##VIDEO ID:e8c268_mUMU## oh well I was going to call a brief recess until our fourth person can come okay so we wait till the fourth person comes in all right I am not calling this meeting to order until they bring me my gavel and we can do this properly exactly bringing it to disorder e Vision commission for Wednesday December 4th 2024 at 21 p.m. uh we have a uh call order please roll call Dr root I'm here here Dr gal here Miss Jennings WN December 4 2024 do I say 2022 I meant 2024 Mr cus here Mr s is absent and Mr terany is present by Audio is Mr terap pany on the line any on the line yes was he I said he was present by did not hear that I apologize there isn't this is okay uh on the agenda right now is P public comments however we don't have the public here so we're going to go ahead pass that first thing is to review our draft questions um these are the items that will go out in the ballot um it looks like this yeah I'm looking for it okay do we have copies of these we have it up screen all right can everybody see the screen yes and just for the chair's uh notice that just for the chair's notice I actually have an interview with the new CEO at the hospital at 4 hopefully we'll be done a little bit stop in and say highl okay all right so so um no bathroom break then no bathroom break all right if you have to go I'll hold it yeah there's the bottle here I know I was thinking the same thing but this never mind all right let's get started um number one charter Amendment adding dredge and spell sites to acquisition by City eminent domain can I get a copy of that have can you read that have cop here why don't you share mine okay I don't want to delay this since we just lost an hour on our schedule that was okay so we're starting here um so on this we need to review the title and we need to review the paragraph um I'm w i I'm happy to read the paragraph if needed does anyone need it read aloud no no okay that's fine um are there any comments to the title are well not the title the paragraph I no okay I had an issue with having City there um what do you mean h what who else could do it other than the city well but to acquisition by imminent domain period I don't think city is it helps the understanding to John C I agree with Carrie you don't think it helps I agree with Carrie John that's amazing thank you I know just just so I understand the only people that can go through an eminent domain are is a government agency or government and if you don't have City who else EXA exactly and if you're not and you're an an attorney and you understand that but the we're doing the average person how are they going to know what it is or who can do it yeah that's why they would they may think that the non a public person go or a you know you do emminent domain on your neighbor cuz you want the property but but only a government agency can can go through an eminent domain process and not too many people are I would say the average person doesn't understand what eminent domain is well man that's that's you guys are insulting the public they're a lot smarter than you think and and the the whole thing is it's a city Charter so it's it's it's taken for granted that it's the city actions in all of these things I don't necessarily agree but it's whatever you that's fine okay so the bottom line is it does talk about the acquisition by the city of real property within the paragraph that's why I just thought that the remember the title is just to inform somebody what this paragraph is going to be about it's a general statement I will defer to I just I just think it it it it's probably important to leave in there just so the the person even so you know somebody may not even read and and John I appreciate the fact that that their people are smarter than we think they are but sometimes people will read a uh just a caption at the top and that's that's their limit of what they'll read and I I I just uh you know as as attorney salsman says you know people are smarter than that but but knowing some of the legal consequences of the process they may not be uh you know attuned to that cuz you know I represent in my practice I represent people very sophisticated very smart but some of the nuances they have they're clueless right well and and this is just we're not attorneys yeah and and so so I think leaving it in is is is there any any comments on the paragraph itself are all of these going to be prefaced with sponsored by the charter that's how you did it that's how you have done it that's why it's done and that's why we do it so and and it's important that that that they know that this is coming from a the charter revision committee and not something that's being inputed from a commissioner or or you know that's that's exactly where we where we had it at your last one how we started each each one okay but I do want to say about the title I think greater Clarity is always better than less Clarity and no matter how smart people are nobody knows everything you know so okay question now when we vote on this is it three or five or four five that requires to required to pass because we normally have seven on the panel it's three of the four of the four yeah oh that's right there's four of us we're not counting people on the phone thank you all right I get this back okay so thank you um we uh we have so I'm say right now we have uh it seems that we have uh 2 two um I'm I I'm not firm that's not a hill I'm going to die on okay said impression um but I'd like to hear um from my vice chair what his opinion on the title is I don't think I I really don't think people are going to be confused either way but the more they know the more they can see and read the better off we're going to be in the long run okay so we have three four um so get a motion I'd like a motion to accept this paragraph and title is written a motion as to just minute John did you have anything to weigh in on this uh no not really okay no Carrie it's it's I agreed with you but like you said it's not a hilled eye on okay save that one for later let's go I'll take a motion to approve as read the the uh number one one I don't know if you want me to read the whole thing the paragraph and the title and the title so second okay first uh motion and second in I call a vote Dr balis yes Mr cuscus yes um Vice shair colus yes sh Ro yes um second one increasing exemption threshold for Real Property sponsored by Charter revision commission City Charter Pleasant Rel requires a vote of referendum and approval by affirmative vote of four members of the Board of Commissioners if the city wishes to purchase sell exchange convey or lease real property any amount greater than $350,000 shall the charter be amended to increase the amount to half a million dollar are there any comments on the title or the paragraph no John I'm good okay so joh I'm good okay I'll I'll move to accept the title and the yeah I'm good on it too you're good on it okay thank you but um okay so we have a motion we have a second we have a second by mik uh let's call the vote drales Yes do this Vice chair yes chair yes okay number three identifying funding source sponsored by the charter revision Commission the city Charter presently provides for the Board of Commissioners to adopt sale purchase conveyance and leasing procedures by ordinance shall the charter be amended to requir the Board of Commissioners to identify funding sources as a part of the sale purchase conveyance and leasing procedures are there any comments on the title or the paragraph um just just one and it's not it's just grammar is should it say to identify funding sources or disclose funding sources in the last sentence let me see well your your whole term was I I mean I think the whole time we talked about it was identifying funding source that was a term that was used throughout all discussions and uh and your action so that's why that language was put in there that way right okay was Iden problem it should yeah it should be a uniform use it is okay no just I'll move to accept the charter revision number three in its entirety is it seconded second okay uh call a vote please Dr Bales yes Mr cuscus yes Vice chair colus yes chair root yes number four real property acquired by referendum or maximum purchase price requires disposal by ref referendum sponsored by Charter revision commission proposed restrictions on disposal of real property owned by the city shall the charter be amended to require real property purchased by the City by public recom uh referendum or real property which has a value equal to or greater than the maximum value the city May purchase without requiring a referendum be sold swapped or traded only upon approval by referendum comments on the title or paragraph uh no yeah John I think you may agree with me on this I think there's I think having a threshold is is important but having I don't want the city to start buying property based on what they think the apprais value is without for any purpose um without that because there's no check or balance with regard to the city's ability to purchased property uh without referendum I I I have no problem with a threshold I think we talked about a threshold at one time did we not yes well it's in there as the the value um the city May purchase this was this one was added specifically so you couldn't swap or trade right and it's also in the ordinance as the a value equal to or greater than the maximum value when y'all did the ordinance and that was the language that was specifically brought up that's I may be gone that day I think you might have been but we had discussed that and yes the the reason was exactly what uh chair said this this had to do with making sure that something couldn't be sold swapped or traded either that had been acquired by referendum or that had reached that maximum value uh so that it was covering both but it was only on getting rid of right right that was the SLE question yes that's what this one was okay um any further comments or questions Jim nothing uh John did you wanna you have I'm good okay I'm good John I'm good okay thank you uh do we have a motion move for approval motion Mo we got a motion second please second thank you Tina um follow up please Dr babalis yes Mr cuscus yes Vice chair col yes chair root yes number five enumerating the powers responsibilities and duties of the Board of Commissioners sponsored by the charter revision commission the city Charter presently provides the Board of Commissioners with numerous duties responsibilities and Powers including the adoption of a budget shall the charter be amended to require the Board of Commissioners to review the charter for funding requirements when adopting the city budget comments on the paragraph or title yes yes John go ahead okay so sometimes I think these things are more wordy than they need need to be and when when really what we're wanting to do is ask the ask a question right so to me this is just me I would just say shall the charter and this is a change in the last sentence shall the charter be amended to require the Board of Commissioners to satis y funding requirements required by the charter required by Charter when adopting the city budget maybe a little bit longer but I don't think that's what you all said review the it's exactly what we said no no you said you said to make sure you review the charter for funding requirements well the the intent Andy was that the Board of Commissioners take into consideration the the budget requirements of the charter so that they included those in their budget I I John I 100% agree with what you just said but the language language I I'm going by the language that you voted on so some of these things that look that way are based on the language that you voted on I agree with what your intent is 100% well well the intent of what we're trying to do is get it to the voters how we what we intended so and I'm just explaining why the language is the way it is okay well that's fine but what I think is that we didn't the question didn't quite get the intent of what we were trying to say which was the that the that the budget should reflect the requirements of the charter because we we got into this whole problem on the sidewalk fund and and things like that so I mean I'm just offering the language up if nobody wants it that's fine I mean but what I would say is that shall the charter be amended to require the Board of Commissioners to satisfy funding requirements required by Charter when adopting the city budget I think whether we said that or not that was the intent of what we were trying to say I believe well there's a big difference between satisfy and review I understand that but that's not what you voted you did not vote to satisfy you said to review that was pretty specific is true but and I think changing Bas on satisfying is a whole different story than review now you're doing a requirement that this that's not the way that ordinance was written or brought up to the board I mean I'm just telling you I I'm not sure that that's an acceptable well the the the I mean what we told what we agreed to was um at a requirement to the budget process to review Charter for funding requirements that that was what what we required I mean there might have been a a tent that went beyond that but I you know the City attorney cannot read mind review is a big I mean that was the word that was used and and so well I I understand that but do you got do you do Mike do you guys agree that the intent was that they we wanted them to budget the the charter requirements yeah because what's the I I understand I I don't disagree with you John is that when you have a you have a budget requirement that the charter says you have to do review and funding our are apples and oranges um well the I'm just saying my belief was I agree with you I agree with you okay so I mean so to to review it's like okay we looked at it you know great we looked at it that's you know it's kind of they can SLU it off is what I'm saying so we have the changes for the charter in the ordinance correct so we can't change those and the wording in that reflects what the attorney has here if we need to make it more specific we're really stuck doing it next round could we um attorney Salman if they want to explain more of the intent they could put it in the summary is that correct yes without without a requirement but they could explain more in the summary the summary that goes out not with the ballot that's correct would that just an option well that's an option I I could tell you that I I'm not sure that legally You Can Change review to satisfy I mean that's is there a place for a narrative to be added yeah that's what we're talking about yes yeah there is a place for a narrative to be added so John how do we how do we adopt a narrative then I mean we could put in the narrative exactly what you're saying what the anten is which is the to have them to satisfy the charter requirements for funding no problem putting that in there where is my cabby let's note that hey John okay I'm sorry hey hey Mike would that would would the narrative I I guess because we can't go back and and and and peel peel the onion back on this but uh adding the Nar ative kind of lets them know because even in as a lawyer when we look at statutes and the statutes have a purpose the purpose have teeth and would you agree with that Mr Salon 100% okay so where where would the narrative be though Mike The Narrative goes out to the public oh I see separately the right so that so that there's 's nothing wrong with doing that you know as you know we have limitation on Words number of words and those things but I I'm just telling you John I feel very uncomfortable changing that that word right I I and yeah all of my documentation supports what Mr Salman is saying I don't I don't disagree with that chair but I I just think in the narrative gives us the gives the the the whether it's the uh public the ability to you call the word cram down or or or uh cram down that that funding requirement that the charter uh the funding requirement where were discussing yeah that's that's fine m whatever well I'm just okay so I'm putting a note here when we get to the narrative to expand the expand Charter item number five for intent okay okay all right because that that's basically the best we can do right now so Andy so Andy we can't change any of the questions is that the idea you can if if if we've written the question to a way that it it is not uh clear or you know if there's one or two words you want to change that's one thing but if it's a major word like that then I would say you cannot okay I mean there might be things that Irene and I missed we're not perfect we think we we went through them um and we went through them based on the notes that we had so right I guess from from John from my perspective we've got the charter language that's been through ordinance and the question relate it it reflects the charter language which was requested to change so the question needs to to reflect that and we but we can expand in the narrative what our true intent was and I'll do it in the form of a motion please do okay um so I make a motion to accept the uh uh number five Charter Amendment as as presented but also in the narrative to require in the narrative that the uh that the uh a commissioner must first but must also satisfy the funding requirements based on a the charter the charter requirements how that the intent of the section intent of the SE what you just yeah so you'll you'll put it in nicer words than I just said oh I can't put it in nicer words okay so so this motion addresses the propos draft Charter question number five no number five five five and the summary of amendments Charter item number five yes okay it covers both just to be completely clear all right any other dialogue call the vote please I need a second oh need the second second thank you Tina Dr gal yes U Mr cus yes Vice chair col yeah sorry yes and I'm a yes okay next one uh enumerating Powers responsibilities and duties of the Board of Commissioners sponsored by Charter revision commission the city uh Charter presently provides for the Board of Commissioners to review and update all elements of the comprehensive and master plans every three fiscal years shall the charter be amended to require the Board of Commissioners re to review update retire abandon or deem completed all City master action sustainability comprehensive and strategic plans every 5 years any comments I have one this one covers really two very specific issues one is changing the annual review cycle and two expanding the charter requirement to conclude the other plans and I don't feel that that's well represented in this paragraph you know I looked at this one and I debated that back and forth and what my thought process was is that this was trying to say yes we're we're laying out which they probably don't know are additional um plans um every 5 years but then I thought thought well what are we going to do we're going to say we're going to add these plans to the requirement of the charter and then say we're going to require the charter to review them every five years yeah I guess we could do it that way I thought this was a good one to combine but whatever you all want to do that's why I did it this way I'll hear comments back from the commission John do you have a comment plus I was trying to lessen how many question I'm sorry what was your concern on it Carrie uh I think there are two distinct issues in this one one that we're expanding the review cycle from three to five years two we're adding um sustainability and strategic planning to the uh comprehensive and master plan the I'm sorry the other issue I had with this is what if you approve one and not the other so how do I so how do I write the second question so if you if you if you approved the additional plants and the additional plants go in at you know but how do I write the second question the second question would say this that are reviewed will be will go I mean the actual question that you're expanding from five years is the comprehensive and master plans because the other plans don't exist for purposes of review in the charter yes you're right okay so this is how I would recommend you consider it so everything stays the same except the the question the first question would be shall the charter be REM amended to require the Board of Commissioners to review update retire abandon or deem completed all plans every five years but when we talked about it we we we named all those plans okay well hold on hold on hold on then the second question would say shall the charter be amended to require the Board of Commissioners to include sustainability and strategic planning in part you know your first question is is is too broad your first question says all plans all plans are that's that could be anything we they have to be delineated that's why you delineated that I I don't know how you can divide the questions up and get what you want would you would you take would you take the sustainability I mean we currently have a strategic plan right and the reason we the only reason why those plans are in there is for the fiveyear purpose let's just assume that that paragraph fails so what would happen we would still have those two plans reviewed every three years the city master plan and the and the Strategic plan right okay so if you if you took out I know you're changing it the the word action sustainability comprehensive plan those which sustainability there's no sustainability plan right we're basically making the sustainability plan by you're requiring this okay so what we put in here and any other plan adop under this ordinance I I have a suggestion I think that's that's kind of where I'm going with this what if we under the under the charter why why can't you have an and there shall the charter be amended to require the Board of Commissioners to review blah blah blah or should so they reew require the Board of Commissioners to also include the sustainability and strategic plans in the review update retire abandon uh and deem completed cycle and should that cycle be increased to five years if you're going to have it in one I think you just need to be very specific about what you're asking them to do so we're putting in two additional plant and we want them to do it every five years so you you but your and creates two questions that deline two separate questions what what is the difference between what you have and what I just said except minus clear word and creates a second question well I want to well let me okay that's Clarity then all right all right so if you get to the Charter should be amended require the board of commiss to review update retire amend or deem completed all City Master plans and master plan strategic plan and any and this is where you you have a problem with the word and and any other adopted plans with the charter oh that that's good I don't think I have a problem with that other than you didn't suggest those plans when you you were specific on the plans you wanted we combine this one remember this is a combination of a bunch of different plans that you individually decided were necessary so now you're expanding it to plans and not that I can think of any off top of my head but you're expanding it to plans that you didn't discuss well it's true so this way it gives us an out so you're adding something that you that wasn't I mean I believe the way this one came off on the um on the ordinance was very specific because you all were very specific as to what plans you wanted to in to include so now you're adding all plans because the action and master plan if you look I pulled up I don't I mean I guess I could write it this way something along the lines of uh all the plans that are up there and say and should those PL and should the plans be amended should you know go to the five years well that the five years is separate from the number of plants that's my issue and and and I could probably do it by doing a question but it's gonna have to reference the question above it the prior I just pulled up the prior why could why could you not have something that says something like the charter amended to require the Board of Commissioners review update right blah blah blah blah um and any other Charter plans every five years so that takes it from three years to five years because you Charter because you were definitive on your plans and you weren't defini you didn't broaden it to Charter plans I don't know what that includes but that's not what you specified plans but that's not what you okay it's not what you provided you provided these I'm not trying to be I'm just telling you the problem with with the question I'm not trying to be you know uh stop you from getting across what you want but we've these plans were specific okay well we'll leave it to them to figure out but can we change the title yeah what do you want to change it to uh inclusion of additional plans and change of review date okay you have to describe what section you're dealing with how many words do have 15 15 words 15 so we could do duties of the boards probably duty of the Board of Commissioners and then put what you just said and review right to include okay I could do it that way yeah that would be no problem we just have to you know have a general description of what section it is and I think we can do it that way okay I don't think there's a problem with that where are we so updating the title and right now we're we're we're we're we're stand still on changing the paragraph no I can probably do what you want but I'm going to have to reference the question above something along the lines I'm just throwing it out here should um so the review if the charart if the charter is amended to require the Commissioners to review update retire you know blah blah blah um can this be um should should it be increased from three years to five years yes perfect I could do that but I'm going to be I'm just telling you I have to reference the one above it that's okay that's not acceptable to me and can we have the the title this was a hard this was I I combined them it wasn't an easy one to to deal with how's this going to work with we're not going to write a narrative on this one right and it's in the same info that we've given the Board of Commissioners yeah I mean you're still doing what you did I mean you haven't changed that the ordinance right you haven't Chang you're still doing what you did in the ordinance yes can you expand though the intent of the section is to include the sustainability and strategic planning part of the review as a as the review process and to allow the city to to uh increase the review cycle no that's absolutely that's that's the intent we can expand that then yeah that's not a problem expand for because yeah okay for intent Okay so and again can can you I tried to combine the two on purpose so I can tell you that would would would you summarize where you think you can take this so that we can put a motion to accept that and then move forward all right so we're going to change the title yes and we're going to take it basically from uh it'll be duties of the Board of Commissioners to include um the uh additional plans that we talked about okay and there's and so we're basically going to stop the question in at and strategic plans question mark okay yes and we're going to do another one that's going to say um uh trying to think what I'd say as a title um increasing the uh review cycle review cycle from three years to five years and then we will say sponsored by the charter revision commission and we'll put in the next sentence that should the uh the plans you know just off top of my head should the plans um have been increased should the cycle turn I'll reference the question above I just can't tell you how I'm going to say it but I I know exactly what I what we'll do I know how you do and that you know how to do it but supposedly voting for the last time on something well that where may say or not say no want me to take a minute to write it yes thank you okay okay hold up you want the specifics on the title changes just like the Public's going to get it well he can go back and read and look at the video that's the case gu that CR shman can I go use the restroom go ahead I'm just kidding I don't have to I just want to make sure I got permission it's not that I don't trust him to do it properly it's just that I don't take we're charged with voting something that is agreed we gotta we gotta work through this stuff we can come back to this at the end we can keep moving no if we have to vote we need a quum here of us going forward right now questions he's leaving for 4:00 meeting so I don't want it can't be two out of three uhuh no it can't even be three out of three it has to be three out of four I've went through these online and there's not a lot no I I'm pretty good death wasn't wasn't there something in our um showing us what the Board of Commissioners has asked to delete was that previously or I thought that was new so the bottom line is right now um they can't delete anything and we can't delete anything we can't do the only thing they can do is put in alternate proposals I see so right I see they will be doing that on one item the the requirement for the directors to have a residency request oh really okay hey guys could you talk into the mic I can barely hear you well we're talking about you oh good okay yeah all right sorry um I was talking inis general direction I apologize so the title should read this way duties of the board of commission to review City master and sustainability plan the reason that is like that those are the I'm limited to 15 words that's all right no it's good all right so then the the question will be on this one the city Charter presently okay shall the charter be amended to require the Board of Commissioners to review update retire abandon or deem completed all City Master action sustainability comprehensive and strategic plans yes okay now the second question um you cycle yeah Dy right duties of uh right review well we still have to say duties of the Board of Commissioners um to review to review plans uh to increase review from 3 years to five the review process review process wait for Irene to type it inene are you typing it in but yall are going back and forth duty of the Board of Commissioners to increase the review process from three to five fiscal years three years to five years I wanted to say from three years to five years because you from three to five years that seems right from three years to five years yeah but he's Limited in only 15 15 that's Les okay from three to five years that's that's 15 okay am I right to yeah 15 okay all right sponsored by the charter review commission um the city Charter presently provides for the Board of Commissioners to review uh an update uh shoot is a number considered a word yes the only thing that isn't is if you put the number three that's considered a word yes I I think no we got 15 we're good there I'm just trying to think um okay just trying to reference the one above okay here's my question to you let's let's assume two things now let's assume number one that that the one above fails MH so you still want to increase three years to five years yes I mean Renee really was behind that that's was her request so then we might be able to do this by referencing the charter section by number that's for the charter sure by section number yeah because the plans that are in that section right can be used as a language for the plans I mean we can use generally the word plans if we're referencing it to the section that we have so we could probably be broader and say um the city Charter presently provides for uh the Board of Commissioners to review and update um May I off a suggestion process every years we say yeah yeah shall the how about shall the charter be amended to update the review process to every five years and you leave the second sentence in there CU that's what's in the city Charter right but then we just update from from we were specific about where it's the plan how do we reference the ones that that if you pass it so you so the to review plans in paragraph what whatever it was off so if the first question doesn't pass it does it won't matter if it's if you're referencing the paragraph right but there's different par that it's currently in right if you that's the problem if it doesn't pass we still are trying to increase the two you would have to all those paragraphs because the Strategic plan is in a different paragraph which is what you guys originally talked about doing and we removed so we added at the last last discussion to put all those in one question find it in one so that's I'm saying if the first if you're going to separate the question and the first question doesn't pass for some reason then how do you do the review you would have to reference all those sections that are currently in code different SE different comprehensive is one do we have to specify the plans or C or can't we just reference the review process well I was trying to think of some language that would deal with that which would be maybe if we put something along the language of of uh like and age the comprehensive plan was three years you look at a strategic plan they not all three years I mean and it's also aligned with dates there's all kinds of stuff in there that is not represented in this paragraph right so why do we have be why can't we just talk about the process have you know amend the modify the review process for from 3 years to 5 years L length of time why why why go from three to five why don't I just say du need the boort to increase the review process to five years okay yeah that works for me I'm not worried about that part I'm worried about trying to get the the question in anticipation of Passage Andor failure of the one before about the charter the but if you got rid of a couple words duties of the Board of Commissioners to increase the review process from three to five years instead saying Duty the Board of Commissioners to increase the review process Charter plans in five years or Charter uh you take out some words and add others you may 15 just call it a the planning process that would cover all of them it's not it's I'm not worried about covering all of that I'm worried about covering more than that so if you put if you were able to get get the word in Charter the chartered the adopted Charter plans for five years so plans that aren't adopted it still goes to five years does that make sense yes it makes sense I mean because what's 15 words but duties duties of the board of directors to increase why why don't we just change that second sentence plan review process more comprehensive than a plan I'm trying to get to uh like something along the lines of adopted you said adopted plans I mean that makes sense aded Charter so so if if you change I can't read that if you if you change the um if you change the second SE sentence for the second question you can just say the city Charter presently provides for the bo uh the the review process for the plans in section A to be updated every three fiscal years i' probably put Section 8 at the beginning uh the charter um currently under Section 8 and and state what section 8 says Board of Commissioners uh composition uh requires review um of plans every three years shall that be shall the Cher be amended to increase that to every five five years yes that's perfect that's that's exactly what we in a sentence before that I trying to reference I wanted to see if we leave it in that section that it's only referencing plans under Section 8 right and then we're good I I think that does it all right are we in agreement with where we're going on this here's what I wrote and I don't know okay maybe this uh to increase the re view of adopted Charter plans to 5 years so how many words is that adopted Charter plans in five years well it would be the plans in Section 8 then you're going to have to know what section 8 means well he'll put the words on well say I could have the section eight part in the in the body I'm not worried about that I I'm not worried about the title the way you have it now I mean the title is we know we're increasing review process then in the question we're going to say um Section 8 of the charter current uh and then say what it says which is duties of the Commissioners um requires uh plans to be reviewed every three years shall the charter be amended to change to increase the review requirement contained under Section 8 to five years Y no that's it I just want to reference you got it you've got it okay I make a motion what you just said okay yeah okay all right so this is this is uh this motion is that's for the second question and then we had the first question as well that addresses the uh the specific additional plans correct all right and you're including that in your motion yes yes all right um with the updates of the titles as well so we're splitting to two questions one for the specific plans that we're increasing and two for the the uh uh lengthening the review cycle for all plans in Section 8 we're going to update the titles appropriately and uh just confirm that that's the scope of your motion that is the scope of my motion thank you is it seconded second okay vote please discussion please yes can we uh I'm uncomfortable with that okay not because it's wrong it's not wrong but I would like to see our attorney have this all written out and be read to us with not a lot of interject that we're getting now I'm just trying to understand exactly what I'm agreeing on and we can go forward with this because the next three or four pages are pretty simple I think yeah I I can write it out I have no problem doing that okay I'm just we can do it we going to be here as long as it takes yeah no I'm working on it now as we're talking okay you feel free to go yeah go keep on if you especially if they're ones cuz I because we have a time limit and I don't want to pass that in and I'm just going to be writing this so interrupt me if uh if there's a question okay so I am going to uh pause the vote on that until we can see it and go on to number seven okay qualifications and dates for annual election sponsored by the charter review revision commission the city Charter presently does not contain language specifying the qualifying time for City commission elections shall the charter be amended to provide for qualifying time for 30 days for the office of City commission there any suggest changes Joan good okay I I did have a question is it the qualifying time of 30 days or for 30 days yeah I did too and is it for the office of City Commission or the office of City Commissioner Commission because you're including the mayor in there okay but changing four to of uh question yes and this is just grammar cop stuff uh City commission and the last thing city is not um uh capitalized I've noticed at most places city is capitalized okay so actually in your Charter it's not cap capz that's a pet peeve of mine okay I always want City capitalized I think it's incorrect to have it lower case now I will tell you that um the uh computer thinks it should be lowercase do it however you want I personally believe City should be capitalized let's capitalize it I I just want consistency I I go ahead and make a motion to accept the charter number seven Charter Amendment as read with the exception of capitalizing the word City and changing the word for to of is it second second okay um let's see if there's any further discussion on that and let's go to our uh John do you have a issue or a comment no okay John you said you were good jimy you're good everybody's good all right can we call the vote please Dr yes yes yes yes number eight Charter Amendment qualifications and date for annual election sponsored by the charter rision commission the city Charter does not specifically notify register voters prior to the qualifications as to which commission seats are open for election shall the charter be amended to provide registered voters notification by first class mail 30 days before qualifying the specific commission seats open for election discussion um I I just this is this is has a duplicate title to the prior one could the title be changed for qualification it's only because it's under the same section and it and it they cross over that's the only you change it I just want to tell you why all right well I I was just going to suggest maybe we include notification of open whatever you want to change the title to is fine should any kind of electronic media be included no we said we said that we do that we removed that yeah I mean we said we do it you removed that from the last in the last meeting we had okay I apologize I don't have my notes in front of me that's okay okay John don't worry about it move for approval are we making a motion uh yeah the well the question was should we leave the title the same or uh add in um notification of open seats for annual election well if we do that should we have changed the title for the previous one no because you've got qualifications in dates up there okay that that one made sense all right I have a problem in notification of open election per se annual election you like yeah okay uh John did you have anything to say did I ask you that already I don't think so I'm good okay good John you're good all right y all right um I need a motion Jim a motion but is it you're changing the motion to change the title to notification of open seats for annual election so we're only changing the title only changing the title The you'll write that down you got it written down notification of open seats for annual election okay thank you and paragraph is staying the same all right is it seconded second you made the motion you can't second made a motion ask motion okay I'm sorry about that J ask him to amend his motion okay uh let's call the vote Dr yes Mr yes chair yes yes all right uh number nine interference with Administration sponsored by the charter revision commission the city contains redundant language regarding individual Commissioners contact with the city manager shall the charter be amended to remove the Redundant language comments I don't ever remember maybe maybe I was sleep that day I don't ever remember discussing it oh you must have been out that day oh yeah I remember it yeah yeah no no there's I I don't understand maybe we could title a different interference with Administration it looks like that's the section that that's the title of the of the charter section okay so I'm happy if you want to change that I just put that's the title what section is that just as a question nine are you talking in the current Charter yeah one second and I'll tell you I think it's four I want to uh 13 okay thank you because I'm not okay remove last sentence and Y yeah y'all kept the was section 13 removed the last sentence and so that's let me read you the last sentence would you like me to read it that'll be a mandatory I don't have a problem with the the the thing is interference with Administration just just the op it was in there tce I know but it just the Optics of interference I know I know I yeah I gotta well do you want to qualify it with just uh remove redundant language then people well immediately grasp what it is so what's in there um John just so you know it's uh we we've got two back-to-back paragraphs I mean sentences that are like paragraphs not so the first one is nothing in the foregoing is to be con construed to prohibit individual Commissioners from closely scrutinizing by questions and personal observations all aspects of city government operations so as to obtain independent information system members and formulation s policy considered by the Board of Commissioners okay so that's the first one and then the second redundancy implies to me something the second one was is the express interest of the charter however that recommendations for improvement City operations in the jurisdiction of city manager by individual Commission made to and through the city manager so that the manager May coordinate efforts of All City departments achieve the greatest possible savings through the most effective and sound means available We Were Striking that one so um do we agree that that should be described as interference with Administration I think that is the question and the paragraph is called interference with Administration that's not a hill I'm going to die over but but I you know I think what the question is it's just a removal of redundant language so maybe we title that the removal of redundant language uh under Section 13 under Section 13 okay can we do that no Hill for me so whatever you guys language under Section 13 so I I'll if if the chair's okay I'll make a motion to accept the provision with the exception of title to to be named removal of redundant language under Section 13 second any further discussion call the vote please yes yes yes yes number 10 legal review of non-compliance issues sponsored by the charter revision commission the city Charter presently does not require a legal review of non-compliant issues raised in the city's internal audit shall the charter be amended to require a legal review of any non-compliant issues raised by the internal audit any discussion on the title of the paragraph I'd like to see uh uh added to the title um uh found in uh by internal audit I would I would go with that again I think Clarity more the more clarity the better you know just look at it uh John do you have any comments no comments okay Joan oh I'm by me okay did you say by or in I'm sorry did you say by internal audit or I thought found by internal auditor found by internal auditor the reason I didn't use a auditor sorry the reason I use auditor is what if it's just found in the audit okay by internal audit you know I I went back and forth on that all right audit is fine audit is fine okay so I'll I'll I'll make a motion to accept Charter uh amendment number 10 and it's with the exception of the title to read legal review of non-compliant issues found by the by an internal audit by an no I know I didn't hear do that originally all right second seconded yes okay call the vote please Dr Gales yes Mr Gus yes Vice chair colan yes yes number 11 you want to go back to this one yeah yeah let's let's let's clear that let's clear that table all right here's the question here's the as I have it sponsored by the charter revision commission City Charter Section 8 Board of Commissioners composition duties responsibilities and Powers um requires the Board of Commissioners to review and update plans every three fiscal years shall the charter be amended to increase the review uh and update to every five fiscal years that's fantastic um motion to approve that whatever number that is that would yeah we have to we're going to have to re them anyway okay motion to approve that as as read seconded second call the vote dral Yes Mr CC yesan yes yes do do we have the second one ready yet that was the second that was the second one I just I'm sorry the we'll go back in you have to go back to the first one thought we already wrote that one yeah that's the first one we took out every five years and we just added the duties Commissioners plan yes that's true that's we already approved that yes okay all right so I'm I'm back with you now we're back to number 11 okay number 11 all right prioritizing future Capital Improvement programs sponsored by the charter revision commission the city Charter authorized the city manager to keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised to the financial condition and future needs of the city shall the charter be amended to require the city manager to prioritize future Capital Improvement programs any discussion on the title or the paragraph uh one the um there's there's a distinction between policy and and administration and it seems to me that the the policy of of prioritizing after if all the plans are presented by the city manager to the Board of Commissioners that it's a policy to prioritize the capital Improvement programs and that would be it should re require the Board of Commissioners to prioritize future Capital Improvement programs no not under not under that no this is the discussion with to well I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but this section was solely under the requirements of the city manager and that's what the discussion was I'm not saying Andy I'm saying the city man the city manager provides the list of projects it's Capital Improvement projects and the city commission decides what is the most important for the community and I agree with you well evidently you don't no no but that's not the SEC that's not what you what I'm trying to say is that's not what you discussed under this section this is exactly what you discussed under the okay so what we discuss if you go to section 16 paragraph g g okay I'm looking at up it's actually in two sections it's in f and g it says prepare and submit the annual budget budgeting message and capital Improvement program to the Board of Commissioners in a form Pro provided by ordinance or by law and what we changed there was to add prepare and submit the annual budget budget message and prioritize seeing the capital Improvement program to the Board of Commissioners in a form provided by ordinance or law and then we went to the next section to say keep the Board of Commissioners full this is what it was keep the Board of Commissioners full advises the financial condition and future needs of the city and make such recommendations the board of conditioners concerning the Affairs of the city and that was changed to include uh to prioritize capital projects based on need and useful life after future needs of the city right John I I don't think this is under section 16 which is city manager so that's why it's limited to the city manager you can't put the you'd have to go back to Section 8 to do what you wanted and I'm not saying that that's not appropriate I'm just saying we're under the city manager section that's where you put this this was the requirement these I'm sorry I was going to say these follows under this follows under the duties of the city manager that's why we're changing that provision of this section as to only the duties of the city manager but what John is saying is that it's the responsibility to prioritize Falls with the the the Board of Commissioners and what this paragraph says is that the city manager makes recommendations for that prioritization process so that I think that is the part that's missing but what you said but this is what you said you said to make to require the city manager to prioritize future Capital Improvement programs that's what you no it says make such recommendations to the Board of Commissioners and here it says right here it says add prioritizing capital projects based on needs and useful life after future needs of the city so it would be keep the Board of Commissioners fully advis of the financial condition and future needs of the city prioritizing future Capital expenditures and make such recommendations the Board of Commissioners concerning the Affairs of the city so I think there's an aspect here that's the recommendation you recommended adding language that the city manager shall prioritize Capital Improvement programs that's what you guys voted on from our notes Well Carrie I could live with your comment of recommending prioritizing the city manager recommends his his list is a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners but clearly the the final Arbiter in capital Improvement projects PRI the priority and expenditure of funds is the city commission right okay so I think this is one we're going to have to explain in the intentions because the the the adopted on the fact that the city manager is the one who has knowledge of all the capital Improvement programs how about I'm sorry if I recall correctly and that you wanted to make sure that that he Rec recommended I understand recommended by prioritizing future Capital appr that's what you guys were talking about I got the fix okay uh shall the charter Amendment be uh amended to require the city manager to recommend the prioritization I I don't have a problem with that but I don't think that was the language you guys use but if that's what you want to say it's got Mike it's got to have the recommending in there because otherwise you're you're creating a turf war between the city manager and the Board of Commissioners the city manager read just thing says hey I'm in charge of prioritizing this stuff okay you're creating a chch war Andy the only thing I was saying is that you all discussed is that the the commission doesn't keep in place all in fact if I recall correctly this is the discussion the city commission doesn't always know what all the future Capital Improvement programs are that city manager to prioritize that so that the city commission could could look at it and approve how they wanted the programs in place when did if if the city commission doesn't know the entire Capital Improvement program there shouldn't be a City Commissioner it changes that's a constant change let's let's look at it realistically the city manager makes a budget he gives it to the Board of Commissioners and they decide then where they want that money they will clearly tell him I think we need to wait on a new ball field but we need to fix the silver plan put that money that's how it normally works Jim that's what you've written he has to right that's what I wrote that's why he's makation that's what the discussion we had yes it is I I know that was the discussion we had let's go with Carrie Carrie I think the word that bothers me about all of this is require okay I should require it I think you know or shall recommend but that's what you priorities of capital projects okay I think Mike's got the pulse on this so let's hear what he has to say okay the charter amend the charter be amended to require the city manager to recommend the prioritization of future Capital Improvement programs that sounds good Mike and then I'd like to see it expanded in the summary of amendments that you know the city manager has knowledge basis to make those recommendations although the Board of Commissioners is responsible for in the prioritization did somebody say earlier that we can't change that uh yes we do um all I could tell you is I wrote it how you guys no so I'm I'm going to do this in the form of a motion you can do it as form of a motion I would ask you to also exp with the expansion yeah so so I make a motion to accept uh uh Charter amendment number 11 with the following change shall read shall the city Charter be amended amended to require the city manager to recommend the prioritization of future Capital Improvement programs in addition in my motion I want the the narrative to be expanded to reflect that the city however you whatever language you want to use that the city manager has U uh more is more knowledgeable or or more intimate knowledge of the of the needs the financial needs of the of the capital projects and and the needs of the city okay how does that sound it sounds great is it seconded second any further comment just just can I can I just V you read this okay what the charter says keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city and make such recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the Affairs of the city that's exactly what you just you're you're saying the same thing it's already in there you are that's why you guys changed the language to the way the way I put it I remember this discussion yeah I remember that too because we read that and we said that covers it does cover it right so then you don't need the question I just for a conversation does anybody in here think that the Board of Commissioners individually doesn't talk to the city manager and ask him what's going on and what's coming up I I have to I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm G to table that comment it's okay I don't mean it to be negative well it is negative so let's move on what I want to do is figure out and are we going to rewrite this ordinance or not we are having a discussion about that we have a we have a motion on the table we're having a discussion let's keep it to the terms here well you had a motion in a second so it's what yes which means we can still discuss it all right have a comment any comment I know Jim wants to and my comment would my comment would be that I think what was presented to us is adequate and it's basically the same thing Mike is saying I think the only difference is Jim that that we're telling him to make the recommendation of the priority and not him prioritizing and by making the recommendation that means it's got to go in front of the Commissioners for approval I think that's the the by adding the word recommendation I had to reward it so recommendation is in there somehow uh with the priority yeah I mean we're we're addressing John's comment that in terms of the role of of it's the role of the Board of Commissioners to to actually adopt a prioritization and so I that's I think what needs to go in the summary of am prioritize is coming out Mike is that it no no it's not the Char mendation is going in yeah with prioritization I just change the word from Priority to prioritization I'll read it again shall the city Charter be Amendment amended to require the city manager to recommend the prioritization of future Capital Improvement programs so the only thing that's being different subsid not even subsid is the word recommendation right and I don't disagree with you uh Council but that's um but when I start looking through this it just I just in my opinion that changes what you what you uh appr I'm good I I but I just you know that's just my comment uh you think that we did we took away the power of the Board of Commissioners to approve a prioritization no the discussion you had yeah was to make the manager provide them with the prioritize not to recommend but to provide them with that we all know that the commission makes a decision if it's just a recommendation the language is already in there but whatever yall want well no what this was was to expand this it's not to expand the recommendation it's it was it was to add the it was to add the the the priorization of future Capital expenditures that was the it's the future Capital expenditures that was not addressed in this paragraph right that making the city manager prioritize him yes because they he has the he has the knowledge to do that right but not a recommendation the recommendation is already his requirement okay so to me this is redundant to what's already there and I remember this discussion because you all talked about that the city manager has his hand on this stuff at all times and that he needs to uh prioritize these future Capital Improvement programs because we're not getting them completed I I remember the discussion I got 25 minut okay so if we read the discussion here let's go back here and it says this excuse me John just a second yeah fully advised the financial con future needs of the cities and make recommendations the Board of Commissioners concerning the fairs CRC recommends adding language that the city manager prioritize future Capital Improvement programs um and I think that needs to be expanded to say that um uh because of his unique knowledge of the city and the city requirements so what you just read is what I wrote so yes that's what I mean but I'm saying that to expand that to to just to say that the city manager you know the requirement is putting on on the city manager because he has knowledge of the needs of the city however the Board of Commissioners is responsibility over so so let's back up then so let's back up so if if you change the narrative mhm that then the question is fine yeah and that's what I'm putting I don't have a problem with the narrative I just let's change the narrative and I'm going to withdraw my motion okay then I'm gonna make I'm GNA make the I'm GNA make the motion to accept as r with the exception that the narrative John that the narrative has language in there based on the city manager's unique ability uh uh with regard to the um determination of capital projects that he will uh not only prioritize it but make a recommendation as to the priority to the city commission for approval Mike The Narrative doesn't mean anything we you know when the when the question is approved that's what's going in the charter you had it right the first time that the city manager he does have the knowledge he he he does have the the the knowledge of how to prioritize it but it has to be a recommendation to the city commission and and they and they determine the policy of what's most important to the community that's their job right right taking that away John The Narrative The Narrative is important John Andy Andy you're getting way too ahead of yourself the the the this discussion is with the committee the the recommendation the city manager prioritizes it and he recommends here's what I think you guys should do here's where I think we we're really deficient we need to fix the sponge Dock That's Falling in we need to fix the seaw walls around to BU you and they say well okay we're gonna fix the buou first and we're gonna fix the sponge later John we got a pretty tight timeline we got to get through the rest of the okay only thing look I was happy with Mike's I was happy 20 minutes ago with Mike's motion to add the word recommending Mike's motion has been resented so we are now understand that you're you're changing you're not you're not revisiting these issues the chair read what you what you as a board voted on right I'm only writing what you voted on right well how could we rewrite a whole paragraph and a whole narrative before John I don't want to you need to get quiet here for a minute am we've heard you okay we are not going in that direction we're going to amend the at this point I'm going to ask Mike to restate his motion we'll see if get seconded and then we're going to vote on it okay just just one comment um John The Narrative is important because just like any statute or anything you pass the intent there's legal ramifications when you put the intent of of language uh as to the purpose of the of the amendment and that's that's got teeth it's got a lot of teeth cuz that's that's what you do when you look at legislative intent when you look at statute you go back and look at the legislative intent of that statute that gives Clarity when there's an ambiguity or a question on a statute that's from a legal perspective now with regard to my my my motion my motion is to adopt number 11 as read but expanding The Narrative which is important um as to to require or to include language that references the city manager's unique ability to uh uh determine and prioritize capital projects to be and to recommend those capital projects to the commission for adoption or approval yeah is that second yes okay so we have a motion and we have a second call vote please Dr yes Mr Kus Vice chair colan yes chair R yes number 12 residency requirement for the city manager assistant city manager Fire Chief and police chief sponsored by the charter revision commission the city Charter presently requires the city manager in limited positions to establish legal residency in the city and allows the Board of Commissioners to temporarily excuse the residency requirements for up to one year shall the charter be amended to require the city me manager the assistant city manager the fires Chief and the police chief to reside within the city's planning boundaries and we would explain planning boundaries in the narrative yes uh can I make a comment do we have an assistance I thought we didn't have an assistant city manager we left it in the section event one right but yall left you you yes you specifically left that language in there okay why did I think it was uh a distance from City Hall rather than the planning bound that's the next one okay okay are there any discussions here any further discussion all right can I have a motion to adopt it as this so moved second any any further discussion please call the vote on this Dr yes M Gus yes I share colis yes yes just just for back up what I said earlier about the narrative our narrative in this one that's key yes okay so it goes to show that when you put it in the narrative The Narrative uh is you know you can't put the you couldn't put the requirements in this amendment no I tried to so that's why the narrative is is enforceable or or has no it explains a lot under the next two question well that just that just goes back to what I said on the previous amendment that the narrative is important okay now number 13 residency requirements for department heads and directors sponsored by the charter revision commission the city Charter presently requires certain directors to reside within the city and allows the Board of Commissioners to temporarily excuse the residency requirements for up to one year shall the charter be amended to require all Department H and directors to reside within 10 miles of Tarpon Springs City Hall any comments on that I think we beat this one to death have it was actually really easy to write yeah um discussion for approval second it call the vote please dris yes Mr cus yes Vice chair colus yes chair yes number 14 increase the authority to expend budget funds without competitive bidding sponsored by the charter revision commission the city manager currently authorized to spend only up to $25,000 on budgeted goods or services without competitive bidding shall the charter be amended due to increased cost of goods and services to increase the city manager authority to $50,000 any comment on the paragraph or title I I personally would like to see removal of the word only yeah yeah I I'm trying to remember why that language is put in there it was that your evil twin put that in there okay can I get a um a motion to approve I I move to approve uh with the exception of removing the word only no not with the exception with the removal removal okay with the removal and that get we have a second second Joan did you have something no I'm fine with that all right uh call the vote please Dr balis yes Mr kcus Vice chair colus chair Ro yes number 15 increase the monetary requirement for competitive bids sponsored by the charter revision commission the charter currently limits all purchases of $25,000 or more for which bids are required to be competitively bid shall the charter be amended due to increased cost of goods and services to increase the amount to $50,000 for statutory competitive bids is there any comment on the title or the paragraph can I have a motion to accept as written uh so moved a second second okay call the vote Dr G yes Mr yes chanis yes yeah number 16 financial statements sponsored by this Charter rision commission the city posts all financial statements on its website and it has hard copies available at City Hall the charter currently requires financial statements to be made available at the office of the city clerk and quarterly financial statements at the library shall the charter be amended to remove the outdated requirements for posting financial statements I would like to suggest changing posting to printing didn't wasn't this about having them printed we post them they're online but they're not we're no longer going to be printing them isn't that what maybe just remove the word posting so we're removing the outdated requirements well I think today posting has a different right no I agree with you made available online well that's that's already there no we're just ending outdated a statements on that's yeah I I I would prefer to include Printing and not just take it out just because that is clearer you know that it's the printing well except that it says not the it's the printing yeah right or okay I can't make that motion somebody else has that's what I was going to do I'm I'm I make a motion to accept charter number uh 16 to uh the only change would be from posting to printing financial statements to include the word printing it's a post any further comments please call a vote is there a second second has it not been seconded yet U second drales yes mras Vice chair colan yes shair yes okay 17 number 17 providing for a sidewalk Improvement plan sponsored by the charter of commission the side the charter has a sidewalk Improvement fund but is silent as to a sidewalk Improvement plan shall the charter be amended to require a sidewalk Improvement plan by 2029 in place of the sidewalk Improvement fund is there any discussion on the title of the paragraph how about the existing sidewalk Improvement fund where shall the charter amended be required require sidewalk Improvement plan in place of the existing sidewalk Improvement fund oh okay um I was going to suggest that we strike everything after 2029 well we don't talk about you're removing we we don't we do not talk we're allowing them to draw down the sidewalk Improvement fund but we don't talk about this being in place of the sidewalk Improvement fund oh I had notes that said that that the that the fund was I I maybe my notes could have been wrong that's why I did it that way I don't think that's where we wanted to go with that one where sidewalks so I understanding that it was replacing the sidewalk Improvement but if it's not then absolutely so so just from because because those funds and the sidewalk Improvement fund are restricted funds for sidewalk Improvement when the existing plan goes if the existing plan goes away those funds go to the to the purpose right of its restricted use am that correct that was the my understanding so this would replace we talk about replacing the existing sidewalk Improvement fund that's what I thought you were doing yes so whatever funding mechanisms that are still unspent funds would have to go because they're restricted for sidewalks would have to stay with the sidewalk plan Improvement plan or stay with sidewalks that would be my understanding but the next Charter Amendment talks about the fund the the sidewalk Improvement fund yeah they said that we have to they have to start spending it right this one says they have to start spending it you're adopting a new plan and you have to the next one is you have to spend it yeah cuz we have one but no one's spending it this way says you got to spend it and maybe in 2029 they may not have the money oh by 2029 yes okay not immediately sense okay yeah that makes yeah sorry I had here requirement to do plan by 2029 I have here the the match 100K withdraw 300K that's on the next one that's yeah yeah but I'm just I'm summarizing it I don't see anything here that's because we're replacing one with another that's my issue well the the problem is you end up you could end up with two you could well no you you wind up you can have an improvement plan and an improvement fund there's they they're they're two different things I I I understand that but if you do away with the plan you do away with the the existing plan okay you do away with the existing plan and it still has funds available they're restricted funds restricted for sidewalks right so if they're restricted for sidewalks and you have a sidewalk Improvement plan in by 2029 they're going to use those funds because they're restricted as part of any new sidewalk Improvement plan they can't use it for anything else so so what the concern is if you're if you you've got a an existing plan that you still have resources in and you adopt a new plan you still got the old plan sitting on a shelf that that has funds in it so no we have a fund on the Shelf with with money in it right so why but that that fund does not have a plan associated with it and that's the problem because they're doing they're not doing comprehensive sidewalk planning they're doing you know uh what what what's the worst thing right now that someone's going to hurt they're band-aiding they're band-aiding that's right so the plan was to get around the band dating and have a comprehensive plan for the city that that's the next the this next one is for the B the mandating problem no that's to give them money access to more money from that so so the Hope what because I think the first one was to take the Band-Aids out and get get a comprehensive plan the second one is to give them access to money so they can action that well it it sounds like this should be well explained in the narrative yeah it should be I I think I think there's duplicity in in in the in the sidewalk issue with regard to coming up with a plan in 2029 but still having an existing plan that has funds available um you know we want to we want to get rid of the old plan well if you if you if you read what in what is in the charter item 17 summary of amendments this is spot on okay that's correct my issue here here is that is that the the discussion here is you're you're asking the voters to replace the sidewalk Improvement fund with a plan and we did not that is not what's in the charter and should not be in the charter I seem to recall that you guys we wanted the fund depleted because as Mike said it's uh you know restricted funds anyway so they should really use that money and do you know a as complete a job as they can without as you just put it banding it we we are encouraging them to utilize the funds you're absolutely right we are not requiring them to deplete those funds let's say's a difference okay so let's say for argument in 2029 they have a plan okay and there's and you have the the the you have the additional plan that has money in it what do you do you don't have an additional plan with with money in it you have an additional fund with money in it there's a difference between a fund and a plan what do they do with the fund they spend it but if there's they spend it how are they going to spend it they're going to spend it to the to they're going to give it to who they're going to spend it to the sidewalk Improvement plan to the plan so so that means the existing whatever they have that's existing the the existing Charter language that talks about putting money aside has to go away that that happened last time the last Charter review took away the requirement for the city to fund this what put money into the fund but you have two Charter amendments which that address sidewalks here yes if we adopt if they vote for this you'll have two Charter amendments that address sidewalks yes okay so so take two steps back we have a sidewalk Improvement fund it's actually fairly well funded right now it's got like $1.7 million and we're and but we're seeing that the mindset of the city is that well if we can only take $100,000 out let's only and it has to be matched let's make let's give us a let's do $200,000 for the projects maybe a little more if there's budget okay so they're they're using that to limit their decision to invest in improving our sidewalks so we discussed this and we decided all right well let's get them let's get them motivated to spend more money on sidewalks we'll let them put the $100,000 towards the budget it's not going into the fund it's getting expended out of the budget plus then they get to take up to $300 out of the fund that's the and they can spend more okay well wait a minute that doesn't address the band dating because the the the budget as it has been and and the sidewalk improvements that have been done up to this point have been Band-Aids so we decided that they the city needed to do was come up with a comprehensive sidewalk Improvement plan for the city not just for you know whatever they think is currently the worst problem where there's a whole lot of worst problems around so we wanted them to do that we wanted it to be in place by 2029 and if there is funds still in the in in if their money still in the funds they can use that until it's depleted but at some point the city has to move forward to execute improving the sidewalk throughout the city with a plan and not a Band-Aid I don't disagree with okay so so and that's where my objection is we never talked about it an improvement plan replacing the Improv the sidewalk Improvement fund that's it's if there's money left then it's in parallel until the funds are depleted that it it's it's just it's a non seiter there and as an engineer it really bugs me okay I I I would really like to have a a a motion that that accepts us with removal of all words after 2029 unless attorney Salman has to I'm a mess okay no he's not he's he's all right he's all right with that one this is not a I'm I I'm on the hill okay I am on the hill on this one what's Tina laughing about said she was going to make a motion if you're on the hill I'm going to make a motion go ahead to accept uh to accept this but deleting delete the words after 2029 okay is it second this is where it dies nobody's seconding it did you second it I'll second get it oh wonderful okay just to get it to the vote can we call the vote Dr B yes almost say no I agree with you agree with everything no I I just I think I think duplicity duplic with having no okay I'll get you B yes chair yes 18 providing for an increase in can someone M mute their phone who's ever making that racket thank you providing for an increase in sidewalk Improvement funding sponsored by Charter revision commission the city Charter created a street and sidewalk fund to support Street Dage on sidewalk improvements annually in the amount of $100,000 the charter revision commission has determined the annual funds are insufficient shall the requirements of the sidewalk fund be amended to allow the Board of Commissioners to appropriate up to $300,000 annually for sidewalk improvements from the front is there any discussion on those section no no comments all right can I have a motion to accept this as it stands motion to accept as it stands second call a vote Yes MREs Mr CC Mr colan yes and CH yes number 19 Charter Amendment initiative and referendum sponsored by the charter revision commission the city Charter presently requires initiative petitions to contain verified signatures of at least 15% of the qualified electors required to vote at the last regular municipal election shall the charter be amended to reduce the percentage ofal qualified electors to initiate a petition to 10% discussion on the paragraph or title do anybody have any history on this happening I'm sorry that we've had any petitions yes um I could only tell you since I've been here and that's going on 37 years not to my knowledge no I don't have any problem reducing it but we're very fortunate City that doesn't have any of that well I I think when we look at it there are what 37 I'm sorry I can't remember the numbers for for municipalities yeah how many qualified electors oh currently um I I think at the last last election there was I think there was almost 20,000 yeah I I was remembering the number somewhere between 3 and 4,000 that were required for I mean it changes it's it's whatever the last regular election is and I don't know the number November 5th because they haven't certified that but so it was taking it from like three something to to something thousand people so I I make a motion that we um kep number 19 as provided second oh any further discussion Dr call vote Dr Bales yes Mr ccas yes Vice chair colan yes chair rot yes okay number 20 initiative and referendum that's should be a three after that by the way oh yeah sponsored by the charter revision commission this Charter requires a referendum election to be held 90 days from the date of filing thereof or assume thereafter as the supervisor of election shall permit shall the Char to be amended to Simply require a referendum election to be held at the next city or county election any comments on the title or the paragraph V for approval is there a second second call the vote please Dr B bis yes Mr CED yes Vice chair colan yes chair root yes number 21 aen City Hospital name sponsored by Charter revision commission the city Charter presently references the city owned hospital as Advent North North Canalis the name of the hospital we see is tpen Springs Hospital Foundation shall the charter be amended to reflect the current and accurate name of the leasi of the city owned property Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation Inc any comments on the discussion on the name or the paragraph I have a motion motion to approve motion to accept second second okay call a vote please yes Mr casc yes Vice chairis yes chair root yes number 22 clarification of grammar and scrier errors sponsored by the charter rision commission currently the city Charter contains multiple grammar and scrier error shall the city Charter be comprehensively amended to correct any and all grar and scrier errors may I is comments on that that would need a that would need a comment uh make a motion to approve uh any second second second okay uh call the vote drales Yes Mr CC Vice chair Kus yes and chair rot yes you're out of here 10 minutes thank you you're welcome all right so that precludes any further discussion on the Su of amendments he's walking out the door did anyone have anything else they wanted to say on except that we will be meeting one uh again sometime in the future um or not yes to review the to revie the recommended yes we will be meeting again for you to review the recommendations make sure we have those correct did y want to review the summ the recommendations that you had that you didn't put in the charter oh the recommendations yeah we're going to push that and I talked to um Irene about maybe doing that in April after the new commission's inos um were youall going to review the summary of amendments today or just the one that's the only one we we've made a number of changes there and I don't think we're changing anything else except there is a scrier error on items go ahead we can improve all we can number thank you everyone it says Al instead of Al okay all right I one more thing please is it is it possible we can get the correct corrected copy of this now you going to change yeah yes I could get yet we'll get the changes to close because we no longer have a quum this meeting is a j okay ask you a question she did e e for