Chair. Ruth is absent and excused. Vice chair is here. Doctor Goodfellow's here, Mrs. Jennings here. Mr. Keyes here, Mr. seaman here. Mr. Turpen here. Great We have a long list of people from the public who want to speak. So we're going to skip that and let them speak later and go into, our first guest, Chief Jeff Young. Good afternoon, Jeff Young. Police chief. Jeff, we. Basically, what we're looking for is. And as long as you've been with the law enforcement and the chief, what can we do in the charter that could help your department? I mean, we get a lot of support from the commission and the community overall. And the charter as well, trying to look through things. And I know, I was talking with the fire chief before coming here. You all had asked about the, residency requirement as as a police chief. I don't have a problem with it. I live in the city already, so. You know, but I could see the complexities that come along with it. But also the value that comes with that position and against it, you know, you could argue either way for it or against it. Today's, time and period, it's a lot easier to manage from a distance. Our cell phones and stuff, all the communications. I could look up every call in progress and everything on my cell phone, doing all that information and coordinate from any distance away from the department. So having a residency requirement, while I feel it is value for the police chief, fire chief, and the city manager is an absolute necessity. No, I mean, Chief Coachman didn't live in the city, and he had a stellar 12 year career here. So I think that was just one example that I could point to for a residency requirement in the charter. But I do see the value in it because I feel like being part of the community and being out there. You need to be out there, but just because you live here doesn't mean that you'll always be out in the community either. So it's six one, half a dozen another, I guess, for that type of a question. Yes, sir. So one of the things that we discussed was, you know, like take coaching, for example. You know, he was grandfathered in because he was promoted at the time when within within and to the extent that that that happens, you know , you promote from within and somebody lives outside the city limits. What would you, in your opinion, say a reasonable time frame or mileage? You know, we looked at a at a radius of so many miles, that would that, we would look at as to require somebody to live within a striking distance of the city. Yeah. That that's a tough one, too. I mean, you could live 20 miles south is far different than 25 miles just east or north. So you know, getting here during rush hour traffic from Saint Pete is going to be a lot more difficult. You'll have, but you'll have bells and whistles on your vehicles. Yeah, yeah. We'll get we'll get where we need to go, if I'm responding with my patrol vehicle. Yes, absolutely. But, you know, again, there's no guarantee I may be even home today. Or, you know, this weekend, I might be out of town. My wife and I were in Orlando with her car, this past weekend at a friend's retirement party. But if I needed to get here, I'll get here. And the communications. You know, keeping in touch with my other command staff, you know, and they're all in close proximity as well. And, you know, there is other factors that come about it. And, you know, you're talking about when Chief Coachman did get promoted from within, you know, if you if you have that kind of a restriction on it, it could limit the people that put in for it, even internally, because, you know, some people are going to want to stay where they can live because their spouse or significant other may have a job that requires them to be close to their, place of business as well. So it could be a financial impact for somebody moving into the city where, you know, the price of a house here in Tarpon, you know, especially with the insurance, is going to be far greater than if you're living east of Trinity, you know, where the insurance is. Impact is not as great. We don't offset any of that with any type of cost, you know, coming from the city as far as, hey, a moving cost. All right, am I going, is the city going to pay for that move? We don't do that. So, you know, incentivizing it, maybe incentivizing something in the city, you know, if you do decide, you know, to move in here, we'll pay for the move or assist with the move. Something of that nature might entice some, because I can tell you, I have great internal candidates right now. For, you know, that that are directly under me. None of the three of them live in the city, you know, so if they were going to be looking when I retire anywhere down the road to put in for it, that's going to be a consideration for them, because, you know, there's no guarantee that you'll you know, when you say grandfathered in, I believe chief coach and actually had to get an exemption, from it, from the board of commission. You know, through the city manager and city manager brought that forward and gave them an exemption, if I remember correctly. Yeah, but this is our opportunity to make. And that's why I'm saying that if you're looking at what changes could be made in the charter, you know, I can see the argument for either side, you know, having grown up most of my life in Tarpon and, you know, I already know I'm vested and in here, but do I think Chief Coachman was as vested? Yes. You know, so I don't think living here is the hallmark of being vested. It's what's in your heart, you know, and I think that's the, the, the, the toughest part of measuring somebody that comes in for any job interview, whether it's the police chief or public works or public services director, you know, I know a few of them don't live in the city, but their hearts are in the city. 100, because they came here and they work here. And that's what they're going to do as professionals. So I think you'll have that part of it. But again, you know, to argue one way or the other, you know, I know most citizens probably like seeing people walking around. I know I get approached, you know, in the grocery store or wherever I'm at and probably spend an extra hour in there just because people are stopping to talk to me. But I love it. So I don't mind it at all. One thing we talked about is a possibility for some of this, particularly for the employees, that would be moving up to a higher level job that required residency was possibly exempting those employees in that situation, with the exception of if they did decide to move, they had to move into the city. I think that's a very reasonable, way of doing it. Absolutely I think that would be a great answer to it. And if somebody is moving from out of state, I would prefer to see them move here as opposed to anywhere else. But again, it could come down to financial impact because, you know, the housing market in Tarpon, you know, as we all know, is, is high. So, you know, are you going to be paying or subsidizing at a scale that still makes it attractive to an outside candidate, whether it's my position or others? Because you know, in the grand scheme of things, that's going to come down. What's going to attract the better candidates for you? And that could be a factor that, you know, if it comes down to dollars and they have to live here, they could be sitting there saying, well, it's not cost efficient for me to have to move from, you know, wherever, into the city. So even even with an external candidate, it could still limit who you're bringing in for, for even just for an interview. Well, well, chief, given that we understand, you're right that the market's a little tight. So. And I think everybody recognizes that. So in order to create some flexibility, what kind of mileage distance I mean five miles. Seven miles, you know as I mean you're just again that's a that's a tough one depending on where. But I would probably do you know, if you're looking at it you know, how long does it take you to get to the city on a normal day to day travel, you know, within 20 or 30 minutes? That's pretty reasonable. And to Mr. Osgood's point, if it's an emergency and we all have patrol cars or mine's an unmarked car, my command staff's unmarked. We have lights and sirens, though, in them. We'll get here. Yeah Quick. The trouble is, is we're not just talking about the police department. Exactly. It's the public works directors or public services director. But again, you know, where do you draw the line on that? I don't know, you know, is it just going to be those that have the propensity for emergency situations or like a public works or a public services or, you know, the library director and other ones, you're not going to have that need there. So where do you, differentiate and how are you treating one department head different than another, you know, and drawing that line and now I say I this one needs to but this one doesn't, this one needs to, this one doesn't. I think that's the hardest part to answer in a charter. Well, it was two things we were looking at. One was the, emergency type people like you and, the fire department and the public works director, public services, of course, the city manager. And really, Mr. Saltzman should be there to make legal decisions. And, he's sleeping over here. I'm looking at what's open in our. And the other the other part. Jeff was what you were talking about as far as the fabric of the community type thing, like the planning director and, maybe the library, I don't know, but, I mean, you you get around. So to give the flexibility, would five miles be enough or ten miles? I mean, you know, ten miles is probably a 20 minute drive. Yeah, ten, ten miles. I mean, I would do it like, if you're within a 20 minute time period of getting here, 20 to 30 minutes would be reasonable expectation for somebody. I think we need to make it a distance instead of a time just because. Yeah, distance from the center from city hall. Yeah. City hall or Tarpon and Pinellas somewhere in the middle of town. I mean, I could see the value in all of those things. But, you know, again, you're limiting the opportunities for people to come here. But and they could still do their job without a doubt. But to sit there and say, you have to live in a city because there's a lot of enclaves within the city that are not even Tarpon City of Tarpon Springs. So, you know, I could live out in rolling Oaks right off curlew, but that's county jurisdiction. So I'm not in this. I'm within the confines of the city. I can get here quicker from there than I can from 20 miles away. But is it still, you know, or someplace in town that where you actually live, you know, for Point Alexis? Of course. Right. If I could live in Forest Ridge and get here quicker than from out west, you know, in. Yeah Harbor watch area and out that far. So you know, time periods and distance isn't always that, you know, given an a radius like you were saying, of ten, 15 miles, probably 15, 20 miles, I would think would be reasonable. Sure. Okay What other, as far as a police chief, other departments are under your umbrella like code is code code enforcement other than code enforcement, what other departments are under your umbrella, well, I mean, just we have our cops and kids youth center. We have a working relationship, a partnership with the Tarpon Springs Housing Authority on running the youth center daily, SROs fall under me, which is school resource officers, but everything is police related. Outside of that, it would be code enforcement. I don't have my binder. So I don't know if code enforcement is a section within our binder. Not not for a, requirement of living in the city or anything. No no no no no, not living in the city I'm talking about. Any charter provisions? No, I don't okay, so then that was a question I didn't need to ask you. So, Where are you currently? The charter is pretty straight and dry, and I understand what everybody's saying. I just don't I don't have a good feel for who has to live here. I know I do, but again, I lived here when I started and plan on living here when I'm retired. So in the past, it was a lot of people, and I think everybody realizes now that's not really necessary. But if it came, if you're asking me who, I think if you're going to say who needs to live in the city, I you know, I don't think you should have a strict residency requirement. It's not needed today. In today's society. But if you're going to definitely the police chief and fire chief and the city manager would be the three that I would say. But outside of that, but even those three, I, you know, I get 100% why the city manager and the police chief and the fire chief would people from the outside, the residents would want to see them living in the city. It's you know, the perception is that they have a vested interest in the city and would be driving around, being there all day long and everything. That doesn't mean that you whoever's in that position would be spending time walking around dining or shopping or or going out. There is no requirement for anybody that has a residency requirement to do that. But again, you know, that's going to be the juggling act of anything. Well, would it work if, like you, you, you live in a city right now and. You have your up close subordinates that you know could take your place when the time came and you mentioned that once, once they're there, we don't want to lose that talent. Correct. They could be stay where they're at. But if in the future they move to come into the city. I think Mr. Simon, the example that he gave was perfect. If you're outside of the city, you're living there and you're working here. Currently, we won't require you to move in. However, if you do decide to move, it would have to be within the city. I think that's reasonable. Sure. And for an incoming person like a city manager, you know, again, that's for something that I think that as even as a resident or looking at it from that perspective, I could understand you want and if they're moving down here from up north or something that they would be required to live here, but if they're coming from internally again, you know, it's the same type of principle. Would apply. Okay. I appreciate that. You can't leave, though. You got this done in 15 minutes. We saved an hour for you. I could talk about a lot more things. Any questions you have, then fire away. Do you hear what happened to Keith? Yeah. Yeah, it's. It was sad. I, you know, I went up to the hospital and stopped that with Romano and them. So. Yeah, medical issues. Yeah, yeah. Sad. Well, can you let me in? Absolutely. Everything good? All right. Thank you all. Thank you, thank you. We appreciate you coming, Jeff. We really do. Back in a little bit. Thanks. Thanks for all your volunteerism as well. And trying to make the city better. Appreciate it. Trying. Oh, yeah. That's right. All the volunteers. You forgot your hat. You're next. Yes I do. The minutes first would be a good idea. Jim, I was just saying, we all have to be residents. That's true. We do. We need we do need to do something that I jumped right over. And that's approval of the minutes from June the 17th. Move for approval. We have a motion second and a second. Any discussion? Roll call. Vote, please. Doctor Boukouvalas. Yes, Mrs. Jennings? Yes, Mr. Semen Yes, Mister. Chair. Penny Yes. Vice chair. Colin Yes. Thank you for reminding me of that. Just because it's in writing, you can't count on it. You know. Jimmy. Yeah Should we talk about the chief's thing a little bit? The residency? Or do you want to just keep going to Irene or. Oh, I would love to keep up with the residency. Right now, it's one of the most important things we've got to figure and jumping around and coming back and coming back. Yeah it. Nobody objects to that. Let's I think it's a good idea while it's fresh. Yeah yeah yeah. Well you know I thought he made a very good point with the, the time access, you know, rather than a distance access, you know, for, for us to consider. But you can't judge time zone because the South is different. So it changes. Right. You have to use a distance. I think. I mean, and you just you'd be in trouble with time. Yeah. Just have to use your best guess of. Okay. Seven miles, ten miles. That gets you in the in the drive time that you're looking for. But, I mean, I think, I mean, I could I think it's already in there that there's a, there's an exemption for existing employees. Isn't there more in the charter already on residency? I think they could be granted an exemption. Yeah. I think it's something they have to. Yeah. The board may temporarily, temporarily excuse the residency requirement for such time periods. No period to exceed one year, that's on a new employee though, right. Isn't there an exemption for, that that's that's March 14th of 2000. Oh yeah. That's that's really for somebody who came in and yeah, first year they didn't find a place to live. And the board gave them. Well, I would support Merl's idea that if you're an existing, existing employee and you got a chance for a promotion, that you don't have to move. I mean, I would support that. That makes sense. And what no one has really mentioned is, is the issue also, if you have children, let's say, let's say your kids are a junior or senior in high school, are you going to want to move into a different well, that's part of the justification for granting. So would we would we say that, in like if you choose to sell your house and move at that point, you should move. You must move into the city or into the into the 12 mile radius, whatever it is, ten miles, seven miles, whatever it's decided on. So you're saying there's no requirement? So is there. Are you staying still a requirement or some people like. No, I'm saying if let's just say that some some guy works and he's in, I don't know, Dunedin and he gets a chance for a promotion to, that he wouldn't have to move to, to Tarpon. He if he's an existing employee, he's exempt from the residency requirement. Okay. I think that's about the plainest way to say it, but but I think at least the certain key ones that if they're if they're moving would have to move to the city, not the radius would be the city manager, the fire police and planning and oh, the public works, public public works, I think was what we said. Yeah. Public works. And then I'm big on the planning thing. Then everybody else would be the radius thing. Yeah Are you going to require them to be in the city, or are you going to require them to be with a city address. Because we talked about there are some areas that are really city. Yeah. Right. But but they're technically part of the county. Yeah Well we're putting them in the catch two phase. But I think we can we can work that out if, if it's a city manager coming from out of town, then we expect and demand that he live in town. Okay. I mean another state or whatever. Yeah. No, I guess I'm trying to find out. The definition of in town is an enclave with the Tarpon Springs address in town, an enclave. It is. Has our city limits. I can go with it. Yeah, okay. I can tell you how to do it, and you remember when. The for Pinellas. It used to be Pinellas planning Council and they the county had a referendum and they created planning areas for all communities. And so the county knew what they would have as unincorporated. Right. Do you remember that? Yeah. Yeah. So the city has a planning area. Okay. Our planning area is everything north of Klosterman Road to the county line. And east, I think to, east to, McMullen, booth, I think I think that's right. Yeah, it's all the way down. Yeah, it's way down. Yeah. So it's, I mean, that's the one way to do it. Then south to Palm Harbor. No, our planning area doesn't go to Palm Harbor. It stops at. It stops at Klosterman. Klosterman. Yeah and that's good. I don't have a problem with that. For the people that Merle was saying police chief, fire chief, city manager, planning director, public Works, public services, public works director. Because some of those areas are that are less expensive or less expensive than being in part of the city, and they their stuff down around Lake, even right south of the golf course, there's like 10 or 12 acres that are in the county. There's all kinds of stuff. Yeah. That's the oh yeah. Klosterman at the end of Florida Avenue is, Coquina Shores or something. Yeah, that's in the county, but it's I mean, it's really in the city. It's Well, yeah. And it's perceived by probably 95% of the residents as part of the city also. So, I mean, it should be fine for those people to live in that area. I would think. And the planning area is a good way to define it. Right. And I had it in my notes that Andy also suggested, zip code 34688 and 34689. The trouble of that, Joan, is it an Andy? Is it makes you subject to the feds because they change zip code? That's true, sizes based upon population growth. Yeah. That's true. So discuss the unincorporated Tarpon Springs. So if they have a Tarpon Springs address, because that would be in the unincorporated area. But the planning area would cover that, right? Yeah Because that's where I was for 13 years. I think the planning area captures all of the unincorporated enclaves in the city. Okay. Right. I have those down. Is that right? I believe so, we'll double check it. I think what we're talking about is the answer. I think we can we can piece this all together and have a whole lot better charter piece than we had in the past, because times have changed and I'm trying to make at least. So we got the city manager, the police chief, fire chief, public works. We'll get that part. Public works. And there's something called public services that that's that runs right. That's what's in the one water and sewer stuff. There's roads and streets. Yeah Okay. And let's stop. Wait, wait, stop. I got to make my I got to make my argument for the planning director, because the planning director, who's planning the town, in my opinion, should be part of the fabric of the community. I mean, we have a historic district, we have a Greek cultural district. We have waterfront districts, we have all this stuff. I think somebody who's planning a town gets a better feel for the town by living in the town. Yeah, well, the wording in the charter is the city manager, assistant city manager, city clerk. We deleted administrative services director. We've got fire chief, police chief, public services director, building director and planning and zoning director. Okay, I don't know about. I'd rather have the public works director than the building director. Yes No, it's in there. Public services director is in there. There are two different positions. Right, Irene? That's correct. There's public services, which is water, and there's public works, which is roads and streets. Yeah. My, my real thoughts on that is, is that the public services guy and the other guy out in, in doing those jobs could fall into the 12 mile area and not hurt us. Oh, yeah. Versus the planning area, you mean. So. Yeah. Yeah. And only put those people right now. Is that what you want to talk about? Just the planning area. Who's going to be in the planning area? Yeah let's let's start with that okay. So the planning area is Joan, you had to sit city manager, assistant city manager, police, fire, city clerk, city clerk. Yeah. What do we care where she lives? We. I'm just telling you what's in the charter right now, okay? She lives in her office, right? Yeah. She lives. I think that's right. Okay. Fire chief. Police chief. Public public services director. Building director and planning and zoning director. We crossed out. Excuse me, and I'm sorry to interrupt you. I while somebody was talking, I crossed out that the city clerk administrated services director, Developmental services director, and the planning and Zoning director. We took out. But y'all had listed down the emergency support, which was the city manager, assistant city manager, fire chief, police chief. And then. Yeah, we're still going back and forth with the public services director and the public works director. Okay. I think if those people are in the radius. Yeah, if they're in the radius, they ought to be fine with that. Yeah, but, we want to limit this as kind of as little as we can on the true absolute residency. I don't think the city clerk matters or the building director or the. I agree with you, John. I know it's. What was the other one? There was one. I mean, we could let Irene leave the. Leave her office. Yeah Okay, so we're going to delete city clerk, right? Yeah. Let's let's see. Would you write this down for us ? Thank you. We want to we want to keep the city manager in it. Assistant city manager and the assistant city manager. Right Fire chief, police chief. And now we're saying planning and zoning director. I know public services director. That's water services director we're seeing could be in the radius. We're talking about just in the. Oh, okay. Yeah I mean, that's just me. You guys can weigh in. I mean, I think everyone except the four, you know, can be within the radius. The manager, city manager, assistant city manager, police chief, fire chief. And then the rest of the radius. So we're saying that before in the city limits or the. Yeah the four in the planning area. Right And the rest in the radius. I mean, it doesn't mean they won't live in the city. Yeah. It doesn't prevent them. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I think a good P and Z director probably is going to want to live in the city. I would think. Yeah. The and probably some of the others would too. But, but as far as a requirement and, and then either of those groups at the different levels have the, you know, if, if somebody's promoted to that position, they don't have to move, right? They're going to fall under the other rules. We've been talking. They have to move. Yeah. Right. So I think in the third line though, we're going to have to specify city because right now within the city and you want to change that to the city planning area. Well I think it it does what you guys said like right when you say the city and somebody lives on the end of Florida Avenue and it's in unincorporated, technically they're not meeting the requirement, but if you say the planning area it captures. So I'm just I'm just looking. Right. Yeah. So we want to change that wording in the third line city planning area. Right okay. I think that's a good safe for us as well in the long run. And it's defined already. Yes there is a physical boundary to it. And if it changes it changes then it changes. But it doesn't stop us from doing what we're doing. It's probably not going to change because the county is not going to want to give up any more land. No. And there's and there's nowhere to go in most directions to. I mean, do you think you could ask Renee to give us a map of the city's planning area, I can, I can I pulled up the election map to the. I don't think you were here the day, but that shows the, it's color coded, and it shows what's in and what's out of the city limits. Like you said, that's that's you. And that that's different than the planning map. It's the planning. It's the planning area that the all the cities and the county agreed on. There was a public referendum on it, and it. Okay. I will get it from her and forward it to you. Thanks. Okay. Let's go forward. Now that's. We took care of the most important for in all of that. But let's talk about the radius people who are coming up in position and we need to include that language in this same thing that, you know, if Jeff leaves the chief leaves and he's got two guys who don't live in the city, how do we handle that? I think we talked merl's thing of they don't have to move unless they do move, do move. Then it will be interpreted. So that language we need in there, that's that's what I was talking about. We need that to go just as strong as this is. Right. There was one other thing. What we were talking about. I'm going to rely on y'all's memory, too. I'm the oldest guy in the room here, so probably not my reach. My retention is not that long, and Linda wouldn't come so how old are you? 80. Okay. I'm close. Come closer. We That's the Jim I know. I think we've discussed the language that Mr. Seaman just said. It was in the minutes of the, about if someone see how it is here. Sorry. Just jumped out of it. If someone is promoted. Y'all talked about that language that they can stay. Irene, could you pull it up? Right. They can. Unless they unless they move. Yeah, they can stay where they're at. But if they move then they've got to come into the city. I'll read what I have in the minutes. Oh From, I don't have it on the, on that. If current personnel get promoted, it's not the exact, what you voted on, but y'all spoke about it at the 17th, and then y'all voted on the 24th, if current personnel gets promoted to one of those main four positions, they would be grandfathered in. However, if one of the exempt parties elects to move the residency, then the exemption would be forfeited. That works. That works. Yeah, yeah. That works. That takes care of the new people coming in, the people who are here and get promoted. And when they come in, what else, what else is there? We should try to get in here. I don't want to leave anything out because this is one of the most important things. Well, do you do you you know the next sentence? Do you want to leave that in about employed prior to March 14th, 2000. That's 24 years ago. Yeah. It's got to change. The date definitely has to change because we're changing the rules. Okay And that at this point I'm not sure that even needs to be in there because yeah, we're being very specific about who has to do what. I think the new wording that Irene read kind of preempts it. Preempts it. Yeah What about distance? Yeah. Well that was didn't we specify that in line three within the city planning area? Well, that's no, that's, that's, that's just for the for that's just the top executives. Okay. And then so, so we're going to go to a different geographic area for the other employees. Yeah. Yeah that's what we talked about miles instead of time. Miles. Ten miles from from city Hall. City hall works. So. And to define that it's directors or all employees that's that's just the, the others that are spelled out would in, in any others that we might think need to be added I guess. And I know some of these names aren't even right on on the old thing. So we may need a little help knowing exactly who it is. Yeah, I have a note to check the correct titles. Yeah. So public works, Public Services, that's in the, We have a copy of that. They gave us a copy of all the employees. And how they. Oh, the organizational chart. Yeah. If we just came up with the distance with ten miles more, I think I think ten is going to equate to 20 minutes roughly. So I'm good with ten. Yeah So what do you think about ten miles from city? Ten miles from city Hall. Yeah, that's. Yeah, that makes sense. It makes a lot bigger than what it was. Yeah. Yeah yeah, there's plenty of less expensive options, right within that range. Right. For a finite group of heads needed for emergency operations and not for everybody necessarily. Correct. Right Are you getting all that area? We'll get it, Mr. Salzman. I'm relying on the tape. Oh, okay. All that language. Let's go to the videotape. Yeah. So you could put something together then and that we can vote on? Yeah. I was just looking at one of the other sections that's up for discussion. When you get to it, one of the other big ones, which one is that? Because we're just about done with this anyway. Well, powers of the boards. What number? Section 12 zoning. Okay, before we go there, everybody pretty comfortable from what we've done and decided on, and we're going to get up. Yeah we just have to decide. All of us will bring us something back in writing, and then we can fine tune that and be done. Yeah, we just have. We need a motion to that effect. Who those people are within the ten mile limit. Exactly. I would say at least all department heads other than the four that we identified for and all department heads, do we? I would think so. You said four or more was, are we leaving the planning director in the with the four? I haven't taken out city manager, assistant city manager, fire chief, police chief. I never get my way. How many departments? I don't have the organizational chart. Yeah, I would have to go back and look. I don't know offhand. I didn't bring my copy. I should have. Yeah, that's why I said we either have to clarify it or, like, who y'all want or just say all other directors as department heads. So cultural services needs to be within ten miles. I kind of think you want all of those people to be close enough to, to participate in the community, even though they don't live in it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm all the directors are department heads and they play semantics sometimes with the with the language. So department heads or directors either way. Let me give you this. Right. Yeah, I think so. You can peek at mine. Thank you. Okay Yeah. We can put something together for you to vote on. This is the other section I was telling you about that I just wrote up a relatively simple assistant city manager. Thanks, Annie. Thank you. Looks good. Andy the. My one question would be that he would assume that responsibility without further, like, it doesn't take any board action or anything. Once the city assistant city manager becomes a city manager, if the city manager is absent. Right. Well, that's just even. Well remember we have so we have the, acting City manager provision, already in your language. And what I wanted to do is, is incorporate this into that. So. Okay, let me, let me interrupt. I gave you guys that list of directions and stuff, but are you happy with that? I don't want to get away from this one and start another one. I that's pretty stringent, you know? I mean, ten miles and some of these positions like, finance it. I mean, I just don't see the necessity of putting a limit. It doesn't mean, again, that they won't live here, but, you know, I just, I mean, I can see the, the argument for development services planning and zoning, economic development, but I just don't see it's a necessity for everybody. Well, they're all under the umbrella of administrative services. So if somebody is just an administrator, do they have to be within. But you know, but that's the planning and zoning and, and the other thing that this is for, for new hires, Tina, this isn't saying that somebody who works here today has got to move in. They'll be there'll be a date in there. They'll be exempt. Whatever the date is, the voters they're exempt from. If they live somewhere else now, they don't have to move in. So it'd be new hires to encourage some of it's to encourage the participation in the government and to get a feel for the town. And be part of the town. Right. Which which is important. But so we're not talking about we're not talking about existing employees. No. But let's say you hire an IT person who's coming from Largo and their kids are in school. Their their husband works in Saint Pete or something, you know? Well, they don't have to move, okay? They don't have to move. No. But if they do move in the future, if they then they have to. That applies to them. That clause applies to them too. Okay. We have to keep everybody. We have to keep in mind also this EOC group that the city manager set up in an emergency, he's got and I'm going to guess there's 25 people there. We know that down though. They said that's what the fire chief said that they were going to eliminate a bunch of those people. Yeah okay. But, are they going to do away with this whole process of having emergency people stand by and I don't know. No, I don't think they will either. You know, they're not I wouldn't think they'll change that. I think what the chief said was for that that hardened shell, wherever they all go, they didn't have room for them all. Okay. I'm just saying that the essential staff is everybody we've been talking about. Exactly. That's got the manager, fire chief, deputy, fire chief, two chord floodplain administrator, police chief with three police, deputy police chiefs, information technology, economic development director, building official director, public works director, finance director, procurement planning and zoning projects administration. And that's a different, director that's different than what's in the charter. Okay, I know, and I don't think we need to worry about that. The only thing I worry about is we can't give one of these people new rules by putting them in the charter. I don't want to put them in. So you're only talking about the people that are currently in the charter? I think you should really be specific here who you want in the residency requirement and where you're putting that residency requirement, because remember how the question will come out, you know, on a referendum, do you? I mean, it's basically are you willing to allow these people within whatever you decide, maybe it's the ones where you just say within a, you know, a Tarpon Springs address for our discussion, period, because these are the essential people. Everybody else really is up to, how the city wants to deal with that when they hire the person. I mean, you're dealing with the charter. The charter should only deal with the essential people that you want to live within the city. Right. Merle had the language. Jimmy, I think that list you were reading wrong. Yeah. We had, on the existing charter. Well the critical ones, that were in the planning area was just the city manager, assistant city manager, fire chief, and police chief than than all the others, whatever they may be, would would fall into the next. But I'm saying to you that I don't think you're going to win on both those questions. I think you should have limited to one the one you just said those people have to be within the planning area, period. The other ones are should be more of a suggestion to the Board of Commissioners that these people should be required to live within ten miles. It's already in there. I understand, but you're you're you're dividing up with this new one. You're kind of justifying a few people to be within this area and others. I'm just I just think that the question is going to be confusing. I'll write whatever you want. I just don't want it to be confusing for people. Yeah. When you're when you're changing more than one area of a charter section, Andy, our hands are tied because everybody knows that the market here is a little tight. All the department heads that came in and talked to us said, please expand it a little bit. So we just have to be careful how we do it. But I think we've wanted it down to there's four people in the planning area. Right. And then there's who are the people currently named in the charter? No, just department heads or or, no. Or directors. It's more specific than that. Yeah. It's got the others or the city clerk, the administrative services, which I guess doesn't exist, could call public works. I guess the, the public services director, building services director, planning and zoning director are the ones the other ones that are spelled out now and then we just say that they have to live within a ten mile radius of the city. Outside the city. We're right. Or if they move. Okay. Absolutely. Or if they move, they have to move within there and if they will, morals, languages. And if they if they're existing employees, they don't have to do anything. But if they move, then they have to move into that circle. But if they're if they're new hires and unless the, unless somebody's exempted it or we built a option to exempt that or give them a year to move or something. No, there's language in there to that. Right. Yeah. Language. Yeah. True. So. All right. Whatever you want. I think it's just hands are tied on it. Well, see, it's not if you if you if you. I know you may not like this. If you strike everybody except for the essential people under the residency and you put your limitation of within the you know, the planning, the tarpon Springs, planning zone area. I'm just trying to figure out how to do the question. Well, and I, I mean, part of the reason for it is, and you know, this case better than any of us do, probably was having a building director who lived in Jacksonville and we don't want that to ever happen again. Yeah, that was a weird thing. Yeah So. Well, honestly. So I'll say this in response to that, the only way that those things could be controlled is the board of commissioners controlling the city manager. You know that this issue comes up all the time, because of the provisions that talk about interference with the city manager and the city manager's ability to hire and fire people and people always say, well, how do we get the city manager to do what we want? And the answer is, you fire the city manager because the city manager answers to the board of commissioners, and you don't want to have the interference with how they're doing their job. But on the same token, if something like that comes up and the board of commissioners go, look, that's not acceptable to us. So either you have somebody within Pinellas County, let's just say, or, you know, you we're not going to keep you here. I mean, that's the only I mean, ultimately, that's the way you deal with those things. It's just, it's just legislating this the way you want to. I understand why you want to do it the way you want to do it. I'm just. We we're just going to have to work hard on getting the question. I, I would be in favor of try wordsmithing it. And as as you understand, you know, I understand what you want. Bring it back to us and we'll look at it. Everybody is happy with that. And it sounds to us it sounds like we're covering all the angles. It sounds easy for you guys. It's explaining that to the voters. You got three years to do it. If you can't do it in three years, we're going to bring someone else in. If you guys haven't figured it out, I'm a chairman, but I enjoy having fun when I'm a chairman. We don't need to kill each other and I don't have a problem. Andy, I hear you, but I don't think we have any choice. No, I understand, I got you. I agree with that, ladies. Okay. We All right, so we'll bring you back some language. You come up with. Yeah, yeah. Thank you I appreciate that. And now we'll deal with the, charter revision. Assistant city manager. So, John, I know exactly what you're talking about. And I was thinking about how to put that verbiage in there, and I'm not sure I know what what verbiage. Could you put in there that establishes when the person. It's almost like if you're the city manager and I'm the assistant city manager, and you leave the city, then I'm the acting city manager, right? Automatic. Anytime you leave the city. Right. But that's not what it says. Well, it it says that the duties of the assistant, shall include the exercise of the power performance duties during the city manager's absence from the city. The assistant city manager shall be assigned by the city manager through the exercise of the powers of emergency manager. 16. I guess so. And I think that covers that. I have a different I think the assistant city manager might have been when you were, the assistant city manager because he was acting city manager? Yeah, that would the duties of the assistant manager shall be assigned by the city manager, but shall include the exercise of the powers and performance duties of the city manager during the city manager's absence from the city. I think that covers it. Covers? I mean, that's pretty much anytime he the city manager, is gone. That person becomes the city manager. Exercise of powers tells us that when the city manager is gone, he's doing them right. I have a question about the selection method, though. I mean, I think Bo, considering that this person does become the city manager whenever the city manager is gone, I think the BOC is going to want to say in this selection process, I don't think it's something that just the city manager alone should be able to appoint. I think he needs a well, he can say it's subject to the approval, subject to the approval of the board of commissioners. Oh, okay. Yeah Okay. No, I made sure of that. I agree with you 100. Same reasoning. You can't have somebody in there that isn't been approved by the Board of Commissioners. I just don't want the board to have to go through the whole selection process themselves. You're supposed to bring in a qualified candidate and it says the next section says, shall be appointed solely on the basis of their executive and administrative qualifications. So if they don't have those qualifications, then they can't be appointed. And where were you anticipating this goes along with where we were. We put it we were discussing putting it in 16 so it would be called city manager assistant city manager. It would be called assistant city manager. It would be probably. Let's see, 16 reads one. See where it says acting city manager, right. Yes. I would I would recommend we remove that completely. And we okay. So here's your two choices because this is why I looked at it. So we have an acting city manager provision. So either we make this number three or we strike two completely, which I'd prefer to do. And then you could just remove the last sentence of this one. So the way I wrote this is if you left two in, I made the assistant city manager shall serve as the acting city manager. You could leave that in and we'll just put a number three which says Assistant City Manager. If you look at section 17, that's how they have to put one as well. The deputy person, you put it as the oh, the same way. Which one is it? 17 B I'm just saying if you want the language to be consistent. Yeah. Well, wouldn't the assistant city manager have more weight than the acting city manager? Well, yes. In my opinion, we don't. If we have an assistant city manager. Well, let's just say something happens to the assistant city manager and the city manager, right? Somebody has to be appointed as acting city manager, right? So that would be that level down. Yeah. Right. So we could put make this two in that three. Right. That's what I was. Yeah So Andy what about is there a time that's the problem. What you do I know what you're going to say. Yeah I don't know the answer to that. How do we put that in there. Well, you could say that, I was thinking about that during the city manager's absence of greater than 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours. Some we could say that. Or we could say prolonged, but that's that's that's subjective. Right. So I was looking at that and I was trying to figure that one out myself because, I knew that was a glaring issue. Yeah, yeah. City manager's abstinence. He goes to lunch and city greater than. Yeah He goes to lunch in in 48 hours. Safety Harbor and. Yeah. No, that's what I was. And I'm in charge now. We got a crazy assistant city manager and said, well, we're going to change everything for the next hour. You're fired. You're fired. No, we could do 24, 48. I want that was something I thought you guys would discuss. So we're still on 16, right? Yeah. We're. Jimmy, we're on the language with Andy and are talking about, it says during the city manager's absence from the city. Greater than 24 hours, 48 hours. So I mean, which thing are you in on this memorandum that he wrote on the assistant city manager? I'm with you. Go ahead. Well, I mean, there needs to be a time frame. So you know, the guy can't. I mean, what if he, like Andy said, he goes to lunch and the assistant city manager goes crazy. I mean, so, like 24 hours, 48 hours, whatever. You're. Yeah. Feel comfortable with John? I mean, the language we have under 17 B is during any temporary absence or disability. But we don't define temporary absence, which could be an hour. We could put something in there maybe that says the Board of Commissioners would not not appoint but allow that to happen if the city manager is in an accident and he can't come to work. Yeah. I'm just concerned. So the city manager goes on. I want it to be automatic. I want him to just I want the assistant city manager. City manager says, look, I'm leaving town to go to a conference in Nevada. You're you're without any other action. He becomes the city manager. So I'm just saying for because he can do that under the acting under the greater than 24 hours, if he's gone for more than 24 hours or 48 hours something, then the assistant kicks in. Well, he kicks in any time, I believe. I mean, if the city manager is going, going to be gone for three days and something happens, it automatically kicks him in because the city manager can't come back. We I what about I think you need to have a minimum like 24 hours if you're gone for 24 hours. What if you put in a clause something like, you know, the acting city manager would be, you know, like if designated by let's look back at that language for a second. You know, I'm okay with what Andy wrote. I just want to add the city manager's absence from the city for a period of greater than 24 hours or 48 hours or whatever number you want, just so that it's defined. That's when it kicks in. Not that he goes to lunch and, you know, he could be sick. And the next day something needs addressing, you know, you know, because here's here's the problem with the acting city manager language. The city manager shall designate in writing subject to approval of the Board of Commissioners, a qualified city administrative officer to exercise the power. So under the scenario we were talking about the city manager sick or gets in a car accident or an accident is disabled. How does he designate in writing the acting city manager? I think it should be automatic. I agree with the automatic, but I don't know how you write it. Automatic. Well, oh, I wrote it so it is automatic the way Mr. Salzman wrote it, it is automatic. I think the automatic win though. So the automatic would be the city manager's absence from the city for a period of greater than 24 hours, or 48 hours. I don't care, I'd say 24. Something could come up any time. Yeah, they 24 going once. What do you think? Yeah, twice. It's going to say that because there was no Assistant City manager. That language was placed in there as the acting so he could have he had like currently there's three people in place by succession. If one is not available, then it went to the next one and that was board approved. But I think if you have an assistant city manager, just my opinion. Like I have a deputy city clerk, I don't have a time frame if I'm not in the office and she has to take care of something, she's she's automatic on behalf automatically. That's right. This is different. The assistant city manager. This is different I mean different I mean, that's how I wrote it. Exactly how you're talking about. That's what I'm saying. The way you wrote it, I think is good. I think the acting I if you have an assistant city manager, when does the if the, if the assistant is not available? I mean, when does the acting city manager take place? So I don't know if that's what they'd have to both be. Just were saying 24 hours. If he's gone 24 hours, what do what do you think? Do you do you think I mean what is your opinion and what do other cities I know you hire? Well a few few cities. And so I looked at a lot of charters, have this in the charter. They have the ability to have usually it's like Irene said. So you get the beginning of the year or sometime if something happens, the city manager brings forth to the commission, these are the people in my absence, the police chief or the fire chief or the city clerk or the treasurer, whoever becomes the acting city mayor. And if they're not available, this person and this person, that's how I've seen it. Now you're creating a new position. You're mandating an assistant city manager. So this is a new position. So how does this person I mean, yes, we understand the city manager will give you the jobs that you're doing. But when does he take over for the city manager? I mean, it frankly, it could be when he's just gone from the city, something comes up. Well, you know, Mark is at a conference, something that's a day conference. That person is in charge. I guess if they go run amok, they won't be the assistant city manager much. Well, and to keep that from happening, maybe it's it has to be. I'm trying to keep this in today's atmosphere. I think what he wrote is good. It's good. I agree with John. I think it's good. I just add the time frame that when it kicks in, it should be. That's my thing. Is it should be in 24 over seven. Okay. If somebody comes into the city manager, he should know, I mean, the assistant city manager, he should know. I'll talk to John about it and get right back to you. He's not going to make them while they're working side by side. That's not his job. Unless he's assigned that responsibility. So it's 24 over seven in my mind I. Well, yeah, you should. He's the assistant city manager 24 over seven Jimmy. But when does he become the city manager? And so that's what I'm saying, is like the way Andy's written it, it's good. When does it kick in that he's the city manager? I mean, I could we could change it to absence from the county. Well more I'm listening to this. You know I think there's a certain common sense that comes into it, you know, as Irene said, you know, if, say, that she's at a half day conference down in Saint Pete and something comes up, you know, Michelle can deal with it. What happens with the fire chief? Let's say that he decides to go to lunch in Orlando. If you like it the way it's written to him, we'll go with it. I mean, I yeah, I think we could live with this. Yeah, I do too. I think if we had somebody who couldn't follow this, they wouldn't last as last for very long. Yeah, right. Andy made the point. If they run amok, you just fire the commission. Wouldn't put up with that, right? Well administratively, they can define it more thoroughly between the city manager, the job description, assistant city manager. You go. Right. That makes sense. Yeah, it doesn't necessarily need to be in the charter. No And yeah, go back to the more finely we chop up the ingredients in the charter salad, the less likely it is to be approved. You're right about that. Yeah. I think we're really trying to put in here's a new position. Assistant city manager. They're going to be in this, position. And the job description will be created and obviously approved by the board, any, any good city manager when he gets an assistant that he's picked, he's going to sign a bunch of stuff to him to take the load off of him. And that's that's going to work. If that works, it's great. If it doesn't , then he'll probably recommend that he's terminated. But this is no different than being in the general public. That's the way it works. When the number two guy comes in, he does most of the work so he can take over in an emergency. He can take over, he learns, and you try to groom that person, maybe even for the city manager position in the future. So, Andy, in your mind, we get a new city manager. We know Mark's retiring, right? Right. We get a new city manager, but a new city manager know that he's required to hire an assistant or he it's at his option. Now. This is a requirement. Okay. Shall shall any kind of shall is mandatory okay. That's going to be I want to be around when this passes in then I move. We adopt the language for the assistant city manager as written by Mr. Salzman. I'll second that. Okay. We have a moving right along the dueling seconds. I just want to make sure this is clear that I presented one thing in writing, and it was approved. Can. I'm batting a thousand without a change. Listen, don't let it go to your head, man. We have a motion. And a second. Any more discussion, should it say in the motion that that wording will be inserted as, section 16 two? We're not really through with that section. Yeah. You don't have to worry about that part. Okay. That's more of us, doing that when we write something down once we get this okay section, that's written, what I'm going to recommend is, is that let's get this one done with the vote. And then let's go to 16 and try to finish it okay. So we can get this all done at one time. That would be good okay. Would you call. Doctor Boukouvalas yes, Mrs. Jenney? Yes. Mr. semen. Yes. Mr. Serafini? Yes. Vice chair Kalivas. Yes. Thank you. I had some notes written all over section 16, and while we're here, let's just. Let's tackle it. And the first note I had was down on section F. Yes. And we were adding add prioritize improvement programs or something. Yeah. Prioritizing and prioritizing capital improvement program. Yeah, that's what I have okay. We have enticing future capital improvement programs. I have prioritizing capital improvements programs deleted. Yes. Because we had this language in F and G that my notes show. Let me see. I had and g I had keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city to include future needs of the city, which to put that in there and future needs of the city. I had prioritizing future capital improvement programs. Okay. Yeah I had program deleted. I have that next. So those are the two sections that I had notes on that you wanted to make changes. Yeah I also have those, I have them both that we wrote those in do we want to go over this whole section. I think you went over the whole section and those were the only changes. However, if you want to revisit it. That was on May the 20th, because I have a note down here that says info from attorney about assistant right. Manager. Right. And so as far as I knew, there were three changes. These two that we just discussed and the one you just voted on. Okay. That's all I have notes on. So you put this together for us also. Yes. It is. As long as there's no other changes as long as there's what? No other changes. Yeah. And when we get it all together, then we can review it again and make sure and vote on it. Yes. That's that's the way I think we should do it. Well, we've we've done two good things today. Anybody want to make a motion to adjourn ? Wait a minute. We've got it. We've got our moved. Yeah. Michael, come back here and I'll probably will be gone. Yeah That's a great time. That 35 minutes, Mr. message. That would be Irene's turn. Yes, ma'am. Before y'all do adjourn, that's fine. I just wanted to check if you still wanted me to do the quick. Actually we're going to take a ten minute break. And when we come back, you have two hours and 50 minutes with us. Five minutes would be adequate. No, it's. This is crazy. It's dependencies. The PNC and the Board of Adjustment is the board of adjustment. And leave it alone because there's different departments competent, substantial. I'm not. Oh, okay. Quasi judicial. Right And I was looking to see what happened. Now we have a committee member has left and nobody's run amok. And then. Transfer Yeah, but I'll be honest with coming back with you. Charlotte Oh, that's a zoo. I mean, that's the worst of the river. Well, I'm taking the director tomorrow, so I was just curious. I saw that, and I said, well, I didn't know that, so. So. Okay, let's get started again. And, we're going to have the city clerk wait to make her presentation. She wants to straighten out one thing. That's exactly what I was holding off for. Okay? Because we're going to have to change what we passed. Just Well, I make a motion that we. Okay I make a motion that we modify the agenda to include Rene Vinson. Okay. Oh, the agenda that. Okay Thank you. You don't need them. Okay. No. Thank you for taking the time. No problem. I know you were. You were eavesdropping on our conversation in there, so it wasn't real time. So I was glad y'all were still here. Please tell us, so, you were referring to, Mr. Trapani was referring to the, annexation or the plan. The old planning area boundaries which did exist until several years ago, that those planning area boundaries were put in place by, I want to say it was ordinance zero zero 63 years ago with the plan, with the planning Council and fast forwarding several years. That was actually struck down. So those planning area boundaries, because that was all about controlling annexation. That was struck down. And so those planning area boundaries don't really exist anymore. So I wanted to that was the map I had. There's like three copies I brought up that was the old planning area boundary. Basically, it was Klosterman North Anclote Boulevard to the south. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Anclote Boulevard to the north, Klosterman to the south. And the farthest, east was George Street that, you know. So that's what it used to be, however you want. I just didn't want you to describe it as something that doesn't legally exist anymore. So however you go is up to you. So there was a designation for that? Not anymore. No. Okay. Yeah. With three, four, 68934688. Be a proper designation. I would need to look at that. I mean that's going to pick up a lot of Eastlake stuff. Here's a way to here's a way we can modify it and do the same thing. We were talking about. Okay. We just say that the and we're talking about for those for people, remember that that they live north of Klosterman Road, south of the county line and west of, McMullen Booth or Eastlake, whatever you want. And that's the old, pretty much the old planning area or or even better, even though this may not be adopted, you could actually make reference to the correct me if I'm wrong council that the, that the make reference to the city whatever the 2007 Tarpon Springs planning study area and that way it incorporates everything even though it's not from our, I guess from, from, from your perspective, it's not in place, but it's in place if you make reference to it as the exhibit, you could do so. It's in a that that comes out of the existing comprehensive plan, which is going to be repealed and replaced here shortly. So it's not in the new comprehensive plan. So that's again, I think it's a little I think you're better off to describe it by a street boundaries. All right. I just I really think you're better off doing that again. That's not a hill I'm going to just so you know, the, the McMullen Booth line is a little further to the east than what's on this map, but there's it makes sense to go, I think, to the McMullen booth road. And if you live west of McMullen booth, you're in. Yeah. Mr. Salzman, can you change what we had talked about earlier and make that change? We're going to vote on it here in a second, so we'll get that done. Is it Eastlake or this one side is Eastlake. One side is McMullen booth I think it's the same road, right? Yeah. It's probably got a county. Well it's 680, isn't it? Yeah. There's the street number. Yes. County road numbers that if we can do changes names. Okay So do y'all need me any more? I'll just go back to listening. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. So thank you. We appreciate it. So do we need a one of you ladies? No, I think we're okay. Motion we I mean, you could do a motion to change it, but we have direction. I mean, you're going to have to vote on the to vote on it again anyway. So but but it can't say planning. No it's not going to okay. Yeah. All right okay. So that comes out. Sure. We don't have to change what to what John said. Feel comfortable doing it. You can I'm just don't want somebody to come back who's. Well, the way I look at it, you're going to vote on it. You're going to vote on everything as as we finish. Right Okay. Every section, every section, every last one. I remember that okay. So that we'll move along. We have a presentation by our city clerk. So basically it's just a brief presentation, just more research . And I just wanted to make it very clear. It no matter what it's changed to it doesn't. We work with anything. I just wanted to make sure that I gave you all the information so y'all could have that for your decision. And this does come up, like I said, at just about every charter. What section is it? 11. Well, it's kind of it like some things we mentioned, some are under, chapter 11. I just did surrounding municipalities election costs, the date of election because those are some of the things I've been talking about. And all of that up. You talking about the date of the election? Yes. So. So I did the surrounding areas. I did Clearwater, Dunedin, Largo, Oldsmar, Pinellas Park, Safety Harbor and Tarpon. So I did the qualifying days. So across the board, Clearwater has 11 qualifying days. Dunedin has 14, Largo has 15. Oldsmar has 30, Pinellas Park has 15, Safety Harbor has 11. And we had the eight, so there's not an you know, whatever you all decide on that, the fees and petition cards, I'll discuss that, Tarpon has, $25 qualifying fee and 25 cards. Clearwater has $100 qualifying fee and 250 cards. Dunedin does, $150, and 1% of their annual salary, or, which is 1% of the annual salary or no fee, and 1% of the registered voters, whatever they're registered last registered voters are, Largo has 200 cards, no fee. Oldsmar has a $25 fee and 150 cards. Pinellas Park has 200 cards or $50 fee and 40 cards, Safety Harbor if you're mayor, it's $65, qualifying fee. If your commission is $40, qualifying fee and 100 cards. The election dates. Out of all these are all March except Dunedin and Largo. Most of them have, except, tarpon. Safety Harbor and Largo have. I'm sorry . Oldsmar. Safety Harbor and tarpon have three year terms. Clearwater, Dunedin and Largo have four year terms. And Pinellas Park was a little different. They have two years if you're a mayor and four years if you're a commissioner. Okay the city now, period, that's, I know I've sent that to everyone that, that y'all will be discussing eventually, that former vice Mayor Lunt requested, Clearwater has a two year sitting out period. Dunedin has a year. Tarpon has a year, Largo. Pinellas Park and safety Harbor. They have no sitting out, period. Because they don't have term limits. They have terms. But no term limits. And then Oldsmar had a you cannot serve again after two after you serve two consecutive terms at all, and then for we talked about initiative and referendum signatures just so y'all could see the average, Clearwater has, 10% of the last registered voters. Dunedin is 15. Largo was five, Oldsmar is 20. Pinellas Park was ten. Safety Harbor was ten, Tarpon was 15. But y'all were looking at five, which y'all, voted on. And then I just pulled a few of the last elections that we had for the last ten years. The ones in yellow are ones that we piggybacked with. And you see the cost difference. As you can see, our last November election, even though there was another city originally having an election, it wasn't. You get a discount in mailing, but you don't get a discount in the regular election. So it cost us a full blown election. And we had at that time our last registered voters were 20,847. And then we discussed about the difference in November versus March elections, in November, there's definitely cost savings, there is an increased voter turnout. And those happen every 2 to 4 years, the some of the cons would be the placement on the ballot is lower, depending on what type of election it is. The change of terms would have to go to even years, whether you went to 2 or 4 years, because that's when every 2 to 4 years or every two years is an election. You could tack on to, political signs are integrated with other elections, such as for school board, county judges and those such things. And you do get a voter, a higher voter turnout. But it doesn't mean that they vote the tarpon items, with the march, it's a standalone tarpon is the only thing on the ballot. Political signs are not integrated with other elections, but it is at a higher cost. So they both have good and bad. And that was all, basically just to give you some other comparisons, see what's thank you for this. You're welcome. Thanks. Oh, and can I add one more thing? I just wanted to say about the mailer as well? I have I didn't get included because I didn't get the information until afterwards. And there again, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just bringing back information, the average mailer for whether it's a postcard or. And then it could go up, is about $0.68 a postcard , or it could be more, depending on the size of the postcard. And, I checked with the cities in Pinellas County and also the, supervisor elections, if they did one, you know, for qualifying. And like I said, we could always do stuff better. So that's not my I'm just giving you a cost comparison. And they do not do one for qualifying. However, if we take about 20,000 voters and if we just say it'd probably be a little less because not everybody just has two per household. But if we do one per household, and let's say we do 10,000, it could range anywhere from, let's say, on the cheaper side, you know, about $6,800 and above or up, if y'all do one. I just wanted to point out if we have a poll place change, we are required, to do one. One per household. And that requirement cannot be done more than 14 days prior to the election. So my only concern price wise. But there again, it's up to you is if we had a candidate election that also had a referendum on property and also had a poll place change, you would be looking at three mailers depending on how y'all wanted to send those out. If you did 130 days prior to the qualifying and then you did one for property purchase and then all in one election. So I just wanted to. I'm confused. That's great information. I, I mean, one of the reasons, because one of our discussion was getting more participation and my argument was November generally subjects it to more voter participation. But when looking across the board, it seems like five out of the seven or I think that was it, five out of the seven municipalities that you all show a march election. And I was that's why and I think the main reason is because the placement on the ballot. So the, the municipal stuff goes when you have a county or federal election, the priority where you're placed on the ballot, You know, some like I said, yes, we get a higher turnout, but sometimes they don't like it on because you'll see before, in the old days, we used to do the percentage. This is how many voters we got this is what. And everybody like each race was the same percentage. Now when I do the statistics after an election, I have to do it for every single question because you have Overvotes or Undervotes , so I think a lot of them kept the March elections, to be honest with you, because of the placement, like if we had a candidate, it would we would be in alpha order, after Safety Harbor usually. And then if you had a referendum that would even be after all the referendums, which would be lower, it's just the placement on the ballot. Well, Mike, are you still for the November I'm doing? I'll do anything to increase participation. I my thought, you know, and looking at the data, sometimes you have to look at the data to see whether or not it makes sense. And you know where it says that the cost may be higher for March, but if you're not getting any more or less participation, because that was the that was the thing that was the driving factor is participation. But if you say in November, the ballots are so long that people sometimes skip the you municipal, I don't think they skipped it. It might not just be as high on the thing, but they go to the end. Yeah they do. Yeah I would say it's their fault if they don't, I don't think they. I was just looking at November as a way to increase participation. But if it's not from day one, whatever increases participation in elections, candidates, city boards. But but then I asked myself how much do we want to handhold people? You know, you know, it's a right. We have that unfortunately, people don't get to, you know, have the apathy to exercise that. Right. And before, you know it, you lose it. But I would say even with vote by mail, we've had we had an increase because if you used to see the turnouts before, when you were getting some major decisions being made by 10% of your, residents, I think the flip side of that coin, though, is that the people who know who the candidates are, who are more involved in their city and maybe are better able to make a judgment rather than just randomly coloring squares in, are going to come to the election, whether it's in March or November. And I'm not sure, but what we get a better result in terms of the selections by the, the people who would go to the trouble to vote in March. I believe you served on a board of election. Not me. I have not many times people have asked me who or what they should vote for. Most people know most people, most people. I get that all the time. What are you talking about? No. Most people come into the, you know, back in the bad old days when they had voting booths, you know, John, I agree with you about more participation and turnout, but you also have to increase the comprehension of the voter. A lot of people don't, you know, especially the referendums. No, I agree, I agree with you. I just if and even with the referendum, I thought it was strongly about it. I was going to support him. But my big thing is my big thing is, is announcing the election that it's coming up and the qualifying time. And I really don't care what other towns do the I want to I want a mailer to go announcing the election. 30 days, 30 business days. There's a difference. 30 business days ahead of time. And I want the qualifying time to be open for 30 days. So that people I mean, we just had, Mr. Hrabowski say that he was the first time candidate, maybe. And he had difficulty. He got just under the wire with just for a correction. He did say that. He did say it. He did say that. But we don't. Some municipalities require that. You can't get your cards until qualifying. We give out the cards once you announce your candidacy, we could be a year or two years prior. It's one. And you could bring them back right away and they could be reviewed in that case, he did not bring them back to two days before the end of qualifying, and Pinellas County has other elections as well. So they had to, they have to check the signatures. So they did them in order as they were received. And of course, we didn't even have a couldn't get a courier. So my office staff personally took them down to the county. So unfortunately it wasn't that it met the wire. In that case, it was that whatever reason, I just think 7 or 8 days is too short, especially if you have an election where there's 2 or 3 seats and 2 or 3 candidates on each seat. I mean, for seven and a quarter for everybody and 7 or 8 days. Yeah, I just, I agree, I mean, you guys can go with me or not, but I think we should send a mailer announcing the election . 30 business days ahead of time. So that people go oh wow. You know, and then 30 days to qualify. Yeah. It's like the army tell them what you're going to tell them. Tell them, tell them what you told them. Right. So I have no problem with that either. Yeah. No I think it's good. And I and by what I said a minute ago, I don't mean that we shouldn't want people to participate. I mean, I, I want people to participate, but I'd rather work to get people to participate. You don't want you don't want somebody throwing a dart at it at a, at the ballot just because where it lands, that's what I'm voting for. Yeah. This is for whatever, you know, whether it's March or November. Yeah. This is I think I think I'm convinced to leave it in March. Okay. So we're going to leave it in March. But I would move that we put in there that we send a direct mailer, 30 business days ahead of the qualifying time and the qualifying time be changed to 30 day, an open 30 day qualifying period. And I'll second that motion. Thank you. This is going in section 11. Yeah. I know it's okay, Mr. Salzman, but I got to mention that we okayed section 11 on 13th of May. But we have a motion and a second to change the times as written. Any more discussion? Roll call please. Doctor Yes, missus. Jenny? Yes Mr. Fisk? Yes, Mr. Semen Yes, Mr. chair. Yes, vice chair. Yes Okay. Before we move on from this section, did you talk about this when I was absent? You know , but Ex-commissioner Lunt, sent an email to someone which was forwarded to us that the one year wait out should be a period between serving and not just candidacy. Was that ever discussed? It was me. It was mentioned at one of our meetings. I'm not changing it, it wasn't discussed in detail that I can remember that it makes sense to me. I mean, I suspect from reading that that was the intent, actually. I mean, do you have that much? I'm not changing, let me see if I a self-serving and I'm I'm going to tell you why I think we did talk about it. And I tell you why is because the question is, is if you if you have a vacant seat. Yeah that you want to fill and you find somebody very well qualified to serve that vacant seat because you want somebody at least with the experience and knowledge and not just coming in cold, because somebody's got their hand up or I'll fill it. And now they're precluded from continuing to serve on that seat that they'd have to wait out of years. That that what we're talking about. I think it's more of a technicality sort of. Mike. Yeah. What I think former Commissioner Lunt said he wanted to change the one year sit out from being a candidate to being a to qualifying time. I think it reads now, from qualifying time, Irene, that's what's considered because you actually become a candidate when you qualify. And I'm trying to pull that out. So he he wanted to remove, I believe, the word candidate, but I think you become I know what he's trying to say and it doesn't like I said again doesn't matter either way. I don't supplied the provision then because I was thinking because when there was a discussion as if somebody filled the seat that left was left vacant and the person was filled, filled that seat. Yeah. That they would be precluded from running in the next election for that seat that precluded. Yeah, that's a different I have. Okay. All right then I'm confusing I'm confusing that. Then I have it. Does anybody want me to read it please. Yeah okay. Yeah, section 11, terms of office qualifications, date of annual elections. Section C, the term of office for the mayor and commissioner shall be three years. No person shall be eligible to hold the office of mayor or commissioner or both, for more than two consecutive full terms, if any mayor or commissioner be appointed to such office as provided herein, such person may be a candidate for such office for two consecutive terms. That's all. As as. Therefore, thereafter such a such person shall not be a candidate, which was highlighted for either such office for a period of one year. If any mayor or commissioner is elected to complete a portion of a term, such person may only be eligible for such office for one consecutive term. So he wants is that the proposed language or that's what's there now? That's what's in there. But what he what he is, is proposing to is that such person shall not be a candidate for either such office for a period of one year, be stricken and replaced with such person, shall be eligible to hold such office after a break in service of 12 months. And then it's, leaves the sentence and then goes down to the next. Thereafter, such person shall not be a candidate for either such office for a period of one year. Again, that's stricken and changed to such person shall be eligible to hold such office after a break in service of 12 months, and then the next sentence stands. And then I guess this is an addition. Thereafter, such person shall be eligible to hold such office after a break in service of 12 months and it's there's only so there's only so much we can change. And how often does this really come into effect that we want to mess with it. No, that's that's that's certainly true. But I think that really the intent here was more a matter of service than just being a candidate. You know, I mean, they talk about being a candidate, but I think what they're really talking about is service. You know, shall not serve. You can't be you can't serve without being a candidate. I understand that, but in any case, I think it's so rarely happens that we the more we put on the thing, the more likely it's all going to be no no no no no no no no going down the line. So I think we need to be a little selective. Do you think we should prioritize? No, I don't want to prioritize anything. I just don't want to change it. Let's let's hear from I just wanted to say, originally the we have term limits. If we didn't have term term limits, that would be something different in, attorney Salzman, correct me if I'm wrong in that also prevents someone who served two three year terms in March from running in the next election. Let's say if it was in November to qualify in this situation. Unfortunately, former vice mayor Lunt resigned on December 29th. And you become a candidate when you qualify. And the qualifying for the March election is mid-November. So he was like a month short of being out a year. If he would have qualified. I know everything with the form six and stuff, but usually if someone that's the same instance as someone is, they're serving in their second year as a commissioner and they know that the mayor's race is coming up, I notify them too and say, if you have any interest in and you have to be out a year, you must resign ten days prior to the date of the first day of qualifying, because that's the election law. So they would have . So we've had had people that have had to resign and they could still stay in. They're finishing their term, but it's after the election is over. They would if they didn't win, then they would have to, as, they would have to. It's when they or their successor takes office is that I know it's a little if I said that. Right. How long have you been in the city clerk's office? I've been here going on 36 years. How many times have you had an issue with this? Once or twice. This is the first time that probably that we've had to say no because it was shy, short. I mean, usually like I said, I notify and if that's the case, it's prior to qualifying and they know they have to resign prior to call. It's just the situation that happened. This was a little different, it's unfortunate that it happened to him. I my gut is telling me is that I feel sorry for him because it happened, but he made a choice. And we can't turn the world for one person for one problem. And that's not what the charter is about, right? And it doesn't solve his problem at this point anyway. Right Yeah. And my only concern, like I said, that I know what the intent was, but you become a candidate once you qualify. So how do we remove the word candidate when you become a candidate when you qualify that I don't know. I'm not the attorney how that would work. He he did a great job when he was in office. And nobody's saying he wasn't a good commissioner. It's just that it's not what we do in the charter. No, I don't think this is entirely a personal thing. I mean, I mean, I think it came out of a personal thing, but I think it's also pointing out a, a, a deficiency in the charter when I think the intent was a certain time break between terms of service, not just candidacy, but terms of service. But I do see what you mean in those other positions too. Anyway, I'm not for changing it, but I also see what you mean. You know, we have a lot of things that are being changed and there's only so much people can pay attention to. Well, at least it was discussed. Yeah. And I appreciate you bringing it to us. I know he had contacted you, and believe it or not, I read it again before I came here today because I liked him. He was a nice guy. Oh, yeah, he he did a good job. But I just. It's not what we're here for. Yeah, most, most laws are passed. If I said this right retrospectively, you know, you realize that there's a problem and you need to change something based on a circumstance, this could be a circumstance, but this isn't a something that I think of all the charter amendments that we have to go through. This is not one I think that's, you know, that's needs to be changed because it's not something that's I mean, if it happened often and I think the next charter review could, could look at it, but, you know, having this happen once in a blue moon is not something that I think we need to start making changes on. I agree. Okay, I'm I'm going to go forward. We talked about it. We don't have to vote not to do that. Let's just go forward to the next spot . There's a lot of areas in here that in our list that we haven't done yet. Is there a is there a way to go backwards? So I wasn't here last week and I did get a chance to watch some of the some of the, do you think we should make an exception for that one person? I think you should. Tell him to watch. Sorry. Tell him we already passed it. Is that it? Did we already pass it? Yeah. Last. Last week, y'all talked about the Civil Service Board. We didn't do anything on it, I don't think. Okay, no, we didn't know because I started to watch part of it. And then I had bad reception was changed into that I think. No, we haven't done anything. I'm inclined to keep it myself. I don't think we have any choice but to keep it. I thought we were going to look at at at, having instead of the Civil Service Board that the city, that, that there's a current, mechanism mechanism in place. You need to look at the tape, Mike. Okay. Because there is a there is the city does have an internal appeal service, but you're appealing to the people who got rid of you. I understand that and the and the appeal. But beyond that is still but but but here's here's here's my reasoning is I don't care if you do it internally. I don't care if you go through civil Service Board, the aggrieved party, if they don't feel that they've gotten a fair shake, it's going to litigate. And a civil having a provision in the charter that has something that really doesn't have any teeth. If it, you know, if you have a civil service board and a person's recourse is not beyond the civil Service board, that's one thing. But if they have other avenues of getting what they feel is, is their just as you know, just reward or whatever you want to call it or feel vindicated. There is the civil process and nothing you could put in the charter that. So you've got a provision in there that really has no teeth. Their their personnel rules has a provision of all kinds of things. It has a provision for. You should watch the tape. She was pretty good witness. Yeah They, they have structured infractions like one through five. And they're pointed in how many points you get creates like the discipline. But they also have an appeals committee in the city. So why not adopt that as part of the charter. Well it's in the personnel rules. You don't need to put it in the charter. They have it already. Yeah. But you have a section in the charter for Civil Service Board I think. So I think that's why I think Mr. Saltzman said I don't want to put words in his mouth. He said either get rid of it, keep it. But if you keep it, then fill the positions on the board. And I don't know, after I listened to the lady I was personally, I was in favor of keeping it in the human services director came in and spoke to us about it. I think she said she'd been here 12 years, quite a while. She had four cases in 12 years, 24 service boards for more than 12. Jimmy 24 years. 24 years. Yeah. Okay So it's not a problem. But they had she had utilized the civil service board on four cases. We just discussed. We just discussed the qualifying or whatever. And in 30 something years this may have only happened once. Okay. And we decided, you know, it's not worth changing the charter over, but that's why I'm saying you have a provision in here, and I'm not going to dial this forward, but we have a provision in here. We have a provision in here that that basically may have been utilized, like you said, four times in the 24 years. And so why do we need it if the, if the, if the person actually has a alternative, you know, if you want to adopt it, the city shall provide, you know , you know, a form for which or a mechanism for an employee to, you know, how to whatever you what do they call it? Appeals process. Appeals process within the city, that gives that that employee an avenue. And they still have other avenues without having to go through a civil service board. They do. They Right. So I have one when they're hired as employees, they go through a short class, they get a written thing that tells them this is what's going to happen during your discipline. But why do I have a civil service board? Is my question. What does it accomplish, Jimmy? It keeps a union. You have the most experience with the city on that. What's what's your take on it to keep it or not keep it. Yeah. It doesn't cost us anything. And the four cases she heard that the city won those employees could have brought an attorney to the Civil Service Board. It's not like they don't have the right to have an attorney represent them. So it's . I like it because it's the best methodology for the city as a whole that they're taking care of the problems and they're not having that many problems based upon what she gave us with her statistics, the communications are pretty good with the employees and their managers and supervisors. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So I would ask her the question. The fact that you had a civil service board, how many times have employees didn't go through the civil service process and actually filed suit or filed a claim, whether it's EEOC or whatever, against the city? That's that's what that's what the answer of that would tell you, whether or not a civil service board has any, any, mechanism or benefit to being in the charter because after bypassing the Civil Service Board and going direct to filing claims, but they can't they have to exhaust their administrative remedies, which you already have one. So either the Civil Service Board or the grievance process. Correct. So you you know, it doesn't say you have to go through both. No. So you go through the internal one. Right. And which is what they have. And then you file suit right is what I'm saying Jim. I'm just it hasn't happened based upon what she's told us, my experience is. Most of the people that work here like working here, that can be the only reason her statistics are so low on problems subject to change. With a new city manager. So I'm just. I'm just saying you've got a provision in here again. It doesn't matter, but I'm just trying to clean up this this document and to have sections in here that, that are just, have no that are ignored and then then why have it problem and why have it, I mean, well, there is a solution. There's two solutions. One is to take it out and two is to put the board in place. So here's what I'm thinking. Like I'm not saying take it out I'm saying that that that that provision, that lack of having a civil service board that, that that makes reference that, that, that they have to go through the grievance process. Well, that's taken the civil service out. All right. So that's two solutions. Either you take it out or you leave it in. If I were an employee in the city and I got dismissed or wrote up, written up or something, would I feel better about it? You know, applying to the grievance board? Or would I feel better about going to an independent civil service board? So I think it's a psychological thing. I would go to the Civil Service Board. So let me ask counsel a question. Who does employment law to the extent somebody goes that they feel they have to go through a civil service board. And they prevail, what's the likelihood of them staying on that job? Not not much. Because if there were, if they were, if the if their employer is looking to get rid of them and they go through a civil service process and the Civil Service Board agrees with them, they're they're working at a place they're unwanted and probably feel unwanted, and they're going to be moving on regardless. Well, it depends on really, the agency, because I think you probably know the sheriff's office for example, the sheriff will terminate everybody and let, the civil Service Board put them back. If that's just how he deals with it. If there's a violation that you know, he allows that entity to deal with it. I have seen the opposite. Exactly what you said, which is. Yeah, I've gone before the civil service Board and I've been reemployed reemployed. And then what do I stay, well, I start looking for another job. I've seen it with the grievance where it goes to arbitration and the arbitrator puts somebody back to work. A lot of times they'll say, okay, we'll I'll stay at work. It depends on the position. You know, if you're a union nonunion, it's all thrown in there. My experience in human resources with the telephone company is if they get a chance to come back, they come in and try to work. Yeah. If they don't, they're looking for money, you know, then they hire an attorney and then they try to sue the company and whatever. But that's not what this group is, all right? I'm convinced she does a hell of a job. Well, I would if we had a manned civil Service board and the Civil Service Board was utilized, no problem. But when we have to use it, they don't. We have. We have a section in here that's not utilized. And if either you utilize it or you don't utilize it, if you're not utilizing it, then then I wouldn't have a problem with going through the city manager to tell her you need to get a civil service board. You know you're going to have six, seven people on that board. Whatever it is, whatever it is, just let them know. We'll call you when we need you. But you are a member of that board. These are our guidelines. These are our regulations. They have to follow. So if you're called, you're ready to go. There's nothing it should be that way. I agree with you, but I got the. Where are you falling on it. You got two choices. Where are you falling on it. What am I falling on? I like it the way it is. It is all right. But if, if that's the only thing that keeps the Civil Service Board going in the city. Because I think it works in this city because she's used four times in 24 years. Guys, something's working right. Well, it's because you have you have progressive discipline. That's right. And you have specific violations. And normally when somebody sees that, what is their biggest argument? Their argument is one of two things. Either one, I don't fall under that particular number or two, you know that the punishment is too harsh, right? When there, especially when there's an opportunity to use different levels. That's the only concern. But normally progressive discipline is what you want to have. It's fair to everybody. You know, you got your first warning, you get your your, written warning, then you have your suspension and then you have your termination. So, you know, you have to do things a few times. Before you're going to be in that position. That's usually employees like that. That's what they want to see. They don't want to see the knee jerk. Okay, I did this and I'm automatically fired. I'm I'm very familiar with that. That's Yeah. Well, she said the last time it was convened was 2010. Right That's 14 years ago. So during our last discussion, didn't we talk about about suggesting that they do man it. And that is one of the that was one of the suggestions. But you ultimately have kept it open. And to decide what you want to do, whether you want to keep it, get rid of it, slim it down. Were the three choices that were mentioned in here, I don't really see slimming down as. And I've got a question probably for you, you know, so as you said, basically in the four times it's met, they've all agreed with the city about dismissal or whatever, let's say somebody goes to the board and, and they find in their favor. Now, would that make a difference to an employee in terms of their compensation? I mean, either go, you know, instead of if they were dismissed, would, would, would, I don't know, whatever be would there be some kind of financial, negative consequences of that as compared to if the board found in their favor? Absolutely. If the board finds in their favor, they're reinstated. They're made whole. So, you know, you get your job back, assuming you're at that point, it couldn't it could be something. But it's termination. And then you you get your job back and you're made whole. So everything that was owed to you, you get in a lump sum. So that's another reason employees may may like this system want to continue this. But a grievance with an arbitration is the same thing, same thing. The arbitrator I mean I've been I've seen cases where somebody who was out of work for over a year, the arbitrator reinstated him. They had to get a check for a year's salary. They had to get their pension benefits. They had to get, you know, everything else. Insurance. There was a huge check, but an arbitrator is an outside. Yes. So that somebody's paying for that. Usually both sides split it. Split it. Can I pretend I'm Carrie for a minute? Is this something that the whole question of the civil service Board, should that be in the charter, or does it go back to process again? It's something that should be in an HR manual. You should see it in the charter. Yeah. It's always in the charter. It's always been in the charter. It's the only way when it was put in the charter that the employees were guaranteed representation. I mean, if, if I'm sorry process before that. Okay. If the process was that the, the employee had to utilize the appeals process within the city first and then was able to appeal that to a civil service board, you would need a civil service board, the only I mean, where that would benefit, believe it or not, the city is if the city if the Civil Service Board found in favor of the city, it makes it that much more difficult to argue in front of a hearing master, because most of this stuff is done in by hearing master, not by jury. On employment, it would be that look you went through, that you went through the civil service, and they both found, you to be, you know, whatever violations that you have, it makes it more difficult for them to overcome. But the fact that you've got a board that's like you said, and you said it was a use for 14. The last one was 14 years ago. I don't you could say that all the employees are happy, but they're not all happy. They just may not have gone through civil service board, usually if somebody files a grievance and goes through that process, they really don't have the appetite to go through another process, like, yeah, because I just, I just we, I just usually one or the other, I don't want to litigate redundancy. And, you know, so there's something I got, there's something else we need to remember here. The Civil Service Board is an additional way for them to try to get their jobs back. They've been through the, the process of the city's disciplinary action before they were terminated. Okay. Without the Civil Service Board, are they going to do they got to go out and hire an attorney? It's a good thing for the employees, not only for the city, but if you're if we're worried about the employees, this is an avenue that they can use. Well, bring their attorney with them. Here's the thing to, to think about. It's always been there, right? I don't want the employees to think we're taking away. We're trying to short short them. Okay, okay. You know what? You're right. It's always been there. And it hasn't been a problem, honestly. So I think she felt do is make a note that we notify the Board of commissioners. They should fulfill the board. Right. I think she felt like it. It was something that had value. She didn't she didn't want to take sides. Really? I don't think in talking to us. But she she she wouldn't say that. It just needed to be abandoned or removed and, and you know, having had the cases that where it did support what she wanted, even though there were a long time ago I, I think she kind of changed my opinion about it a little bit from, from hearing what she said, I guess where I'm kind of hung up. I agree with all of you, but the fact that, you know, you'd have to actually have a sitting committee appointed and in place that could be convened at X time, that that's just up to the commission to get people that want to serve on it. I mean, I don't know, the biggest problem, I guess, is people serving on a board that doesn't meet right. Even if we started and I know the suggestions were people come in, they're trained, they do this. It's almost akin to a grand being on a grand jury that never meets. So yes, you're part of the Civil Service Board. And now if some if we could get people for that and not a problem, maybe people may want to be on a board that never meets I. My notes tell me here that we discussed this on June the 3rd. Yep. And we left it to eliminate it. Slimmed down or leave intact. It sounds like you want to leave it intact, so leave it intact. Okay. You know, the employees wouldn't go back and listen to the tape and hear how much discussion we gave it. And they have these rights and this rights. The only thing you would hear from me through the employee ranks is you took it away. They took it away from us, right? Yeah. Yeah So with that, so I would move, we leave it in place. All right, all right. You got. You sold me, John. Okay. I have a question, though. In talking about how difficult it is to get people to man things like that and everything, and we talked about it in the instance of some, some other boards. I that's my next note. Where, where should we possibly exempt that one from the requirements since it meets so seldom of and would have nothing to do with the business encountered by any other boards? Yeah, maybe. I mean, that's, that's actually that's actually my next. That was my next. We finished this bullet point to wherever you guys want to go. We have a motion and a second currently to leave it as it is. Okay are we ready to call for the vote? Yeah Balance. Yes. Mrs. Jennings? Yes. Mr. Yes. I got my 20 minutes in. He is? Yes Vice chair. Yes Okay. I was just smiling because such members shall serve a term not to exceed two years and shall not serve more than two consecutive terms. Oh, boy. It just, you know, nobody you could serve and never do anything. Yeah, twice for. Yeah, for four years. For four years. You never could come back and be reappointed. You know what? It actually is good on a resume. We can give them a plaque. There you go. Thank you for your service. And that and that actually goes to my next bullet point was, and I don't remember if it was discussed last week, but I thought I heard, one of the about serving on multiple boards was discussed, and, and the only thing I would comment on is, and I know there's, there's a lack of, of people that, that are applying to get on these boards, even though we encourage them. And not good enough, not good enough, but but I don't know why we would preclude somebody who was not in conflict with another board. For example, I use Merrill as an example. You know, with his background, to you know, as P and Z, but also, let's say a marine commerce or, you know, that that they're completely on opposite ends. Obviously, you want to be able to broaden the volunteer pool in the city, but it's more harmful to have a board that lacks the volunteer than having a volunteer qualified volunteer qualified volunteer. That was my third bullet. Bullet point. Sorry. That's okay, where it talks about giving preference, not saying, you know, if you don't have, you know, if there's candidates there, you select the candidates. But when you look at the candidates and somebody's got a special skill, you know, they should be given preference, in that selection process. So those two things, being able to serve on more than one city board, provided that they, they are not in conflict with each other and that that the Commission shall consider this the special skills or the special, the special skills that a an applicant to a board possesses in making their selection. You know what, Mike? What? This is the hill worth dying on. That's it. Is the. It's just I just go back to everything I've said from the beginning. Is increased participation. I the civil service board. I could probably exempt because it's I've been convinced that so frequently meets. But if you allow people to start sitting on two boards, you just preclude somebody else. It's just. And while we have, we've identified the problem of people coming forward. We haven't talked enough about the really who should be talking about the solution is the board of commissioners and maybe the city manager. There's a solution out there and we're not we're not even close to tapping into the solutions to get this. How many people live in town now? 25,000 people or something? You know, plus or minus. And how many? If you took all the boards, Irene, how many people would you have? 50 at the most. Probably at least around 50, something like that. So a town of 25,000 people, you don't have 50 people willing to step? I don't think they've been solicited and encouraged and, and told what a rewarding experience it can be to help your town and step up to the plate. And I think before we change the charter, I would want to do that. So I don't care about the conflict. And boards. You get one board, one appointment and one temporary board like this. And if you guys want to throw the civil service in, I'm okay with that. Okay. So let me ask you a question. That's my hill. Let me ask you a question. So let's say you got a board and you need five people on the board because it has to be an odd number. As a general rule, and you only you only have four slots and there's not one volunteer for that fifth slot. And the only person who may volunteer. And the board has nothing to do with any other board. Is a board member who sits on another board. Do you leave that board vacant? That seat vacant, or do you do you select that person who's willing to serve on that second board? Do you make an appeal to the community and get another person? Okay, I agree with you. Or or you look for people with professional qualifications who can at least serve both things. Yeah, you you make that in your public announcement. We need architects, contractors, planners, whatever. What what section are we talking about? Yes. So he made up I don't know. Yeah It's about, boards, Jimmy. It's boards. No, we have a section on boards I agree, I agree, I agree with you, John. I mean, it really is a greater need to, to solicit greater public participation and the idea of having the same people on different boards is like, to me, it just feels like there's a lot of power that goes along. Is that is that an ordinance or is that a these boards and non-elected, non-elected people serving on multiple boards, I think, you know, can could potentially lead to some abuse of power? I think what what we're talking about is, is that we should start off in a meeting on this subject so we can stay on it for the length of the meeting, if necessary. We're just going to do this all back on stuff that was discussed last week. You're the chairman. You're the chairman. Today. Mike's got to stay here an extra 35 minutes that he missed. But we can leave. We can leave. Okay I would rather not go into too much detail because I think it's very important what you're talking about. And I've heard. Well, there's some attorney general opinions on it that I'm kind of looking at. So I want to make sure before we go too much in detail, that it's even something that can be done, because there are some opinions, apparently, on board of Adjustments and Planning and Zoning. I just haven't read them yet. I would like to talk about, if you guys don't mind, ladies and gentlemen. This Tarpon Springs Police Department and Tarpon Springs Fire Department thing. It's just wordsmithing. I think what what what's the name that we're supposed to be putting on them? Well, because that should be easy to do. Why not just leave it? Police department, fire department? Because we're just wordsmithing more to put more things on for people to vote on, to change. I didn't put this in there. That's why I'm asking. I don't understand where. What is this about? It was about that somebody didn't think it was fleshed out enough to tell you what, what it was about. But if it says police department, then you just read the paragraph. It's one paragraph it and I think other people feel like also that it's if you put too many things on the ballot, it's not good. Well, it's I knew it had to do with because the county at one time was looking at to get into every city. But what's that? What has that got to do with changing our name? Where is that at? It's. It's four and five right here. Yeah. I believe that was, Chair root wanted to move the location of four and five, but then I think it was advised by the attorney, that was rewritten. It would be okay. However Oh, I know what it says. Something to that effect. The attorneys suggested changing it because of the change. I know, I know the powers or something like that. She was. I remember why now, because if you look at section four, we call the section police department. But when you read when you read the charter, it talks about preserving the police department and has nothing to. And so she just looked at maybe calling the section I remember preservation, but I'm just I'm just it doesn't need to be changed. Like how much do you want to you don't need the things that you don't need to change because just for clarification, it kind of this need a vote. I think I say we leave it alone just I don't know that we don't need to speak to it, do we in the charter. Yeah. I don't think you need to take a vote on something. You're just leaving. Yeah. We just it's not something you're going to go any further with. Okay. Yeah It says the Board of Commissioners is prohibited from eliminating or replacing the police fire department or contracting for primary police, fire services with another law. It's in here. Right. So I think our heart was in the right place, Jimmy. She just wanted the heading to be more descriptive of what the actual paragraph said. And I guess what I'm saying is it's just just wordsmithing that maybe doesn't matter. And so are you saying we should leave it? Tarpon Springs Police Department , Tarpon Springs fire Department, period. I'm saying leave it like it is. Okay That's what it it. So and in her absence, we can do about anything we want. So if you want to make a motion here, you can run a muck, right? Yeah. That's what she told you. She goes I want you to carry forward. Listen let's let's do that. Let's get these things behind us. And if you want to leave early, why don't you guys make a motion for it? After we do this, I don't care. We can go through here and do every little thing that needs to be done. It says leave four and five alone. There it is. Second, any more discussion? Roll call please. Doctor. Bucuvalas Yes, Mr. Jenny? Yes. Mr. Casey. Yes. Mr. Semen. Yes. Mr. Terry. Yes. Vice chair. Amos Yes. Thank you. I think Mr. Salzman had something he wanted to bring forward. Yeah. If you have a chance, I'd like you to look at section 12. Look how thick my book is doing. Okay. You were asking this section to be consistent between the Board of Adjustment and Planning and Zoning Board, in that one is an advisory board, and one is a final board, you we didn't go too much into this, but, you know, the, the requirements and the findings are different, right? Board of adjustment is, requires competent, substantial evidence when a appellate board looks at that, whether it's the circuit court, they all they look at is was there competent, substantial evidence to base their decision? They don't care if it was for or against. They just want to know that there's competent, substantial information that was presented versus a legislative matter which is planning and zoning, that that's more quasi judicial, it's handled differently. There's different standards. What I have seen almost everywhere is that planning and zoning is an advisory board, because you can't take away that legislative powers from the city Commission board of Adjustment on occasion. I have seen as an appeal to the commission, which becomes a very political issue. And everybody that I've dealt with in this situation, they've removed that from their responsibilities and went straight to the circuit court because really, a body of elected officials are not necessarily the individuals you want to make a determination as to whether or not there's competent, substantial evidence that's a that's a judicial standard for the courts to determine. You're making lay people have to become judges. In that in that section, we for some reason, I have marked out for special exceptions as being deleted. Right. Yeah. What was that for? I had that to make. Pardon? I had the same mark. Yeah, because we couldn't figure out what special exceptions meant. So Yeah, I think that was the reason why. Yeah. And but we did it. I think this is this would be more done internally. Right was, was to, we talked about streamlining it, but that would then undo what the with the, right. That was discussed internally as to if you had a consent. Consent agenda, unless a commissioner wanted to pull it out. Right. And that would be something that they, the board would determine under their own practices. One thing that had been mentioned to me and, as a possible because, I mean, the Planning Commission is kind of split fairly evenly between legislative and quasi judicial items, would there be a possibility on the, on whichever one of those that doesn't require the BOC to allow those items to be decided? You lost me . Well, Mr. Salzman said that the Board of Adjustment typically is quasi judicial items only. Correct. Board of adjustment is, findings of competent, substantial evidence requirements. Typically they all go board of adjustment and appeals decisions get appealed directly to the circuit court. Typically right. Right. And most communities. There's well, there's the thing that makes me uncomfortable about the way it is right now is, is the board of adjustment decisions are final in dealing with some things like height that we that we've talked a lot about and I honestly think those are in many cases could be much more critical decisions than some of the small items that P and Z deals with, but there are criteria that have to be met to establish that competent, substantial evidence. Is there a hardship, we just did Boa last week, and I'm trying to think I think, there were three cases and the city's recommendation and all the cases were adopted, including a denial . And so I can only tell you from my experience, I've only handled that board twice here. I've handled hundreds of Board of Adjustment cases, I thought that the board and the city did a great job on those cases, but you can't. That's usually if as a right to, you know, you're. I understand what you're saying. Those are usually those almost all go to the circuit court as an appellate body because it's really it's really a question of whether or not there was established, the competent, substantial evidence. Well, they do variances too. Well in all the quasi well that's what I'm talking about is like a height variance is potentially much more damaging than, than, you know, a zoning change just to bring something in compliance with what it already really is. And things like that sometimes are. But the zoning, the planning and zoning board is a is a, an advisory board to the Commission on Legislative Authority. Yes. No. Yes So the commission can't unjustly delegate its legislative authority. Well, some of the items are legislative. Some of them are quasi judicial. Well. And the quasi judicial ones fall into the same category. I believe, as what the Board of Adjustment is doing. Do they not? I'm trying to think what's causing what you all have heard recently that's quasi judicial. About half the items we hear are quasi judicial. That's right. Basically, this is having two quasi judicial hearings because they go in front of the. Ours is quasi judicial. Then when they go in front of the commission, it's again, it's quasi judicial. Right It's just putting the applicants through a lot. Sometimes for very, very small things sometimes. I mean, I understand there's some big things that, that they definitely need to hear, but why that suggestion of putting them on a and I think that deals with most of it honestly. But If I'm a commissioner, I may get home an hour earlier. Yeah. Tuesday nights are. To the board before. Before it closes. Yeah I'm trying to look at your latest agenda. Right now, are we still talking about section 12 or. Yeah Yes. Let's see. I could come back to it if you want. Yeah. I mean, we can. I'm just trying to see what the last. So Well, the only on June 17th, there was just one item. Ordinance 2020 403, review and recommendation for approval. And transmittal. That was a comprehensive. That was the comp plan. Yeah. That's all you did that. In fact, I don't even think we had anybody an attorney attend that one. No, there wasn't anybody there. Right. My thing was, I don't know, I just I just don't think appointed board should be the on zoning on land use and zoning. I don't think they should be. No offense to you. The final arbiter. I think that appointed board should make a recommendation. That appointed board should make a recommendation to the board of commissioners, where the elected officials and they're the final arbiter on zoning and planning, planning, zoning. Well, and my point in the there's a disconnect between that and the Board of adjustment, though, because the Board of adjustment is the final arbiter, right? Yeah, I get that point. Well, that's all I'm saying. They're they're just different. They're different boards. They're different requirements and responsibilities. Yeah Right. Oh let's see. Plan approval for property. Preliminary review and discussion of land development code. So you did the land. This is back in March. No April. Sorry, you had a site plan approval. And the other one was just a discussion item. I don't know, I've just never seen it like this. I can only tell you that. I mean, ultimately, I'll draft whatever you say. I've never seen them equal. I'm okay. Like it is myself, but. Well. And I think what Mike was talking about addresses a lot of it. It at least has different, allow the board to streamline the process. I think that has got some merit. As long as the commissioner can pull it off. Yeah, just like this. Like where they could do a consent agenda on their expenses. Yeah. I think that's any commissioner could pull that item off and have discussion as long as it's not a, well, it's still being approved by the board. So it's not a right. No. That accomplishes what you I think what you guys are talking about pretty close. Yeah. Maybe like nine out of ten cases. It would work. Yeah. And in little Rock, which is the other jurisdiction I'm most familiar with, that's basically what they did. The cases went to the consent and consent agenda. And then they got pulled if anybody had a problem with them. But I've heard your frustration at other places where people go, well, what are we doing? You know, we recommend sometimes there are commissions that just ignore what. And then you're like, well, what did we just spend all that time doing? And they're not even listening to our recommendations or hearing what we had to say. Some of it is what you also mentioned. I get two bites at the apple, right? I come before you all and I see where the errors are in my presentation and I fix that right. It may not be anything wrong with that. If the idea is that it's property, and there are a lot of rights that individuals have when you're dealing with, you know, property . But it it is. I've heard those arguments before, and sometimes I've heard people go, I don't even want to be on this board anymore. If you're if you're not going to acknowledge what we're saying. Yeah And then and then the other side is I've heard commission say, well, we want you guys to work out the kinks in this case. So you hear it and you see what the problems are. So these people can if they have a legitimate, zoning issue that they present everything appropriately. Well, in the, the other problem that's, that's come out of that somewhat is the, the BIA and it's, it's good. The BoCC has taken a pretty hard line in recent months or recent couple years on not allowing somebody to change their presentation that comes to us and then goes to them that it has to be the same presentation, or else they have to come back through us again. So then the poor applicant is due in 3 or 4 presentations. They would they would just do a light tap to us and then give it. And then they're adding things that you didn't have the opportunity to hear. So how could you how does your opinion your opinion doesn't matter because you didn't hear the same thing. Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you. I know the frustration and some of it is exactly what you said, which is the policies and procedures of the Board of Commissioners needs to deal with that issue versus as a typically we typically maybe spend maybe more time vetting something because we don't. That's all we have on the agenda, as opposed to a commission meeting where they got a you know, right. And that's really what the purpose of the board is, is that you vet it, you get more down into the details. So that really, when it comes before the Board of commissioners, you guys have already gone through everything. And it's like you said, which is much more just pro forma. They've gone through it. If you're recommending approval, obviously, if you're recommending denial then it's probably a whole nother hearing. And I think the time for public comments. Yes it's going to take a long time. This is going to take a very long time. And Well, it's one that you obviously don't have to make a decision. It's just when I, I wanted to bring back before you and I can look at some additional information, it's, I agree with you. I just get a little nervous when you make these changes in the charter again, because then we're married to them. And what if it isn't exactly the way we think it should be for this one, I understand the commission has to be the final say, it's just talked about streamlining the process, which has nothing to do with with the charter, but obviously some of the language just to remove that particular couple of words. Yeah, I know we talked about it and I'm looking at my notes for that. We could figure out what it was and why was it in there if we don't know what it is. Right. And it really not substantive? Yeah. Let me double check that on the statute because I know we have the requirements under the statute for Boa, but that's not everything that we've been talking about here for the last 15 minutes. No, no, we've been talking about a couple of different things. This has to come back to you. But I appreciate the input. So I understand and they're also going to ask about having the final say on some issues which isn't in here. Right I think they decided that that's going to be let the Board of commissioners have the right to make some policy rules of procedure policy decisions without affecting the charter. Right. But we're going to look at the special exception provision. So let me let me ask a question. We have gone through some of the charter stuff when realizing it's really not a charter amendment, but it makes good policy. Right have, have we kind of delineated what of as far as a list of recommendations? We have not done that yet, which is keeping a list. I think carries and that that'll be part of your presentation to the Commission. Okay. Some of it will be these are the charter changes and then some of it will be, well, these are not charter changes. These are the suggestions we're making based on our review of the charter, which honestly could be more important than the charter changes. I think some of the. Yeah. Because you're seeing issues that need to be dealt with. Yeah Motion to adjourn. Second, have a motion in a second. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. Can we talk? They were quick. I think we need roll call for that one. We had a great meeting. I thought we had some good, good problems. Good meeting. Board of adjustment. Staff. Well I just.