Let's just is this the only page associated with that, no, it's not on there. This is something that you would have handed in before I gave you that. Okay This is the one page. Yeah. Okay. It may need to be embellished. Well, I do have the election things I saw on and then the. And then I have. And that was, that was, but back on section. What was that? Some of it I think we missed carry. The one thing we missed was the putting the funding language in the like. If you're going to vote on, say, buying a piece of property, you have to tell the public is it being paid with taxes or are we borrowing the money? Oh. Okay. How the funding happens. Okay Right, right. Joan. Yes. We want the public to know where the funding is coming from. That makes sense. 100. Okay. Yes. I do need to add that I know I had the 30 days. That's right. On number 11, I had the election of 30 days, and I know I had notice thing in here. So it's a it's on section three. Yes. Direct mail required direct mail notice for land purchase. And then. Is just so you see this is this, no, this is the, This has to do with the notice of upcoming election. Notice will be sent to all registered voters via first class mail 30 days prior to the opening of the qualifying period. Okay, that's the qualifying period. One, and then and then that the that the qualifying gets changed from seven days to 30 days. Third. You got that one. Yeah I do have that here somewhere. But we have we've not under 11. Yeah. Yeah. On 11. Yeah. We have not voted that to final. And no I understand I understand is there anything I've missed other than the how the funding happens is I'll add that in here. Well, can I ask you a question. Yeah, I did, I did miss the meeting and I did look at the agenda and it didn't have anything on the agenda about discussing of the dredge spoil sites to be added to eminent domain. So there were things discussed that weren't on the agenda, which was a little bit of a surprise to me. Okay. I'm I'm, I'm only caught about 50% of what you just said you wanted. So what needed to get added? I, I didn't I looked at the agenda, the meeting I missed and there was there was not an agenda item to discuss the adding spoil sites to eminent domain. So that was kind of a surprise to me that that's on there without being on the agenda to discuss. Oh well. It's not a formal agenda for that. Irene puts out, doesn't talk about which sections and what our discussions are. It's the invited people. And then our organization of our time, we had a meeting and I didn't just put spoil sites on here. That was something that discussed, got discussed. I captured it and I added as something that the, that we have not made a decision on. We've only had opinions on it. Okay. So it's just a discussion. Yeah. I think what you're saying. So hold on. Wait a minute. Says, oh no, I'm sorry we did this last week talking about the spoil site to add dredge and spoil sites under section B, under the reasons for eminent domain on section three. Yeah, yeah. Those are the two changes that we were able to vote on there. We did not discuss direct mail because that was an item you had brought forward. And I figured you would want to be here for that discussion on do we need to reopen that? Well, maybe not the. Okay, so when we get we're going to go over this entire once we get it all done, we're going to go over the entire thing again for one last look. Well, yeah, we have several ways to do it. I'm just this is how it's nice. It's nice. Okay. It's nice, so we go through this, if there's anything I've admitted omitted or made egregious error on, just let me know. I will update it. I don't have I don't have a big ego in this. This is bookkeeping. It's nice. And then, you know, at some point, Mr. Saltzman will be off doing his language. Okay. Hopefully between now and then, we are all in agreement with everything that's on these sheets when we get to that point. Right. But if there. Yeah, I mean, you can bring anything up at any time. Okay. Okay. So that's. No, I was just surprised about the spoil site. It seemed like it came out of left field for me, no, no, we had talked about it. I think it was on. I only missed one meeting. I think it was on the first one. It's all right. Okay. As long as we can go back and talk. Was on the second one again. Yeah. It's on, it's on six, three. And then it was on the one I did the first time, which would have been probably 527. And, so yeah, you should be able to see how things track here, I'll, So anyway, if it was a surprise, you know, it's all right. It happens. That happens. Yeah. Well, then, the other thing is, is I still would like Mr. Saltzman to give us his opinion on the, legislative. Yeah, the legislative, the unlawful delegation of legislative authority that we had that big discussion about the planning and zoning board being being to make decisions without the board of commissioners and I. I'm still of the opinion that it's an unjust use of unjust delegation of legislative authority and against state statutes. That's my lay opinion. Yeah. We have, a couple of actions for Mr. Saltzman was that it was the wording on Assistant City manager. I'm just trying to remember off the top of my head. I don't remember you. I'm hoping, Mr. Saltzman, you're keeping your list. I have. I take notes on everything you say. Okay. Well, good. And it's. And it's and it's recorded. And sometimes I take them again just to make sure. Just to make sure. All right. Yeah, well, there's several things and I don't know, you, you have provided us things kind of in real time when we go to the next meeting. You asked for this here, and so he has to responded with a number of things. But, he will keep doing that. And then, of course, we will have the final, well, the suggested terminology. Then we get to discuss and accept or change, going forward. And then it goes to the commissioners and hopefully there's not a lot of round for us by the time we get there. Hopefully it's rubber stamped. So yeah, we love it. You did such a good job. Board done. I think you should fully anticipate that I'm going to I always go in expecting that and then I have the moment of really sad reality when that hits. But anyway, that's besides the point. Okay, so what I would so anyway, that's what these things are. The other the last thing was, we kind of got bogged down talking about all of the issues with section eight, because we had a lot of changes we were talking about there. So I put together a little summary here that I think captures the decision points we need to make for section eight, that looks like this, okay. Oh, let's just it's organized right? So the first thing was there seemed to be, plans that have been suggested to be added to the charter. There's two of them, the capital improvement plan and the sustainability plan. And then there were was discussions on data maintenance requirements to add to the charter. In other words, going and conducting a new, historic assessment. And, and keeping that up to date, as well as having a priority sidewalk list. Now, the capital improvement plan, more I think about is probably part of the data maintenance requirement, because that was really keeping a list of what needs to happen so that it can be applied to the budgetary process, so that's one comment, we had discussed a lot of discussions, and it does keep coming up with regards to our appointed boards. The difficulty in getting people we were talking about making sure we prioritize applications of special talents, knowledge, skill sets, possibly, requiring the Board of commissioners to bring in advisors with those special skills of board members are lacking. An example for that would be like Historic Preservation Board, if you end up having people on it who have no experience, you really need to bring someone in to help them with that until they get their feet under them. And then we had the, you know, participants on board the current requirement is, is one board per volunteer, unless the board is for less than a year. But we're talked about adding, you could do it if there's no overlap in decisions and no conflict, yes. Can I make a comment about these, I don't know if I was here or not. You know, when we discuss this, did you discuss it last time? We've just. All right, all right. Yeah. And this is things I've pulled out of my little spreadsheet and just reorg them. Yeah. It just seems to me that when someone is appointed to a board to have them appointed to multiple boards is, is, you know, is almost giving them too much power without being elected. And unless they have some special skill like let's say there's no one with historic preservation background on the HPB and we they need someone so that that would make a great case for a person like that. But otherwise it just kind of bothers me that a non-elected person would have that level of power over decisions I'm not advocating. I'm just recording it anyway. That's just what you're looking to get some feedback. Yes. No, I as I said, I'm not advocating. I'm just recording positions that were stated based on Tina's comments. I agree with them, although probably for different reasons. My thing has been from the very beginning to increase citizen participation in. When you have a little cabal of people sitting on committees or allow it to happen where you have one person sitting on two boards and another person sitting on two boards, you shrink the voter or the citizen participation. So I'm for leaving it like it is with that one board, one temporary committee, which is how it's written now that you can sit on a board, a permanent board like the PNC Historic Preservation and one temporary committee like the charter revision and murals on the PNC and Jones on the art committee. So that seems to work. And, I would say that we leave it alone. You're in agreement with that, John, can I survey you? Yeah. No, I, I agree with it. You agree with what? Now, that one one board. Yeah. And but I'd also like to, make sure, I know personally, I would like I wouldn't mind a vacancy rather than having somebody who has zero qualifications to sit on the board. Well, some things that's we can't just micromanage everything in the charter and we can't get a quorum. Right? Right You can't get a quorum. I that said, personally, it was just, you know, I don't think it should be policy, but, I mean, I tend to I, I've seen so much. Well okay, I think the Citizens Academy is wonderful and it really educates people, but it's also tends to attract people who just moved here and have no sense, no real understanding, maybe of what the, you know, the historic districts are or anything, you know, serving on boards that they have no background in. So, I mean, and I've seen a lot of problems on boards with people who have no background in things. So I think it's really important to have people with with good backgrounds. Well, I do too, and some of it's required by state statute. But what I'm saying about micromanaging the wordsmith and everything, you can't wordsmith it to death. I mean, hopefully, Joan, you get somebody to come forward that has some qualifications and, and, and that goes back to what I was saying, that this, in my opinion, and I don't propose putting it in the charter because it doesn't belong there, that the city do a better job of fixing the problem. The solution is to have a public campaign of participating in your government. That's that should be considered to be, you know, a badge of honor or something or and make it a real campaign to get people the, the requirements for the historic preservation Board or defined by state statute. I don't know about the art committee, but, it's not something we need to wordsmith to death, and we just need to follow the rules. That are already there. Yeah. Okay I'm happy to take this one out, and we leave it as is, but I'd like to hear from Merle first, because I think he was adding a lot of wisdom when we were talking about this, just because of difficulty in finding the right people. Yeah, I think, you know, it's not a hill. I'm prepared to die on. Given given Mike's terminology. But there there are instances where it would have been helpful to be able to do that. And I don't know if that makes it worth opening it up to, to everybody, for instance, is what, five years or so ago, probably. Joan, you may remember, when they did the Marine Commerce Committee, a number of people wanted me to sit on the Marine Commerce Committee as a result of my background and experience, both on the waterfront here and in waterfront front development, other places and, I had to turn it down because I felt that the work I was doing at PNC at the time was was more important for me to be involved with, at this point, I'm ten years in, in October, I'm off PNC, so it I've got no dog in the hunt anymore at this point, but, that's just one situation where it would have been helpful to have some flexibility in it. Right? I, on the other hand, was appointed to the Marine Commerce Commission with zero qualification. Nations know you could breathe well. Yeah. That's right, I could walk, and you know, this is a right. Right. This is, you know, this is something that I think needs to be addressed by the city manager and the city staff. What's that? Board appointments, how they advertise their boards, how they engage the community, how they define what the requirements are. And I really think they should consider adding, advisory positions where, for example, if Merle had the time and he was asked to participate in the marine commerce, you wouldn't have a voting position. But if you had an advisory board, so you at least had the voice, I think that would go a long way. And he has that right. By just being a citizen. There are all those meetings are open to the public. He could go and say, hey, you guys, this is this is what I think. I'm down here, you guys know me. This is what I think on item A, B or C and might. I just don't want to muck up the charter trying to wordsmith it to death, I mean, so you're right. And the remember, as you know, the problem with the charter is you can't change it. Right? And so if it is something that we're doing because of what is occurring right now, you still have to look at what's going to happen over the next ten years. Right? You know, five, ten years. Are we going to change it? And even if you do change, it doesn't mean it will pass. Right? I, I okay, so I want to put the concept here about, I thought it was in there that that a board volunteer is able to serve, serve on a second board that is less than a year long, as evidenced by Merle being in this room. I think it says temporary. Yeah, temporary. I think it's already in there. It's in there. It's a board that's less. That serves less than one year. Yeah it's the third item. So throw something out that's kind of, peculiar to the public art committee, it allows for a jury, if you will, to deal with a, with a special project. I wonder if that application would be appropriate for some of the other committees. In other words, if you have, a lot of the stuff that comes before the committees are fairly routine. But if you have something that's an especially complex or thorny issue, I wonder whether the ability to impanel a jury, let's say, just to deal with that issue, might might work on some level. Not for me. With more volunteers, with more volunteers, but at least it would be a short term kind of thing. So maybe what I'll do is I'll put on my recommendations for the board that they consider looking at how effectively their boards work, and if there's other things they might want to do to improve process in the meantime, if you're wanting to resolve this, I would move that. We leave it alone. Okay. Yeah. Hold on. That particular item in section eight. Okay. There was appointed boards. Okay. So, I'd like to have, All right, so we've had a discussion about one board, one volunteer, and keep it alone the way it is. I made a motion to that effect, but I didn't hear anybody. Hold on, hold on. We've got something else in there. We've also talked on that paragraph for, require them to prioritize applications with, with for individuals with special talents, knowledge and skill sets. Well, you're on a different line, by the way, where are you? Where are you? Carry the top line under appointed board. Yeah. Under under. When we were talking about the appointed boards, there's been a number of topics that have been discussed. And that's what I'm trying to focus and summarize here. All right. So that one paragraph had a number of different things. We talked about. That's why I'm putting them all here. So if we're going to make a change to it we consider everything and throw out what we don't want and embrace the change we do want. Okay, so can I make a suggestion? Yes, in terms of wording rather than special talents, maybe appropriate experience or an addition, you know. Oh, that's on here. Okay Okay. So prioritize applications with appropriate experience. Is that the word wording. Yeah that's okay. Knowledge and skill sets. And that will go where is this. It's a h j no it's not h j . To create, alter or abolish departments boards commissions committees. Statutory requirements I think. If I may, I hold on a second. Really Okay. Yes, Jim. If we if we if we, put it in here that we're going to have somebody appointed because they have the appropriate talents, but we're limiting it. I didn't say only we're prioritizing. If you don't have that, then you have your pool as you have it. But if you have someone with special skills that apply, we were talking about making sure that they come up in the attention level. So that sentence wouldn't be written that way. Well, so the sentence would be there would be one added, as I see, to the at the after the next to the last sentence, that would say, applications would be prioritized for individuals with appropriate experience. Appropriate. Applicable Applicable. I'm sorry. It should be applicable. Experience Just for clarification is that for all boards. Yeah. Because there. Yeah You want people with art experience on the art board. You want you know I'm saying because there are three boards I'm just letting you know there are three boards that have those, talents listed in there. When they were created. One is the public art committee, the Heritage preservation Board, and code enforcement currently. Yeah. I mean, if the reason I'm asking if you want all boards is because then we would have to change, which is fine. But just what those talents for each of those boards so they because the code would have to be changed as well. Their ordinance that created them or their resolution 30 we I mean I'm just putting that out there just so we know that Irene is making is that we already have language in there that we can just add to the other ones to make sure. But it's like demonstrated integrity , experience and interest in the field of historic preservation. I mean, that's part of who's selected and how well is that working for us? Well, they're not it's not going to change if you put it in the charter. They're not following the state statutes that define the CLG. I know that's the problem. So if it doesn't change, if you put it in the charter or not, okay. Yeah, right. It's still the requirement if you put it in the same way they're going to work any better. Right It's not. It's just wordsmithing it. But if, if the applicant I mean, it goes back to what you all were talking about. If the applicants are there, then they're going to pick the most qualified applicants because it's a requirement. But if. Yeah, and I agree, but that's the way you would pick them. If they're there, if they're not there. Right. And you need members, what do you do. You do a better job. I think what you all recommended is do a better job of notifying. There's nothing wrong with reaching out to people with those expertise either. I'm fine. I just don't know what department and the city is going to do that. Well, I don't want to pick on Irene, but. Really, it's more. I mean, you could, you know, there's mailing list. It's a board. It's a board. And top administration that normally does that. I mean, board members know who in the community. I mean, they're out there and they know who's on the, the commissioners know who's out there with those qualifications. We can only put in so much. I mean, obviously people who know people in the community, you happen to have administrators here. You know, Irene Mark, that are in the community. Michelle, people that know those people with those qualifications, they can reach out to them. But it doesn't mean that we're going to get any necessary participants. You could just, for example, in section 289, the public Art Committee makeup, it does have that membership of the public Art Committee shall include a mixture of the following types of individuals one. Design professionals two visual artists three. Private citizens. Knowledge in the field of public art education or community affairs. And for a student who shall be an ex-officio member. And those three boards I listed in their makeup have that in the code. But it's. Our applications . So our application for a board or committee lists the top three right boards that the individuals want. And then they have to explain what they can provide to that board, their knowledge, you know. Right. And all I can do is list the boards and then provide them to the board of commissioners at the end of the day. But it's discussed at board meetings. Right. It's discussed. We need so there's a lot of participation and observation of people in the community of the commission meetings. Yes. I mean, I hear that all the time. You know, we watch the commission meets, so they're out there. I mean, it's not like that. It isn't being promoted right there. There always could be additional things you can do. Yeah. Other, other places where I've been involved. They've you know, often you'd you'd hear from one of the BoCC members saying, you know, I know you know, you you work in this world. We need good people for planning and zoning or something. Would you would you consider applying, but I don't know if that's 100% appropriate for a BoCC member to do in this environment. Well, it is it is appropriate because it's so hard to find people that are the worst thing that happens is you bring a name forward and you have multiple choices, and you look at the qualifications and you find that somebody you know meets. They all meet those qualifications. You get to pick who you who maybe the board likes of those people, but at least you have choices, right? The problem that you're talking about is when we have no choices, right? When there's just and that's your concern when we just have we're not here to just fill positions and not have a warm body. And that's why a lot of times when you get on a board, we like to keep you for as long as you'll stay, even though there are term limits that can that could apply. But the point is, is that if you get qualified, qualified people, you really want them. There Yeah. Okay. So what I'm hearing is there is no change to this paragraph at this point. Are we in? Are we in agreement with that. Because we don't need a motion for that okay. So I think that's right, Carrie. Because what we what we're hearing, I think is the frustrations that we know exist, but it's really not a place to address it in the charter in words, with with things. I think if, if the commissioner or the mayor or the administrator listens, there's we've identified the problem. The solutions are to it are many. You could do a you could put something in the water bill saying, we have this committee and we need this, this type of person. I think there's 2 or 3 websites that the city runs. One's through Karen Lemons, one's through just tarpon events that they need to step up their game and, and solicit people, actively solicit people, professional people. There's lots of retired people. I mean, look at Joan's. She's retired and actively in the arts committee. There's other people like the preservation Board. It's not just preservation. It's architects who understand the language of building, you know, what's a facade? What's a this. And so it's I think we've identified the problem. It's up to the board, I think, to figure out the solution. I can put a recommendation statement together for them, so and that's why I did this. There's a lot of things we've been discussing and kind of around the map. So, I do not need a motion if we're not going to change a paragraph in, in that suggestion, I would suggest that, P and Z and Board of Adjustment, at the very least , or others that I know of that need a statement similar to what the public art Committee has about the types of expertise we have should be involved. We have that in a different section that's under the powers of boards. Well, that would be an an ordinance though. No, we're not a charter 12. That would require an ordinance change. But we'll get to that okay. We will address P and Z. But that's its own section. We're focusing on eight right now. So okay so that's great. We've gotten rid of the changes appointed boards. Let's go back, there's been let's talk about do we add the sustainability plan to the charter. We discussed it in detail last week to give of the sustainability plan. Teeth and appropriate attention. We've also discussed having it be its own section. I just I just think it's me personally. I just I just think it's a it's a comp plan issue versus a charter issue. I'm just concerned that we have these concerns, but not all concerns should be addressed in the charter. And to me, some of these things, you can't take everything that's supposed to be in the comp plan out of the comp plan and put it in the charter because you're afraid somebody's going to make a change. I mean, I'm all for adopting the sustainability plan in I mean, I think it's a good thing, but I just don't think it's rises to the to the level of the charter. I think that the sustainability plan flows out of the charter with the legislative authority of the Commission to adopt it into the comprehensive plan. Okay, yeah. We had, Mike had some very strong opinions. I think I'd like to hear you to talk to talk to that. Does anybody else have a strong opinion on that one way or another? I mean, sustainability going in or out. All right. I think it makes, makes a certain amount of sense just to reference it along with the capital improvement plan and the other plans. Just say as part of their, powers, they are responsible cities to see that those plans are, are developed and enforced and maintained. I don't think anything specific about the plan should be at this level. Yeah. And I personally I think if you have something as, as important, I mean, we put we had the comprehensive plan, I think we added strategic plan last time. And I think that now that we have the, the, this other plan, I think personally I think it should be in and required, you know, coordination across the plans. Yes. Otherwise it becomes you know, kind of something out there that does get to maybe. Well then it makes it it makes it harder. And I don't think they're going to just drop sustainability at this point in time. But it makes them harder to just let it go dormant . Well, it also requires them to start planning it, planning for changes as part of the budget process, etc. I mean, there's a lot of coordination that if it's in the charter, it should be addressed and not because I think it's I personally think it's important on this one. I'm, I'm just confused, if you guys don't mind me putting it that way. Most of everything we have in the charter is very definitive. It it speaks to what what we're doing or what we want the city to do. Just put it in there. Maintain this committee or that committee or this program without guidelines as to how are you going to maintain it. That's good, because they'll say, yeah, we're maintaining it. No, you didn't tell us how to do it, but it's let's don't overload the charter with stuff that. Well, I think it would go in as a companion piece to H and I where they are required to maintain it, they are required to review it and update it. They are, required to, consider, you know, from a budgetary perspective, so, you know, I mean, I wouldn't just throw it in there, I would, I would make it a companion paragraph to H. And I, I would probably be okay with the reference I thought you were talking about. Somebody was talking about just the adopting the plan and. No, no, no, just referencing the fact that we now have a, a sustainability plan. So I'd rather have reference. Yeah, you could actually fit it in under I, you could add you could add, change strategic plan to strategic plan and sustainability plan. Well you could add it to budgeting capital project planning. Sustainability. Consistent with its mission statement, core values and vision statement. Yeah. Good Put it there. Yeah Now say that again, Joan. Oh, yeah. If you go to, I yeah, I, you could have the strategic plan shall be implemented and utilized for creating city policy, budgeting, sustainability and capital project planning. I'm not sure that's going to give it enough teeth from what we discussed last week, but it's a good suggestion. It's an interesting suggestion. Well, well, how about if we just went to Joan? What about if we just went to the end of the paragraph and said, and something maintain a sustainable city plan, update and maintain a sustainability plan just so it's. Yeah, because you get the strategic plan. It's got all these things about being up, dated and, implemented and budgeting capital improvements. Yeah, that would work too. Just say something at the end. Andy. Yeah, I just wrote it. Andy, what would you your wording preferred? I mean, again, I know you all want to put teeth in this. It is a requirement that the city does. The commission does. I you know, you're even by putting it in here. You're obviously directly, commenting that this is part of their position and that they need to do it. So I think adding it, some I mean, something along the lines of, you know, what was just said, update and maintain what John said is sustainability plan. So in other words, make, make a new sub paragraph pretty much equivalent to I. That's no, I would just add it to the end of I or put it in like Joan said in the middle of I, it's not a it's fine, right. Right after budgeting to just say sustainability there. Right. Well update and maintain a sustainability plan. Yes I think that language is good. We'll put it where it's appropriate. I think it should also though, have a time frame associated with it. Okay. That's when you start running into issues. Why. But if it's mandating certain things that have to occur during a period of time and that and those are always difficult if they're not, you know, state statute requirements. Remember, there's a lot of things that the board is juggling time periods on. I'm just pointing that out. Right. Well, both H and I say that it's to be done every three fiscal years. Well, we've changed it to five. And then we have new wording. Five years. Yeah. Renee Yeah, right. I didn't want specific time periods. I mean the five years is what you've agreed to make the change to. If they can't do it within five years. Yes. We have a problem. Yeah. Well that's you know, I was I was considering I mean they've got the sustainability committee that's continuing to develop maybe instead of update and maintain as, well it's an ongoing it's ongoing, you know, it's different than the, the five year plan. Right? It's different because it's an ongoing process that you need to do continuous. Okay. How about this? How about after statement? That's the statements. The last word in the paragraph on I that that the Board of Commissioners shall appoint a appoint and maintain a sustainability committee who shall report updates and changes as needed to the Board of Commissioners and something like that. So that way you I like that. No, I think that that reflects what we're trying to do here. Even a blind hog, an acorn once in a while. No, that was good, can you say the last part again? See, where do we. The sustainability Committee shall, update the board now, you started with the Board of Commissioners. Now the board, update changes. Okay. Recommend changes and update. I'm sorry, John, where did you want to stick it? Right Right after statement on I. Oh on I yeah. Okay. That's. That was kind of a loaded question John. I don't know. I wondered when it was coming. So board of Commissioner appoint, sustainability committee to continually update and maintain sustainable city plan. And add. Update the to appoint and maintain the committee that shall update the commission. Yeah. Update the committee. Yeah. Make recommendations to the Commission. Right. Recommendations and update commission as as to sustainability. I just wonder something here, should we just make it a separate letter? That's fine, because it doesn't really relate to I particularly. That's fine with me. So you want to make it. Where are we? Maybe I just said that because they were reading it. Right. Well you have that's our that's what I wanted to get the statement to get it. Well we have Q123. Can we make I one. I guess we could. Yeah. Strategic plan. Not really. It is separate. So we should probably go to our. Okay. Okay. So do we have enough words to be able to make a motion on that? But, John, can I suggest you ask Mr. Shell to read it, formulate the words for your motion that you're going to make. Michelle has it, I have the Board of commissioners shall appoint a sustainable committee to develop and maintain a, a plan. I don't have the report back to the VOC. Oh. Sustainability plan and recommend changes and updates to the Board of Commissioners. So move second. Second. Any further discussion? Mushowe would you call the vote? Yes. Miss Jennings. Yes Mr. Seaman? Yes Mr. Chair. Penny. Yes, vice chair. Colonies. Yes, chair. Ruth. Yes. Okay Hey, we're making progress. That's great. We'll take that one off. Okay How about. All right, so there's some data that has that different individuals have said need to be added to make, you know, to the charter so they're maintained. One was having a capital improvement plan, having a historical assessment a historic assessment of properties and having a prioritized sidewalk list. Now, I added the sidewalk list here because there was some comments about what we're doing with section 26. If you put me on the agenda for the side walk thing, I think I have it figured out for you. Oh, great. You don't need to be on the agenda if you're ready to go. We'll do that next. No, I thought you wanted to do eight. You wanted to do the section eight. I thought you wanted to complete section eight. Well, I'd like to. Well, I think we're stick with low hanging fruit here. Yes, but. Okay. So can we start at the top and work down? Just so we actually have been. Oh. We did. Oh, I'm sorry we missed the direct male one. I hadn't done that, I just jumped. Well, no, I was on this on section eight. You have. We just did the sustainability plan above. That's capital improvement plan that. Well it's we started talking about sustainability because it was top of my list. My comment is capital improvement plan is like a prioritized sidewalk list because it wasn't really a plan. It was well, I guess I'm looking at your sheet. This sheet where well, you see, we're working. I know right now I put this summary together to address eight. That's where I'm working. Okay, and I was reading through it and all of a sudden we jumped into a heavy discussion on appointed boards. And if that's where the board wants to talk about, that's fine. What's the distinguished distinction between a capital project planning and capital improvement plan? I don't I just think I don't see one by the administer later. I just do they do they I mean, how much can we micromanage it? I mean, any good administrator is going to have a capital improvement plan that's prioritized, approved by the board of commissioners. I mean, that's just part of their job. If they don't have that, they didn't figure that one out. We got bigger problems than we think. Well this this came up, I believe it was Mike who was putting that. He wanted to see that, addressed as a part of, the budget process. Okay. He's not here. I'm, I'm, I would prefer if we're going to vote it. We're going to pass on it that he at least have it have a voice in that. So I'm going to kick that one to the side. Okay do we want to put anything in here in terms of historic assessment? This has not been done for a very long time now. That's that Kerry. That's that's not true. What you're talking about is like the survey that they are doing, which they got a grant to do. Oh, they just got one I believe in the process. Oh that's good. They, they did one like a couple months ago recently. But then five, six years ago they did one. This was done. It hadn't been updated forever. Yeah. Now when you go online it's really old. Yeah It was an assessment of everything I know, I know they didn't. It was a I forget the name of the consulting firm, but it needs to be redone because whoever it was didn't know anything about the buildings because they, they have all kinds of buildings that are, that are contributing buildings that are missing that they put they weren't contributing, they weren't contributing, altered. They don't. They have factless department stores, Noncontributing building. It was built probably in 1910 or 1905 or something. It's I mean, it's been plastered over, but that's a contributing, altered building . They the people who did it was bad. Really. Well, maybe that's why it didn't get updated. They seemed competent. So the report is in now is it? Well, I'm not talking about the same report. I'm talking about the report that was done six, seven, eight years ago. Oh, I didn't even know there was a report. I didn't either, but there are. But a couple of months ago, another one. Yeah, they got a grant they had I think. So there was in doing it. I haven't heard that the reports in though. Okay. Well we had talked at one point about requiring but but I don't think their staff capability to do that that that level of work. That's a that's a those historic preservation surveys. Those are consultant jobs. Right. Most of the staff doesn't have the it's not that they're not mentally capable. They don't have the time frame to do it. That's what I mean. That's what I mean. They just don't have the time to do it unless they get a grant. All right. So collectively that's it's no longer move along, no longer. No, I, I did not put this one forward. This is just on my list as conversations. All right. We're going to remove that. All right. And then we, had the prioritized sidewalk list. Yeah I think as John said, I think that's kind of normal administrative work. Right I agree with that. We got a list also which ones they've done and, and what they have on their list. Right. We did get that plant provided to us all right. Well this is good. All right. Let's get jumping down to the marine access we have. Marine Commerce Board with importance beyond navigation for the Anclote River from alternate 19 to the Gulf of Mexico, and that adding was suggested we add a paragraph to address commercial fishing and boat builder access to the Gulf of Mexico as well. In the charter. This is probably trivial, but the original name was the Marine Commerce Commission. What was the what? Irene is there was is there still a, waterways Use and Safety committee on the books or in the ordinances? It's by resolution on the Marine Commerce Committee? No, the Waterways Use and Safety Committee was created by an ordinance. So you my knowledge, you don't think it's still there? It's not on our list of boards that we maintain that I know. I'm not saying you maintain it. I'm just wondering about the ordinance. I'd have to research. I honestly don't know offhand. I can look it up. It was it called the Waterways Use and Safety Committee? Okay The only reason I ask is to see if it was a redundant in its, It doesn't seem to be John. No, it was a long time ago. Yeah You have to have. WC has a division of law enforcement, boating and waterways section. You know. Did you see him? Okay, so. There. I remember. I know that, I think Mr. Dorcas recommended the Marine Commerce Commission addition. Let me double check. Sometimes it's by charter. And then there was under Q, there's three sub paragraphs. One talks about how the Board of Commissioners shall report to the Army Corps, when channel maintenance needs to be done. The second one was recreational boating access between the Anclote River estuary and the city. Bias shall be provided. That's, that's the cut part. And then city maintained navigation charts of local channels and cuts. Where are you at, Kerry? I'm on section Q. I'm sorry. Paragraph Q of section eight. There's three sub paragraphs. Okay. And there was a comment made about adding a paragraph to address commercial fishing and boat builder access to the Gulf of Mexico. And I believe that was along the lines of that sub paragraph two that talked about recreation main, maintaining, recreational boating, access to and between the Anclote River. Why would we just put recreational? I mean, could we just put boating access, of course, with, Yeah, boating or recreational and commercial or recreational and commercial. Yeah. Right We can do that. Yeah. Okay. That makes that cover it. Yeah What did she say? They had, say recreational at number two. Say recreational and commercial boating access. Okay. And we don't want to put anything about the marine. We get that. Did you see what this. Okay. I'd like, I'd like a motion to add those words. So moved. Second. Please any further discussion? Michelle, would you call the vote? Doctor Yes, Miss. Jennings? Yes, Mr. Semen Yes, Mister. Chair. Penny. Yes, vice chair. Collins. Yes chair. Ruth. Yes, just another Scrivener comment, Army Corps of Engineers. Engineers should have a capital E. Can you hold on just a moment? That's minor. Oh, yeah. I'm an old. I'm an old medical editor, so. Yeah. No, I'll get it. I just want to make sure I have this written down. Wait a minute. Here All right, back up. Scrivener's error. Yeah. We'll take care of that. Now, United States Army Corps of Engineers E is a capital. It's all. I'm sorry. What is capital? It's just a scrivener's error into. We'll take care of that on the second. Yeah. On that paragraph. Okay. Right. Second to last line. Yeah, I see that. Okay When it says access to in between the Anclote River, it's estuaries. I'm assuming that means the estuaries into the Gulf of Mexico. That a safe assumption to make. Where are you at, John, the top line of two, paragraph Q two access to and between the Anclote River, its estuaries. Yeah. Okay Well, it would include any estuaries that go out to the Gulf of Mexico associated with the Anclote River, right? Yes Okay. I just want to bring one point to you. When it says about the when we put in this commercial access and it says the Corps of Engineers, the only thing the Corps of Engineers maintains is the federally authorized channel. It doesn't maintain estuaries, it doesn't maintain historically established local channels and cuts it. It only maintains the federally authorized channel, which is a tightly defined surveyed area. So I don't know that we've got this right. It's what well, it says as determined by the Army Corps. So it's determined by the city, state regulatory agencies and the and I mean, I would say with the end, it's to the extent that they do, if they don't do anything, then they don't do anything. Yeah. I'm thinking that instead of the recreational and commercial, it should. And commercial commercial should have its own and it should focus on the channel as opposed to the cuts. Correct. The commercial should be. Yeah. The isn't the commercial really regulated by state statute? No, it's regulated by it's regulated by a federal act of Congress. So it's regulated by federal. That's what I'm saying. So what extent can commercial be regulated by the city. No. They just what's regulated is not the commercial. It's the access is the commercial defined channel. Yeah. The channel only act of Congress in 1935. And the Corps is the Corps is, obligated to maintain the channel by an act of Congress, right? No, but I'm trying to I'm going to the commercial aspect of it. What are you creating, or are you actually creating something that has teeth in it or not? Well I mean, commercial boating. What what there are some statutory provisions that maintain city state, state regulatory agencies. I'm just wondering what you want to add it and a separate paragraph, but I'm just want to make sure that we're just not saying it, that there's some value to it. Right. Well, here's an example. The federal channel is the main channel going out. Right. And the turn basin. But to cut let's say let's say the cut behind, Rusty Bellies and Pelican Point Seafood and going down to some of the, the crab houses. That's a, that's a cut that's not maintained by the feds, but it still has commercial traffic. Okay Right. Jimmy. Yeah. Yeah they did that to us. They used to do all the channels. Yeah. And but they still the contractor still will if you get the permits and pay them on the side. But the corps doesn't pay it. Yeah. Right. And it was the commercial boating that really got this last round of, there would not be a federal dredging or Corps of Army Engineers if there was not a commercial viable port. I mean, the truth is, you could just cross out recreational. Well, no, you need the recreational for the cuts. No, no. Yeah. Because no, because saying boating access. Right. Oh, just it says boating access eliminate boats. So that covers both. I mean, you can be specific if you want, but there's no other boating access other than recreational and commercial. That's more open ended I think. Makes more sense. Boating access to in between. Yeah. I think the, the, the wording is a little confusing when you get to the end of the statement too. It's the of the city's historically established local channels and cuts is sort of redundant because it already has said the river, its estuaries and the city bayous. Right. It should stop after Army Corps. It should stop after Army corps should be a period where it's two. Right. It's it should be broad. It should be as broad as possible, which means you're limiting why are you limiting it to the cities historically. And it's local. It's redundant because that area is already covered in the previous part of the statement. It will either have the historically established local channels and cuts and take out the estuaries and bayous well, and that one or the other, that would also be okay. Yeah. Why don't we just say recreational boating access to in between the Anclote River and all waterways in the city boundaries. So where does that leave you with the commercial and the federally authorized channel with the Corps that what do you want to do it, though? No, but no. Forget that. What you want to do is have an emphasis that the city has some kind of proactive relationship with the Corps of Engineers to maintain, to keep this channel maintained. They just proposed the other night, Andy buying, spending $5.5 million for a spoil site. If you don't maintain the federal channel, you don't need the dam spoil site. So I'm not saying that's written wrong. I'm just saying it's, maybe number one A covers it and just leave number two. Number one, leave number two just for recreational. And number one covers the number one is very broad and should cover that. Well, number one is just for the federal channel. That's for commercial. That's the commercial guys. And number two is recreation. So leave it the way it is. So those people who wrote that knew what they were doing, was it you guys? No, it was Jimmy and Kerry. Right. Jimmy The federal the federal channel is the real. That's the key thing. That's the real key to the whole deal. So then what? Then there's no need to change the language other than the scrivener's error. Well, you know, I think the after the Corps of Engineers period. Yeah. I don't I don't know what that that last ten words get rid of the of the city's historically established local channels and cuts. They're not they're not going to they've already quit doing all of that. So yeah. You didn't want to leave the local channels and cuts in there. I the cuts behind those cuts behind you. Anything but getting to 5:00 even doing this. So much. Leave it alone. Yeah. It doesn't. Well, again or anything less is more when it goes to referendum and people voting. Right. You want to be as you want to emphasize the changes you want and we don't want to have people come in and say, okay, look at, yeah, what are we voting? We're voting on this. We're voting, you know? Yeah. Wordsmithing it to death, right. That's the problem. Yeah So the question is do we need to add this or not that was brought up by one of our visitors. What do you want to add on a comment. Well, we've we've we've added an commercial. Do we need that I'd say take it out because number one covers number one covers the commercial. Right But but what about but what about those things that aren't the Anclote River? And like you said, behind rusty bellies, that's number two. That's still number estuary there. It's there. But you only have recreational boating and some of those are commercial boats. Well, that's that's not there's recreational boating access. There's commercial access to those areas. But Andy, what about your suggestion to take both of them out and start with boating? Boating. Well, I mean, if John said the first one covers, one covers commercial, then there's no need to. If you're comfortable with one covering commercial, then you're good. But that's only the Anclote River. I think the broadness. Just saying. Boating on number two without recreation or commercial, right. Yeah. That's what that was. Andy's. That's what I was suggesting Nancy Andy's wording I but then, then it goes back to what Andy says about having 20 good changes in the charter versus the 100 when you I mean, remember, this is so this is the city commission to improve or maintain the navigation of the Anclote River and city bayous. And then it says, in accordance with this section, so you're really talking about very broad. You want it very broad language with this, right, which sounds like what you have. I mean, it sounds like you guys went through this pretty recreational boating access belongs there too, to is good the way it is and ones because the city is responsible for that portion of right of the depth. Then people want to come in and say, why can't I have access? Hey, here it is. Yes, the city is responsible for providing that access. Well, the and number one makes the commission pro. They're supposed to be proactive to report the maintenance because it says report to the Corps of Engineers. When the maintenance is required. Right And typically the boat captains will be telling the city because they'll be busting props and keels. And yeah, I mean, this sounds pretty good. And let me ask this question to you all have we had any problems where people are not getting access, where there's been an issue where commission has not taken the action? I mean, if there hasn't been, then you don't really if it's working, then you don't really need to change it. You could almost you could almost say that the portion we've already agreed upon about the cuts, that's what that's saying. That's the same thing. Yeah. That's the that's everything. But the so it's everything about what the Army Corps will take care of. So everything else they do take care of. And it's just a channel. You know, the corps just finished. Yeah. So I my only recommendation to you all would be this is not one to what Mike said, not a hill to die on. Right All right. Do we want to revisit the motion? We just approved? I'd like to withdraw my motion, then would drawing. Well, we've already voted on it, so we have to rescind it. Okay. Adding commercial after recreation in. No So we're just going to let it stand as let it stand. Okay. We're going to vote to then I'd need a motion to rescind that. I'll move to rescind my motion by our motion to add commercial. Okay. Add commercial. Second. Is there a second? Second John. Second. Any further discussion? Yeah. It's still bothers me that it's not accurate. I'm sorry. You know, I mean I mean the second one is talking about everything but the Anclote. Right. And there are still commercial boats on it. So why not just boat it. Doesn't this look this I think Andy will back me up in 1986. Yeah. The Florida Supreme Court declared all submerged lands, state owned. So if a commercial boat wants to float down some bayou, there's nothing to prohibit it because it's owned by the state. It's not owned by the city, it's the commercial boats can go wherever recreation boats go, only restricted by draft of the boat. And I litigated this issue for a municipality in Pinellas County dealing with a commercial boat that was had signage. You know, those signage boats going into the and who owned the particular areas that they were going into, were they city or state and the parts that the state owned the city could not enforce. So and if it's navigable, the state owns it. Yep. So all those cuts you're talking about, Tina, they can use it. Okay. They've been using it. They've been using it. They use them by my house quite a bit . Yeah. All right. We have a motion. That's that's staying. Do we have any further discussion? Are we leaving it intact? Are we all? The motion was to rescind. Right. If you vote to rescind, then it'll stay intact. Okay We have a motion. Further discussion. All right. Let's call the vote. Doctor. Yes, Miss Jennings? Yes Mr. Seaman? Yes, Mr. Terrapin? Yes. Usher. Yes yes. After all. Okay. That's good. All right. Do we want to help? The tiki hut can come through. I think some of the board members getting punch drunk. We should. It's okay. No, my job is to make sure we don't lose anything. All right? That's what we're doing here. We've got a couple of more conversations, we've got the Marine Commerce Commission, the CRA board change dates and CLG status. That's and then Irene has stuff. How long we want to take you to go through this, this 20 minutes? Oh, no, not that long. It just if y'all have any questions or I could just briefly tell you can. Yeah. I'm thinking why don't you go on on the agenda for next week with us and then we'll talk about this is all the election stuff all right? Okay. I'm happy with what we've put to bed right now on section eight. Just because there was so much discussion on it. And I will scope it down going forward. Do I would suggest we go back to section three and discuss direct mail? Where the suggestion was made to require direct mail notice for all land purchases, was that all land purchases or all land purchases going for referendum, I don't think that wasn't me. I was my thing was my thing on direct mail was. So that was not you on that one. It was something else. It was, it was on the qualifying. Yeah. The qualifying. Well, that was this was lying. Yeah. This one comes back from like for that April. That was a comment back in April. You don't I don't okay. So I'll, I'll delete that one. That one comes off. All right. That's great. I want to change 350 to 500,000 on that. Yes we did. We did. We changed that. And we added to we did. We added the spoil site. And why did you raise it? Why did you raise it to 500? It needs to go up. Was one. You weren't here for that meeting. I know a lot of support for increasing it, but not too much, but just steadily tick it up. There were support to go to 750, and the board decided to, be more restrictive. Yeah. The request, I should say, was 750. I just yeah, we actually we had one in from over for a million. Yeah. I'll just go on the record as saying every time you raise the threshold for the commission to spend money, you reduce the participation of the citizens in their government. Yes We accepted your your vote was going to be a no. Yeah I figured it. That's okay. I got big shoulders. I've been there before. It wasn't unanimous. John. It wasn't unanimous. It wasn't. We voted for you. Yeah, you voted for me. Good. That was good. It was assumed what you would say. It's good. It's all good. I just on record as saying . Yeah, I wouldn't have voted for it. I'm. I don't understand 4 or 5, okay. So I'll go back there on four and five. The names do not reflect the contents of the section. And so rather than vote for a change, the, the thought was, well, if we don't have that many changes going forward, then we'll fix the name where the limitation of power dash police department limitation of power dash fire department to be consistent. Okay. But if there are a lot of changes, then we won't. We will not make a recommendation to change the name at this time. And so that's not going to get action until we see what the full scope of the changes are. What do they want to change? It's not called the police. I I'm still confused. I'm I'm confused. I'm confused. What are we instead of calling a section just police department, it would be limitation of power. Dash police department. Because this is be consistent with the section three. Yeah. And what's in the and what's in the section . It's just a consistency. Yeah Well again wordsmithing is not something that we want to necessarily I'm. Yeah I'm with you. Right. That's what that's why it's not forward for a vote at this point. Yeah I didn't hear what the attorneys you said was you just don't want to just wordsmith something for the sake of it, because then you dilute, you know, you get people frustrated with all these changes, right? Which is why it's not forward for a vote. We're looking to see what the corpus is. If the corpus ends up being small and we consider it, if it's large, then we don't, but that it'll stay. It'll stay there until we I mean, I can tell you from a comfort standpoint, the emphasis of what it's called is kind of understood what it what the service is providing. Right So if you were going to contract out the police department, you would know what they're referring to. I don't think they can get away with meaning anybody by calling it something else and getting I think you would have a fight right in court about that. Judge What what is this emphasis? These are the people that provide this service. Whatever you want to call them. They're it's well known to me what does not make sense to me is why this is a separate section. And the next one is a separate section. When the prior section is about the limitation of powers of the Board of Commissioners, I will tell you why. Because it came later. Well, it's always been known that in the situations where people have contracted this out for financial purposes, they wanted these separate because police departments are contracted out many times over. Before you ever do a fire department. It's just the way, it's just the nature of the agencies. People like their fire. Well, there's two police, right? Well, there's two sections in here. One for fire, one for police. Right. They're separate. They both talk about board of commissioner limitations, which is the prior section. Section three. Well so it just doesn't make any sense okay. Here's the background. The city had a charter in whenever it happened in the 80s. The citizens, the sheriff's office was taken over the cities in the county. Dunedin safety Harbor. I'm familiar with that. The city didn't have that in their charter. They they added it. They just added that section. They they added it, on a referendum, not with the Charter Revision Committee. Just by by referendum. Okay. Then probably the, the, the fire department said, well, what about us? And so then the fire department was added. So they all get their own sections and they get their own sections because it came by referendum and not by committee. And you're talking about a significant time difference. Yeah. But that is what happened at that time period. The sheriff was coming in and making all the good offers. And a lot of people went that way. Yeah. I mean, it would be a disaster with where we're located in the county. I mean, we'd get no attention. Well, you know, they moved to, substation over to Palm Harbor, so. So you never know what the intent is. Well, we all know what their intent is. It ain't going to happen. Yeah. I mean, the problem is he offers a great financial incentive to a lot of the smaller communities. It's amazing. You'd be amazed what they would tell you. The cost savings is. Oh it is. No, it's unbelievable. But the service is not the same. Service is not. No. I mean, I'm all for keeping the services and keeping the antenna. This I just it's got a lousy title. Yeah Confusing. That's the whole thing. I hope it's got, it's got a lousy title. It's confusing. The bottom line is if we wind up ever. If it's if it's a small number of changes that go forward. And Attorney Salzman says, yeah, it probably makes sense to do it now. Maybe we do it now. And if it if it's like, well, no, it's too nitpicky. We got some big things we really need to focus on. Then that doesn't happen. But I'm keeping it on the list until such time as we make that decision. Now, it's not the time when you when you make this presentation to the board of commissioners. Yeah. And you say limitation of power police department. Guess what's going to happen. Well actually I think I think shooting. Well they can shoot. They can shoot the messenger. That's they're probably carrying weapons from the rest of the board. Steps back behind, behind you, behind me. Yeah, right. Most people. But I mean, maybe instead of main change, it could be, you know, moving the section to, you know, section three where it should be. But anyway, that's, that's a limitation is going to put questions in everybody's mind. Are we limiting. Right. That's why you that right. Well that that's why it should go back to section three where it belongs. Because they change the title one or change the title Police Department Preservation and Protection or something. Yeah that sounds better. I like that preservation of. Yeah, but we're not we're not talking limitations of battle, man. I'm going to tell you you're going to get calls on it. Yeah The language it will alert people for sure. Words. Is meanings. Let me ask where it came from before. I'm stepping on toes here. What? The word limitation of power. I have no idea. Well that's that's that's the section that it's in. Is the limitation of power probably a template somewhere that had it so we don't need to spend any more time on it because it's not time to discuss it. That's something coming in the future. All right. We have some reserve sections with no change. Is it? I'd like to go ahead for sections for five. No, I'm sorry, not four and five. Six. Section six seven. Not eight. Six. Seven. 15. 21. No. 27 and 29. I'm sorry. 25. 27. 29. So let me review that again. Are those those blank pages? Yeah, they're all blank. So I would like to just go ahead and accept them. No change with the exception of one I want to keep open. There was a suggestion of putting a land preservation fund or the Marine Board. There or, the or was it a building? Oh no. That was somewhere other another place, six section on, whether we wanted to have a section on like, building heights, I wanted to keep one open, keep two, in case we just we'll keep two. Looks like 21 and 22 or open. Right. Okay 21 and 22. Keep open. So that means we would be doing six, seven, 15 and 27, 28 and 29, what about 25? Oh 25 two okay. Accepting them with no change. Second closing. Okay. Now I can't make a motion. You have to make a motion. Did you make the motion? Okay, I seconded seconded. All right, any further discussion on those empty sections? No no, Michelle, would you call the doctor Boucouvalas? Yes, Miss Jennings? Yes, Mr. Seaman? Yes Mr. Chair. Penny. Yes, vice chair. Collins Yes, chair. Sorry. Yes I was trying to figure out where we were. Okay, so with that, let's move to complete our agenda, we have our next meeting is July 1st, red, white and blue. Is that a requirement? No, I'd like to. Again, ask Irene to put yourself on the agenda so you can go through the. That whole thing. All right, do we have anybody else? Next week, we'll have the police chief. That's right. Police chief young. Anybody else? Okay. Staff comments. Irene, want to start? I just have a quick one. If anyone's watching, I want to invite everyone. Tomorrow. We're co-hosting the candidate forum with the League of Women Voters of Pinellas North Pinellas County, and they did have the time posted on their Facebook page. The time is from 6 to 7 36 to 630 is the meet and greet, and 630 to 730 is the form for the two candidates. Thank you. It will be televised and run continuously on our channel. And where is it going to be? Actually, are we? It's down in the auditorium. Okay. Okay, Michelle, do you have anything? Mr. Saltzman. Board comments I'll start from this side. No no no no no no. All right. Well, I thank you all for, continued, engaging discussion on this. And I declare this meeting adjourned . Thank you, everyone. On those corrected. What was that? Do you have another one of the corrected, date?