city budget, which I just find is incredulous. So here's because it's not working, because it we've tried to make it work different boards. Here's what here's what I think we should do is that we change it to where the city can draw down as much out of the million seven per year as they're willing to match if they want to match 300. Take three. You want to match four, take four until the fund is depleted, and then they're required to budget 300,000 a year for sidewalks or some some number that the board thinks because it's not working. What's been proposed for the last 25, 40 years, whatever it's been. And that gets the money. Mike, you were saying the money's sitting there. Yeah. So this way we get it, let them draw it down and then half the budget every year. An amount I thought it was more of the Madam Chair. My speak. I don't know if you're in the have to call or be. Carry, madam chair. It's okay if I speak or. I don't know if you had to call. I was just trying to write down. I didn't think there was a problem with the charter aspect of it. I think it was internal procedures that they were not spending the money and shaking it loose. I don't know, I mean, obviously they may have had an indifferent interpretation of how the charter read, but I put the, the problem is not within the charter. It was in how the city may be interpreted. The charter or the staff interpreted the charter versus them being able, you know, the money's there. There's no reason why they can't allocate the funds. So that's that goes to your, you know, when it comes to budgeting, those who are responsible for putting the budget together, not utilizing the resources that have been put aside for that purpose. And I don't know, what do we do? If you want to are you looking at try to tweak that provision of the of the charter? Well, well, Mike. So the original one we had, the original discussion, you were saying this 2 million or million and seven is sitting there and it's not doing anything. Well. Well, the way it's written today is that they can only the city can only draw 100 down out of the million seven per year. Does it say that or. That's right. Well they only get matching funds up to 1,000,007. So the budget of the city has only been to equal the match. The way it's written today. They can only take 100,000 right. That's right. Okay. So what, what I'm suggesting because this doesn't work. The previous thing of the 2 million in the hundred didn't work. Is Yeah. And you want to see the sidewalks in the town fixed, right. That's the goal. And not have money just sitting around in the bank doing nothing is, Let them identify if it's a $600,000. This year to fix sidewalks. Let them take three and three. Should it should it say, should match whatever the city allocates. Well, if we just take out that middle line, the amount withdrawn doesn't exceed 100,000 for fiscal year. You have it because you've already talked about it has to be less than or equal to the amount appropriated for sidewalk improvements. So that is the equal match. Right. So and then we would want to add in a paragraph that talks to how to replenish it. Well you can either you cannot replenish it. You can just say the city can spend the money for sidewalks. And when the fund is depleted, they're required to put in 300, 400, 500, whatever is appropriate. See what I'm saying? Jimmy? I do, because it's not working the way it is. Well, we're already removing the first sentence in that section, so I appreciate that. My problem once again, is going to be the same. They're not going to do it. No. If the charter requires them to budget 500,000, they have to or 400 or 300 or. Right. Yes I'm I'm okay for that, but I just don't see how they get around it. They just don't do i. It's not getting around. Well, they're, they're, they're doing what is allowed with it now and it's not working the list. They sent us is I my in my opinion, it's very necessary to do those. And it equaled up to 600 and some. But they only budgeted 200,000. They budgeted 100 out of the sidewalk fund and they budgeted 100 out of the capital improvement fund or out of the general fund. Right. So, so but they spent I'm sorry, 200. Okay. So how it was a hundred thousand any more. Well, get the get the second set that's out of their mouth. The amount withdrawn shall not exceed 100,000. That way, there's no cap on what can come out of the fund. You know, when. I'm sorry. I can't remember his name from Public Works. Came and spoke to us. Function, Tom. Function? Yes Excuse me. He basically said that. Well, you gave me $1 million. I'll do a lot of thing. Give me $2 million. I'll do everything on the list. Talk is cheap. I mean, we could give him 100 $1 million, right now. I'll guarantee you they won't use it next year. I'm. And I'm sorry to feel that way, but it's proven itself. It's proven itself. I'm willing to do whatever this board wants to do, to try to get them to do more. I don't have a problem with any any of what you're saying. Well, this is just an observation on on what I've seen in my own neighborhood as far as the way they they do the, the program. And it's I mean, it's been a great program. It's done a lot of good things and, and they do it to make the money go as far as they possibly can. But that also creates a problem where it's difficult for them to spend too much money because they're doing this with city crews, at least in my neighborhood, they did. They didn't hire a contractor and bid it out and have somebody replace all these sidewalks. They had a city crew come in and do it, and maybe with the 100, $200,000 total, maybe they can manage that with city staff, $600,000. They they couldn't do that way. They'd have to change the way they're operating. I agree with what you said about contractors. I mean, they prove themselves on a round base by trimming mangroves and stuff has never looked better. And they still have the same amount of city employees, you know, but they found the money to do that. If he's what he told us is true. And let's call him in here and ask him if we write this out where you get $1 million this year, but you have to hire a contractor. Yeah, that's the only way it's going to get done. I don't think you're going to mandate. You're not going to mandate in a charter that I agree. Okay So it's just that I know they're not going to I know no, but I think with the charter you need we need to at least provide the mechanism by which they can do that. Administrations change department heads change, at least if we provide the mechanism in the future, it could be better. Here's what resonated with me. Mike. Okay When somebody you or someone said, we have all this money sitting there, they can take 100,000 a year, but they're not putting in enough to, like Jimmy, 600,000. They're taking 100, but there's $600,000 worth of work. Instead of budgeting in another 500,000. And I'm thinking, you know, somebody was right when they said this makes 1.7. Used to be 2 million is sitting there. Let them draw it down. Let them fix the sidewalks. And at the end, when the sidewalk fund is depleted, then there's not a sidewalk fund and it just goes to a straight mandated set amount of money annually. Let them spend the million seven bringing the town up to date and then you then spend whatever is a good number three, 4 or 500,000 a year to repair, replace, add new, I mean, I gave it a lot of thought. It's, it's not worked. So far. I, you know, my understanding is they thought and that all they could I'm not talking about from the city's budget that they that that they were hamstrung from pulling money out of that fund because they were limited to $100,000, will not exceed 100. That's right. So removing that sentence removes the cap as to what can be withdrawn from that fund. That's fine. But what happens at the end when the million seven is gone because nothing is replenishing it? That's that was the second part of my thing of saying at the end when the when the million seven is depleted. Mike. Okay You with me. Okay. Million seven is depleted. Then we have to say evidently that you have to budget 400,000 or 500,000 to continue this or, or not or just say spend the money and we're not going to is there was there and I don't know if there's more I forgot. Go back to that section. Is there more to that section that requires the city to fund a sidewalk improvement plan? No, no, we took it. It was taken out the last time. What does it say? The street Sidewalk Improvement Fund shall be renamed. Okay, and but there is no requirement that the city fund in 83 it was required. They put in $100,000 a year until it got to 2 million. Then at 2 million, they didn't have to fund it anymore, but they could only spend the interest up to 100. Okay. And it stayed until five years ago. Five years ago, they changed it to this, where they could take out 100. Also at five years ago, our interest rates were like nothing. They had no interest to draw from. Yeah, yeah. No, I'm not complaining. I'm just wanting to put it in context. Yeah. Your intentions were good, but the city didn't follow through with on their end. But are we are we getting to a point where we're mandating it's fine, but are we mandating them, the city to fund a certain, value towards their budget? Is that what we are looking at the charter to do, to demand that annually? I think the mindset is to get the city motivated to going to maintain our sidewalks. It's going to be an ongoing problem. Sidewalks don't. You don't change them and they stay good forever, right? Right. They have to get them done first. They get run over, then the cost of maintaining them comes way down because they've been repaired. Okay, Mr. Saltzman, you had. I just we have the original language before was changed, if you want to hear it. I was emailed the sum of $100,000 obtained from the city's share of sales tax. Revenues shall be deposited annually into an interest bearing street and sidewalk improvement investment fund. Until such time as the sum of $2 million has been accrued. We can put that all interest in such fund thereafter shall be used solely for street drainage and sidewalk improvement after authorization thereof. Excuse me, therefore, by resolution of the Board of Commissioners, such funds shall only be invested in compliance with chapter 218 Florida Statutes. The principal of such funds shall not be invaded without referendum approval. All sales tax revenues received by the city in excess of $100,000 annually, or $2 million, totally may be used for any lawful purpose. That was the language before was changed to this language. So it's times have changed. I mean, it's we can we can go back to that language and require $100,000 to always be going into the fund while removing the cap. And that would take care of the issue of what happens when the fund gets depleted. Well, it's automatically, you know, rebuilding. And if they get up to $2 million again, which we hope they don't, they don't have to make that continued investment. They will never get up to $2 million again, I, I wonder if it shouldn't be an impact fee actually, when people do development that requires new sidewalks, the city has to maintain those sidewalks. The. Well, if you look at what's in here, it says the proceeds from this fund shall not be used for sidewalks along roadways or roadway extensions, whether commercial or residential, where roadways or roadway extensions are not physically in existence at the time of the adoption of the section. Well, what what I'm saying, though, is they the developer puts those in right, but the city has to maintain them in perpetuity basically. So have the so have the impact fee for the cost of maintaining it depends on whether the development has a private street or a public street. Well that's true too, because if it's a private street, there's a private. Still the developers I don't know about any more impact fees. I just think let them spend the million seven. And then just then say, you got to spend X number of dollars more every year. Well, would it be good just just for right now before I know we've got a wordsmith. It some more, but at least we would agree that to remove the cap. But we get to finish it. Okay, that's what I. That's what I said. Take the cap off. Take the cap off. But what other changes would I mean, I would, I would ask if the if the second part of it shouldn't be one of the recommendations to the, the BoCC that they set aside, whatever, half a million, 600,000 for the next year and, and some similar amount every year for a contract to hire a contractor every year to come in and do this, the commission changes too much more. You have to if we let them spend 1,000,007 you got to say in the charter, you got to replace some language that says when the when the fund when the million seven is depleted, the city will budget 400,000, 500,000, 300,000 per year for. But if you make it too low based on history, that's all they're going to spend. And so you got to make it enough to where it it actually works. Should we look at maybe making it a matching. So if the city budgets 200 200 comes out of that account. If the city, what happens when it's depleted because nothing else is going until it's depleted? We have a we have a hand up here. Let's go ahead and hear what John has to say. Okay. What I'd like everybody to consider is instead of putting a definite dollar cap on it, how about a percentage of what's in the reserve fund? Say that again, John. Instead of putting a definitive dollar cap on on the expenditures, we consider using a percentage of the fund. So that way you could get what you need to make the repairs without completely depleting it. Well, you're going to deplete it because you're not putting any back in no matter what your percentage is, at some point you're going to completely deplete it without replenishmen. That's true. Yeah And I mean, that is that is that is depletion the goal or is building it up the goal by repairing sidewalks, repairing sidewalks, gold, and having the city actually do it is the goal, right. So it seems that whatever we do with this fund, we're still not compelling the city to do all the repairs and the construction. Right. Well, well, remember when Mr. Funcheon was here? He and Jimmy has the list. It's this year was 600,000, right? Next year he said it was going to be 800,000, but they only budgeted 201 100 from this fund. 100 from the general fund. So if you made the money available, I'm assuming they would if you if they had it to budget, you would think that they would either through what Merle said, a sidewalk contract, you know, a masonry contractor or city crews, they would do more work because it's not that dreaded word. Assume it's a tough one. I I'm not sure, but I'm going to ask the question, is it possible that the reason they didn't spend the 600,000 is because they had to take money back out of the budget to put somewhere else in the budget? I don't know that I'm guessing. Well, right, Jim, if you have that much money, why the hell didn't you spend it? No, he didn't get. He had us. He gave. He showed you a $600,000 list of projects. He didn't say he got 600,000in the budget. He said he only got 200,000. So what? What I'm saying is let them have access to the 600,000. If that's what it takes, right? Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I, I mean, the first way didn't work, the second way didn't work. Let's try let's try something else. That's the whole point after something. And if the funds were completed in five years, then and the sidewalks are improved, we can declare a success. On the other hand, if it's depleted and they haven't, we got to go back. And who could who could we call from the city to come in and talk to us and have them tell us how we could help them get these sidewalks? We did that. Okay, I it I actually had a separate conversation with, Tom function a couple of weeks ago, and we talked about the sidewalks, and I'm just trying to remember that they did. They think they could only spend as much to match the 100,000, if I remember correctly. And that's why he only only budgeting. Because that's what they thought they we had to match. No, in order to withdraw 100 they had to put 100,000 in. But so that's all they were. They were but from a from a practical aspect, from a practical aspect. Okay. So we have this, these funds available. Let's say they end up exhausting the funds and the sidewalks four years from now, five years from now, start ended back in disrepair. Do you not think that there would be a press by the residents to the then commission or whatever to say, hey, you know, y'all are y'all y'all are dropping the ball and that's one of the reasons we elect people is because we may see somebody dropping the ball and or somebody may on their political platform. I'm, you know, vote for me and we'll go back to fixing the sidewalks, that's what exactly what happened in 1983. There was such a public outcry. Right, Jimmy? The public was demanding the sidewalks be fixed. So when the charter revision, that's how we came up with the $2 million fund. Okay. And you can spend 100 then later that wasn't working. So Jimmy and Kerry's group said, okay, we'll take off the cap and you can, spend, spend 100. I have to believe that the city manager knows that he could put more in than 100. I have nothing in here to limit how much they. I have to believe that he knew that he could add more than 100. Perhaps. What? Jimmy said was there was budget constraints to do. The cities got a lot of things going on and they said, okay, we'll do a couple hundred on the sidewalk. We got 600,000 we need to spend, but we'll spend 200. So that's when I came up with the comments of you. We got this million seven sitting there. They're saying we could build more sidewalks, but we don't have the funds. Give them the money. Let's see. So. So as it stands, we're looking to remove that provision that shall not exceed 100,000. Yes Okay. And that would be the only change that we're looking for. For me, because I want to know when that fund is depleted, that the city is required to budget sidewalks. Okay. But at what at what level? At what at what level? Pick a number. Well, if we're giving them over $1 million and they claim they have 600,000, but that's for this year. Okay. But I, I'm, I don't know that they have more than that. I would have thought that Tom or whoever made this budget out would have included everything that has to be done. Jimmy. Their plan is a five year plan. His plan was 600 this year, 800 next year. That's what he said. And they did what he said he got 200 and they did 200. Right. That's because they're they're maximizing the power of the money from the city budget. They're they get matched 100,000. So that's what they're putting forward. They don't want to they don't want to affect their budget. So therefore they don't go into their budget. Right. Okay. Yeah, for okay. So, so and so for him it'd be a windfall to have access to these funds that don't come out of his budget or their budget or the general fund. Okay. So but it's not up to that department to come up. It's up to, I guess, the city manager, when they go to budgeting to allocate. Okay What are your needs, for sidewalks this year, Mister Public Works director, and so I just try to craft something here in my head. So I sometimes I think out loud, and when I talk, so, so crafting something that says that the city shall allocate no less than x number of dollars a year, so that at the end, when the funds are depleted. No, no. Yeah. When the funds are depleted to, to allocate no less than X number of dollars a year, but but if they're spending it then how are they going to save it there. Nobody's asking them to save it anymore. So you're telling them that they. But the thing is, if you put a number on it, John, that's all they're going to spend. I know that's why you can't make it too low. You can't make it too high. You got to hit it right in the middle. So, so but what's the sweet spot? What's the sweet spot? Okay, so if we take out the limit, you know, the best thing that could happen is the city would look at that 1.7 million and say, let's let's match it and get the work done. And then what happens to that? Say, we got 1,000,007 to spend on sidewalks? Well, they have to match it. No they don't. They're still. Well we're only taking out that middle thing. So it says that the amount withdrawn from the fund is less than or equal to the amount appropriated. Well that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying take off the caps and let them match. And the match. Let them spend it. Let them put the sidewalks in, you know that there's an obligation on the city to do this. Sidewalks Right? We all know that. Yeah. Because there's liability if we don't. Can I sa, and you're absolutely right. I don't think any of that gets very far. Okay We need to have somebody sit up here now because we've given 4 or 5 different ways we could do that to get the sidewalks done. They need to tell us, and we need to write it in here. This is what the way we're going to do it. Go across the hall and ask Mark to come over here real quick. Ron. Ron has an answer. He gave me all this information from the past. He doesn't have the authority. I said, Mark, Mark, Mark. Well, I can go check. Thanks, Irene. Or not. Thank you. Yeah, it'd be nice to. Okay, well, let's go to an easy thing on this one, Mr. Delacruz recommends striking the first sentence. I think that makes a lot of sense. That's for I have that marked. I think we had discussed that. Yeah. We did. Yeah we did discuss. This is just creating the name of the renaming the thing. Yes. I it doesn't I mean we don't need it still in there. Where is it. Right. Very first sentence. I don't have a record that we actually voted on 26. Oh. I don't have a record that we voted to accept. It's just saying the street and sidewalk improvement Investment Fund shall be renamed the Sidewalk Improvement Fund. That's repetition. That's right. We don't we don't need it. You don't need streets. But to take it out. I need a motion, a second and an affirmative vote. So, so moved second, so moved second. The whole sentence. Yeah. Because it's just it's just saying what the new name will be, but it's already you already have created the new name, so it's still repetitive. It was important last time. It's not important anymore. It got renamed. Okay, any further discussion? No. Can we call the vote on that one? Michelle. Doctor Boukouvalas. Yes miss. Jennings? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Seaman Yes, Mister. Chair. Penny. Yes. Vice chair. Coleman. Yes, chair. Root. Yes Okay. It's done. Yes. Okay So. And no less than. What's that? I'm just talking to myself. I'm sorry. What? I will look at the next sentence of the amount withdrawn from the fund is less. Should be no less than the amount appropriated. Well, that's the Board of Commissioners, by resolution, may direct the withdrawal and use the balance of the fund, provided that the amount withdrawn from the fund is less than or equal to the amount appropriated in the in the city's capital improvement fund sidewalks. That's all that's removed from the fund. He's going to step out. He's in a meeting, but he's going to step out and come up for just a couple minutes. Okay? Okay, great. My withdrawn from the I think the English is correct. They can take up to 100. But if the city only budgets 50 they can only draw 50. Right? Yeah That's. So we'll leave the budgeting issue is what the issue is. So I spending issues are issue not the budgeting. I'm comfortable with leaving it as a match because that's motivation. Yes. So you want it. No So going back to what I I'm okay with removing the limit. But I'd like to maintain the match at this point. So something just so they can build it. So if so by putting the amount withdrawn from the fund is no less than the amount appropriate, no less than the amount appropriated by the city. So the city can only has to appropriate no less than if the city pulls out 500. It's no less than that. If the city budgets 500, it's they can't they can't pull out no less than. So they have to match. Well, you have to do is change. I think it's that the amount withdrawn does not exceed the city's capital general fund contribution for fiscal year. Right Yes. Hi. Heard me throwing things at the wall, listening. Hey Hey. We want to give you some money to spend, man. Yeah. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. City Manager. We were discussing our favorite topics. Sidewalks. I was listening. Oh, okay. So the other meeting going on, I had it on low, so I probably missed the last ten minutes a little bit because I had. I got a meeting going on right now. So, so what can we do to encourage the problem is the match and the limit. That's all that's held. Anybody back is the match and the limit because we can't always budget 200 300,000 to get a 300,000 match. We just can't. If you want to do other things in the budget. So if the match was off or maybe you match 100 and you can pull two, 300, whatever it is, the two problems, even when they I think we told them when we did the thing, the problem is the matching and the limit of we have to stop at $100,000, fix those two things, and we're good. But Mark, you, you know that you can draw the hundred by matching the hundred, right? Yes. But there's nothing in the charter that says you can't put in 200 and take 100, or put in 300 and take 100, right. You knew that, right? Yes. Okay. There's your question. Two. Somebody asked that. Yes. But if you if you got everything you can look, all the budgets the last few years and stuff and what's needed in the budget, they're not those extra 200,000. Remember you got brick roads. You got to deal with and talk about the cost that's gone up when we try to do the brick roads also, which has always been connected. But these this is fund isn't for recruits. I know. But you still have to account for that in the budget. When we're doing the streets. So your general general fund budget so here's here's the question. So the city sitting on let's say $1.7 million for sidewalks okay. The concern is this is that let's say all this money starts getting exhausted for sidewalks. How do how does the city, you know, to preserve and maintain the level of sidewalks after you've made all these repairs and spent all this money, how does the city look at budgeting to make sure that they don't have to go back to a charter to force a sidewalk fund again to, and that the city's allocating appropriate resources to maintain the sidewalks. Appropriately, without. Again, this was done. They had to do this because this was before my time, because it wasn't being done. And I don't think they want to have to go back to a charter to do this. But how how has the charter committee do we look to you as the city manager to say, okay, you exhaust the money? What is being done from the city's manager's desk to make sure or there's when the budget comes around to allocate the sufficient resources to make sure the sidewalks don't go back into that type of disrepair again. It'd go back to the city manager and commission thing, you know, where is the budget going to be in five years? I don't imagine, you know, where is it going to be, what we're going to have to lot to and stuff. So but you, you start planning now if you estimate that in five years we're going to exhaust that money, three years you're going to exhaust that money. You'd be able to start planning now when the money is at zero, what you have to what you will have to budget to keep things going. But it's hard to mandate because you just you know, when you know, if you mandate in 300,000 has to go into a charter and then, you know, 27, 28, you don't have that $300 to put in that budget or you're going to cut another project. I think that's where we're at. That's kind of what we're we're trying to deal with is how do we how do we, you know, take like we're talking about taking the cap off. Okay. That's fine. And the funds get exhausted. But how how how does that. I guess let me try it. Go ahead. Mark, I know you're getting ready to retire, and I know somewhere you're going to be drinking my ties with little umbrellas in them. But if the city, if the cap were taken off and the city had 1,000,007 to build new sidewalks, repair sidewalks at the ■end of that&-t for a requirement? 400,000 300,000. You're going to spend a million. Seven and then at the end of that time, you're going to have a requirement. I mean, maybe you maybe you will. Maybe you won't have a requirement to fund the budget for sidewalk repairs and improvements annually. First, I know you first of all, you'd set up a plan. The thing where it was after me to do would set up a plan. You know, let's say it's 5 in 5 years doing a whole analysis of every sidewalk and what we need to use. How much is that for the five years? When to use, how much money is left there? And then when we've got them all fixed, you know, what is that? What is that sweet spot number? And I don't think without a lot of study and looking and doing it, you know, you're going to know it for this charter. You may know it for the next charter. What to do. But I'm not so sure you're going. But I don't think you can go anywhere over 100, 200,000, without hamstringing some other projects that may need to go in if you get it done. I just don't see that, you know, you setting a limit after this gets done, you have to do $300,000 for sidewalks. I just don't think that's practical to hamstring a budget in the future. It may be good to do that in the future, but to hamstring a budget, you're going to and what you would do is you lose other projects. Now, maybe they're projects that okay, you lose them. So what the sidewalks are important, but that's just the decision that needs a lot of work and a lot of study. Before you absolutely mandate something. So there's 1,000,007 now there's we mandated that you put so much money in this fund and, and then you could start drawing it back after that time. And again, if we could have took if we had to take 1000 100,000 from the city, which. Okay, but we're allowed to get 2 or 300,000 to go with that 100,000. That would have been better than just cut it up. Now you can come up with three and then you'll get three. Well, we haven't had three in the budget to come up with three, so we couldn't budget three 300,000 for sidewalks to match 300 because we that other 2000 $200,000 had to go somewhere else. So if it was, if it was something like the city had to put the first hundred, but then they could draw whatever unlimited up to 300, up to something else. You could have got these past years. Some projects done, because you just make a list and you go to the money runs out, and then the next time the horns come up. So if you had more, more of a lot of that money because you still have to mandate city money going in, if you had the allotment. Okay, I really need to get $300,000 done. I put in 100 from the city, but I can get 200 from that fund to supplement it if that's how that worked and stuff. You just seen a lot more of the last five years and you just see it done. If that was the capability to be able to get more fund without putting the match there, is there. We got a list of the streets from what you did in the past year. Is there a list that says how many streets need to be done? And you could possibly come to this board and say, I can do everything for $2 million, let me have your $2 million. Is there something like that? You could bring contractors in and say, do these streets, finish them up? How can probably takes me. It probably takes some work getting that. But how does it take how does it how do we find out? I mean, how do you find out how many actual streets, how many actual sidewalks need redoing or repairing? Oh, that would need an assessment, as he said. That's why I said the whole thing with this. Whatever the charter ends, the language being we the first thing we would need to do, however you put the structure, is we'd have to do a full fledged study going out, what we can do now, what we can get done and do it. I wouldn't want to spend the money on studies. No, I'm not talking about I don't like consultants. I don't like spending money on studies. It's something. It's something we could do mostly in-house. Yeah. So it's just time and effort in-house. So at this point, at this point, you know, being able to take the cap off would help in the short term in the next 3 to 5, it'll satisfy it for the next 3 to 5 year match. Not more than 100,000. Take the cap off. Take this take the cap off. And that would get and that would get the sidewalks in the next 3 to 5 years where they probably need to be, but not if you make us have the match for that extra amount of money. I'm not so sure that match money is available. What about flipping the match? That's what you suggested. But you mean flipping the match? In other words, have, 100,000 from the city budget, but like 300,000 from the. That's what I was saying. That's that's what I'm saying. It's kind of flipping. It's the same thing I'm saying. Right. That's what I'm saying. We're saying the same thing with you, okay? We're saying the same thing. Right So Mark, try this one, okay. And see if the next city manager is here is going to catch on fire. Okay There's 1,000,007. If you divide that by five, that's about 340,000 a year okay. So if you budgeted 340,000 a year for the next five years, and then we put in the charter, you had to continue to budget. Three 4350 mandated. Yes. That's probably too much on a mandate. Now, 150 and again, where everything goes, you you know, where things are now and the price is everything. You don't know where they're going to go in five years. So. But what would the 340 do for you for five years for your public works guys? You get a lot of sidewalks done. I have a starting the first year. I have a kind of logistical question, and this just comes from observing the guys. And don't don't get me wrong, they they do a wonderful job and they've been in my neighborhood a couple of times and they really do pick out the stuff that's messed up. And it's very, you know, what's necessary. They do. So I understand it's complicated to figure out and pull a number out of the air. But but at least in my neighborhood, when they were patching sidewalks or replacing sections, it was city crews actually doing the work. Is that the way it generally that was the help save the money to have more money to do more, do more sidewalks. But if we do nice work, if we pour more money towards it, is the city going to have the manpower to continue to do that, to stretch those dollars? Or or are we going to wind up getting a contractor to do it and then it probably it probably costs us twice as much to do what we're doing more twice. Again, you know, there are some things you can bring in different times of pricing and some times the pricing. You can get better prices on on things, they may be able to use to supplement as given done, but we wouldn't turn it over to contractors, to supplement it getting done. But they could help us with some things on a good, reasonable price. Because I'm not I wouldn't I don't think the guy after me is going to pay double of what we could do. So but if you get something for maybe 1,520% increase and either they did the patching, we did, they did some things and you get the economy of bid to not be that much of a difference. But to get it done, not only more done, but to get it done faster, that's what you that's what you'd evaluate when you look for a piggyback on a bridge on on when you're piggybacking on a bid for sidewalks, a city somebody gets a great bid on sidewalks and stuff, and wow, that's only about 15, 20 of us doing it. And they can get it done. You jump on that piggyback and all of a sudden that's what you watch for. When we're doing it ourselves is usually not a good piggyback to go out there and get. And we know we bid is a little city. We're going to get garbage prices. But the bigger cities when they bid and if they have to honor the piggyback, we take advantage of the bulk price they gave for the city of Clearwater. And we're able to get that same price for the sidewalks here. So that's where we could jump and for not losing a lot of money, not only get more done, but get them done faster. And city crews could work on on what they're doing now. They could that would be the strategy that I would use. So that makes sense. Mark, where is sidewalk repair in the overall budget importance to the city? I mean, from the citizens perspective, it was so important that in 1983, they put the sidewalk fund in as a mandate. And the charter. We have issues with sidewalks still today. As a matter of fact, I heard it the either the last commission meeting or the one before that, when you were talking budgets. That one one of the one of the requests, please fix the main steps at Spring Bayou. I mean, those are so frequently used and such a focal point, and they're crumbling and a mess. So And you talk about, well, we'd probably only have 100 or 200,000 anyway from the city budget. Your city budget has gone up so much that the unassigned fund, which has not been withdrawn from, has has decreased from 32% of the general budget to 24% over the last like five years. Okay. So you've had a tremendous increase, but it seems that funding sidewalk repair is not a concern. How do we make it a concern of the city manager? I mean, it's important it's important to the citizens. And I know that you got a million other projects but argue with you. But I just don't agree with that assessment. A lot of you said, I don't agree with it's not important. You got 100 important things in this city. You got to balance the money for the problem with the unassigned. We're sitting good with the unassigned because our budget was a certain amount. When all the costs went up on the budget. Remember that that assign got shorter. I know that's but but to put it in, it says a lot about the increase in the size of your budget and the increase in the amount of money the city has to spend every year. Yet there hasn't been additional investment in sidewalk repair that's stayed flat. And that's that's where my questions come from. They put 2 million to hold and want us to build sidewalks on the interest, which was back in the day when, well, we took that on. Yeah, it was a decent idea, but that's where that's where you started with a thing. 2 million stays and you live off the interest and you can build a bunch of use the interest. Don't touch the principle right. But back in the time, there's nothing about back in the time. Back in the time. That was a good prospect. Just the world changed. And it's not a good process. So Well, we're asking two things. One is how to how to get our sidewalks improved. And you've shared your insights on that. And then the second was 100,000. They can drop the 300,000 for the fund, something like something like that. And you see you see next year's budget with a whole lot of sidewalks worked on and going on and going through what happens after it passes, after the and then what happens when the sidewalk funds depleted? Well, that's what you have to do. A whole plan on to see theoretically what's the projection of what you need to do, how long that money's got to last, and then you have to set the commission and say they have to set up a plan that that money doesn't. Some some source of money or some dedication of money is going to have to be done to do the sidewalks afterwards. How however, that is, there's got to be some. But it's hard to put a number and do an assessment now because times change, so much so. But the next charter, the next charter committee will be in a better place to look at that, you just have better numbers. If it went through better possibility. There's a way to get around that and we can approve whatever we decide to improve. Now And your study on what is really going to take could come in a year. Yes. The Board of Commissioners could ask us to reconvene. Yes, convene and then we can change that to make it work. They can, or they can or they can budget sidewalk repair and not have to reconvene. Yep. They could do that too. Now there's a novel thought. Didn't work that way. Guys All right, well, I gotta head back. Do we have any other questions? Thank you. I'll be there. Finish that one. I'll be. I'll be over there when I. So. All right, turn that up a little bit so you can hear when we need you. Okay. Thanks Thank you for your time today. Man, talk to me about going to change anything. Well we had a we got a great communication going on this because it's a master problem, you know, and it's not easy to resolve. And we don't have to resolve it today. We can talk about it for two more hours and then come back and it's so important that we don't want to rush into it. Yeah Yes, sir. You represent a number of cities. Any other cities have a sidewalk improvement fund? Yeah. Not not in the charter. The our problem was, is that it wasn't being taken care of. And what Mike said, well, you know, at some point maybe the citizens if we did, if we depleted it and we didn't have anything that the citizens will rise up and, and demand it. Well, that's what happened. So here we are. And what we have is a situation where the carry to your point is where is the priority level on the sidewalks? I mean, you're right about the steps around the bayou. I mean, and they don't seem to be wanting to go up on the much anyway, on the hundred contribution 100, 150 was what I heard, so, I mean, just about talked me out of changing and leave some way. It is. I mean, could well I we have eventually gets depleted but and then somebody's going to have to oka. So the truth is there in the budget process right now. So next year it's going to be you know that's Mark's mandate. Mark's Mark's Mark's party right now. And this doesn't go for vote until next March anyway. And this doesn't. So the thing is, is, you know what guidelines and encouragement do we want to provide to the next city manager coming in? How do we want to? Is there anything we need to do in the charter to move interest and maintaining the city sidewalks along? As the attorney said, it's a liability issue. All we need is a good lawsuit, right? And usually it is actually what Mike said. It it's complaint driven. People come up to meetings and they go, have you seen the sidewalk over here? It needs to be repaired. And the city manager goes, okay, we'll take care of it. That's how I mean, honestly, that's how everybody else handled it. Now there's a plan to do every sidewalk over a period of time. It's part of the probably the five year plan. And it's just a question of which ones have to be done before the others. But it's part it's always part of the budget. It's an ongoing problem, like you said. Yeah, but it's an ongoing problem that they're only allocating $100,000. But the they're only allocating 100,000 because I think that's what they feel they could get done during that fiscal year, based on the other projects and the other priorities. I 100% understand what you're saying, but it's usually complaint driven. Yeah, that's no way to run a city. Well, I guess we need to start complaining? Well, or it's part of a plan, right? I think, for example, one of my clients just finished theirs. I think it took them five years to do all the sidewalks. And of course, now they begin again. Well, so that's something we could do, is we could require the sidewalks to be maintained on a five year cycle. We could put that in the charter. We could put in the charter, a larger reverse match, you know, where if they are only going to allocate 150,000, and we think that they've got workload for about 500,000, we could, you know, do a two for 1 or 3 for one match. I don't I don't know how I'm sorry. I don't know how we can require the city manager to do a study. I don't want one. We can't. It's the only way we'll salvage this. We have to know how much has to be done to figure out how to spend the money. That's really. Isn't that really, Tom telling you this is. We have to do X amount, and that's a moving target, right? It's a moving target because there's a tree that right now is bringing up one of the sidewalks. The roots are doing it. I mean, it just happens all the time. Somebody runs into like John said, somebody runs over it. I mean, I'm sure that's happening today. So but we don't know how how many of that is happening or has already. I think that's Tom's answer to you. Tom's the one who's going to say here. I mean, I know he said the amounts, right? But he didn't tell you that, right now we have $200,000 worth that are really in bad shape and need to be done right now. So. So we have 600,000, right this year and 800,000 next year. But he's not telling you that that that need to be done that need to be done. But what is the what is that. So he needs to be done. And there needs to be done. So typically sidewalks like you said are or we said are complaint driven because I don't think anybody drives around the city to look at sidewalks. They know there are sections of sidewalks that are visibly have to be repaired or replaced. But as a general rule, nobody from the city code does drive every street in Tarpon Springs to look at sidewalks. So it's complaint driven because there may be a small five foot section, ten foot section that needs to be addressed. So that will continue to happen. And so looking at what do we do? What do we change? Because that's why we're here. I know we talked about removing the cap. So to remove the cap, whether it's three or reverse, reverse the amount if you want to make sure that that fund, goes over time, they don't spend it in one year. If you want to reverse it to, that, you know, up to X number of dollars or three times whatever the city budgets or four times whatever the city budgets for sidewalk improvement. You know what, if the city doesn't budget anything for that year, I see that. I don't see that. And I understand from Mark's perspective is, you know, we it may be, you know, we may have a plan to replace sidewalks, but something, something else may come up that affects our budget for that year. And we can't spend those funds for sidewalks because, you know, we've got, you know, sewer mains that we all of a sudden that are breaking. We have to replace. So we have to pull funds from somewhere. And that may be taken from the sidewalk. So it's a slippery slope, but but at, at a minimum, at a minimum, you know, I think I'd feel comfortable if a we a we remove the cap or the alternative besides removing the cap, if you want to allocate, an amount to you know, not to exceed 300% of what the city budgets, which if they budget 100, it's 300. If it's, you know, or three times whatever the city budgets and that way you, you sort of and I understand maintain your fund for, for a longer period of time instead of having to go through incentivize incentivize to spend it to three times. What about the possibility of it's roughly $340,000 a year for five years. That sort of kicks the can down the road to the next charter revision Committee. But but we but we have have a requirement that that they need to do an in-house study by the time that next panel is impaneled so that you have the information to make a logical decision of how to fund it into the future. At that point, I think that's the only way we're going to get, because we don't have the info that the amount, the amount withdrawn does not exceed 340,000 per fiscal year. Yeah What you said makes a lot of sense. Yeah. It's, if you want to put it that way, it's simple. They need to still match at least 100 to get it. Let's leave that. And know when they, when we bring this amount down, are they going to have to start putting 100 grand back into it? No, no. They'll decide that. Okay. So what okay. So that's you're right. The 340. The three 4340 gets us to the end of five years when the new charter revision comes. But if we put in there that they have to if the fund is depleted, they have to put in 340 per year. That gets them to five years. And if it's not going to work, they can raise they can bring it up then and change it. So what you're saying is the city's got to put in 100 and we will triple the match that actually makes 400 a year, 400,000 a year. Three 4444, 440 it'd be 440. And actually a little more than that, because there'll be some interest and no idea what it's getting. And what about right now? It's pretty good. It's about budget 340. After that 80,000 a year in the future. I have a problem with that. You need to be very specific. This is in the charter to five years. Yeah. And it could be changed then if it's not going to work. The thing is I or just let it go away, let it go, let it go away. I think the three, the 340 a year or you know, I would, I would make it a round number instead of 340 because this is three. Yeah yeah. 300 or 350 whatever. But, but a round number because you know. So why 340. Why do they think of 340. We divided five I know, I know, we, we know why. But you got to look at the person who's voting, so if we so that means the city would be spending a minimum of 400,000 a year, and it leaves you a balance and nobody knows what to do with it, because it'll it'll exhaust itself that board. Five years from now. It may be 6 or 7 years before. That's all exhausted. Well, and to address your concern about going into the future, we could say that after that point, the Future Charter Revision Committee will will address. That's fine. Continuing to fund it at a reasonable level or something like that. Can you reexamine, can you put in the charter that that this section shall, be reviewed and updated, but they're doing it anyway. They're going to review it anyway. You just can't make them do anything. Okay. All right. I'll tell you what. 1983, those guys were geniuses. Okay So you must have been on that committee back then. They just. The city just didn't follow what we asked them to do, that's all. So So, Madam Chair, is our recommendation then to, re obviously remove the cap and no, we're not removing it. No, no I'm sorry. Yeah. We're going to remove the $100,000. They're not removing the cap. No, we're changing it. Well, amending it amending it to reflect that, that the city shall, shall be you want to require them to, to allocate $100,000. I don't Merle does. That's fine. Okay. I don't want to let them off the hook completely. That's fine. Okay to that, the city should allocate $100,000 a year to Sidewalk improvement Fund. The city a minimum of a minimum of 100,000. And they would be able. And at that point, the city would or the sidewalk improvement fund will would match up to $300,000 or or three times. I think what you want to say, the amount withdrawn does not exceed three times thousand dollars. In that fiscal year, let's see. Okay So let me let me phrase this, okay. Because I this is one thing I do. Well okay. We're going to require the city to have if they're going to access the funds in the sidewalk fund, they have to budget for $100,000 in sidewalk improvements. The amount was drawn from the fund is less than or equal to $300,000 annually. Right. So we're requiring that them to do this in order to access the fund. If they access, if they want to access the fund, they have to put $100,000 in. If they do that, they can take out up to 300,000 for that fiscal year. That's okay. They don't have to. They could they could have a $300,000 budget, put 100,000, take 200 out, but they can't take 500,000 out. Okay. Yeah. And then I think the provision in terms of what the fund should not be used for needs to stay there. And I also think I like the idea of putting a requirement in to do a sidewalk plan. Be be completed by 2029. That's, that's just a recommendation. You can't put that in the charter right in here. I wouldn't. Okay, well, we can I can I have under the recommendations for BOC set up plan for future funding for sidewalk improvements. I have to spend 300 then plus their 100. They give them a budget of 400,000. They get the three. They got to spend. One is basically what you're saying. Okay Or they'll get to four. Actually, they're getting four actually because they'll have their one plus plus three. They get to three and they put it in their account. Spend one. Yeah three and one is four. Yeah. Right. You're sure. Yeah. All right. I wasn't really good at math. I got my calculator. Okay So one other thing is, if they get to three and put it in there and they put their hundred in there, but they only spend 200,000 not here, do they get 300 for the next year if they use. No, that's that's not how that's written. Yeah. I mean the amount was drawn from the fund. I think we keep these words. The amount was drawn for the fund is less than or equal to three times the $100,000 that they put up. The public's not going to understand that you need to use real numbers, Carrie, I'm sorry, I can't hear you. The public doesn't is not going to understand that you need to use real numbers. You need to say that they want 300. They got to put in 100. Yeah Right. Okay. So they got to put in 100. The amount was drawn from the fund has to be expended and can be up to 300,000, $300,000 from the fund, up to $300,000 from the Sidewalk Improvement Fund. It has to be expended in that year. Yeah, you could say if the city budgets $100,000 from the general fund for sidewalk improvements, they can draw up to 300,000 from the Sidewalk Improvement Fund. Did you capture that, Mr. Saltzman? I did good, I'm sure when you read the language, you'll make changes. That's right. You Just as long as you're capturing the thoughts. Now, you can make it real legal. This was very good exercise. Thank you. What's that? This was a very good exercise. Yeah, I think it's this. Is this was this went on for days last time. Okay. Okay So I think let me just pull. Are you comfortable. Are you, do you have any other suggestions? No No I think it's this works. Do you think that works? That's good, it's good. Mike Yes. John. Okay we're all in agreement. Okay. Can we get a motion for that? I so move second. All right, let's call the vote doctor Gavalas. Yes, Miss. Jennings? Yes, Mr. Koskotas. Yes, Mr. Semen. Yes, Mister chair. Penny Yes, vice chair. Collins. Yes, chair. Root. Yes. I'm so glad you say yes. Before me. Because I know what my name is. The next one. Because I can never hear what the name is. So I just wait. Okay. So the last thing on my list, I think, is OB, based on the prior discussions. All right. So now we are on to ecological sustainability and possible building height sections. Does anyone need a break? Yes, yes. Aren't you proud of me? I remember it all right. Vice presidential, let's go to 320. Okay All right. That's the guy from Ohio. The new. We ready? All right, so I got to keep the change. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Here it is. Okay. I, I created this for me. I don't have it for you, but I just found I needed more room than what I had on my handouts. So that that's that's why I have this one. And you don't. But I take this? Is that yours? Yeah Are you going to talk to him? Can I take it? Should I go call him back? Why not? I'm just going to do an intro. So Okay. If the mayor needs to be put at the podium, I guess we can do that. All right, so we have two sections. One is, I should say potential new sections. One is on environmental sustainability and our rationale for keeping this was to give sustainability teeth. Our the thoughts at this point are to require the city to create a plan and execute it for ecological sustainability, for the preservation of desired features or species, i.e. mangrove and the elimination of non-native invasive species, i.e. Brazilian pepper trees and Australian pines and. On top of that, we got emails. Two separate ones, one from a person representing themselves as a concerned citizen of our city who is? We can't, I can't really find any record of her being, a resident or property owner here, but asking for, what was it? The citizen's Bill of rights. So you saw that said emails, right, and then we saw a response back fro, yes. Tommy Kiger. Yeah. Indicating that he didn't feel that. It was necessary. Oh, Tom Kiger. That's right. He didn't feel that a citizen's Bill of rights was necessarily necessary, and actually, I don't think he felt that way. I read it. Was that the environmental sustainability paragraph was or section was not needed in the charter, but, so we've heard from that as long as everybody's read it, we'll proceed with the conversation. If not, get up and let's find out. What what did our mayor have to say? Anything? No no. Nothing of interest to the. Yeah. All right. So let's let's kick this off again. I'm concerned that this is kind of a sidewalk equivalent. No In other words, funding is not necessary. You know, we all recognize that it's a big problem, but it's not picking up to the, to the point where actually gets, I don't want to say appropriate. That's, that's pejorative, it's not getting the attention that some of our citizens feel it needs. Okay so do we put this in a charter section? I'd like. I'm just going to poll everyone to see where we are on this topic. I'm starting with you, Tina. Yeah, I read all this stuff, and while I. It seems like it's not a bad idea, to have a citizen's Bill of rights as a preamble to the charter, all right, let's let's let's separate it into two things. Let's talk about the let's talk about the bill of rights, and then we'll talk about the environmental section. Okay. So this poll is addressing the citizens Bill of rights. Do we need to look at putting it in as a preamble or addressing it in some other way? I'm not sure. Okay That's and that's fine. I I'm, I don't feel strongly about putting it in at all. Okay. I don't feel strongly because I really don't understand what she wants. And maybe our attorney could explain what citizens Bill of rights would be, and my response is no, that's what the electoral process is for. Second, and I don't have strong feelings. Okay? I mean, when I read it, I just felt like, well, if somebody's running for office and they don't have that in their head, they shouldn't be running. I mean, if some other similar cities in the area have added such a thing, I'd be interested in hearing what they've added. Perhaps Okay, so I will ask, the attorney to speak on it. The other thing is in in the email, the memo she had had a bunch of links that my, my internet browser, was not letting me get to because they said they were dangerous for one reason or another. So Irene generously printed the references out. And that's this bunch of stuff, if you have an interest, it's there. It's very repetitive. It is, it is things that have been adopted, but I don't necessarily see that it's in charters. But but you also was she was in this one is home rule charter and that's North Miami Beach. But anyway yeah a lot of those were from South Florida. Right She was referencing. Yeah. And it is exactly what I mean. I could understand it maybe in a bigger, real big city where people don't feel like they have any voice, to make sure that those rights are protected. But you don't have that in this city. This city, everybody's had an opportunity to speak, and their voice is heard, the commission responds to them. The city responds. So I don't think it's necessary. Right. You can get in to talk to the city manager, you can talk to the mayor, you can talk to anyone on the commissioners. Yeah, I'm kind of that's where I am on this. I mean, I thought it was interesting. I it's an interesting thing to have, but it's like you said, it's a political aspect and it's how it's more of when you're an elected official, how do you make sure that the residents are being heard and, and how they feel comfortable with how the system is going? Okay. Well. So to make a motion to adopt the citizens, bill of rights. Bill of rights. So if we if we vote against it, we decline putting it in. Is that it? Okay, everybody understand that you have to make a motion in the positive. Actually, you don't have to do anything. No we don't. We can just we can just decline. It's not something that you have brought forth. It's not one of our charter sections. It's not even a citizen that brought it forward. Right? Right. They're not a resident. We don't think they're a resident of mostly signs from losers. So I will ask this if I'm hearing there is there is basically no strong interest to put any word like this in the charter. So I am going to, table that for the next charter review. If they want to take it up, they can. We are done with that. Is that okay? Yes. Can we all in agreement with that? Okay. I'll retract the motion. Thank you. Well it never got seconded. So it died died, died with that for lack of a second. Died for lack of a second. So is worth it. Yeah. All right. So that takes the citizens right and response off the table. Now the second one was to require the city to create a plan and execute it for ecological sustainability. I'm going to pull on that one right now. Tina Well, it's it it just seemed to me from what what Mr. Feiger was his name, said is that it's already they're already have a plan and are following it. So I'm not sure that we need this. Right. I excuse me, I tend to listen to, the people that are sitting in the midst of it, and Tommy Feiger is. And he didn't feel it was necessary in the charter. So I'm going to go along with that. I read it, and I think he's out in left field, too. From what? From what? He said we'd be better. He'd be better off if it was in the charter, because there's no guarantee on what they're saying. It's getting to get funded. Yeah, apparently they all have a director. They had one, but they haven't replaced it. It's been a year this month and they want us to stay away. I don't know, maybe I'm interested in hearing Mike because this is a yeah, this is this is this is important to me. And I think it needs to be in the charter because this is sidewalk 2.0, if you look at some of the things that he's put in there about ordinances, but the ordinances affect private property owners, they don't affect the city. He there is a provision in there where the city is going to come up with a with a plan and implementation of a plan, but does it talk about funding? It doesn't talk about any requirements that the city even have or, you know, whether or not they even budget any. You know, you could have a plan and no budget. It you know, we all have plans and may not have any teeth to it. You know, this I think this is long overdue, you know, the implementation, you know, if they've been looking at this for quite some time, I don't see any, proactive, removal of invasive species. I will tell you, I think I don't know who who I heard this from, but I think the only allocated maybe last year, $40,000 towards this, and, and I think the different departments are at odds. And this is from my scuttlebutt that I hear as to where do the moneys come from, because they don't want it to come out of their particular budget. You know this. Well, I don't want to spend that money because it comes out of my budget. You spend the money because it comes out of your budget. And so there's a there's a you know, a tug of war. Yeah, they want to see it. But nobody wants to spend the money for it out of their particular budget. So I think by requiring it in the charter and mandating it, the ordinances are fine with regard to private property owners. I think we already have those in place. And if you're going to develop property that, that, you have to remove those invasive species to develop. One of the things I learned ironically, is if you don't if you have a lot and you don't develop it, you're not required to, to remove the invasive species. So, so let's say I'm planning a subdivision and I've got a wetland. And this actually, I think this happened, and I, and I do a plat of the, of the subdivision, and I, and I create lot one, for example. And lot one is a wetland. All right. So I develop all the other properties, but I don't develop lot one and lot one. The wetlands is, is, is fraught with, invasive species. Guess what? I don't have to touch it. And let me, let me guess. They've taken the, the per house per acre. Their their utilizing that acreage in order to get smaller. But the allocation of the wetland is, is, is a is a lot. And so because yeah that's just so wrong. But but I'm suggesting to you that that happened not historically that's happened. You know today I don't know if they can get away with it or anybody can get away with it, but I don't think allows that. But but that had that has happened and there are there's one subdivision in particular that has a property that was private and was not, and that was developed all around it, but that particular wetland was was untouched and not required to remove invasive species because it was not buildable. They did not build on it. So, you know, that's that's for that's for an ordinance change. That's not a that's not a charter. Charter affect the charter. But I think as much as we, we, we, we looked at requiring certain, performance with regard to, to sidewalks, I think we should demand the same performance when it comes to invasive species. So I think it ought to be in the charter. Your turn, buddy. Okay roll your turn. Thank you Mike. Thank you. I agree, it's important. And we need some way to manage it. I'm I'm not sure exactly how how to go about mandating it, though. Yeah John, I touched on this before, and I thought we had said that what we were going to say. Because you can't you can't micromanage just everything, you know, that I thought we were just going to say that the city should appoint a sustainability committee. Who shall? And the city shall, adopt a sustainability plan and leave it at that and let the let the committee and the and the city, you know, flesh flesh out the plan and the citizens and this the citizens Committee flesh flesh it out with the input of Mike, whoever you know, it keeps the charter clean and you just can't. And it gets Mike back to the same thing with Mark. How much money are you going to budget and how much are they going to squawk? If you tell them to budget? Oh, we can't do that. But if you if you give them the committee like the planning and Zoning board, whatever you want to call it, the sustainability board, sustainability committee, citizens Committee, and that the cities to adopt a sustainability plan that puts it on the table. It puts it in the charter and it keeps it clean. And people can pressure from the outside how they how much does it mean to the community to get the pressure? So Madam Chair, yes. So the I agree that that that the charter could, can, demand that they come up with a plan and they're working on the plan. Okay. So that may satisfy what the charter would require, but should it say that, that it would not only come up with a plan, but but how do you I mean, you need to allocate resources for the plan and, and, and I understood what Mark said is, look, when you've got certain things that that you have to pay for, you know, adding another line item may make it difficult when it comes to budgeting, but but the thing is, John, is if they've not been just like the sidewalks, you know, they weren't addressed financially. They were weren't addressed. And they may have had a sidewalk plan back in 80, whatever. But they never spent the money. They never did anything. They may have had a plan, but even so, they had they may have had a plan. Okay, and so how how do we put language in there that, that that the city shall allocate, significant or sufficient resources with regard to the with regard to, implementation of the plan. So you could have a plan, but are they going to allocate any resources for it? And so I think merely telling them, look, you got to have a sustainability committee and have a plan. Great. But but what are you going to do with the plan? You can say that you're going to have a you're going to have you can have the sustainability committee, you're going to have they've already they already adopted a plan. Sustainable plan. They said they're working well. The sustainability plan does not go exhaustively into invasive species. They're looking at other sustainability issues. That's that's the issue. You could say that that they have to adopt the evidently they've already adopted it. I was going to say that they have to adopt the plan within two years and implement and implement the plan over five. I think five is too long. I think they've been working on it too. Well, no, but they've been working on it. I mean, I'm talking about implement the plan the goals, implement the goals, policies and objectives of the plan over a five year period. I don't honestly, I don't think it's that hard to get allocate a crew with chainsaws and a wood chipper to go out and start cutting down the Brazilian peppers. Where do you want them cut down? You want where do you want me to start? Mirrors Where do you want to start? Start a mirrors. Mirrors Okay. Start on mirrors. Yeah. You could you could spend a year in mirrors, you know, you know, it's. But that that would be up to the plan. The plan would dictate where where the priority is. Well, that's what I'm saying. Irene, could you pull it up? But sustainability, but not wait five years to implement it. You don't wait five years, Mike. You implement from day one year, one, year two, year three, year four, year five. You know, I mean, I agree with you about the invasive species, but I think it's a little too narrow to be a charter item. And maybe it should be a part of a larger thing about sustainability. But maybe you can have language just to mention it. Covering things like invasive species, blah blah, blah blah blah blah. But if you part of it, you go to the committee lobby for those things to be put in the plan. Yeah, not in the charter. You lobby for those. I'm not disagreeing that the Brazilian peppers and things need to be taken care of. It's like you can list a million things in the charter or in the sustainability plan, but if you just say they have to have a plan and implement the plan and let the community develop the plan, certainly you're not the only guy in town who wants the Brazilian peppers. No, but I didn't. We didn't just call it Brazilian peppers. We just called it invasive species. To plan to put it in the plan as a section in the plan, invasive species species elimination, control, whatever. That's where I'm at. Yeah I don't I'm sorry. It sounds like I read this 2 or 3 times. Then I googled it, trying to figure out what they really wanted because they've outlined something that they have is basically what they really want, but they want to wait until these two land development code and the other one that the Renee runs, some of the reason they asked for it to wait is the things that Mike brought up are addressed in the land development code, like if somebody builds a house or somebody puts in a something that they have to, was there a certain page, take all that stuff out. But but this is not. Yeah, but that's, that's with regard to private property owners. But we don't know what the land development code, the new one is going to say as far as public property, maybe it's being addressed, maybe that's what they're trying to say. Basically they want to wait until it's done because they feel like what they what they want is going to be in there. But how about I'm wary of anybody says I don't want it in the charter because the charter has a teeth to enforce and it makes things happen. So when they tell me they don't want it, well, that's well, that's why we're here. How was what. How would you word it? I would word it like it's a commission problem, not a charter problem. The commission board of commissioners are responsible for all of these. They're the ones who should be dealing with it, not us. Yeah, but that's what I'm saying, that you just say that there's a committee and they have to. And they have a plan, and they they have to adopt a plan real quick. Yeah, sure. Just like they have to adopt a comprehensive plan by by law. Right. The plan, you just say they have to have one. You know, you're not telling them what's in the plan. You're just saying they have to have them. Yeah. You can't dictate what's in the plan. Which makes me wonder about the whole thing is. Is that. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Here they talk about invasive species, right? Categories of action over and over and over. And you think you're going to. Put in the plan what the public wants okay. This this is bring it down to the section. Or do you have a hard hard is she struggling okay. This is the this is what they said. This is what they said. Part of their plan. Can you click on that. Just is that clickable this. No that next section where it comes in. It identifies the areas that it addresses. So we can go see it again. Exact exactly. So adopted. I'm sorry you had it up a minute ago. One second. There it is right there. Description clickable description of action categories. Yeah. So go to if you do a control F and then type in section one. If she keeps scrolling it'll be expanded. Look okay natural environment. It's it includes controlling the spread of invasive species and promoting, site appropriate and Florida native species in landscape. That's a mission statement. Yeah, that's a mission statement. Description of action. Yeah. Okay. That's that's just a mission statement. That's that's not a that's not a requirement. It's not a plan. It's not a requirement. Right. It's just a mission statement, if you put in there that implement the plan, that becomes a requirement. Exactly. So here's what here's their action plan that according to what the their action plan is to adopt and enforce an ordinance requiring control of invasive species and use sustainable landscaping practices on all city properties. Okay use integrated pest management to limit the use of pesticides on city property, provide pesticide reduction awareness for community members and property owners. To me, that that is a mission statement. That's a mission statement where I was okay, it's not a plan. Right? Okay. I think I mean, this was this was if you go up here, oh, yeah, I was. So whoops. Well go ahead, go up to the, You're what? You're way far down now. Oh. Well, anyway, it's such a high level. It's not it doesn't have teeth so. Yeah. So we got code enforcement ordinances, okay. And the city goes out and enforces the code. And there are properties that are in violation of the code that the city owns. Does the city site itself and code enforcement issues? No, no they don't. So if so, if they pass an ordinance, okay. With regard to invasive species, the city in and of itself, even though there's an ordinance that says the city shall, you know, do have control and eliminate invasive species by ordinance, you've got an ordinance. The city creates that the city does is not enforceable against the city because even under code, a code enforcement, they don't site themselves for violations of the code of ordinances. Right. Do you understand what I'm saying? So by requiring it. No. We don't site ourselves. You don't site yourself? No by code. You have to. You have to follow the same codes as the residents do. You would ever codes that are in there that apply to the city. The city is to follow whatever applies. But if residents applies to the. Yeah, but they don't. It depends on but but but if they're violation John when John if they're in violation they don't they don't site themselves. Well they don't site themselves because what are you supposed to do exactly. Code enforcement board. And they tell you they'll put a fine. Yeah, exactly. So if you have an ordinance, if you have an ordinance that the city is supposed to follow and they don't follow, there are no, you know, what's what's the ramifications? The ramifications is you go to the city commission, you complain and they instruct the city manager to do it, or they tell the city, they tell you they don't care. Yeah So by having and that's what the charter does, that's what the charter does. And it tells the city, I mean the board of commissioners to tell the city manager to get it done. So what I've written down here is that we would like to see an environmental sustainability committee established to or to establish a plan, recommend funding, that where the city then allocates resources and implements the plan over a period of time, and the city is responsible for establishing direct accountability. Why don't you just make department and part of section eight? What's that? Why don't you just make it part of section eight? We can do that because then it's just it's a part of what the something they need to do. And that's probably a good place for it. And okay. Okay. So and as specifically as it relates to, facial invasive species and Michelle said that I just want to I know I wanted I actually I was looking for a separate I'd say section, but I'm good with that as long as it's in there. I wanted a separate section just to show the importance of it. But and that's fine. But but if you want to put that in there, that's fine as long as it's in there. So just Mr. Saltzman, if this gets approved, do you know what words to use at this point? Do you? I, I know Irene's taking it down, and then we'll follow through with that. I think the can I have a motion to it a little bit better, just so we know what we're voting on. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, I said, can we define it just a little bit better have somebody read it back so we know what we're voting on. I'll try. Okay. I'll do my best. Okay, we're going to expand section eight to add a sub paragraph that addresses the need to, preserve desired species and eliminate non-native invasive species. Throughout the city, and to do that, we want, and we said we want an environmental sustainability committee put in place to, establish a plan, recommend funding that the city will allocate resources to and implement to achieve all goals. Do you want me to come up with try to come up with some real quick? Yeah. Go for it real quick. Yeah By charter. Okay. Go shooting from the hip here. Okay. Hold on. This is at 355. I did this city. The city shall. Adopt a sustainability. If you. We have a committee. Right Sustainability committee. Yes, the city shall, shall adopt a, since they already have one. How about you maintain maintain the sustainability committee? I wanted in the charter, and shal. I'm trying to use some of the language that he had here. Provide the city shall provide through the state sustainability committee a plan with regard to the elimination of invasive species throughout the city. And provide the necessary resources to implement the plan. I mean, it's that simple, that they they got to develop a plan and provide the resources to implement the plan or for those invasive for the invasive species. We'll wordsmith it. I mean, I understand basically what you're saying, but I'd like to suggest that that when you go from the committee to the invasive species that you just, preface it with among their duties shall be so that we're not essentially saying this is they're going to do. Yeah. You know, how about how about this? Right. About the. Paper amended to say that the city shall, shall maintain a sustainability committee. Who shall who shall adopt a plan of sustainability, whose, To include to include invasive species removal and funding resources to include the eradication of invasive species. I just think it's a nightmare. But and to provide the resources necessary. It's a nightmare. All right. Let me let me let me just try this. So through the sustainability committee, the city shall maintain. No. I'm sorry. Through the sustainability committee, the city shall, Just, I just I tried to write on top with three different recommendations. This is what I have from my. Okay Shall adopt a plan. We'll be here next week to eliminate invasive species and provide resources to implement. Plan to. No. That's redundant again. Let's see, what do you have? Okay. The city shall maintain a sustainability committee and shall adopt a plan to include the elimination of invasive species and provide the resources to implement the plan to implement. That's what she said. That's it. It's all good except for the part where you're giving them direction. Exactly what it has to do right? Okay. So I think what my suggestion and I understand that Mike may not like this, is that there is a sustainability committee and that their direction will be and they must establish certain parameters to maintain whatever general statement you want to make. It's just a problem when you make specifics as to what they have to do, one of two things will happen. Well one of three things. Either A they don't do it because they don't budget it. B they they do it and that's all they do, right? And you're not really getting what you want. What if it c the problem with the charter is this what if something changes during this time period and you want them to do that but you don't want. But it's too specific as to that. So a general statement is better. So almost defining what sustainability is okay. So how do you how do you get them. There's a lot of there's a lot of sustainability. Very broad very very broad. And you could do a lot of things with sustainability without ever looking at invasive species. So how do you how do you make sure other than the things that you want sustainability to do? What about including including including, addressing of it, including a plan including a plan? That's their action plan. That's all that you mean National environment action? I found it on the including the adoption requiring, control of invasive species control. Yeah. See, I like the term control of invasive species, because maybe what control means either it could mean a lot of things. It can mean removal. It could mean cutting down. It can mean, making sure that it's limited in its areas. I mean, control is a lot, I know, but I to not mention them addressing invasive species. I think we can do but to include but not limited to. It's one of invasive species. Yeah The and just for reference the technically correct term I think is non-native invasive species. That's what Florida DEP uses in official communications and such. Hey Mike, do you like rock and roll? You know what, Mick Jagger said, right? Can't always get what you want. Get what you don't always get what you want. You can't always get what you want. Always get what you want. And I make a suggestion, please. This is one of the attorneys should bring us back next Monday for language. We could beat this to death, that we don't talk to each other again. Everybody's in favor of it. It's. Yeah, it's just how w. How we wordsmith it. Yeah I'm good with you, man. Well, I think right now we're starting to converge on a solution. So let's not pull the rug out from under this, this discussion. I'm good with listening. I'm good with the listening to language that we can adopt. That's that, you know, is broad enough, but also specific enough to address that particular issue. Right. All right. So I'm just looking through here and we don't really we don't we talk about the comprehensive plan. We talk about a strategic plan, we were going to have, there was another plan that was added and we go we had section I, new paragraph, we do. Yeah. And then there was an addition, a, adoption of all of the city master plans, which the sustainability plan would have been under the question is, I think the first question is, do we want a separate paragraph on a, on a sustainability plan in addition to the comprehensive plan and the strategic plan, is it important enough to do that? I think so okay. So that's that's that's really the first question. Well, when you say a separate paragraph, you mean a paragraph in section eight. Yes. Yeah. That's right. Yes Yeah. Yeah. No absolutely I agree. So we should, we should we need to vote to adopt a paragraph in section eight that addresses the sustainability plan, like the other two plans that are mentioned here. I don't think you need to do that. I think you need to direct. Well, you've already directed me to bring you back language. And then and then when you decide what language is appropriate, then you vote to put it in a separate paragraph. Okay. No. Okay. I'm just saying you shouldn't do that before we give you something that you decide should be in there. Well, we're talking a lot about what we want to do with the sustainability plan, but it's not it's the sustainability plan right now is lumped under the other city plans. And so we've talked in the past about bringing elevating the sustainability plan to its own paragraph here to give it teeth. Right. That was the first thing. And then the second part of that was to, specifically call out what needed to be done for non-native, invasive species. And protect the ones we want to protect as well, so that that is the total. I think the total discussion that we need to, to address. And I think you have the consensus, let him get the language and we'll put it in. Okay. I just want to bring one thing up if you don't mind, please. Action for that. They sent us basically says adopt an ordinance requiring control of invasive species and create a preferred plant ordinance for private landscaping to maintain biodiversity and habitat. They also want to tell you what the hell plants are put in. You can't. Yeah, if they pass this, they can tell us how to put it in New York. Well, they got to pass the Board of commissioners with that. They can't adopt it themselves, I, I'm not saying they're going to pass it or not, but think about what we're putting in the charter here. This is I you can tell them what they invasive species is, one of those things. You can tell them what they can't. Right. If the state is saying and the city says you can't plant this and you can't plant it, they can't necessarily tell you what to plant unless it's part of your development. This is going to take away from our last problem with the city and getting sidewalks. You want you want us to plant these and years from now, five years from now, we'll see if there's any any traction on invasive species. I think so. Well, it's definitely something that's being addressed I know by the county. So people are addressing it, addressed all over the place. Yeah. And Brazilian peppers. Yeah. The Brazilian peppers for sure. Australian pines. They're all getting hammered. Yeah. The state I mean you guys if you go have you ever go to Anclote Key. They have selective herbicides. Now They sprayed Anclote key, killed every Brazilian every Australian pine out there. You know, so people are doing things all right. So where are you now? I am wanting to hear the language. And then once we look at it as a separate section in section eight, a separate paragraph, I think the language is good. Or if we have to wordsmith it a little bit, that's fine. Okay. And this is for the focus on the sustainability plan. Vice focused on non-native species. Correct. Okay. That's where I was. Yeah. All right. So what's that? I'm happy. You're happy okay. So, Mr. Salzman, your task is to look at words for implementing a sustainability plan. Understood. Okay Not and not a elimination of non-native invasive species plan. That's that's what I just heard. I heard it's both. I heard that we're going to let the plan do what it says and to include language with regard to. Okay. Well, that's why I'm. Yeah Yeah. To make Mike happy. I understand it has to say is not to make my I know, but he's the advocate for this position. It's my understanding that language that would say including but not limited to invasive species. Right. Okay. So that's what I wrote in my happy about that. I'm just for creating a committee and developing a plan. So this will make John unhappy. Okay. Well, they've got a committee unhappy, developed a plan. Okay. Nobody cares. Okay. So attorney to provide us words next. All right. Let's, let's jump now to our last section on building height. I strongly advocate Mike's position. Are we on sustainability or building height now? Building height. Okay. I was just going to save that now that I didn't, you kno, I I've looked this up and I see it and I've seen even ordinances that require referendum. But they're done in the regular ordinance section. And here's the reason why I really, suggest this is that if you do something that results in a potential taking. Okay, we cannot correct that situation. If the charter prohibits it without changing the charter and you really it's a really, really difficult situation. I believe. Renee told you all that. We have provisions in there, currently, and that restrict height, which we know there is a restriction on height, putting it in the charter. I think is it's going to be a very difficult situation for us to deal with, I think it I but you can be very draconian on it. You can put sections in there that say to exceed height requires a referendum, that must be passed. And that's about as draconian as you can get. It's still achieves what you want, but that's something that you put as an ordinance and not as a charter provision. Okay. So can we do you have something to say? Well, I would just say, you know, we've been we've spent a lot of time working on the comprehensive land use and, and what we did in that we have, you know, if you look at, at the plan, there are certain only certain corridors within the city that have, you know, excess height limitations. And that's the 19 corridor. Okay. There I think there are certain exceptions that we had, and, but, but, but but to that extent and I had I have no problem with requiring beyond the certain height limitations we have in place a supermajority of the commission, but that puts it in the that puts it in the onus of the commissioners and not in the charter. But that would that would take a change of the ordinance. Right, and that's what I would think would be a recommendation. And I think that's your safety net, with regard to height limitations, by requiring a supermajority of the commissioners, that's just that was just my opinion and not make it a charter issue. Well, and the other thing, and I don't know how this relates to the charter, though, but, I mean, a height variance is the board of adjustment, not the BOC also. And as significant as some height variances could be in their in their impact. I that makes me uncomfortable that it doesn't at least have to go to the BOC after the Board of Adjustment, and I don't know whether we deal with that. That could be something that, no, that would be something again, that would be addressed in the ordinance. I have to tell you that a height variance is extremely, extremely difficult to obtain because you it's just not something that is done. I mean, the only time I could tell you that there is a height variance that I've seen is part of a development agreement which would be negotiated for other aspects, right? That's a give and take agreement. And that is something that goes to the commission. Okay. I don't see height variances are so, so I made this point before. I don't I'm not sure that you were here Mike, but I looked it up to see if there were a height restrictions in various municipalities charters. And there are in quite a number. And what's more, it seems to be an increasing trend. You know, there's already some in place in terms of Mount Dora Holmes Beach, Mexico Beach and have been for quite some time and speech in Mexico Beach are areas that are on the coast and those are concerns definitely for that their height. It's different in areas. There are areas in Pinellas that would have it, but those are coastal, development. Like if you're building in Treasure Island, you know, we don't have those kind of things here. I'm just saying yes. But what we do have, which is pretty well agreed upon, is a community that that we don't particularly want to see become Clearwater Beach or anything. But you don't have people. I'm sorry. Yes. I don't mean to interrupt. You don't have people coming in here and asking for that. I think it might be worthwhile in this section if you want to, is have Renee come back in here and talk to you about it, because I think it's important to know what restrictions are we have that are in place and that these things really don't come to play, except, I would say on the 19 corridor. Well, I wanted to ask Mike then, so what are the height limitations that we already that we already have in place and for which sections you have to well, what I recall she said was, she has, height. There are height restrictions across the city and not necessarily the same ones in every location. They're all different. They're different. Am I correct on this? And she also said that if you wanted, she needs to develop an overlay map, but, basically it required a lot of approval to go more than one story above what the current limitation is. Correct. It's extremely difficult. Right. So if you if you're in a, in an area that's predominantly one story, they do allow adding like a second floor addition. Well that sort of thing. Just just bringing it up because it wasn't that long ago we went through that whole thing with the with the hotel down at the docks, which was where they were. I mean, it, it we came pretty close to getting that and it was extremely out of line with everything else. I don't disagree with you because obviously the planning and zoning, we voted, we rejected i, that for that particular for that particular reason was the height. You guys didn't reject it. I don't believe yes, we did. We rejected the hotel. I think the Board of commissioners rejected it, I think we rejected well, they they get the chance to also also but we, we read we recommended, you know, our recommendation was I believe was. No, I believe so, yeah. And I think it was an appeal. They yeah they get the appeal and they appeal to the commission. Yeah. Right. So but subsequently since that time we've been working on the comprehensive land use plan that I think adjusts the height limitations down in that particular part of the previously, that was not, I don't think there was any limitations, or the limitation was different. But once the comprehensive land use plan is adopted, then I think that height issue kind of may go away because, you know, we we've addressed it in the, the land use the, the complicated thing about that situation was there was like 2 or 3 different parcels of land that were different. And, and they sat in two different zoning districts. And the one district allowed plenty of height, but but the other one didn't. And that was where the problem came in. They actually wouldn't have had to come with, a request to do anything to build it if it had all been on the other site. Yeah, yeah. If it was all one parcel, then, then it would have taken it out of our hands. But we I think subsequently we went through the, the land use and made some changes to it. So that issue would have been, it would be it would have been addressed. The answer would have been they would have been able to do it had we had we had the new land use plan in place that they wouldn't have been there would not been able to do it, and what what are you're asking a question? I don't know the answer to top of my head, but. But that's why having the overlay of what the comprehensive land use plan is, is a question I think Renee would be able to answer. What the limitations would be for that area? I mean, I think what she told you was important, but I think you need to hear from her again so you can decide what you feel is appropriate. She was coming back. Okay. Well, that's that's my suggestion. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Can we schedule Renee for next week? These arrests are Irene going scheduler for next week okay. And that's kind of wraps up all of the, the section we had. The last thing I was going to share with you. And I'm just going to go ahead and pass it out. We'll deal with this. Probably next week, but we can start talking about the front side of this, you can pass that one. I'll give one to Mike. Thanks. All right. So what I did is I wrote up on one on one side recommendations to the board and, since, Attorney Saltzman is going to create the words that, you know, that will go to the board, that's what we discussed last time. We will prioritize. But the words that are associated with each of the items are going to be, legalized. So to speak. And so what I did is I just captured what I think were the essences of, of what we wanted to have those recommendations to the Board of Commissioners say. And that's what that's what this first page is. And then if you flip it on the other side, this is, the discussion on the marine Commerce Committee. So, I pulled off the preamble that Mike said, and really, I think that we need to start with the discussion on marine commerce in terms of do we adopt this as an ordinance or do we adopt this as a charter revision, establishment of a marine Commerce Committee? And I, I just I wanted to clarify that because we were kind of all over the place in terms of that. I think we wound up really looking at it more as an ordinance. That's where the preamble came from. And I wanted to make sure that I got that right. The ordinance that's my recollection. Yeah. Okay. All right. So ordinance, Okay, the preamble that you stated, I pulled the words out here, and made it more readable. Thank you. Please concur that I got your. Yep. What you wanted. You made me make me sound smarter than I am. Thank you. No, you were pretty close to all that. And then I wanted to make sure I captured the scope on that. We. Mike, we had kind of blown off that port Authority thing, right? No, I think I think we to discuss it, not to require it. It's I couldn't hear what you said. I thought we had said we weren't going to do the Port Authority thing, but that's up to you guys. I think it's a okay, I'll take it out. No, I thought well, I thought we that we would put the city to discuss whether or not they need a Port authority, not necessarily to a recommend that they have. One thought I had that. Yeah. Investigate Establishing it doesn't mean establish it. It means like do we do it. Does it make sense? Do we a lot of pitfalls to. Yeah. Well they'll figure they'll figure that there might be pitfalls and not not go with it. But at least they can talk about it. You have to define what it is first. And foremost. Appoint Merrill, put him on his boat. Let him go up and down the river. And I don't have one big enough to do that anymore. Okay, so on this, I'll. I'll just for this. Just for clarification, we used to have there used to be a somebody that was appointed from the police department and their job was their job down there, and that was a quasi harbormaster master. It was created under the first waterways Use and safety Committee. So and he was the city had a harbor master who had police powers so that he could go on boats and things like that in case of fire or storms, things like that. Yeah. So, so that's maybe. Yeah, but that's something they may end up. They may end up doing something like that, which was not a bad idea to having somebody of law enforcement. Do we still on there. It'll work pretty well. I think the last one, if I can remember, was Bill Shively. Yeah. And that was ten plus years ago I know of. Yeah, it was, Warner was he ever the harbor master? Because he was in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Was it Nijinsky or something? No, it was, it was a law enforcement officer a long time. It was a law enforcement officer. So Roy Warner. Yeah. And but going back to something like that actually served a, served a good purpose down, down at that area. So, you know, whether you want to call him a port authority or a harbor master or whoever you want to call them. But but, you know, that's something they could the city could look at. And actually, you know, probably the police department can maybe allocate somebody or, you know, resources to have somebody do that before. Does it the Port Authority is a is a legislator. Well, it does, but it doesn't have to be a port. That type of port authority could take over the from the commission. Okay. We're taking this. All right. Well I don't think the city commission would adopt something that takes that control out of their hands. So, but that was, you know, that's just the idea. Okay. So, I'll, I'll, I'll change that. That's, revitalize the Marine Commerce Committee. Will have this words amended to it. Would you would you suggest instead of Port Authority calling it a harbor master? I think it's I think it's more realistic, Mike. All right. I'm good with that. As long. Yeah. I mean, appointing a harbor master for the Anclote River. How about that? Consider it. Yeah, consider, you know, suggest them. Appoint a harbor master for the Anclote River. Okay. I can make that change. All right, so I'd like to just review each one of these and make sure that we're in agreement that these are still recommendations we want to have made to the board of commissioners. Okay, first is we were going to request that they maintain the cuts to provide recreational access to the Anclote River and go. Max, it is a charter provision, but. Right now it's not planned for in the budget. And there's not a published plan for completing this work. Even though Cut asks us has degraded significantly and some are no longer providing access. Okay, does that need to be amended, expanded, or is that succinct and complete? Okay. Next one allow P and Z recommendations to be included on the consent agenda to address better use of the Board of Commissioners, P and Z applicants and staff. Time. If the if the item has staff and P and Z board approvals recommendations of approvals. You said if it has staff. If the if the applicant if the application has staff. And planning and zoning board recommendations of approval. Right. So I would I would probably intro it to the extent that that the staff and planning and zoning has approved. The application to allow planning and zoning recommendation to be included in the consent agenda. We wouldn't need to expand it. Andy that says that somebody can pull it. That's just a given, right? Right. They can always pull it from consent. It's a given. Ignore my watch. I took it off, but I can't turn it off, anyway, for approval. Okay, we can get that. Okay. So then the next, the next is all about the awareness of the Civil Service Board. I have the Charter Revision Commission recommends keeping civil service boards. So in the charter. So there's not a perceived loss of employee benefits. However, it's incumbent on the board of commissioners and the city manager to make all employees aware of the Civil Service Board addressing it as a part of their orientation to employment when they are learning many of the things related to the new employment is not sufficient to ensure the their awareness of this benefit. Should HR be included in that on the Board of Commissioners to appoint and maintain? Oh, that's right, there's a role of HR in there too, isn't there? Well, that's under the city manager okay. That's why I didn't call it out. And I'm sure Mr. Saltzman would have caught all of that. Absolutely. Every part was that every part, every part of it. He would have caught that. The next one. We talked about the city's large enough for full time city attorney suggest that one be brought on staff, I know. Do we ever like, vote on that? I mean, we didn't vote on it. I recall we talked about it and we were talking about the city attorney, I mean, I'm personally for it, but and remember about whether Mike or anybody waiting, I would tell you, as long as you can get in an assistant also. Yeah, there's just a lot of meetings to cover. Right. Well, that doesn't mean it's the only city attorney we have more than one now. I wasn't here, so I guess so. I must have missed the discussion on this one. But, the question that I would have is that, you know, they had that years ago. Herb Elliott was was city attorney. And I think there may well have be and others. Mike probably knows better than than any of us, but I'd be curious as to why they went away from it. If there's some good reason that they're doing it to get the different expertizes they need, from access to different people or something, well, it doesn't well, it's they even when they had a full time city attorney, they you still have to have a labor attorney. And personnel attorney. It doesn't eliminate those. But Just keep in mind, I am not tied here. I'm just recording things that I had heard. So I think they should consider it myself. Absolutely. Consider it. It's not going to do away with additional attorneys. Right. In the in the specific areas. Right It'd be nice to have somebody there all the time. I wish we could get that lady back that quit your company. I guess it was. Well, not my company. Somebody else's company. Because she stood up for the public and she stood in the board in the eye and said, no, you can't do that. I believe she what you're doing right now, Miss? Miss Kardash. Yeah, I worked with her when she first came on, when I was, on the board of, I think Preservation Commission practicing law. Yeah, she's. That's too bad. She was good. Yeah. So, anyway, I think you know what needs to happen with that. I mean, we're just suggesting that. All right, next one is, provide guidelines from the sustainability committee to the boards of the city of Tarpon Springs. We talked about that as the things that they're recommending. Make sure that that trickles down. Right? Yes. Okay next one is to improve board efficiency. Consider consider expanding use of juries for projects is used by the public art committee. Right. That's that's already outlined in the ordinance for the pack. So this is redundant unless you unless you want to apply it to other committees. No, it's. Yeah Consider expanding the use of juries by other boards. Yeah. It's there's a provision to create a jury of experts for more significant projects. Well, when you say expert, what about people that are affected? Would you, you know, like certain areas of town where you put an art project that that they should be able to at least have some input in the type of project? That's a good question. Well, we are restricted to put, any projects we do on city property. So it's kind of a public forum when it comes to, well, we always have public meetings I don't know. Yeah. No, all of our meetings are public. Usually what happens is if there is a major project, it's announced in the annual report to the Board of Commissioners. And, you know, things have been, you know, turned down as inappropriate. I mean, you know, everything's out there, I don't know. I'm just asking. Yeah. So I tend to I know what Mike's getting at, and I think that's a good suggestion, but. And I what I would say maybe here you could just. Okay, we don't need by other boards to improve board efficiency. Consider expanding the use of juries composed of experts and, my point is, and affected individuals and affected, areas, you know, for, such as that used by the public art committee, do you need that? It's in the ordinance, right? Yeah. What is it? Is it in the ordinance to have a jury of experts or a jury also including, residents, to pay for these things? Tina. Well, most, most of the people that are volunteer, right? I've been on one. The experts. Right. Most of the most of the people we draw from are from the city. We don't know anybody. You've got it in there. The question is, what other boards would need that right. I think that has to go. Well, that's a that's a good question. I mean I that's why I'm saying what other project. Well I don't know where did this what is was suggested I believe by Joan at one point she says, well, you know, perhaps they should use a jury. And I don't recall specifically what the matter was, but it was then we talked. We talked about possibility of expanding it, you know, for use by other boards, they said, we like this, but those who I capture everything, the whether or not it really needs to be recommended. Well, foundation to the board of commissioners now is the time to say no. That's all I can think of. A board, the Heritage Preservation Board. Well, yeah, that would be a good one. Yeah yeah, that would be a matter of ordinance. So I think that because frankly, I've, I've watched that board. I think you need to address that, particularly with that board. Say that board in your recommendation because I don't think there's we were just just talking a sidebar here. And, I was trying to think of what boards you could have that. What other boards? Would you need any other particular expertise and, like, planning and zoning or board of adjustments or. First off, I don't think we could do it on a board of final decisions. Right. Board of adjustment and Planning and Zoning. I mean, the key with them is keeping the people that we have on there because they're the ones that have the knowledge of seeing what's going on. I mean, maybe I mean, obviously anytime we have to replace somebody on that board, you want somebody with the background and understanding and planning and zoning. Well, historic Preservation Board is the final decision. Board Well, and I think that's a difficult part. Again about it, you can look for we look for people with expertise. This was the conversation you had. We do do that. However, sometimes it's difficult to get people to volunteer for those particular boards. Okay. Kerry, are we are you talking about revamping the way volunteers are recruited? Is that the one you're on? No, the one above? No, we're on the one above it. But that one applies to what we're talking about. Okay, okay. So do we need to put the improved board efficiency one with the use of juries on the parking lot, so to speak? Or are we going to either that or it sounds like it's appropriate for the heritage Preservation Board. But the attorney said not for decision making boards. And that is a decision making board. Okay Okay. So all right, next one, revamp the way volunteers are recruited for city boards. Consider an active recruiting process where critical skills to board are mapped to citizens and ask those citizens to serve. Well, it's kind of done at the Citizen's Academy to a great extent, as opposed to waiting for resumes to come at citizens. But let's talk about who attends the citizen's Academy mostly is people who are new in town and some some older people. But but by recruiting primarily for boards from a group which is predominantly new in town, you're also not getting some of the long term, information and experience that you have. So I don't think that's adequate to be recruiting, not adequate. But one of the many avenues to recruit, one of many. There should be many more. Yeah that's a challenge. I don't mention that here. That's. Yeah. Okay. This is broader. The second part carry the consider an active recruiting process. Clearly they need that. And some critical skills. Some boards need the revamp the way volunteers are recruited. If it language it's so I can strike the first sentence and no don't strike the first. I mean don't strike at all. It's the revamp word that bothers me. You don't like the word revamp? I think we just need to improve. Okay? The Board of Commissioners needs to improve their, public outreach to citizens to participate in their government. How does that make. No, I like that. That sounds good. And I would tell you, I think we instead of improve, I would say expand. Expand is good because we do we do it and expand. How about that? We definitely need to I'm we're no, no we are doing it. I you can't make somebody do something that they don't want to the people I'm talking about improving the process of the outreach. But you're saying that you don't let me play devil's advocate, okay? Go ahead. You don't know what the outreach is. Well, I know some of it. You know some of it, but, I mean, I know what's available on the public domain. Well, citizen's Academy, it's mentioned what boards I know about that. That's right. So that's how you I know what the lack is too. I don't see it on city websites enough in places like that. I don't hear every, every week at the commission. And that's expanded. So here's what I wrote down. Expand public outreach to citizens to increase involvement in their city government. Is expanding. Consider active recruiting process, blah blah blah. So I would put improving and expand because putting out a notice in your water bills approving it that that I mean that really you're right that we're expanding. Everybody gets to hear, you know, see that we expanding. Are we improving and expanding improve and expand. Yeah. The whole water bill idea though excludes everybody in, condos. Yes. Get some. Yeah. That's all. Well it also people who do it online. I don't get those. Mike was saying about the water bill and Joan said she objected to that. And I said, well, that's just one place they can do it. No, I didn't know. She just said that the HOA you get, you're eliminating HOA people. It's just a notation, not a we can require you to put it in your HOA letters, right to that. They need to apply. There should be an ordinance to get those HOA groups to do that. Because I asked my HOA groups to please put this out and they don't. I don't know if the city wants to deal with any HOA groups. I can understand which. All right, let me go to the next one. Require the city to maintain CLG status and follow or not require request the city maintain CLG status and follow the National Historic Guidelines for our local and national Historic districts. Okay. National. The board makeup of the historic Preservation Board. Wait a minute. National Historic. You mean the guidelines of the National Register of Historic Places? I think I'm thinking I thought on the name of the document. It says it is a state. I think, okay, well, whatever that language is, can you. National register of historic places. So, Kerry, you got two things going on. The CLG is a state statute, for one thing. And, and, and the CLG status mostly has to do with the makeup of the board of the Historic Preservation Board, which is where you know that there's a shortfall. Yeah. Sometimes Well, I can make those two separate requests, then maintain the CLG status and then that, that the, that the preservation board followed the national Register of Historic Places guidelines for local and National Historic districts does that. What does that satisfy your concern? What do we think it is? Okay, so I'll make this just for just for talking purposes. It's the local ordinance that provides the protection to the district. That's that's true. That's true. Local ordinances do. But but, but but if you're in compliance with National Register guidelines, you may be eligible for certain tax exemptions and things like this, which might our, our our local guidelines are basically follow the national Register of Historic Places because their valuation it's a different for evaluations. Well for when they go through the nomination process for the for you know, our local guidelines don't address the nomination process. I don't believe no, not the nomination process. The when you evaluate a project, you mean when you nominate a project to the National Register or what when you when you if somebody wants to change the roof type, you're supposed to go through those guidelines. Oh, follow those guidelines and you make a I mean you decide to allow a change to your to the existing structures in your historic areas. Right? There may be some guidelines along. Yeah, some national guidelines that the local ordinances follow. Yeah. You can maybe it's as simple as follow your own guidelines when you're approving changes. Okay. Well those are areas. Also when you talk about height restrictions those are the areas that should have the height restriction and the other restrictions. You're talking about. Yeah. But but we're also talking about is height restrictions in other areas of the city. Oh yeah. But but normally when you look at it including I'm sorry, including when you looked at Mount Dora, the areas were waterfront, historic and historic. But same as as I was saying, Treasure Island, Madeira Beach does, waterfront are the areas you see it and historic or the other areas you see it, but not in not in a general blanket too often, unless it's a community that's built like that. Like, let's just say Sanibel, right? You know, the whole area. Sanibel is one of them that has because Sanibel is built in a certain way, as opposed to tarpon that has 19. We have other waterfront areas. I mean, you can't do a general. That's why Renee was saying you look at the sections that, well, yeah, I know, but but actually we only have two large buildings in town. Well, we only have two because only two chosen tower and the hospital. Right Okay. I think I've got it. So we're going to have one that's, request city maintains the status. The second one is, you know, requesting that that the city follow their own guidelines when allowing changes to our local and national historic districts. I think she agreed with that one. And then from there, we talked about the Marine Commerce Committee that's on the back side, and then I wrote down two others that were kind of thrown out today. I don't know if they need to be elevated to this list or not, but here's the first one, on the right. I can make a recommendation. In addition to the change we're putting in the charter to basically repair the sidewalks by budgeting for it set up, and to set up a plan for future funding. Okay And then the next one is to do we I wrote down redo ordinance on invasive species. Do we need to do that? I think I think we're going to let this do it. They need to implement the plan. I think we'll be addressing that next week. Yeah But I think you're more I'm going to take that one off for now. Okay. And then the next, the last one was, adopt an ordinance for building height and require height variances approved by Board of Adjustments. Also to receive approval from Board of Commissioners. Okay. Can I we revisiting that what are we revisiting that ourselves. Yeah We're having Renee afraid but can I yeah we're having but well I but I the question is should I put this on our working list for border, Commissioner recommendations. Yeah, I well, let me, let me put, let me back up a second though. But one of the things that that in actual I asked Renee, she said that's probably not a bad idea is as a, as a recommendation, changing the ordinance that would require a supermajority if they wanted to deviate from the existing height restrictions. That's why I said that. I also saw that as a referendum question, too, in the ordinance. The ordinance why don't we finish talking about it before we say that we're going to make the recommendation? We haven't finished talking about it. No, but I don't think we're presenting this. I think she's just adding it on the list. Yeah, right. This isn't final. This is just this just our idea. So we don't our ideas, ideas, you know, I mean, I can drop it off, but once it's gone, it's gone. Yeah. So we we've not presented this recommendation. It's just something that we, we're putting as a list of items. You know, I'm trying to gather all the ideas for that. That's right. Okay. You need to. Yeah. Okay So that's, that is all I have ready for you all to consider today. Very productive day. Very productive day. Well, now we're just waiting for Renee and the attorney. Oh, put it on us. Okay, so, sir, can I request, as far as the timeline, you know, Renee comes next week, and that's something, you know, height stuff we should be able to put to bed, I don't know if there's any other significant issues that we need to, we need to put to bed before we start. Okay. So here's, here's the timeline. Yeah. All right. We have this has been our map. This has been our guideline okay. If you notice today we will we will start next week with the CRA board is an open issue. The ecological sustainability work, the attorney was going to provide some words next week, and then we were going to discuss with Renee the building height restriction and what we should do with that. That's it. That's all that's left on our open list. Hopefully if Renee is available and the and Mr. Saltzman is busy this week getting all our work done, we can put all of these to bed. That means we come up with a an agreed to list on recommendations of the board and that after that Mr. Saltzman gets very busy because he has to come back with to us with all of the language for the referendum. Okay. He's going to need time for that. So there's no reason for us to meet during that period. I guess that's what I was getting at, is you want to know when you go to Greece, right? No, I'm not going to the fall. Probably. So, I missed that. I missed that boat with a back bad visa, but that's so, Mr. Saltzman. Let's, you know, I think we should make make every effort to be complete by next week. You know, finish the end of. Yes. I want to revisit because of new information, the eminent domain clause. Okay I will do that, we'll talk about that next week. Okay That got put in. I know, but there's new information. Maybe it should get taken out. Okay. No, that's fine. I'll add it. All right. So not having any eminent domain, our goal next week is complete our open actions. All right. So that Mr. Saltzman has to go off and be very busy. All right. How many weeks do you need to turn that around? Two weeks. Three weeks. Four. Hopefully not more than that. Two. Three weeks, 2 to 3. Our first presentation or the presentation to the board and ordinance firm would be on September 3rd. Yes, September third. You had also, I think three weeks. And then in a format that you can then revisit it, review it, then we can finalize it. Okay. So that means the 29th, the fifth and the 12th of August. We will not meet. Okay Tentatively right now. Okay And that means we're back on the 19th, which is my birthday, so it'd be good. I'll bring you the case if I bring you guys presents. Let's bring. I always take presents for your birthday. And we have scheduled the 19th to 26th and the 27th. Yeah, I think we should be able to. I would that that should work for us those three weeks. Yeah. Because, well, once you see it on the 19th, you may determine. I mean, we'll probably have to meet the next week and we might be done at that point. All right. Well, is it possible to get it to us earlier than us seeing it when we walk in? So we can have a time to review? I will certainly yeah I will okay. So basically the week of the 12th, you would have the draft to us. Yes. And then we meet on the 19th to it might be the middle of that week, but yes. Yeah. That's. Yeah. All right. Does that sound like a week workable okay. Yep. Okay. Everybody's going to I'm going to bring poker chips so everybody will get to and you'll get five minutes. And once your poker chips expended you only got one more left for next week. How about that. And you can't buy anybody else's. Oh man. I'm silence. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. You'll get a real big poker chip so you can. All right. Now it does this. Does this room turn into a pumpkin at 5:00? In other words, if we're close to the end, can we extend next week? Oh, next week? Yes Do we have any. Yeah. Do we have anything? What's next week? I got a look here. I think P and Z is tonight right. P and Z is tonight. Yeah I think all right. You guys got P and Z tonight right? Right. Is somebody going to be there for us. The other attorney. The other attorney okay okay. So arena will let us know if we have to look it up and make sure nothing was added. Okay. I'm not too worried about it. I think we'll get through all of this. No problem. Anything else, can we just do a quick round on, comments? I mean, do you have anything for us? Oh, I do not. Thank you. No. Michelle. No Mr. Saltzman, no. John, no. No. Mike All right, let's go do good things. For meeting adjourned.