Call to order the Charter Revision Commission for Wednesday, May 29th, 2024 at 2 p.m, please call the roll. Sorry, chair. Rude. I am here. Vice chair Kalina's here. Doctor Boukouvalas here. Mrs. Jennings here. Mr. Koskotas is absent and excused. Mr. seaman here, Mr. chair. Penny here. Thank you very much. I would like to migrate to public comments. Does anyone here like to make a public statement for four minutes? Please state your name and address. Chris Hrabowski, 1602 Gulf Beach Boulevard, Tarpon Springs, 34689. I would like to talk to you about, residency issues, but before I do that, I want to publicly apologize. Guys, to John Trapani. I did not mean to offend you in any way, and by referring to you as a developer, that was just my understanding. And you've told me you're not the only one who's told me. The mayor also told me that that's not true. I just thought that people that were involved in development were called developers. I stand corrected, so my apologies on that. And I, I've seen enough animosity at the BOC, the, you know, the Board of adjustments. And I even saw some here and we just do not need that. And I want no part of that. So I'm here to just tell you, you know, I'm, I respect you. I actually like you. And I think you're doing a great job up here. I've been watching these meetings and the questions that you asked, were important to find out about the city manager and what do you do in that instant? If, the city manager was doing something, where would Mr. Poulos go? And he had to think about it for a moment, so that was great. I think that that was actually phenomenal. So again, not here to lambast anybody or anything. I just want to say that we can disagree on development. We can disagree on government and policy, but we don't have to be disagreeable when we do it. And I'm just simply here to make that point with the residency thing, recently in our office, we've had a number of. Mr. Barsky. Yes. If you come in to talk about the charter, you get ten minutes after the mayor and vice mayor talk. Okay then I will, I will, yeah, I will do that. You want to wrap up, then? Yeah. So you have four minutes now. So we still got a minute or so. I'll just say the residency issue that I would like for you all to discuss, or at least revisit is the most important one. You know, in our office, we recently had some patients that were, veterans of the war and they were flown in to fly helicopter missions in Katrina and it was worse, here in the US , what they faced then they were facing during the war. And that was simply because the police s were not residents. And when the hurricane happened, many of them, couldn't get to work if they wanted to. And B, you know, some of them just refused to show up to work. There were over 120 of them chastised for that, but after hearing those stories, I got to thinking, well, hurricanes are one thing, but if there's an EMP blast, there ain't nobody getting here. There's no cavalry coming. You're only going to have the police that are on duty at the time, and those who live here and those who live here will be protecting their literally their own home while they protect our homes. And I believe this is a very important issue, and it doesn't have to happen overnight . Simply what we could do is contact all of the police officers that live here that work in Tampa, Largo, Saint Pete, I've seen it. You see the police cruisers in their driveways try to work out a some interlocal agreement with these governments so that if there's an emergency, we can call those guys and put them to work as a police officer. I don't know exactly how that will come out, but it would be very. That's on the short end of it. On the long end of it. Negotiate away so that we can make maybe trade some of the guys that live in Saint Pete, Largo and Tampa and so on, that work here, maybe get them jobs over there. Now, this is complicated. There are, you know, different contracts, different abilities, and we wouldn't want to take the worst of the worst. We want to get the best of the best. So there's going to be a lot of negotiation that's going to need to take place. But this can take place over time. And it's not rocket science. Now the supervisor of election has redacted, police officers names and addresses, so I couldn't find out the contact information that way. But we could literally knock on their door because we see the police cruisers there. We can contact each of the police departments and, and work this out that way. And I'll talk to you more about it later. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments? Okay We're going on to the approval of the minutes. May I have a motion to approve the minutes as they're written? So moved. Is there a second, second, second. Any discussion I'm going to offer a suggested change, where were we were talking about? Oh, it was on page three. There it is. We had public discussion talking about legislative, responsibilities. That was specifically with regards to planning and Zoning board, and the Board of Adjustments. The comment was a suggestion was raised by, Mr. Cascudo that, cases that come before the board could be put as a part of the consent agenda. And I think that should be reflected, it was also discussed and agreed that if it was put a part of the consent agenda that did not require a charter change, because that's more of a procedural process thing. Okay. We still have to decide on the division of powers and what planning and zoning, if that's going to look like Board of adjustments or Board of Adjustments is going to look like planning and zoning. But I did want to capture the essence of that conversation where the suggestion was made that for, for non controversial, decisions that have a 7 to 2, 7 to 0 vote could be put on the consent agenda, where then the individual commissioners can ask them to be discussed or presented separately, did I catch that correctly, Mr. Seaman ? Yeah, yeah. All right. So anyway, I think that's important to capture here. And I didn't see where it was called out. I can bring those back to you. Okay, so it was not quite like that. It was. All right. Mike did bring it up. Mr. Koskotas did bring it up. And he was saying 7 to 0. And I mentioned that in other communities that it's if it has a staff recommendation of approval and it has a board recommendation of approval of any vote. Yes. Three four whatever the split that it could go on the consent agenda, but it could still be pulled by any commissioner to have a full presentation. And but it's a I agree with you. It's not a charter issue. It's a just a it's a procedural issue of the Board of commissioners. But I thought it was important just to note that in the minutes. I think you're right. And can you, can you capture the also the part, of now I'm doing a blanket and again of there were two parts I hit one in terms of the 701. Was that the I personally feel that the board cannot abdicate their responsibility to the P and Z. And Mr. Salzman was going to give us a right. He's he's he's on tap for that. And we also wanted to hear what Rene had to say about it as well. So, should we table this then as opposed to trying to rewrite that paragraph? I would prefer that. Okay. Then I can bring it back to the next meeting. Motion to table. It was our intent to try to bring back some of those things at your next meeting, because you have no speakers scheduled for the next meeting. That's correct. Okay. Even better, you won't even have me. Oh. Well, then we won't do it. Thank you, no. I mean, if you can capture, Mr. Trapani's words, from the tape, I think he did a good job of covering that. All right. Table. The second table. Second. Second. Okay, I'll. All in favor? I think we can just do roll call on this one. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any against. Okay. So tabled. Yes Okay. Charter change recommendations by now we have our invited guests. Mayor Vatikiotis, thank you very much for coming today. May I ask you to approach the podium and share your thoughts on the charter? Thank you very much, I think, five years ago, the Charter Revision Commission, I was on it. We did a pretty good job, I think most of the questions were approved by the residents, or I think 1 or 2 were not, today I really see my role as kind of tweaking what was done. Five years ago, and providing a little feedback from my perspective. I was commissioner and now mayor, there's a couple of things. One, nowhere in the charter or ordinances, with the exception of the Land development Code. Is there any reference to health, welfare and safety. And even in the, opening statement concerning the powers of the municipal government, there's nothing in there about health, welfare and safety. So I think that there's going to be some Scribner sort of, corrections that are going to be made. And I don't know how the attorney is going to propose that. Maybe one question, would contain Scrivener's errors or so that the residents could have that rather than several different questions. But I would like to see somewhere in here, even in the preamble of the powers, where it starts out, the city of Tarpon Springs is hereby granted all governmental, corporate and proprietary powers towards the end and may exercise power for municipal powers, purposes, including ensuring or preserving the health, welfare and safety within its boundaries. Just it's a little I don't want to call it motherhood, but it's extremely important that that be emphasized, again, the only place I ever saw it was in the land development code. The main, things I want to talk about is one, some concerning property purchases and, but not probably in the way you're thinking. And then also, a little discussion on the city attorney. Role position and, and also some of the things that they get themselves into, and I'm not really talking about, Mr. Salzman or Miss Kardash, per se, but we've had some issues in the past, and I want to bring those in and kind of discuss those in terms of the charter, concerning the purchase of property, if you go down to H, which is the purchase, sale, exchange, conveyance of lease and property , we purchased property in the recent years, some Bay hotels, one, the Anclote, the Hoffman properties, another. And those have been purchased through loans from the city of Tarpon Springs. And in the CRA, you don't have any control of the CRA, neither does the city of Tarpon Springs. But the commission acts as the CRA. And whereas there's limitations on purchasing and selling property, there is none on the CRA. They can purchase properties, sell it , based on public purpose or however they decide to do it. But the money is, loaned to the CRA primarily from the city and some form of, money that we get from a fund that's got some excess revenue. The one thing that kind of bothered me a little bit, with the, the and by the way, the sun Bay motel and the Hoffman property, I supported both the Sun Bay was purchased outright, and I have no issue with that. That was certainly within the power of the CRA. The Hoffman property. We posed that as a referendum question to the residents. The CRA did that. And when those properties were purchased, they went into the ownership of the CRA. Actually, one was put into the ownership of the city, and I brought that to the attention of the city manager, and that was shifted back over to the CRA. But both of them had loans on those from the city, where over 4 or 5 years, that loan was turned back, the question I have is, and quite frankly, and the other part of this, there was no agreement between the city and the CRA. They're completely two separate boards, but there was no agreement on the loan of that property. See, I brought that as an issue on the Hoffman property . And the city attorney at that time thought that it didn't want an agreement, but maybe a resolution to memorialize the fact that the property was purchased from the city and what they agreed to terms were, in terms of the payback. And I doubt that there was any interest paid on it. But I think that the commission that this commission should consider, putting something in that section of the purchase of property that if the city loans money to the CRA and it exceeds the threshold, whatever that might be, it's 350,000 now, but it could be more later or whatever you decide to pose to the residents that there that that before that money is loaned that that loan, if you will, be part of a referendum, just as if it would the city purchasing the property and, and then also require some kind of an agreement, and Mr. Saltzman can obviously help you all with that, but that's kind of a loophole that is kind of problematic to me. And then, of course, in the next meeting or two, we're going to have an agenda item and a discussion of perhaps bringing that property back into the both the sun Bay and the Hoffman property back into the city of Tarpon Springs ownership, that brings it under the umbrella of the charter, which offers certain protections, especially when it comes to open space and things like that. As far as future development of that property, that's the role there. And I've discussed that with the city manager. And of course, the CRA thing, it's going to require greater discussion. But that's just something that I've observed, the other thing that's been a significant problem, and this gets back to the, the attorney's role in all of this is, is, is personnel issues and, and I'm not talking about the general employee. I'm talking about, department heads, executive exempt employees is if you look at the legislative branch, it delineates our, commissioners roles and responsibilities, duties, responsibilities and powers. And a lot of that was added under the last charter revision. And then, and that was a good thing. The commission, the residents approved that. But if you go on, and kind of live with that for a little bit, there are some things that are missing. And one of them is the is some personnel issues. If you look at the First Noel rules and regulations, actions, that are approved. By resolution. And generally the city manager is responsible for creating them and they're they're approved by the city commission. It's done so by resolution, the very first section of the, rules and, and regulations is that the following rules and regulations shall be prepared by the city manager and approved by the City of Tarpon Springs city Commission. You won't find anything in the charter except two references to personnel rules, and one refers it to one paragraph, and the other paragraph refers it to the other paragraph. And one is referred to as personnel rules and the other ones referred to as personnel regulations. And I think that there's a disconnect, and I think it creates issues. And I'm going to get into that in a minute, also under section three of the personnel rules, it's concerning the titles amendments, the Board of Commissioners must approve the changes prior to implementation of personnel rules. So you know, we have attorneys that, not Mr. Saltzman, but in the past, we've had a couple of attorneys give one syllable responses to commissioners on personnel matters. Does a city does a city manager have the authority to do this? And the answer is yes. And that's based on some opinion on what is seen in the charter. But that doesn't tell the whole story. There's an entire set of personnel rules, that have to be followed by the city manager and also approved by the, by the Board of Commissioners. For example, in rule two, under organization of Personnel Administration, the city commissions authority and responsibility is, one to approve the personnel rules and regulations which have already mentioned. And second is approve the pay plan and all amendments, alterations and modifications that we do that in the budget process. That's not an issue, number three is approve all structural realignment. It's at or above the Department head level. These are structural realignments. If you look in standard definitions of structural realignments with regard to personnel matters, it means changing the duties of a department head. Shifting some of his responsibilities or her responsibilities to somebody else. And so forth. And on two occasions we've had the two separate attorneys. One was concerning, our former police chief trying to be moved into an administrative senior administrative role, bringing a major up to become his, surrogate and not paying attention to who was going to be replacing that major in that role and that so forth. And that's a classic definition of a structural realignment. The second, and that was based on a one syllable response to the city manager, have the authority to do that. And that was a question from the mayor at that time to our city manager at that time. And the answer was yes. And I took issue with that, the second opportunity was, with regard to the personnel matter of our building director, and there was a question asked by a commissioner, does the city manager have the authority to do that? And the answer was, in other words, I think you're familiar with what happened. The answer was yes. And the answer is no. If you look at the personnel rules when you take a person and that's all this is water under the bridge as far as the specific issue, but using it as an example, if you take a person and you allow them to do something else, work somewhere else, and then their responsibility is as a department head are transferred to others that are on site. Again, that affects the operation of the department. And also it's a structural realignment of the organization. The department that matter is under the purview of the city Commission, not the city manager. And of course, it even makes somewhat sense because the last provision in there is to appoint and remove all appointed officers city manager, city attorney, city clerk and internal auditor. And of course, there is that other provision where the commission ratifies all department heads. Well, if you ratify a department head, is there really does that, you know, shouldn't that mean that you should have a say in what that department heads change and responsibilities are? And I would think that that is it should. And it's already memorialized in our, personnel rules and regulations. However, those are not really referenced in the charter at all. Not anywhere similar to the what the authority is in the in the legislative branch for what the commissioner's responsibility is . The, let me go over to, To the city manager. Okay In this matter concerning the city, manager. I'm sorry. Yes, in the city manager. In a it says appoint. And when deemed necessary for the good of the city, suspend and remove any employee except as otherwise provided by law. This charter or personnel rules adopted pursuant to this charter, and then the following paragraph c the only other reference to personnel rules is direct supervisor administration of all departments, offices, and agencies of the city except as otherwise provided by this charter or by law. All city employees and the City Clerk and Collector's office shall be subject to the same personnel regulations as established by the City Manager, except that the City Clerk and Collector shall have the authority to hire, discharge, suspend, etc, etc. The City Manager doesn't establish it's just not him that establishes the rules. It's a combination of the city manager proposing rules to the commission and the commission approving them. Those are the only two references you'll see on personnel rules and regulations. One is a reference to personnel rules, the other one's a reference to personnel regulations. And then again, the personnel rules are about this thick. You won't find them on the website. Documents, public document access. You won't find them there. I had to ask Trish, our executive assistant to print those out for me. And I also went through this thoroughly in a separate report, concerning the building director and provided those to the, to the both the city attorney, Miss Kardash, and also Miss Jackson, who is our personnel, attorney, that's what I wanted to say about the personnel rules. I think that needs to be studied. And I think it needs to be included in here, right now, I think that's a big hole that's caused problems in the past. And also it. If you if you recall, we had quite a discussion five years ago concerning the city attorney interpreting the charter. And if you see in the very last section, I think it's section 7 or 17, whatever, in the very last I've got something to say about that, I think we still have I still think that part that we approved, that the residents approved, five years ago isn't working like it should. I'm going to say something about that. The other part I wanted to touch on is in the legislative branch on. I, we included the, review and update every three fiscal years, the city wide strategic plan, and then also five years. I think it's the, later on in the in the comprehensive plan, we're finishing up the sustainability plan, which is every bit as important as the other two. And I would hope that we would consider, memorializing that in the charter somewhere and require an update like we do the other two documents, those three documents are integrated. That's what the planning department is a process of doing. So that one refers to the other, and each one has a different function, and all of them are important to the continuation of the city and the inn as we know it. As a family based city. The other part of this, which is, I think somewhat problematic, and I've talked to Mr. Salzman about this sometimes in the past, item N, which is the again, it's the it's in the legislative branch, response abilities. It's to evaluate the performance of charter officers. And during the month of August of each fiscal year and you'll see some references in here to the city attorney as well. And but the fact is that the city attorney is not an employee of the city, nor was the internal auditor, but the internal auditor is now. And that was fixed based on an interpretation by an attorney. I think in the 2010 time frame. That was one of the reasons why we changed the interpretation of the charter, which is at the end of this, the provisions at the end of the charter. But that, I've done personnel evaluations of the city attorney now. And quite frankly, I'm uncomfortable with it because in the last one was our previous city attorney, prior to Miss Kardash there under contract, the performance evaluation form we have is for an employee. I think the best that you can do. And I don't see the city attorney function changing from that of a contract rather than an employee, because we use attorneys in too many ways. These days. And all several of the boards, I don't know, maybe a half a dozen boards use a city attorney often different ones that sort of thing. But there's usually one and two, we've got our general counsel, which was Miss Kardash. We're getting a new individual as a general counsel, and we've got our litigation attorneys. Mr. Salzman, those two are are are absolutes. And then oftentimes we'll have somebody filling in either the code enforcement, 1 or 2, both of them serve that. But code enforcement P and Z board of adjustment that sort of thing. The Heritage Preservation Board and whatever else we need them for. But I think the charter should reflect a couple of things. One, we get away from the city attorney being evaluated. I think there ought to be a review of compliance with the city attorney contract or something along that line, and in if the, Charter Revision Commission feels that that's not really a, something that's needed, then perhaps just take the city attorney evaluation out altogether. Other, the other part, of course, is that, which is I still think part of the problems we've had in the past, especially with the P and Z board, is that there's been no QA, you know, I can have a conversation with Mr. Salzman. I can have a conversation with Miss Kardash. But in the past, we've had, attorneys that I don't talk to, and there's been dust ups and one, you know, wound up changing and it was for the better. That was in the P and Z board. But as I had put in the evaluation of our former city attorney that I would like to see, a practice of each board that uses an attorney to evaluate in terms of feedback, not performance, because they're under contract, but some feedback as far as what can be done better, what the what these boards see that could be improved, something that may be needed. Obviously, sometimes there's personality conflicts. I think that needs to be known. And I think that action needs to be taken on that before, there's a major dust up, but that that request in the former, evaluation was ignored. But I think if that's, you know, obviously these are contractual issues. They'd have to be contractual issues. You could put that, some reference in the charter concerning a contract shall include that provision. And then the other matter was we've learned a significant lesson in the Anclote Harbor, special counsel report that the city attorney did not feel that their contract covered all legal matters. And that was quite a surprise to me. And if you look at our charter, that's not the way it works. And if you look at the contract, you could see that there's an argument for that. So I think in the charter, if we're going to continue with the city attorney on contract, then we need to have a provision in that contract that states that their contract they are responsible for all legal matters, not what they decide to be responsible for and what they decide not to be responsible for. If our city attorneys decide they're not responsible for something, the city has no legal representation in that matter, I think and again, in fairness to both Mr. Salzman and Miss Kardash, I had a conversation with that and they feel confident that their contract covers all legal matters. But nevertheless, I think in the future we should have that requirement in there that, you know, I didn't argue with the special counsel on that point. You know, it's not worth it. It's water under the bridge at this point. But we need to do something, I think, to make sure that that doesn't, again, happen in the future. Under the administration. I'm sorry. Section 13, interference with administration, we talk about it is the expressed intent of the charter. However that recommendations for improvement city operations under the jurisdiction of the city manager by individual commissioners be made to and through the city manager so that the so that the manager may coordinate efforts of all city departments to achieve the greater possible savings, we have a city clerk with about a half a dozen employees. I think, you know, in the past, way past, the clerk's employees were considered part of the city manager's, employees. That changed at some point. I don't think this part of the charter is caught up with that. So I would like some consideration that we recognize that the city clerk has some responsibility to not just employees, but of her role, and that not everything is under the city manager in that regard. The city clerk, has a tremendous responsibility, not just as a brick or keeper of the public records, but also as a collector for all of our revenue and money . Under the I think it's the internal auditor. Let me see. Under the internal auditor, the last bullet, the last item. I, through audits, recommend improvements to ensure city resources are being used economically and efficiently. Report all findings of noncompliance issues to the city manager again here, to the city manager and the board of commissioners here. It ought to include the city clerk, whoever oversees the audits subject matter. And then also to the city attorney. I think, although that sometimes that doesn't completely work. The building director audit getting back into that, that report was provided a couple of weeks early to individuals, and that report wasn't read until the day of the commission meeting. And then we had a lot of running around with concerns over that. So but I would that that again, that's water under the bridge in this particular point, the city manager, has is, is part of audit. So is the city clerk and also the internal or, or not only our city attorney, but our personal attorney should be involved in these matters as well, especially if it refers to personnel performance. I talked about the personnel rules. That's later in the, under the city manager and acting city manager. The other thing under. I cl and then two, I guess it's paragraph two. Acting City manager for the city manager shall designate in writing, subject to approval of the Board of Commissioners, a qualified city administrative officer. And appoint another officer to of the city to serve until the city manager returns. I I'm not sure what qualified city administrative officer means. I don't think we've had a problem with it. But, you know, our job is to, I think part of this is to provide clarity to the charter. So that there aren't any questions of what this means or what that means is. Okay. I talked about the city attorney and also, the one thing that every time I look at, it's a big section and I know we talked about it last time and, you know, we said, I think if I remember what we said, was it it it doesn't it, it doesn't hurt. It's the Civil Service Board that section 19, we don't have a civil service board. You know, there was some discussion that the city manager and the city, HR director and someone else acts as the, you know, some version of the Civil Service Board. The only thing I'm going to ask in that regard is I really don't have a specific comment other than I would like for this commission before you get finished with your work. That actually asked the question of our personnel attorney having something like this in the charter and not really having it in effect, is that create a liability for us if some person feels like they did not get a fair hearing and they should have had a Civil Service Board hearing, and we don't have a civil service board, is that going to create some liability issues for the city? I have no idea. But I see these days everybody gets sued for everything. So can we make that an action for Mr. Saltzman to respond with an opinion on that question? Did you hear the question? I'm happy to. Whatever you direct me. No. Well, I we're asking we're not directing at this point. Yeah, I think that it's more in the to the mayor's point. It's when he asked us to ask the personnel attorney to tell us if it's a good. Can you speak into your microphone? Because I'm really having a hard time here. Sorry, Carrie. Thank you. I think it's better if the mayor or Mr. Saltzman or somebody asks the personnel attorney to give us a recommendation or an opinion of whether it does it create some liability for us? If it does and we don't. I mean, I'm kind of like, if we don't have a civil service board, I'd lean to take it out. But, you know, maybe somebody can tell me why it needs to be in there. But it's well, we could we've had a lot of discussion on this, and we'll go back to that, when we do our deliberations, I just think that the, the, the question that the mayor just raised, we really haven't addressed, I think we're all thinking that if there was an issue that came up that they would put a civil service board in place that would address it, I would just advise the board that, well, I don't handle it here. I am a labor and employment attorney. That's what I do for government agencies everywhere else. So. So I can get I can get you that answer, or we can ask our labor counsel, whichever you want. I'm comfortable with Mr. Saltzman. What he said. Yeah Yeah, right. If you're looking for a direction from the commission, I would suggest if you feel you can adequately answer the question, go ahead. If you need to talk to the personnel attorney, then do that, and then the question is, if we keep the section in here, does the city need to stand up this board to have it ready? And I also think there's a question, that was raised as to whether or not a city employees ability to access the Civil Service Board, whether or not they're knowledgeable of that today. Well, there is a sub issue which we talked about already, which is Civil Service Board usually is what prevents unions from forming. Correct. So that's the other alternative. Well I think at this point, consensus was for the most part to keep it in. So the question about whether there's a liability if we keep it and if we don't have it standing is a very valid question. Can we can we find out is there was a procedure to contact a civil service board because they were appointed when there was a problem? Is that still in place? I don't know. Yeah. So we need to talk to the personnel director up here and go from there because I, I think at the last charter revision commission that was, I think, satisfactorily addressed by that process, and we left it as it was. I mean, there was no question my point is, given these days, the environment for litigation is that going to cause us a problem? I mean, it'd be great if we had a civil service board, but if we don't use a civil service board and the personnel attorney says what is in place is, you know, is adequate, is, you know, they get their fair hearing. I don't think we need to have this in here, that's all I that's all I was getting at, I think I think we need a lot of discussion on it, because it's we're going to have something. Okay. If an employee is reprimanded for doing something. Yeah He has a right to have somebody represent him. So if you don't have the Civil Service Board here to call in, each side presents their side and you'll have a union that has a full time. Well, there is a constitutional requirement to allow somebody prior, if they're working for a public agency to have their, property rights exercised, meaning they have the opportunity to hear what the reasons are for the discipline or the discharge, and then have the opportunity to rebut that and then have a subsequent what we call either a name clearing hearing or a hearing to rebut it, even if they're terminated. Yeah. Most of that happens right after that employee got into trouble. Right. So when those don't, there's constitutional lawsuits that come up for deprivation of rights. I, I'm trying to keep the city out of lawsuits. I am two that's my job. And I'm more concerned about the delay between when somebody's doing something that's really bad and we're terminating them, and we're telling them why we're terminating them, and we haven't done the whole gamut of it. We haven't talked to everybody. We haven't got the second people that were there. We haven't done that right. This gives us time to do that. And then that employee comes back and is able to explain what he did and why he was terminated. And then the city gets to say, we talked to X number of people. They're willing to come up here and say, that's not the way it happened. That usually ends it. That doesn't end it. With the outside attorney or a union. Right? I mean, the 14th amendment provides for certain rights for an individual to have, and the courts, as I said, have held that public, job has a it's a property. Right. And so you have certain requirements when you deprive somebody of their property rights. And that's what that does. The civil service Board is wonderful in, in handling all those things. And remember before you can sue you have to exhaust all administrative remedies. So if there is a civil service board, or if there's a grievance process, then you have to exhaust those before you can file suit. I agree we've got we've got an action now for Mr. Saltzman. And so we'll push that to the future and continue our debate. Mr. Turpin, you have one more comment. Yes So we have a civil service board in the charter. And are we saying that we don't have any members on the civil service Board? I don't believe there's a board currently appointed, although there is a board that was appointed and they never got de-allocated. But whether or not they're still living in the city or they're alive or, you know, I don't have knowledge of that, so it's probably something that if we continue with this, we put on the action the recommendation list for the board of commissioners, that they appoint a board they need to fill it. Right. I think we I think the city manager said that hadn't been used in at least ten years. Yeah. And that's the question. I mean, if an issue comes up, can the board be appointed then versus having one that's in place all the time? So that's that's the question. I think the point was that if you by the time you appoint it. Yeah What what happens to that individual and their rights. Are they on administrative leave with pay. Are they terminated or, you know, all those questions which affects them from a timing perspective? No I agree. So it might be that they need to have a standing board if it's very important that the employees understand not every employee knows what the 14th amendment is or anything else, you know, and they rely on us or their supervisor. They made a mistake, right? They deserve their day in court. Now we have how many committees and discuss that when we're discussing it. Okay, and thank the mayor for bringing this up and continue, that's all I had. That's it. Yeah. Well, I mean, like I said, really, that's it. I'm not going to do your job for you. I think you all are going to do a very good job. And these were just the things I saw that were somewhat subtle, that may or may not get discussed, that have been problematic since I've been up here. I think that you are already I'm hearing sound bites. I haven't watched them the past meetings, but, concerning residency threshold, property thresholds and that matter, you're already discussing that part and revisiting those. You have a number for the property dollar threshold. Well, I mean, no not really. I mean, you know, there's that argument that, well, we can we can do a multi-million dollar project without the residents approval. But then again, that project goes through a very rigorous and objective bidding process to remove any kind of issues that may be that you may see in somewhat these close property deals that may be of some concern, I really don't I mean, I think that there's I'm not going to say that there's an argument both ways. I've been comfortable with 350,000. I mean , we changed it five years ago. It can go up. I don't think it should go down, but it can go up. But on the other hand, whatever it is, we always seem to manage to find property for $301,000 less than what the threshold is, so that that's the only thing I have in that regard. The big issue was that was where does the money come that we buy this property with? And I'm talking about the CRA and it's usually city money. And that's the problem I have. And I think we should it's not an issue. It's just making sure that we have some kind of formality as far as how that money is loaned and what the terms are and, and what happens to the property after it's paid off. And the CRA, does it come back to the city? Does it not I don't know, that's that's for y'all to decide, and the residency on the charter officials, I think the from my perspective, I think the residents were kind of clear on that the last time. I don't think that's changed, I think Mr. Koulianos and I were the only ones that were just kind of, laid back and kind of said, okay, ask the residents. But I my gut feeling was I knew what the answer was going to be. They were going to say no. And as a result of that, I think we kind of left kind of a problem with the titles of these individuals in there. And that definitely needs to be cleaned up. And I think the city manager has probably got some good input on how that's going to deal. But again, that I think that y'all are very obviously I don't mean to say, but y'all are very capable of dealing with that and bringing something back to the commission. I don't know if you have anything else you want to ask me about. I have no, hold on, let's use a process here, I'd like to thank you. We're going to go to board questions for you. We'll start with Mr. Terrapin and work our way around. Okay. Thank you, just remember, this is a time for questions as opposed to debate. It's not. I think that we have to have a dialog in order to get somewhere with the with a speaker. We have to go back and forth a little bit. It's not just a straight question to him. It's a coming to an understanding. I'm okay with that. And I and I have a tolerance for that. But when we start debating because there's a difference okay, okay. And I go way back so we know how to talk to each other. Yeah, goes to the, the conceptually I don't disagree with the idea that the that the CRA should exceed the purchase price parameters of the charter, that, what I do think though, and this is, I guess Mr. Saltzman would come in the CRA is a political entity of its own, so we can't as the charter dictate to the CRA. But the Commission could change the rules of the CRA to say that they can't. Are you with me? Is correct. Yes. Thank you. So conceptually, I think it's in your court, if that's what you want to say. And I mean, you and two other votes or three votes. Yeah. Whatever on the on the second part of that, you said that, that you're going to bring up that the property that was bought by the CRA with loans from the city would get transferred back to the city. The little bit of policy, I think, in your thinking is, is that if the money was loaned to the CRA and the CRA repaid the money, it wasn't bought with city money, right? Okay. It was bought with CRA money. So are you proposing that the amount of money that the CRA paid for the property would then be transferred from the city back to the to the CRA fund to get the property? No, I think the what I was getting at was a good example is the Ford property. Forbes property. Ford property up there. That's been left alone to redevelop that, let's stick with the Bayou properties. Those are okay. And then you've got the Hoffman and some bay. Right. And those to my understanding, there was a lot of discussion that we're going to develop it as this and that. But it was real clear on the part of the residents that they wanted some kind of noncommercial thing there. And and the only way that you can kind of you can guarantee that is to bring it back under the city ownership in terms of green space, because we have a special provision for that, in, in the, in the city and also in the, in the charter. So that was all. And to me it's not a big deal. No, but it's okay. So here's the big deal. It's the conveyance. It's what you do with it to get it back to the city. I'm saying that the CRA agency bought the property. Yeah. Are you just suggesting that they transfer it back to the city? No. I mean, to me, I think that that's a mechanical issue. No, no, if it means loaning the money to purchase the property and it's not to me it doesn't. It gets spent for the same thing for residents. I mean, that's the way I see it. So if the city loans the money or grants the money grants the money to the CRA, and there's no requirement for the CRA to pay the city for that, then that's a the argument would be would transfer to the city a different story, because sticking with the two properties, the money was loaned from probably the probably the water and sewer fund, probably maybe to the CRA. The CRA paid it back. So the CIA owns a hard a hard asset. So let's say they the total price was 1,000,006 or something like that. Close Are you suggesting that the CRA gets the million six back? So they can plant trees, do lights, do streetscapes and things that they that the CRA wants to do? The city would get it back so that the CRA could plant trees. No, the CRA owns the property. Yeah. Okay. The CRA paid for the property. Do you agree with that? Yeah. Okay So how do you convey property that the CRA owns back to the city? That's a different political entity. You have two political entities. One is the city. One is the CRA. Are you suggesting the CRA just give gifts, the property back to the city? Either way? I mean, that's not either way. Well, no, I'm one person. No, I know okay, so I'm trying to show you that the, the inequity of that, you know, the, the CRA could have spent the money doing a lot of things that the CRA could do. Sidewalks. It could have, done a lot of things. So it's not fair that they don't get the money back. If you want the property, I want the CRA to sell it to you . Same, you know, for the, you know, as a wash. Yeah I guess let me answer that. If you think this is important, then you come up with a recommendation that that's all. And no, this is your recommendation. I'm just trying to get clarity on on what you're proposing. These are my observations and my thoughts. And I my the biggest issue is if we loan money, there needs to be a formal agreement for that. And yeah, and in this particular matter, the discussion of, bringing the Hoffman and the Sunbay property back to the city is a matter of discussion with the commission. They may not want to do that for the exact reason that you're saying we don't want to. Now pay the CRA the money that was used to purchase this, you know, the property through the CRA. I mean, technically, you could have purchased the property through the city, but we didn't do that. Right. And so my point is it's there's a lot of ways of looking at this. They did that to circumvent the charter. You don't want to circumvent the charter. No. I'm saying they did do that to circumvent the charter. Is my understanding. Yeah. To buy the sun Bay specifically, they use CRA funds that didn't have a restriction in philosophically, I'm not opposed to your idea that one can't supersede the other, but it's got to be the commission changing it, right? Mr. Saltzman, the CRA rules, I believe so, yeah. I mean, I think that's that's fine. I mean, we'll take it up. And that's all I was getting at was that the one was purchased outright and the other one, both exceeded the threshold. The other one went to the residents for their approval. But my suspicion is they would have approved the sun Bay as well. That's my gut feeling. Although some people felt that that would not have happened, I think it would have passed all right. Okay. Thank you. Are you good? Now? Can we move to Morales comment, can we move to. Sure Okay. Okay. Well, we can come back around. I'm good, thank you. My question has to do with, with planning and zoning and Board of Adjustment. Sort of the powers that they two that the two have are somewhat inconsistent. It appears to, to some of us at least, that have looked at this. And, so I'm wondering what your thoughts are, how your feelings are on that. And also one suggestion that, Mr. Koskotas had that, might be a way around it is not actually a matter for the charter. It would be an administrative thing for the Commission, but his suggestion was possibly setting it up so that if, if an item had a positive recommendation from staff and a positive vote from PNC, that it would automatically go to your consent agenda, and then anyone would have the right to pull any item that they want to have the full discussion on. But it would put the application through less in terms of a lengthy process. Yes. If it was a small and, relatively minor item like a lot of them are, this is a legislative, legislative, not quasi judicial. Right. Okay. Well, you know, these days I'm not sure about the past, but these days, the staff isn't creating ordinance changes or ordinances unless the commission has already cut in on it. And generally what they do is what the Commission wants with some direction. So to me, I don't have an issue with the way that you're describing it, and if the staff recommends approval and the charter and the P and Z board the same thing, that would be fine. That would be at least a way to get started on this, because I definitely do the P believe the P and Z board has to have some autonomy in some matters, I think they, they do a good job, although I know sometimes it kind of gets a little excitable in terms of the discussion and stuff, but that that's okay. I mean, that's, that happens all all over, but that's the way I see it. The legislative issues are generally started by, somebody on the commission, the commission as a whole. The city manager has directions. We give them directions. And that's generally the way our form of government is supposed to work. We create policy, city manager implements it, and the way they implement the policy is through ordinances, through legislative actions. And that's that's the way that works. I think I did sort of miss misspeak a little bit there because I, I think he and his thoughts, he was talking about quasi judicial or at least some quasi judicial as well, I, I, I think the quasi judicial, I can tell you there's some items that come forward that the staff does not make a recommendation on just because it's, it's and in that particular case, I think it has to come to the commission , they don't make a recommendation to you. They don't make a recommendation to the commission. It has to have it has to come. Right. There's some that are obvious, boilerplate sort of things that that I have no issue with that because it, I don't want to say they're all important, but it a lot of this stuff and quite frankly, it's nothing more than 15 minutes on our time because they get approved anyway, that's just the way it works, usually the applicant doesn't even show up on this minor stuff, so I don't have an issue with even the quasi quasi judicial. And I think you're your, your clerk. I'm sorry. Your your, planning director. And also the city manager and the planning director can provide some guidance to the to the, to the P and Z board as far as whether this is going to be something like that. And as far as you're talking about something like that in the charter. Right, providing some provision. Well, actually, if, if it was strictly going to be handled the, the way Mr. Koskotas described, it wouldn't actually be something for the charter. I don't think it would be a change in, in procedure. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it sounds like a good idea. I mean, my feeling is we need to start doing something in that regard. Well, there there has been some concern that that there not be allocation of responsibility, which certainly, you know, has to be considered. But I think his, his thought was there that by allowing the opportunity to pull the item and have a full presentation, if, if it's, a complicated item or if any commissioner wants to avoids any conflict with that. That would be fine. I mean, I really don't, you know, some of these things. I asked the commissioner whether they have any comments. They just give me blank stares and that there's nothing there. I mean, and so it's, you know, an automatic and less than 15 minutes. So and quite frankly, I don't if it makes people feel good, fine. But I really think from a, you know, a abdication of authority or something like that, it really doesn't do much in that regard. I would like to see the P and Z board, some minor site plans, have autonomy on some of the minor site plans, and, and that would be something that the planning and zoning. I think you've already had discussions on that, maybe something. And I think, the planning and zoning director can carve out some of that stuff for further discussion. That could be part of the charter, or it could be done in the form of an ordinance that, you know, I'm not sure Mr. Salzman would have to answer that as whether the commission could, through an ordinance, provide that ability for the P and Z board to make certain, autonomous decisions on on minor site plan issues and that sort of thing? My feeling is somewhere it needs to get started in that regard. Many other communities do that. We don't, Board of Adjustment does. It doesn't seem to be an issue. The only other thing is that there ought to be some appeal provision, and that's probably the most important part. Yeah. I don't know what that would be. Yeah, absolutely. Do you have any other issues to bring up or concerns? I don't think so. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Thanks for coming. Sorry, Jimmy. There we go. I'm fine. Thank you. Mayor, mayor, I just yeah, I just have one question for you. Looking ahead, and we haven't covered this yet, but I was looking at it because I thought we might go over it today in terms of, purchasing and finance and, and, section 23 that the city manager is authorized to expend up to 25,000 for budgeted goods or services without competitive, bidding has, in your experience or in your opinion, has there ever been a problem with this Mark? As a matter of fact, it's like pulling teeth to get them to do that. And he's always very sensitive about not doing that without the commission's, approval or at least their knowledge of it. And sometimes he does do that when he has to do that, for example, my, trip to, to Greece was $4,000, that was put in front of the commission, to have that approved. We'd already budgeted some X number of dollars. I think under the former mayor, I think it was 25,000 for the, sister Cities program, and that was already budgeted. So the, the, the you know, that amount of four was certainly within his ability, but he and I don't have a problem with it. It makes it transparent, but he could have done that as well. I think he does a pretty good job in that. Well, part of what I'm getting at is in this time of really significant inflation and all sorts of areas, do you think 25,000 is adequate, as I, I mean, I don't think it's an issue. I mean, it's always good to have more in case of emergency. I think an emergency, isn't it. $100,000 and that's another one. Yeah. I think I think that's fine. I think, 25,000 is good. And I mean, if we want to talk more that's fine. But I think 25 we've never had a problem with that I guess is what I'm getting at. He's been pretty good about it. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Miss Jennings. If you have any. I know. Okay. Well thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. We're going to go back one more time, I think. Did you Mr. Chair? Penny, did you have another question? No. Okay, great. Well thank you. Thank you very much for your time. We hope you had a fabulous time in Greece. It was it gets a chance to put you in touch with one. It gives you an idea of calibrating what a sister city is. And I think we've got some work to do in that area. We've got eight of them. I'm not sure that we need eight of them, but we need to do some work in that area and then of course, for me, just by coincidence, that wound up being my father's island, which I learned a lot from that. So thank you very much. Thank you. And now it's time for the Vice Mayor to come and share his thoughts on the charter. Good afternoon everybody. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for being I was looking forward to this. First, let me thank you all because I've watched all the meetings. I mostly agree with what you're doing. I think it's a great thing, and I really appreciate all of the thoughts that have been coming about because as you all and myself, I love the city and I'd like to see this city be a little bit better than I found it. And that's what I think all of you guys are doing here as well. So I wanted to start off because I'm going to speak about in my presentation all of what the other commissioners have also said. I also want to make a comment on what the mayor just said, and in most cases, almost everything that he said is something I would like to second, except that I do agree with what Mr. Trapani said, in that closing statement, I more so agree with you on not transferring or combining the CRA with the, with our commission. I think they're two separate entities as well. And I think that that should be, two issues. So I was glad you brought that up. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to go through the items. And I did want to start off by saying, it's interesting when you have commissioners coming up, everybody has their own pet peeves. And it's very good to see because we're all different people up there. You know, I'm just glad to see that other commissioners got to bring up things. I'm going to bring up my own. So I'm going to go to Limitations of Power first. First. And I did want to make a comment and forgive me because I'm just going to tell you, you don't have to worry about where I'm thinking. I'm going to give you my opinion. That is how I roll, there was a discussion back about the difference of how much the city manager should be spending, and, I kind of would be leaning towards hoping you could appreciate 500,000 or more , but I don't want it to be too excessive where the residents sit there and say, no, no, that's that's not the case. So I do agree with it. I also liked what Mike said about sometimes making it on the five years incremental. So if you did want to make it a percentage of increase or decrease depending on how our economy goes, it can go both ways. But I think there should be some flexibility, within reason, I don't like to have people bid on what is the most that could be spent, but I also need to give him some freedom and give trust to the city manager to, at the same time as giving trust to the city commission, because we put people in here that are honest until they have been proven to be not honest. So we do have to give them some leeway if issues come up, we bring them up. So that's what I want to say about that, and then I want to go down to section eight, I know that Commissioner Donato came up and spoke about. Everybody should just get along. That's all. Nice in the real world it isn't, people don't get along. It would be nice to have that happen. I'd love to see that in our own federal government, but we don't. So I do think that there should be no false accusation, as if you'd like to say it that way. And I think people should carry themselves as mature adults up there, and not having these cross fighting that goes out and false emails being sent and this is just a waste of time. It kills what we're trying to get done. It turns into argument s, so again, not always. Is this what you can put in a charter? But if it's something that you could put in, I'd love to have it like that. I need to see and I, I am an advocate against trying to move things forward and being positive, not negative. We had this just the other day last night, rather with an argument, between an ex vice mayor and a current city commissioner. And it's just, it's annoying to just sit there and listen to it. So that's my comment. With that, I'm looking forward to my next road trip. Then So. Next we're going to move on. I just put my little notes next to these areas. I do think that we should have a ruling that commissioners that get themselves involved in, in outside boards should show up to the boards. Case in point for Pinellas, we now have a seat on Pinellas. I've been elected to that seat. I wanted just on the beaten path. We have not been diligent in showing up to forward. Pinellas and the. The word on the street in Pinellas was that Tarpon Springs didn't really care about Forward Pinellas or being there, so if that's the impression we gave, it was a lot harder to go out and get a seat on that. But we do have that now. We got it by one vote. And, you know, it's a very interesting thing there. They're instrumental on a five year plan. They're not an immediate thing, but I'm just glad that we now have a voice there. May I ask a question? Always in the, in the way the commission operates, you cannot have two unexcused absences as a board, as a commissioner on the board of Commissioners. Right Do you want to how do you envision having this one? The name boards be under that umbrella, that the name boards have the same weight as a commission meeting? In other words, you have to, you know, make arrangements for not being there, at a board meeting. Otherwise it's considered. Unexcused. Well, you can have somebody sit in for you because you're a named. It's making arrangements ahead of time. So it's not an unexcused absence that that's the point I'm raising. You know, I you're touching base with something and I'll just whether there's so few unexcused absences, it's a blatant disregard where you just show don't show up. Most times we excuse most absences. So on that point alone, it's a moot point, but if you're not there, especially when we were representing three, towns Safety Harbor, Oldsmar and ourselves, and you don't show up. It's not a good thing because now you're also annoying to other towns, so. That's that's what I have to say with that. I know we also spoke about the comprehensive plan, and I think I got a consensus of five years from what I heard, that is what I'd like to see, not a three year. That was too short. I'm just waiting for everybody to write their notes. So one other thing that I really feel strongly about, I've been six and a half years on the Board of Adjustments, so I'm going to speak about that later. And. But board training is. Oh, my God, what we need more than life itself. If anybody's watched some of the meetings or it's, it's not so much whether the Board of Adjustments has more power than the planning and zoning, but it's the decisions that are being made sometimes, are so much more crucial. And yet the training that goes into it, one of my pet peeves is the first thing the attorney says before every meeting is we are we are writing, we're making decisions on laws already been written, and we do what they call findings of fact. If you listen to these cases, most of the people just hear that as words, and they don't present what those findings of facts that they had to make the decision. This is a really, really important thing, otherwise you're you're changing quasi judicial into legislation and that's not what they're there for. That's on everybody. You always have to give your findings of fact. What facts that were brought. There need to be, told. In addition, you can't not and I repeat, you can't share your own knowledge, interpretation that, you know, I live across the street. It's these are things that we just really need to key in on, because the rest of the board doesn't live across the street and you're not legally allowed to bring outside evidence into a quasi judicial hearing. So these are all things that I'd like to see have I don't know whether it has to go into the charter. I'm not a technicality. That's what I leave it to. My attorney friend and that's what his job is. But I'm just here to find and try to fine tune what I see as being incorrect, I know there was a discussion that we had back or or you guys had a discussion regarding, how to keep people, you know, on these boards and whatnot, and I was sitting there really thinking, we it is becoming harder and harder. We do have Citizens Academy. I was the first Citizens Academy class, but I was already a Board of Adjustment member at the time, I don't know if we need to do a minor incentive. That's the only suggestion I can give, whether it's, a meal to a local restaurant or a $20, stipend or, you know, and I'm not suggesting it. I'm just saying give it some thought. You know, people are giving up their night. They could be home with their kid. They could be watching a sport event, and they go, oh, my God, I have to go in for this once a month meeting. Let's I'm sure we could give them a, a something that will give them over the top. I know when people go to work out in a gym, they always want to have somebody else as their partner to give them that drag. On those lazy days. Maybe $25 gift certificate, I don't know. But it's just this was something I was thinking about because I really see less and less people wanting to, give their time and just to be to go up, to get attacked. And sometimes that's what happens is, the next I address to my friend Mister Jim, I know I want him to hear me. I'm listening. I can do two things at once. I got you. So you made a comment that no commissioner was actively looking to do any sort of dredging. Dredging? Yeah. You know, the how we push supposed to be. Yes, I know. Well, okay, I did in those cuts. Right. Well, I live on one of those cuts, and I just wanted you to know you didn't hear me or Craig Lunt. Both of us, we've been advocates screaming from the mountaintops about wanting that done. But I keep hearing a we don't have money and b, I hear we have nowhere to put it because we used to put it in the go between, between the Anclote and you know, so I I'm not. No, I just want you to know I'm on your side. I appreciate that because the city has less than two years to do something. I know that's in the charter. I know, and I'm with you. I just wanted you. I just wanted to go on record so that you understood because you said no commissioner or none of the nobody in the city. But that's not true, because I'll sign that tomorrow. I'll sign it now, the bottom line is we I do want that done. There's a lot of places that that's an issue, and it's worse if you don't live there. You don't really care. But if you live there and you utilize it, it needs to be done. If I can ask you to do something, you have power as a commissioner. Okay When those. That area was dredged many, many years ago. That sand was piled there and it was dredged by the government at that time. I was told at that time they were supposed to keep that sand there. So when it starts going out like it is now and at low tide, I could, you'll have a heart attack if you see what I see. I know they're supposed to pick that up and put it back, but now they've sold those most of those islands to Pinellas County, because Pinellas County doesn't want anybody to build on them, and I don't either. But in my opinion, I hope I'm right. I'm not a legal person. They bought the right to the commission that they have to now do that. We can't just expect a city to go spend $10 million every five years. Yes, I know, but the county bought them. They own them. It's their problem. Somebody has to broach that with the county within the next two years. Official so that they can figure out if they have any money to do it. They might even offer you you're going to hate this. They offered us $1 million to change that bridge over there by, the yacht club. Well, we are changing it. Yeah, yeah, they offer that, you know, they were very gracious and they would give us all those roads back that fed around there, back to the city. But it takes like $8 million to change that bridge there. So be gracious to us. Some money needs to address that. Well to just quickly address. There's plenty of roads around the city I don't want to mention which come by you that's falling into the water, but not by what we own, but by by where Pinellas County owns. So I'm aware of the procedure and I'm happy to, as a board, send letters. I don't want to do things individually, but I'll get to that in a little bit, but I am an advocate for that as well. I agree with you. It's a pet peeve of mine. One of the pet peeves. I've got quite a few , duties of the mayor. Okay, I know this was a selection that was done where we have seven charter officials and then we each get one, and then we have a dispute, a discussion, an argument, whatever you want to call it up there for the last two, I do believe whoever the mayor should be should get two. And I also believe that the vice mayor at the time should get two. And that would end this battle that goes up there. And we have our seven people. That is just my thought on the situation. So that we have our seven people. So you're saying, yeah, could you give the mayor two votes? Is that what you're saying? You guys decided that I'm somewhere along the line. It's not in the charter. Okay, I'm just saying this. I'm here to just say my mind. I'm confused what you're saying, so. Okay, explain it a little clearer, please. I feel that the mayor should have two picks. Two. Two picks for what? Two members of members of this board. Oh, okay. I wasn't clear what you were talking about. No worries. I'm okay. So we're talking about the charter revision. Yes. Okay. Yes. I'm with you. Okay. I'm sorry, that's back. And I think the vice mayor should as well, because there is really no, you know, the big joke here is that the mayor really runs the meeting. The vice mayor is just a title. I think that there should be something earned, you know that it should. There should be some sort of, maybe special thing. I don't know if it if it doesn't make sense, we'll leave it. Go to me. That's just something. I was reading through this, and this is my input. I also on now we go down to section 11. Where it has elections. I know this was brought up by Doctor Root earlier, appointments should not be allowed to run for office. When we appoint somebody, they should have to wait the one year in order to run for office. They should not be allowed to run for office. That is also when I spoke to a the mayor of Oldsmar. That is exactly what they have in their. I don't know whether it's in their charter or their rules, but that's what they have because it makes it an unfair, and I'm not talking about this election. So this election that we have coming up is a done deal. But I think in the future, if we do have an appointment, we should not have that person be able to run, especially on this one, because on this point, we heard, you know, actually, but I'm not I'm not trying to change this one. But what was said was I'm only going to be handling this for the time being for coverage. I won't be running. And then we changed. Now he's running. So that's why I don't want to have that. Okay Moving on to the internal auditor. Section 14. So I was very pleased with what you came up with on it. Going to the attorney, because we should never have anything being announced up on that board that could cause us to have a lawsuit , one of the things that I thought under under I, it says, though audits recommend improvements to ensure city resources are being used economically and efficiently, report all findings of non compliance issues, it should say to the sorry, that's okay. Let's add people. We go we. You can't make me lose my trend of thought no matter what you do. So it says non compliance issues. It should say to the city manager. And then the board of commissioners we're missing the and then. But I was pleased to see that you wanted a non compliance or an issue to go to the attorney. So that nothing is said. That could give us a problem. Unfortunately on some of these audits and especially on this one, there was discrepancies and personality issues and it never, you know, went that route. And that's how this thing went astray. I feel like I'm proctoring an exam here where. Got our blue books. I'm sorry, John, you don't know my personality. I'm full of jokes. Great. I'm fine. Okay Number. Be on city manager. It has here. Appoint all department heads with the ratification of the Board of Commissioners, including all terms, conditions of employment thereof. No term or condition of such appointment shall be valid unless such is first approved by the Board of Commissioners. That wasn't done. That wasn't done. We had no idea that we had a person working outside the city limits. Didn't I know it was said that we had it, but may it didn't have it, I didn't have it should never been done. Well, approval requires a vote of the board. Correct? Right. I understand, but in here, what ramifications do we have for that? I mean, you know, yeah, we could remove the city manager for doing it, you know. There you go. Okay. That's your case, I'm just, you know, okay. I see these things, and I just said, okay, it wasn't done. Okay. We can we can write a charter. We can't force. Oh, no, I know, I know. Listen, I wanted to start this off. Also, I missed my first line. All these things that I'm reading, I, I remember what Mark said when he was first up here. Less is more. I hope you change very little of this because when you once you start changing it, you do create other problems. And I'm well aware of that. So everything really has to be thought out. But you know what? I do believe that I'm in front of some of the smartest people in Tarpon Springs. You're all very knowledgeable in your own way, which is what I believe we have as a board. That's very smart. Everybody has their niche . I don't get involved with what John Koulianos knows or what the mayor knows, and hopefully they don't get involved while they sometimes get involved with what I know. But I'll let that go, so I just think that if there's anything that I'm bringing up, I think it was asked of me to look through this, and to bring up all things that I think are not, you know, what I disagree with or agree with or, and then it's up to you, you know, to, to bring it back for a, for us, with this with the same thing I will say, there is in the city manager number G. Again there is a statement on the G that says keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised. How do you monitor that? There is almost no way. It's up to the city manager whether he wants to tell you A and you B or you C, so I just looked at it and I said, that's nice. In the old days when that happened and he didn't do it, you tarred and feathered them. How many did we have. 2 or 3. 2 or 3 city managers left for that reason. You guys got to get tough. And I don't mean you go out and fire everybody tomorrow. But if this says you should do it, they can't tell, you know, get them the next one. I mean, you're getting ready to advertise. That'd be my first question. We're beyond advertised. We got 38 now. I heard 42, to read through. Good. That's good. Read all of them. I know, narrow it down yourself. Is what I say. We I know I was asked to read it and have a decision by Tuesday, but I kind of shot that one down. That's a little, little mush much. Typically on keeping the board advised the, if you keep your ear open, the walls talk and the street talks and you'll know if you're not being advised because it'll get back to you. Like, why didn't you know about that? Yeah. You know, Mister Tenpenny, I got to tell you something. That's one thing that I learned about Tarpon Springs. If somebody whispers on one side of town, the whole town hears it sooner or later. I know you got to do this. Listen, I do believe me, I listen. I have my ear to the ground. I feel like an Indian. Some days I. Okay Yeah. I need to turn to section 20 residency. This one's always a contentious deal. So we spoke about residency, and all I would tell you is my feelings on residency. See if your original Tarpon night and you are, have a $100,000 house or $150,000 house. That's all fine and dandy to insist that somebody lives here. Our prices have quadrupled . And, having if there's a hurricane or an event that comes up, most of the people are going to sit, most of the decision makers are going to sit in our police area to make decisions. I've always volunteered that I would be happy to be there as a city commissioner. I've had arguments with some commissioners that have decided they wanted to be safe for their kids. Feel free. You can. I don't have kids here. I'm happy to be here. I think there's only a few people that really should be insist on being here, to make those pertinent decisions that the city needs to do. But I've lived through a number of hurricanes, and while the hurricane is going on, there's very little you could do except try to save people that are going to possibly lose their life, which is the fire and the police and maybe, you know, people that can monitor boats, but it's the aftermath that is more value, and truthfully, what I've noticed in these hurricanes is that people want to help and they want to send an inundate and send you so much supplies and stuff that you don't even know where to put it. You don't know what things should be in in a sequential. Well, you know, maybe you'll need, generators first and ice to keep your food cold and all those types of things. So And I'm not going to get into that kind of thing. But the same thing happens to be then we need to get those same people that are near to us to control what goes on, because you have those people and you also have FEMA here too. So it's not just that we need our own people. We need, finances. We need decision making. We need people setting up tents and places for first aid. And because our hospitals are not functioning. So there's a lot of things that go into this procedure. I watched it during Hurricane Irene, hurricane Sandy. My son was in Katrina, so , I don't know if you need to put a restriction on having somebody sit in the and live in the vicinity. I did hear a perimeter of whatever it be. Five miles, ten miles, 15 miles. That's that's a more reasonable thing. Because what I don't want to do is I don't want to put somebody where we can't get a quality person who's really doing an excellent job in saying, no, you can't be in this , or we have to let you go because you didn't decide to move from Tampa here, and, and, you know, case in point, I want to give a compliment. Tommy Kiger lives outside our limit. It's. And the more I speak to him, the more I'm impressed with how smart he is. And how well he has taken on the position of Paul Smith. And I was very concerned because Paul Smith, I have a very strong feelings. He was very knowledgeable, I would hate to lose a guy like that. And for that reason alone, a guy like that, you just can't you can't put restrictions on where they live. So to me, my personal feelings, if they're within and an arm's reach or an ears reach or however you want to call it, I would like to see them, you know, be there, I believe you can love this town and not live in it. I you know, my joke is one of the things that I will tell you about Tarpon Springs that I have learned is everybody seems to feel they love the town more than everybody else. And I want to put a meter at City Hall where you put your hand on it. It gives you a rating of how much you love the town. Before you could walk in. It's a joke. So my point is, you could love the town from outside. It's, you know, and I've heard all of these arguments, it's just whether you do your job properly or not. So that's that. I did speak a little bit on the CRA. Okay so I'm kind of done with the what? I'd like to see change in the charter or what I'd like you to discuss in the charter. I don't want to use the word change, these are all comment s. Do I have time? By the way, am I good? You're at. I'm good. About 30 minutes in, so. Okay, these are some of the comments that I was listening to the prior, commissioners coming up and speaking about or some of the things that you all were speaking about. So, I know that John Koulianos was up here and he was speaking about building height when I was on the Board of Adjustments. We had a restriction on height. It stopped us from allowing a hotel to be built on 19. We weren't allowed to do it. It just didn't fall under the code. So I don't know, you know, of course everybody comes up and they go, that's because of the height of the ladder of the first fire truck we had. You hear a whole bunch of stories, but we have to set something up. And I don't know if it's in the charter or if it should be in the muni code , maybe it's something we've got to do, but, I remember when there was a hotel trying to be made up on the sponge docks and, and one of the comparisons they gave us was, well, look at Tarpon Tower. Well, if you're sitting at the sponge docks, you don't even know where the tower is. You know, with my sarcasm, I said, well, let's look at the Empire State Building. We might as well look at that. It was just as close. I mean, it's not even it's not even anywhere near us. And one was a, you know, how do you compare a hotel to a commercial facility? So I'd like to have. Aye aye aye aye. Where within of what is commercial height. Should be. What a residential height should be, and, and a hotel. So you know and I know we had this issue and we were not allowed to speak about it too much. I know John, Mr. Trapani, I know you spoke that you wanted. I correct me if I'm wrong. You wanted a referendum for height. Was that what you had said? I don't think so. Well, I had down here that you wanted a referendum for height, but a yes for purchasing of. You know, it was. Oh, it was not to have, No, a let me let me get my thought for purchases of a city manager. You wanted no money spent unless it went to a referendum. Yes. Oh, well. Yeah I don't remember. Yes. Well, I wrote down what you said, so. Well, I'm, I'm lost of what you're trying to say. Okay. No, I'm just I'm just repeating the things that I heard that either I agreed with or I disagreed. That's all I know. But I'm not clear on what you're trying to say. Okay, so you wanted, a referendum for every anything that city manager was going to purchase would have to go to a referendum. Land Oh, we were talking about. You're talking about land purchases. Well, my paperwork. You're talking about the city purchase. No, no, my, what I said was I was finished with the, with the charter. Now I'm going through all the comments that I made as I listened. I don't think the city I don't think I said that because the city manager can't buy land. That's the commission buys land. What I said in relation to land is that I'm a big two things. One, a protect the citizens via the charter because I have seen corruption in commissioners, mayors, city managers. I've seen it all. Okay So the thing is, and I'm not talking about the existing board or the existing city manager. So you put in safeguards to the public, okay. And I'm also my other big thing is to increase or encourage participation of the citizens in their government, okay. And give them the opportunities to participate. So the higher you make the threshold for buying property, the less opportunity the residents have to participate. You get, you follow that. Oh surely. Okay, so what I said was kind of tongue in cheek was as far as I was concerned, they have to refer referendum to buy anything. But, you know, really the two 5350 okay. You know, I'm not so much in going over that. The mayor said he's good with 350 and leave it. That's fine. But that's what that's what I said that, and it had to do with protection of the residents and the other thing I said was that the purchase of the land. And I've seen this in big, bigger cities is the is the small part of the, the cake. That's what goes on the land they bought. That is where the real money is. But there's no requirement to them to go back to the public once they own the land. I mean, if you buy a city block and then you want to build a 40 story building, you don't have to go back. You own the land. You don't have to go back to the public and say, we're going to build a 40 story building. You don't have to. And the other thing I said was, is that I would like to see in the charter that that the charter language identifies where or the charter question on the ballot, identifies where the funding source is. In other words, you're going to buy a piece of property for 350,000 or 1 million. Let's say it's a million because you're going to referendum. Where's the funding source coming from? Are you going to raise taxes or are you buying it from borrowing it from the CRA? Are you borrowing it from the water and sewer fund, or are you borrowing it conventionally from Wells Fargo? I think the public has a right to know the funding source. Well, I agree with where what you're saying, where they should know where the funding source is. But my question was when you do go why I put this down was because I, I just dispute it because, when you do zero, and I said that tongue in cheek, Commissioner. Okay, okay. I didn't know that point that it's I want to encourage the public to have a right to participate. Kate I do too, but half the things that I speak to the public, and believe me when I tell you, I know you don't know me. I speak to a lot of people. And I'll tell you this anything that I say when I when I'm asking them, what do they think about this? What do they think about that? They just I'm glad you're dealing with it, not me. And you're asking people more times than not what they would make a decision or not want to make a decision on when they have no idea what the city is up against. If I was to speak to somebody about a spill site, they don't know what that is. Even if I explained it, they don't know what it is. They still sit there and they shrug their shoulders. So I want to give more leeway to the people that know what's best for the city, rather than give decisions to people that have the least amount of knowledge where even if I explain it in a referendum, they have no idea. That's what my point is. I guess you and I have a difference of opinion on the public. To me, the collective public will always make the right decision. That's my belief, right? Yeah we do have a difference of opinion, but that's why I wrote this down because I did want, you know, my purpose of being here is to give my opinion so that everybody has an idea. But thank you. I appreciate yours as well. Okay. This one's a good one. This was one up my sleeve. I'm an advocate to. And I don't know if this is a charter thing or not. It could even be something, that we would have to do. I drive by on my bicycle, sunset beach, and Fred Howard Park and Craig Park and. And this past weekend, there were so many people park with trailers all over the Craig Park all over, up and down, every street blocking the streets. Some of them had tarpon sticks was. But most of them were either expired or not. There, I think we have a ruling that the police can only issue summonses for the people that are parked on Craig Park. I don't believe that they have any jurisdiction on the streets because it's illegal. Trailer They only have it if the trailer width exceeds a certain limit. On a street with a limited width. What I'm looking for is if there could be a radius of within that boat launch area that we don't allow people to just decide to block up our streets with trailers that come in from anywhere just to utilize our facility and then leave it there to block up our residents. So that's something that I'd like you to think about. Well, the it's a charter that's it's not in the charter, but the problem is not where they're parking. The problem is we don't have places for them to park. Yes I know, secondly, we only have one one boat ramp in the worst place we could have it with you on two occasions that I remember property was available where we could have had a first class place and no trucks and trailers in the in the board of commissioners didn't pursue it. So maybe you could convince them we need to look now. There's a few places left. Let's look now because this is a water town. We have more water basin hitting our land than any other city in the county does. We? But we don't have a way to get our boats in the water. Well, believe me, I know this all and I agree with you. Your boat, I know you. You've more reason for you to be the one to bring it up. I'm also the one that gets the complaint from the resident that says, hey, I have a sticker and I can't park there. What do I do? I feel for them. I go, I understand, Commissioner, it's not. I appreciate the dialog. It's not for the charter. But like Jim said, you don't have one, you have two. You have two launching ramps. One launches into a manatee migration zone, and the second launches into the pristine grass flats of the Saint Joseph Sound Aquatic Preserve. A proper boat launching ramp should be a priority of the city. Close the two you have to combustion engines and make them canoe and kayak launches. You had a chance to by not you. The commission had a chance to buy 20 acres on the Anclote River with an existing launching ramp and with, an existing pier. There's people in this room that lobbied against and had to go to referendum. It was all teed up to go to referendum. There's people in this room that lobbied. Commissioners do not let the people vote on it. Don't let them vote. You know why they did that? Because they knew it would pass and they didn't want it to pass because they saw it as an impediment to in the 64 acres on the east side of 19. Okay. So that's the real backstory on that. So there is available land, like Jim said, if you make it a priority, that's something the city would support in a referendum. I don't have I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't have much doubt that they would support it. I think. But it's not a it's not a charter thing, but there is land. So what I've learned is I can't go backwards and but it helps you to go forwards if you know what the where the mistakes were made. Well I understand, but I there's still nothing I can do about it. We're supporting you. We're just saying go find. Go get the land. No, no. What my point I'm trying to make. This is I'm here. This is my venue where I don't have fellow commissioners. And I'm going to say, you know, I want to say what's on my mind, and then I'm happy for you to question me on anything that I didn't say or what I did say, what I would like to do in the next round. Unless you have big, other things to say about the charter. Vice mayor, I'd like to give the board an opportunity to ask you a questions. Well, let me just cover then a couple of hot items, because there was a commissioner that came up here and spoke about lobbying. Yes, we heard that. We heard that. And that we recommended that. I fell off my chair, lobbying is probably the worst thing that we could possibly do because unless we hire a lobbyist, not for any one person to go and lobby. They're not speaking for the board. They're speaking for themselves. And before we went for that vote on Forward Pinellas, each and every time we went in front, I was at every meeting, every time we went to the next vote, we got more and we got more and we got more. And on the last vote, a letter was sent by a commissioner up to Janet Long, who was our president or Madam President. And it set her off. Now, I'm sure when it was sent, it was sent with the best of intentions, because that's what everybody does. But it came off so poorly that we she she said to me on the onset, she not only didn't want to read it, she didn't want to give us a vote and we would have not gotten that seat. So when I hear people speaking about lobbying, unless there's a cross section of other people proofreading it or reading it, I don't agree with sending things out, rogue, which I think that was your word. Rogue I know, I know, I have a steel trap for memory. So that was what I wanted to speak about. That also, the fact that we can't really unless we have a meeting, we would be breaking sunshine to discuss it. So we would have to have that up on a board meeting. The next thing was, Mr. Siemens P and Z, on small minor decision issues, I really feel that, if we could do if it doesn't, if it's not a, quasi judicial or even if it is quasi judicial, I like what Mike said about having it be a consent agenda item. You can do that now through process. I know, I know, but what I also think on some big projects I think there's nothing wrong with having seven members view it and then having another five view it if it's a big item, because that's that's an important thing. But I do agree you should have some, jurisdiction in decision. I'm very impressed with what you do on the board. Merle and or Mr. Seaman. And you're a friend of mine, you know, so I think we have a great board, and I'd like to see that, you know, that they have some jurisdiction because the Board of Adjustments does have that ice out there, let's see, I know somebody said, let's bring back Doctor Monahan. That was a thing she don't want to work anymore. She's done. I spoke with her on that, there was a clarification on. On what? What Mr. Salzman said on the resignations that happened at Saint Pete Beach. Why they're in trouble is because they didn't give it enough time. Too many people resigned at once, so they had to stagnate the resignations in order to do so. They'd have a quorum to appoint it. And it was just it was a mess. But that was what it was. I correct you sometimes, but it's okay. I still love you. And I. Yes. Assistant city manager. I think we should have. And with that, I'll answer any question that you ask. Okay. I'm going to start for this one this time. And Doctor Bucuvalas, do you have any. Yeah Commissioner, I'm going to go back to what I asked the mayor. And my concern here is, is I very much agree with Mr. Trapani that it's important that the people have a voice, you know, but I also feel that government needs to be able to function, especially in particular cases and in balance with the economic situation that we're in. So so for instance, section 24 talks about emergency purchases. If an emergency exists, the city manager may expend no more than 100,000. I'm wondering, I wonder if it's an emergency and it could be a hurricane or something. Do you feel this is enough? Should there be some, some way to increase that? And I have the same question about general funds for budgeted items. Has to go to bid for after 25,000 as an employee, I saw times where it seemed to me like there should be a little more discretion on the part of staff who were ultimately the people who are going to decide anyway. They, you know, whether you know about the bids and so on. So what do you think? I think I don't ask my wife what she spends for lunch. So I'm going to tell you that the person that's spending that money is much better suited, to answer the question, which would be Mark licorice, if he's okay with that 100,000 and he's willing to justify that to us and says, that's fine, I'm going with it. If he tells me that it needs 150,000 and then I would, you know, consider that the same thing goes for anything. Yesterday at one of the, agenda items we were asked to spend 150,000 per year for our geo whatever. Okay. And it was a five year deal. I looked and I said, wait a second. We did. The last two years, we spent 22,000. That's $44,000 in two years. How were you justifying me? Giving you 150,000? And of course, the comment I get back from prior commissioners or from people is, well, we just blanket this and then they just I don't blanket my checkbook. I don't say, here, take my checkbook and you write what you think you need. I need to have a checks and balances like I heard Mr. Trapani say, because my job is to represent the city and your taxpayer dollar. So we finally agreed to give them 75,000 per year. And that's what we approved. And anything more than that, they could come back to us. We're not, you know, we're not invisible. You come back if you need more one year, if you don't need more. Okay. But I'm not going to appoint 150,000 per year when you haven't shown me your biggest year was 140 and the other was 130, but two years you had 22,000. These kind of comments that you know, that come before us, they just don't make sense. So in answer to your question, I would give that over to, to someone who does the spending. I don't write the check for the FEMA. I see the aftermath of FEMA and we get reimbursed. So Complete, Miss Jennings, yeah, I guess the one thing I wanted to talk to you about was building height. And you mentioned Tarpon Towers, do you think that the city should look into creating different height zones in different areas, like, you know, the sponge docks, the downtown, the Fruitvale, all of those, you know, traditional historic neighborhoods should be keeping a low profile. But maybe as you go further out toward 19, maybe, you know, you might be able to accommodate a slightly taller building. I agree with that. And truthfully, if we didn't, if our hands weren't tied when we were on the board of adjustments, I would have loved to see a hotel there, I'm sure most of you know, we had a situation with the hotel and one of the pieces of land was able to accommodate the height, but the others weren't, so we kind of gave every offer possible that that could be a different height. And the other no, so, you know, there was nothing we could do except, you know, follow, protocol of what? What the zoning for the smart code was, I know they wanted us to just ignore it, but that's not what you do, right? Yeah. It just seems like, you know, the older, more historic areas of tarpon, you know, the height should be preserved. I think that that's one of the things that gives the city its charm. Yes, but you know, it's just like when I moved here, I noticed that I hate chain restaurants. Sure. I almost never go to them. And they were all on 19, which is fine. You know, and you know, everything on, you know, in town was mom and pop. So it just adds to the character of the city if you were to put a moderately sized. Well, there are hotels on 19, it wouldn't bother me. But frankly, the hotel and the sponge docks did. And there were I think there was also, access questions for trucks. And I think the same thing came up with the trailer park. Right. So, you know, when you're dealing with, you know, an infrastructure where you've got these narrow, winding streets, you know, I think, you know, maybe you have to look at, you know, putting something in place that would control what would go in there a little more. Well, when you have an older town like we are, zoning for what went on back in the 30s is so much different than what's gone in now, and it's so hard to, change what's what we did then versus, you know, you can't go into the Greek area, you know, Greek community and decide to make that, you know, ten feet wider. I've had people say, well, just knock some of the houses down. And I'm like, you know, these are the comments, of course, but that you get why can't we build a hotel on the on the old Pappas restaurant? I mean, this is a daily, conversation. And I'm like, fine, feel free by it. I mean, what do you want me to say, you know, there's a lot of lack of knowledge of just, you know, let's just do this. Let's just do this. If you read, everybody wants to put a left hand turning lane on mirrors and all 19. And I sit there and I go, fine, call Pinellas County. We don't do that. You know, people don't even know what roads we own versus what the county owns. So there's so many things like this, but I do believe I don't want to endanger our, the sponge docks in the Greek community, you know, that's the reason I moved here. And from when you see the comp plan and the strategic plan, people don't want that. So what happens on 19 happens on 19. Yes, yes. Okay Thank you very much. Thank you. I'll just add something to that in the local throw out paper. The driveway paper that they threw to everybody. The planning and zoning director had a super article in there about doing exactly what they wanted done that she has a plan she's going to be bringing to the board where she has containerized different areas. I know this all right. Just that I know it's coming. Well, we gave her we gave her, authority to go and look into that because a lot of the muni codes were showing up and giving us problems. So you know, I sat down with her. We've all sat down with her, but, you know, we actually have her putting red writing underneath the changes of what was to what should be, and then we go through it so, you know, it's right there, ready for you. I mean, you know that all that stuff has to be done, but it also has to be done keeping in mind that you don't want to annoy the person who owns the land, either. You know, it's always a balancing act. Do you, you know, it's like, do you eminent domain. Everything that you want. No. You got to pick and choose. So the other thing I was going to bring up, I'm. I've made up my mind. We need to do something with people who live out of town. My hold back on all of this is. And I understand this gentleman is very good. We don't want to lose him, but I know he had to be good enough to remember what he read and agreed to. That's the part that bothers me. Do we need to move this to a longer length of time till he can find a house he can afford, so we can keep him? Or do we just take it out I or add a five or a ten mile radius? He knew. Okay, that that bothers me, and whether he went straight to the city manager with it, I don't know. And I haven't asked because I don't want to know because if he didn't go to him first, and I'm hearing from commissioners, then you ought to let him go. That's what the charter says. There's a pecking order and that's what he should do. I hope he stays. Don't this don't misunderstand me, because everything I heard is 100% positive on him, but there's a Jim way and a wrong way. Do you do you want me to listen or respond? I was just telling you, I don't know if you can respond to that. Maybe. You know what? I don't know, and I'll feel better about it. Well, I guess that's an invitation to respond, first of all, if you know the job market that's out there, it's changed drastically. We cannot get anybody to do anything, just like we can't get people on the volunteer boards. I'm not only just familiar here, I keep tabs of new York, I keep tabs of San Francisco, I keep tabs with people. Just don't want to work. Jim, your day and my day, are gone. So when you do have somebody that's a value, you try to look away from the little things, he did not come in this position to be the department head. That was Paul Smith at. And when Paul resigned, you know, the also the here's the other thing. Interest rates on your current house. You know, my wife forever tells me she'd like to size down I go, oh, so you want to have a house half or a quarter of the size, but pay the same taxes? Is that what you want? I mean, you know, so you have to be really careful with what went on in this, in this country in the last three, four years has just sent things through the roof. And we have to, at least on the onset right now, make amends, at least until things get better and it's more versatile. I do see that things have topped off, and maybe they'll come back down a little bit. It's more of a buyer's market now these days than a seller's market, but to force somebody and lose somebody with his experience and his knowledge and his negotiation skills is, I'll tell you something, most times when I speak to and I won't give names and I try to issue my business sense and I see I don't. I'm teaching him. I don't have to teach what he tells me, and I'm going to compliment him. What he tells me is the decision I would have made, and I'm very happy to hear that. So then what you're telling me is, is that maybe we should change this to say if an existing employee who lives out of town gets promoted, then he's excused from this type of not a bad idea. Not a bad idea. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seaman , yes, talking about the boards and commissions and things and another idea that's that's come up is, was, actually having certain qualifications for some members at least. So, for instance, say, plans and zoning, you know, have some of the positions set aside for like an architect to contract or people that have experience in that particular area. And then you obviously you'd need to have a couple of positions that would be, you know, at large community members to give everybody a chance to participate. Rate. How would you feel about that idea? And obviously, we'd have to go through all the boards and commissions and determine appropriate, qualifications. I guess there I will turn to my dear friend, Miss Irene and say, I know for a fact just how hard it is to get bodies that want to do this. Your world with what you just said, I love it. It's an ideal world. But if you can't even get a quorum and you get people, you know my I scream to, the city manager, we have to train them. We have to train them. We have to train them. I personally think that city, commissioners should be trained, you know, you you elect the city commissioner. And what, you know, after two years is, is. Oh, my God, it's like I tell people I'm dangerous. Now I know what I'm doing. You know what I mean? It's there's a big difference of what you come in to. What you know, and that, you know, that happened when I came on the Board of Adjustments. You know, we do need to have training, and that should be, before the making. They're making major decisions in the city, I watched the decision being made on the Baptist church for Tony, you know, on the, the historic board. And they were arguing over rooftop, and, you know, it was it was, you know, these were things that, you know, I think you need to have some knowledge of what the area warrants and some mechanical and all of that stuff. I agree with you, but you know, can you get those people? That's the big thing. How do you get them? Yeah. So I mean, I agree with you, but how do you get them. So Okay I'm good. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Do you have anything just just to follow up on Merle's comments about the boards. You are aware that the city is a CLG and the Preservation Board make up of members is outlined by state statute, actually required by state statute. So you've identified the problem of getting people I think the commission and the clerk, it's what's the solution? I mean, we've tried to throw out a couple things. I don't think the first of all, I don't think you're doing it not you personally, I don't think the city is doing a good job of getting the word out. But on a lot of things, I agree, so how do you how do you do that? I mean, is it ads in newspapers? Is it fliers with the water bills? Is it, you know, there's typically a solution for most problems. And everybody you everybody here knows there's a problem with a board, makeups and numbers of people wanting to be on boards. Maybe it's like a PR campaign that, hey, you know, you have a chance to really influence the direction of your community and the makeup. I mean, people are talking about the new comprehensive plan and how it can, you know, you know, benefit the historic neighborhoods and things like that to keep inappropriate and incompatible development out. Or you can you can adopt these things all day long. But if you don't have people that know how to implement them, you're not going anywhere. I agree. So I think, you know, maybe the commission needs to have a brain session on, how outreach to the community to make it like a prestige thing that you get to, you get an opportunity, you're an architect, you get the prestige of sitting on a preservation board or or you're a contractor. You get the prestige of sitting on a P and Z or, you know, make it a PR campaign that it's a pretty prestigious thing to be chosen to be a participant in your government. So there's two things I like to say. The one thing is that you have to be very careful because course we have 1 or 2 architects in town. We have one or, you know, this is the fight that followed, the Florida League of Cities has that they're trying to remove home rule from us. Okay And the going from form one to form six is to try to screen us from taking money. And all it did was restrict the types of people that can go to work. And when I was at a meeting at the Florida League of Cities, I sat at a table where I was sitting with people with very, very tiny towns. Well the uncle was the plumber, the sister was the this this one was the that. They don't even have. And we're listening to a discussion on, on, scammers coming in and don't pick someone who has and doesn't have the right art it department to protect because then your cities that and I'm sitting there going, how could you even discuss that? You want to get into choosing when you have one person to choose from, that's a B. I would tell you if you follow federal politics like I do when you have, the last president, when Obama got out of office and I'm not getting political when Obama got out of office, Trump was thrilled about how many judges he left sitting on the tray for him to appoint. And then when Trump left office, Biden said, wow, look at all the people I could put in. So, you know, we've we've come to a society and this is just a society thing where we're finding it's harder and harder for people that want to work the, you know, I'm looking at a don't shoot me, but we're all middle aged. I'll say, how's that? Did I not insult? Could you please wrap up? Yes, we have, but but you know what? We all come from a working background. That is not what's currently happening. And I was just stating what the state statute. Okay, I understand, but wrap this up now. Thank you. I know you never was up against me, but I tell stories so that's who I am. Vice mayor, thank you very much. My pleasure speaking with us. We appreciate that. And I'll take calls anytime from anybody for any reason. So thank you. Thank you, I am going to open it up now to the public. Each individual will have ten minutes or less. Carrie, can I just insert one thing that'll take 30s? Sure. Okay, section 16 B the third line. I think you should insert the word appointment after such. So it shall be valid unless such appointment is first approved. Part B, line three, okay. So is that based on conversation here or something? No no no, it's I think it's, you know, it says no term or condition of such appointment shall be valid unless such appointment is first approved. More grammatical thing. All right. Yeah. So Scrivener's Scrivener, I'll make the note. We'll usually save comments like that until we're focused on doing that sort of thing. Okay Anita, protest 91 Bayshore Drive. We'll make this very short and elementary from things I've heard about people getting along on the board. The mayor must learn to use his gavel, and he must learn to say, stop it. This is not proper for a public meeting where you, fuss at people. Tell them off. That's not what a commission board is supposed to be. The mayor has to use the gavel, and I don't know if it's up to the city attorney to tell them to use the gavel. But last night was wrong, and he should have used that gavel and thrown his authority to stop such ugliness. Board training. We can't use tax money to give them money to be on a board. Because if you do, for one, you're going to have to do for all of them. They do get a dinner when they are going to the, school to learn about our government. The clerk's office does an excellent job with that. But people are not are turned off. Now to be able to come and be on boards, it's hard for them to make a living. It's hard for them to keep their homes up. But enticement as the your part of this community, come and help us and be on a board train. Yes, that's very important. They need to have an education. It shows by the historic board you shouldn't be on a board because you you read Gone with the wind or historical novels, or you like to color old homes. You have to understand the architecture, the roof and all of that. Let's go to our roofers here in town and ask them to be on some of these boards. The plumbers that are live in this town and asking Mayor, I apologize for interrupting you right now. This is a period of time for making charter change. That's what I'm telling you. These things don't belong to charter. But one thing I want to make clear, because I was hit with it this weekend down at Craig Park, I didn't say to bring back Kathy Monahan. I said , Kathy Monahan still has her foot in the door in Tallahassee. She knows about Grant writing that that's not a change. But I'm going to correct this because I heard it now, and I don't want you all to think I said for her to come back, that's not true. And I but that that's that's a comment that is better served in. Well, public comment made the comment I wanted it clear, but that's for next week. You can come in and do the public comments at the beginning. Next week, public comments will be right after roll call, but if you have a change, you are going to suggest us from the charter. That's the time. These are not charter things that he said at the end. None of them are. And I recognize that. And we give we give some leeway when the commissioners come in. Thank you. I'll deal with them like that. Chris Hrabovsky, 1602 Gulf Beach Boulevard, Tarpon Springs, 34689. So as we were discussing residents before, Vice Mayor Eisner is correct that after an emergency, most people want to help. I have recently been enlightened to the other side of that coin, unfortunately, and in gruesome detail, from these veterans that, experienced what happened after Katrina. So again, it's not something that could be done instant by putting in the charter that you have to be a resident in order to be a police officer, but it can be a transition in at a minimum. Once again, you would simply find out all of the police officers that work in other cities but live in ours, and at least see if we can get some interlocal agreement for them to help police here, if that emergency arises. Because they live here, I believe that would be a procedural, then that that may be that may be. So, do we have a do you have a feeling on the board about this? It's not a charter. I mean, that's that is I don't disagree with the, the necessarily I don't disagree with the position, but it's just not the venue. Right. I don't think this is the venue. Okay. So we would a great suggestion. Got it. This is probably not a that's not a charter okay issue. Then addressing some of the other items that were brought up, Mr. Trapani brought up during the election, a week being expanded to was it 30 days or 60 days or something like that? I was talking about the qualifying for qualifying. Yeah. I just think a week is too short. We need to go at at least a month, and I wouldn't disagree with that, having gone through the process, the only reason and originally when you brought it up, I thought the other way I thought we didn't need to because there are two people running for mayor right now, and they're qualifying, as in November. But we did go through an issue with the, so verifying the signatures on the cards, it literally got down to the last day and that's that could have been a that could have been a real issue if they said, oh, well, it's too late. You missed the boat, but we didn't make sure that your signatures were valid. That that's tricky. So I agree expanding the time frame might be wise, also something that really doesn't matter much is the 25 signatures versus the $25. Most other entities in the state, they do either or you can pay to file to run or you can get signatures. I think for and it varies on population. Like if you're running for state House, you might have to get 2000 or 1000 depending on what district you're in. And when I approached an expert on this, he said that was mainly, I want to get this right. It had to do with disabled people. If people they could afford to pay, but they couldn't afford to go out and get the signatures because they were in a wheelchair or whatever, and they would have difficulty doing that. That's what was told to me, why that's done that way. The city's inconsistent with the rest of the state. Just saying. I, you know, doesn't matter to me either way, you know, and it makes sense to me that you would pay and get signatures because, you know, but that might be something to consider as far as the boards, like planning and zoning in 2004, 2005, there was a Walmart that was up for, discussion in Pinellas Park. And at that time, the, Planning and Zoning Board vetoed that project . They were going to demolition a whole beautiful acreage of land. That board vetoed it and said no, which forced them to come back with a new idea, which is where they are today. They in an old, drive in theater or whatever they had to take down. Right. So it was already paved land. So in that case, it worked. So giving the board, planning and zoning veto power might make sense no matter what, it's going to get approved. If you approve it, it's going to go to the board of commissioners to either approve it or deny it. But why should we if the if the idea if the project is so bad that it can't clear the Board of Planning and Zoning, why should it go in front of the board of commission if it's that bad of a project, it should be able to be vetoed and you could make that supermajority or whatever. And again, the board of Commissioners, let's say that you get a unanimous decision not to build something. You say, this is just awful. I would still give the Board of commissioners the option of weighing in and saying, but I want to pull that, and I want it to be for us to decide whether or not it's that bad. So I think that's the way to go with that, because then, you know, you will be saving time for the city and time for the commissioners, and it gives you more power, not that you you know, that that's why you'd want to do it, but that it would certainly make it more efficient as far as the, the dredging, my I've been approached by many people who assume I'm an attorney. And they asked me about riparian rights. Right. They they want to sue the city over the fact that the that the waterways are not, you know, they they're not navigable and that needs to be done. And somebody's eventually going to sue. So whether you take care of it on the front end, you know, or you take on the back end, it's going to cost. And then the city is going to have to sue the county, probably to get them to do something. Is there a change you're recommending for the charter based on those comments? Well, yeah, it had been mentioned at previous meetings that that you take that out of the charter, right. This is a waterfront community. So I believe that it should be in the charter that that be it's in there. It's in there. It's in there where we they have to do something within a five year period. Correct. But what I'm saying is that it would it was mentioned that it should be removed. And that's why I'm saying don't remove that. We're not removing here. Okay. Not remove not with this group okay. Just just making sure. Yeah, so that that is something not to change. Okay. You have three more minutes. Okay. And what were some of the other items that were brought up. Well, I please make I have a plastic trap, not a steel trap like some people in the room. So I have they have escaped my, my recollection. But if you have any questions, I'm happy to thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, we are still open for public comments. All right. Before you start, I'm going to make a comment. If we have behavior that happens like last time, I will hit the gavel for a five minute recess. Okay. I would expect everyone to walk out and come back in five minutes after doing whatever business you need to do. Thank you, thank you. Georgiana Francis, 15 Athens Street, first I did want to apologize for my delivery last week. I was raised to respect my elders. So I do apologize again for my delivery, not my statements, which I do stand behind. And I didn't want to make sure I came today as I heard Doctor Ruth would not be here next week, and that her and Mr. Collins, don't know me outside of these meetings. So I just wanted to make that clear, the second thing I wanted to do was clarify my comments about the planning and Zoning Board with, I think, Mr. Scooter's recommendations regarding, it A70 vote, possibly going to, straight to the consent agenda. That is not a charter change. That's a procedure change. Right. But it was discussed today in the it has been discussed as a charter change. So it's the differentiation between what the Charter Revision Committee can discuss. That's procedural and what the public is a little bit it's not quite clear, you know, how we can comment on some things, but we can't comment on what you discuss. And I thought the interaction should be a little bit more fair. But, if Mr. Saltzman, Attorney Saltzman wants to weigh in on that, I'm just trying to clarify my. You can come and talk to us during public comments if you need to rebut or address something someone has said about you or something like that, and can I comment on the Civil Service Board? That's a charter. Yes, that's a charter. Well, that was my second agenda item. So my second point or third point was, it has been brought up at the Civil Service Board. The, the importance of it in terms of, I think employees rights as far as if they're I guess, reprimanded or maybe fired and knowing their rights, but I think that there's a more important aspect to that, in regards to how which if the prevention the purpose of that would be to prevent a union which the unions also represent their employees, you know, their union members on behalf of their benefits and things like that as well. And I don't think that our employees have those rights as it stands now, when I when you watch the meetings and, you know, the people come up and they and they talk about everything, and I've talked to him, a number of employees who, you know, have been here for multiple years and aren't necessarily thrilled with what they have, and I don't think that they have a voice. So I think the Civil Service Board, the discussion of that shouldn't just be about their rights if they get fired or reprimanded, but maybe about something proactive that could actually benefit the city, the employees, and hopefully the community as a whole, on the discussion of the city manager's budget, I guess, the 25,000 to 500,000 recommendations seems like a crazy jump, I don't know what the number should be, but I do agree with Mr. Tear Penny that the people will get it right, if we know about it and you know, we want representation from those that we elect to make sure that they make the decisions that are best in our behalf. But we also want people that have faith that they that they know and believe that their community as a whole knows what's what's best for them as well. So that's all I had to say. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for coming. Your apology is very much accepted and appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Okay moving on. Take a break, but take a break. We should take a break. 30 minute one. Okay. Five minutes and then nine minutes. 20. You want to end this? We can do that. But I'd like to talk a little bit about next week. I won't be here, I did provide some handouts. If you need a break, we can take a five minute break and come back and finish this. Were you being. Were you teasing me? I was, wanting a break, and I was not kidding about the 29 minutes. But we'll do whatever you want. No, I want to hear your comments. Okay All right, just. I've been, trying to get my ideas together. I started out this is not a complete list, but it's what I'm working on from all of my notes to grow, and I did note a couple of things I had left out, the funding source for property purchases, the building height, etc. So I am keeping this so we don't forget the things we've got to go back to. All right, so if I've missed anything, two weeks from now, write it down here, bring it back, and we'll we'll go ahead and update that list, we've heard now, a few times about how do we deal with the way the board works with board of commissioners, work with each other. I've heard, Commissioner DiDonato talk about how we've got to work together, and we have to work forward and etc, we heard, Vice Mayor Eisner kind of, echo that. ET cetera. And this has been something that's been very concerning to me. Of course, we can't put something in. We can put something in a charter, but the charter itself has to be self enforced by the people that operate to it. That said, I don't see any reason why we couldn't consider moving forward with with a couple of paragraphs in the section eight that talk about the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Commissioners in terms of their behavior and how they operate with each other. We've seen we've seen enough that I think that it deserves a discussion. So I pulled out, I read a lot of different, articles on that board behaviors, and I pulled out two one is from the Harvard Business Review on how boards can reduce corporate misbehavior . And I know this is not a corporate environment, but I think the things that it talks about are similar. And then, the, from the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, establishing norms for director behavior to enhance board culture and effectiveness, because we have seen how, difficult behavior makes for more ineffective boards. So I'd like you to kind of do homework and read this, there are two sections that I think, are pretty interesting. One is, there's a bullet area on expectations for director behavior, and then one on problematic behavior, which I remember in one conversation that the Board of Commissioners had there was a discussion on, well, what what is a personal versus a non personal attack. And two individuals that were having that conversation didn't decided that, well, they, they couldn't decide where that line was. So they left it. I think they might need help in defining where that line is and we can help them with that, so, so, I'd like us. I'd like you all to read it so you know where I'm coming from. If you have ideas on your own, let's talk about it. And, when we go back over that section, and I'm going to kind of, I'm going to throw something out there, I'd like to ask Attorney Salzman, if he has anything in his back pocket or that he's seen other cities have in their charter with regards to behavior of how boards operate. I have not seen that, but I have seen pretty strong rules of procedure that the boards adopt at the beginning of each year that the board takes over and here's the problem. Honestly, what do you do when there's a violation? Well, we have we're seeming to have that problem with, you know, several things that, Vice Mayor Eisner brought up that, well, it's a requirement in the charter. What do you do about it? Now, the board can elect to not have the city manager continue in his job if it's, you know, if it warrants that. But what do you do with is easy to do, right? What do you do with the board? I think the best you can do is establish the rules and expect them to behave by them. But it is. The board itself has to police itself. I agree, because at the end of the day you can, you know, do points of order, you can do those things. You can ask people to stop. But, if it interferes with the business of the board of the city, then the board itself has to take action. Well, you know, you're aware that. Sure. There can be a complaint made to the Commission on Ethics. Problem with that is, by the time that complaint goes through with the investigation, there's now, the last time I was up at the Commission of Ethics, there's three investigators for the state of Florida, by the time the investigation occurs, you're out of office, so it doesn't really affect anything. Well that was one of the things I had, come up with reading these two articles was the possibility of having a, you know, a, let's put it this way, a local ethics board for the city that is kind of the first, first stop to, you know, before it goes up to the you also, I'm sorry, you're also weighing the factor that you're an elected official, an elected official is given the, a lot of leeway to do what they think is right, because they have been put there by the residents. And so while you may not like their communication skills, we'll say the nice way, they still have the right because they're there. So it's a higher threshold than just somebody who's acting. If you put them on an appointed board. Well, and I can agree with that. If there's no direction in a charter, which I think gives even more reason why, maybe we should have, guidance in the charter as far as acceptable behavior. And I'll look at those for you. I have never seen that. I have seen it by bylaws. I've seen it by adopted rules of procedure, which have been pretty stringent in some places, but again, at the end of the day, it's the board saying happening or in some cases, rare cases, you see removal, of, of someone. And then of course, that creates all sorts of potential litigation and actions and injunctive actions. And, you know, you never want to get there. And in those cases, you really want to look at somebody doing something completely improper, illegal, as opposed to civility. Well, I think, you know, Mr. Saltzman, we have a lot of respect for you and your opinion here, so I would like I think I'm happy to look at it. It's not you're not the only place that has these issues, I think it's nice that you gave us this, Carrie. I think if we could find a good article, a good definition, psychological definition of projection, and provide that to the board, because most of what these guys are doing is when they are making accusations against other board members and members of the public, they're really guilty of it themselves. And so it's a it's a real it's the worst case of projection I've ever seen in any place I've ever been in the simplest form that I can see something that might help. And it is it may not be a charter thing. I'm not sure about that, but from sitting in the in the chair seat on P and Z, where it's not nearly as contentious but sometimes gets a little bit that way, it's really hard to know when you're in that chair, when you know, when has somebody crossed the line that you really need to gavel them and cut them off and all that. So if somehow it was spelled out very clearly, what it crossing that line was and I think it would be easier to use the gavel, it would, because then it's a lot less subjective. Yeah, you know, the bottom line is, you changed chairs because what's I mean, I mean, what's well, every everybody has a different personality and a different, different level of, of, what they'll take. But if it was spelled out exactly very clearly, maybe it would take a little bit of that out of it. Mr. Collins, do you have anything you want to weigh in with? Not on that. Right this way, I think in the past, wasn't there a letter of censure? I never heard of it. I don't know, it's. We got to remember something here that the Board of commissioners, if they step over the line and holler back at somebody, they're elected by the public, so how do you think the other four are going to throw them out or stop them? Well, we do it by example. They should do it by example if they're humane, when they're talking to somebody who's very upset that that'll slow that somebody right down. But lately I they're, they, they lose their temper. I mean there's nothing we're going to ever do about that. That's an individual. I'm going to ask you to indulge me on this one. Okay If you don't mind. No, not at all. We'll have Mr. Saltzman weigh in on this. All right? I would ask next week that you start with, on this when you're gone. Yeah, I know, and you know what? That's okay. That's You know, I am not able to be here. I accept my consequences, you know? I mean, that's that's the way boards work. They've traveled, the best reason is to enjoy your family. Yeah, but what I would ask you to do is start right in with. With 19 and continue through the end. I will be watching it to make my notes and capture the arguments and the changes and whatever. Yeah. Thanks, but I really think that, you know, forge ahead. I'm encouraging you to forge ahead if you have a decision you're able to make, go ahead and accept it. You do not have to wait for me. You are a voice. You have four votes here. You can make a decision and move on so everybody understands. Whatever I bring up, you're going to vote for, right? Yes, ma'am, I understand. Yeah No. Well, it's your meeting next week, so anyway, and, I just want to say thank you very much for, all you do. I would like to apologize a little bit for getting flustered at the end of the meeting last week. I am hard of hearing, and I just couldn't believe what I was hearing here. I'm very happy that we have a different persona here at the at the podium, but I, I encourage you, you ain't seen nothing yet. We got a long way to go. Yeah, no, I mean, use your gavel if that's something like that happens again. But I would recommend you consider the five minute recess. That's what I came up with. And that's why public comments are now at the beginning of the meeting, that's the opportunity to rebut what was said before, and then the charter review period of time is for discussing items in the charter. And I, I, and we have since, our charter officials have been invited here. I have given them a little more lenience for going off script, but, it's good. They need to be able to tell us everything. Yeah, yeah. So anyway, that's that's that's the why behind how I'm wielding my gavel. All right. So I'm going to, suggest we move on in the schedule and not you know, how much I love getting those chapters reviewed, but I'm going to skip that. We talked about what's happening next week, so now I'm going to go around for board and staff comments. Your turn now, Mr. Chair. Oh, I'm sorry. Let's start with staff, Irene, city clerk, I am working on scheduling. The planning and zoning director, and I believe, possibly procurement for the 10th, but I will get back as soon as I have a confirmation. Thank you, Mr. Saltzman. I have no additional comments. Okay, Mr. chair, I thought that John Koulianos had had some valid points about the height thing. Yes, and I don't know why I missed my notes. I was thinking that we would invite him back, but I think that, you know, Joan is maybe hit something that it's maybe it's narrowed down. It's not city wide. Maybe it's in the National Register district and the Greek town cultural district to it's in a physically it's already physically defined. For one thing, you don't have to recreate this mapping system that you already have it and that there's some wiggle room. Yeah. Well yeah. The areas that are historic districts, you know, there are requirements there as long as they're followed. But the problem is, is we have a lot of city that's not under, I think what John was pointing to is that the no matter what is adopted, as far as the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan can be, changed by three votes on the commission. So what he's saying is that let's say let's say that on, Tarpon Avenue. Let's just say that you're allowed three stories because I think you're allowed two. But let's say call it two stories because I think it's two stories. But the commission could give a story, but they if they, they couldn't go more than so much without a referendum or something. I can't remember exactly. I thought it was he had some merit. So let's let him flesh it out a little bit. But I'm I'm more Joan for the existing defined areas, whether it's the Greektown Cultural District, National District, the downtown National district, those two areas, that's just my preliminary thoughts. Until I hear what he how he fleshes it out. So are we asking them to come back at City clerk, to come to ask John to come back, to come back to once he's fleshed out more, what is there a particular sections on height restrictions as they relate to the charter? I don't care when he comes back. If you could schedule him when the whole board's going to be here to be beneficial for him every three weeks. I was looking at that issue today, and I did see one quickly that I think Treasure Island, had a referendum on that. So I'm going to try to pull that one and, and give you some background on it. We may want to talk to Renee before that, because she would probably have some insight into that as well, that then we could wrap up with John's second interview. Okay Did you catch that? All right. Again we have to ask for Renee through the city manager and it might be through the planning director. So whatever you come up with for us, I believe it is going to be for June 10th, but I just need a confirmation for the ultimate. I thought we had the ultimate. Are you. Are you done, Mr. Simon? Yeah, yeah, I just have one question, Irene. The last time we invited the hospital director president to come and see if he had anything he wanted to change or not, we're still going to do that. That's up to this board, I think it makes sense. Especially since he's new. He hasn't been through the charter before, he should be scheduled. And when you talk to him about this, you might want to explain why you might not be aware of the things. If he reads what's in there, he may not have a problem with it, because the director of the last time came to the first meeting. Then we did the writing and he never came back to say it was okay or not. So I know that had to be okay. Well, I remember we changed the name because the hospital name had changed, and I don't know if they're continuing to change the name, but basically, I think was that if they ever whatever they change, it has to belong to the city of Tarpon Springs. Maybe that's why he didn't come back. Possibly. All right. That's a good suggestion. City clerk, if you could schedule that, that would be good. I'm good. You're. I know you're great. I'm great. Doctor first, I want to thank you for doing this just to keep us organized. And thank you very much. I did it to keep me organized. And I still have missed a couple of things, but. And the second thing is, I'd love for John Koulianos to come back and talk to us about that again. And I want to very much hear what Renee says. I hope you will save the discussion for when I'm here, because as the person who did the nomination for the Greek Town Historic District, I and lived there and worked there, you know, I'm very involved with it, but I will be out June 17th. So let's please schedule let's not have them on the 17th. You can you can bring in the city hospital on the 17th. Stuck with me until September. All right, I am going to move to adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 451.