##VIDEO ID:rpmiiz02lgU## To order the. Monday, August 26, 2024 meeting of the Charter Revision Commission at 2 p.m. Michelle, would you roll? Call us please. Doctor root here. Mr. Collins. Here. Doctor Gavalas here. Miss Jennings here. Mr. Gudas is absent and excused, Mr. Seaman here. And Mr. Tear Penny here, let's go to public comments. I see we have a public here. Please state your name and address for the record. Shirley Good afternoon. Peter lack is 514 Ashland Avenue. First, I want to thank everybody here for your dedication to be here every Monday at 2:00. I know it can be tedious going over things, trying to debate minute language, but I think overall you all have done a good job, I like the way you have worded it. Mr. Curtis on his. I just got this, but I had read before, and I like the fact that we have established a sustainability committee into there, and the other thing I noticed, Mr. Tear Penny had sent in an email, with regards to, basically the issue of something the city has bought by referendum that to do something with it would be wise to also put that to a referendum, because the city populace voted on the first place and, less the swap would be for identical purposes that the first referendum was for which if it goes to a referendum, then I wouldn't see where people would have a problem with it. I do have a problem with when I read that language now, I don't know if you all have gone to see, city manager Curtis's explanation and John would understand the fact that. What did you. I don't know if you saw it, but basically, he was saying that the value of what we purchased at Roosevelt isn't worth the value of the land in the middle of Dodecanese, and no one's going to be stupid enough to trade it, you know, in that regard, in a capitalistic economic sense. But if enough incentives were thrown in, you could probably add a few other things in maybe this property and maybe something somewhere else. And then you do the swap. So I kind of think that Mr. Turpen is on a good thing here, that could be something that could be looked at as how to word it, where you have the section about referendums, you can maybe add properties that were purchased like he recommends. How is it, property bought in a public referendum. I would even take out the value part. I wouldn't even consider the value part. I would just say property bought in a public referendum cannot be sold, swapped, traded without a public referendum approving that transaction and take the money out of it. Because the money if it's the money, the money will tell it's yes or no. But I still think just the principle if the people voted on it like on that property, it was for parking, open space and some type of event space, which, if any of you all went to the hippie fest, it really worked out nice. They had the parking on the parking on the northwest corner on the northeast corner they had the big tent with a band and tables, and then they had vendors all around and up down. Oh, I'm sorry I ran out of time. Okay, I'm sorry, so I can see the value of that property as it was meant. But if you were then to swap it and who knows what would happen. So Otherwise, I appreciate all the hard work you've done, and I thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Comments. I'm going to go ahead into the review draft of charter ordinance to his comments. But you won't need to because we'll be able to go right into discussing it right now. Okay. Okay All right. You know, if he was going to leave, I just wanted to, you know, have an open dialog. Okay. My meeting. We're doing it this way. It's all of our meetings, actually. Well, yeah, but somebody's. I'm like. I'm first among equals here, and I want to set the pace here. And we are going to have your discussion. But that doesn't necessarily mean we have it with the public. We have it with each other. Okay. And that's why you'll have a chance to make comments and address what Mr. Delacruz has said. But you'll make it. The conversation will be with us. Okay. All right. So, we're going to get into the draft charter ordinance. I'd like to just bring us up to where we are right now. We have, an ordinance package that was sent out by Irene. We have a new one that went out about 10:00 today. Yes. Yes. And did that go to everyone? That is what I placed on the dais, right? Well, that'. Yeah, I sent it to everyone. So if you didn't get it, I didn't get a bounce back, that's all. Okay, so this is new. This is the new one. I also put a paper copy in front. Okay All right, so we're all on the same page. The one that got handed out today is the new and improved variety, from this morning, we have, a number of responders who indicated there were some changes to be made. One was from Mr. Trapani, which we'll discuss first, and then we'll get into the review, with and address my comments, my, my comments and anybody else who's reviewed and have comments regarding the charter, is everyone okay with that process? Okay. Let's start with Mr. Trapani and your observations about swapping properties, which I thought was pretty good. So what? Thank you. Would you like to say about that? It was brought up because a consultant that the city hired has it in a plan that's being considered by the board of commissioners, and I don't think any of us considered while we were doing our deliberations, we always talked about the purchase of property. We didn't talk about the liquidation of property. So this would, since it's come to the forefront, it would be a way to if the public is sold on buying a piece of property through referendum, they have to be given reasons. They have to, you know, it's sold on a on an idea that then it shouldn't be liquidated, traded, and so my feeling is if the board of commissioners want to be land speculators, let them go and do land speculation on their own dime, not on the citizens dime and time. So it's just a way to if something's bought by referendum, it has to be traded, sold by referendum. That's basically and I and what I said was not proposed language. It was more of a concept than language. Okay. Now Mike and Mike Peters, thing about the value, Peter, that, that was more like if the city owned a piece of land that they acquired, you know, million years ago, like, let's say the, the Reagan landfill, the city bought a long time ago. It's 70 acres. So there's the city owns property, I guess is what I'm saying. That has value that's greater than the 500,000. If that were to occur. So what I'm saying is that as a value of 500,000 or greater, they can't liquidate it other than the provisions that are already in the charter for, you know, charitable purposes or I'm okay with that. But I'd go even further. I kind of like the comment if they bought it in referendum, it can't be sold unless a referendum. Right. But I went further and said that some things the city owns didn't weren't acquired, weren't acquired through referendum. I'm not sure how that happened, but maybe it was before that requirement was put in or something. But the city owns some pretty valuable stuff around, so that was the second. It was two phases, one, two, two concepts. One is if it was bought in a referendum, it has to be sold in a referendum or traded. And the other is if they have a piece of property that's worth a million bucks, they just have it still would have to be okay in a referendum. Got it. But that's to me less important, I think, than the referendum piece. Okay. So, I will I will, I'm going to, I'm going to ask for a motion, if I may, to consider new content for change to the charter. So moved. Second. Okay now, is there a discussion about whether or not we reopen it? My concern is, is it too late? I don't think so. I think we should be able to do this. We have other meetings scheduled in September, right? No we don't. We are presenting this to the board, next month. Next Tuesday. Well, I did talk to Irene and she said that we could do it because even when we present this, that the Board of commissioners have the right to ask us to make changes and to include their own language. So, yeah, and we're here to make changes to the draft. Anyway, that's why I was thinking that we're probably okay with doing this. Okay. Can, can we get a vote then on whether on allowing, additional new information to drive change today, doctor Gavalas. Yes, miss Jennings? Yes Mr. Seaman? Yes, Mister. Chair. Penny. Yes, vice chair. Collins. Yes, chair. Yes Okay. So can I get a motion to accept the language that's been proposed by Mr. Chair penny and I will read it, property bought in public referendum. Or that has a value equal or greater to the maximum value the board can purchase without a referendum. Referendum cannot be sold, swapped or traded without a public referendum approving the transaction. One question. Yes, I mean, Mr. Trapani just said that's not necessarily. Is that what you said? Not necessarily the wording. It was a concept. You know, I'm not a lawyer. So it's Mr. Saltzman can get the take the concept from us and turn it into if it passes. Right. Well, I want the motion on the table so we can discuss it. So moved. Well, I, I like the way John described it. Just just a minute ago is kind of two parts where it isolates the two things. I think it was a little clearer than, than actually what the text here is. And I think I think your statement as you wrote it does that. Yeah. Yeah. Don't you. Yeah. I think it, I think it's well written from there. Mr. Saltzman is here listening. So I think he I'm just trying to decide whether we'll I guess we could put it as a I in the property purchase right? Right. Yeah. That's h right there. So I was thinking of putting it as I. That's when I looked at the, when I looked at it I thought it would work there. Yeah I think that would work fine. I like your language. I might it might be just a tiny tweaking, but I think it says I think it's pretty straightforward. In which section is that? That's, section three. Section three. Okay Got to clarify that. So we're going to add it as paragraph I public referendum comma or. Oh yeah. Yeah yeah I'm not don't worry about that. But that's how you get the separation of what he's talking about. Okay Yeah I'll take care of it. And there isn't an existing paragraph I. Are we looking at the actual charter or your updates? No, that that's the charter with the updates. That's the section. Okay. That's H is the change with 500,000 and identity identifying the funding source. And I'll put John's on I if that's what you recommend okay. Okay. So can we amend the motion to put it on section three. New paragraph I so moved second. All right I we're all happy with that. Michelle, can you call a vote doctor bellows, yes, but I actually I'd like to just say a couple things. Yes. Go ahead. Discussion, I'm I think this is a good thing, you know? But I just want us to consider a couple things. You know, one is the sort of less is more. You know, do. Is this something that is really needed? And I want to say that as I've been reading, more and more stuff in, in terms of planning what I'm finding that the term land swap is very trendy and I'm just wondering if this is something that is going to be viable, in, for a very long, the other thing is, if we put into the charter every single possible, you know, option that the city has for various things, it just becomes, I think you called it a word salad. You know, it's a lot of stuff. I basically agree with this, but are we muddying the waters by putting too much in to the charter or making too many amendments? I just want to bring this up for discussion. I think that's a good point. When I first saw it, my concern was, are we being reactive versus being responsive? But I, I, I think if, you know, if the citizens have requested purchase of a property through referendum, I think it makes sense that they get control over when we when the city disposes that, and then Mr. Chair Panting wants to take it to the next step with previously acquired property. Yes, but I but I also very much like the, the value being put in there so that it doesn't become something that every time we have some 30,000, you know, dollar plot of land, you know, that it's going to have to go out to referendum or something. So anyway, yeah, I mean, I we've seen, we've seen the city transfer property, for example, to habitat for humanity for like $25,000 a lot and for property and values like that, it makes sense that they can do that without having to wait for referendum. That's my attitude, my thoughts absolutely excluded via the charitable gift, charitable or charitable organization. And that would stay okay. I think it's crucial enough to be included. You know, it's one thing to be fiddling around with minor changes. I think this is pretty important to include. I agree, I was a good find, all right. So anybody have anything else they want to say or are we going to jump on to our. Three. Two one okay. Michelle, would you please call a vote on this? Sure. Doctor. Alice. Yes, miss Jennings? Yes, Mr. Semen? Yes, Mister chair. Penny Yes. Vice chair. Bolanos. Yes Chair. Yes Okay. I will ask if anybody has a preferred process that they want to use to review this. I have reviewed it on my own, has everyone gone through it, or do we want to go through change? By change? We can do it either way. It doesn't. I looked at it, but the way my mind works and it's not for everybody is I just start at the top until I hit something and I address that, and then just, just methodically. Yeah. Not a problem. Okay. So could we address, Mike's comments? Oh, yeah. Get that out of the way, I think we should go section by section. Are you okay with that? Yes. All right, all right. So there were really two sections to look at. One was the section of Whereases. And then there's the section of change language. Okay. When I reviewed it, I went through and made sure that every one of our revision recommendations were represented in the Whereases. And then I went to see what the language was in the change. And that just helped me because going back and forth, back and forth makes me a little dizzy. So if you don't mind, we can go through this check sheet twice. Once for the whereases, and then once again to make sure the language is in the charter. Are you okay, or do I mean, that's that's how my mind works. But I'm not going to force everybody to do that. If that doesn't make sense to them. I was what I looked at was the actual document that gave us. You just want to review the document. Okay That's fine with me. Your changes should come up while we're reviewing those. Yeah. No, they will. Yeah, okay. They will. Okay. So page one, any comments or questions? When I initially saw the 350, you know, I put a question mark next to it. But then I read the next whereas and I corrected that. Yeah. The whereas sections tell the story, and then we go into the changes. So no comments on page one. Page two. No comments on page two. Page three. Just, just Andy's markup on three. Yep. That's just so, I had missed the sidewalk language that you wanted removed. That first sentence, so I just put in there that we're going to remove irrelevant language, which when we get to it, you'll see. Right, right. So that's kind of a don't forget to don't forget it. Right. That's one everything I put in yellow is what I added. Since you received the original document. Okay. You know, I seeing this new language, the superfluous. You don't like my I don't think it's superfluous. I think we I think the reason is, is because we recognize a need for ramping up. I don't know, the language I removed was solely the language that identified the language that should have been removed from the sidewalk fund was was limiting the withdraw right at 100,000. Right? No, but but he removed the first sentence which just said the name of the right. It was an irrelevant did we? I didn't see did we have a vote on that issue ultimately to do it that way? I know we had a lot of discussion. We had this yes, I have it was approved on 517. Such a budget, minimum of 100,000 K to withdraw up to 300 K from fund to be spent according to terms and charter cities required to create a sidewalk improvement fund by 2029. Okay, so what I will do is then I will edit this to remove. Well, we're still going to remove the top sentence. Yes. Yeah. That's. And then what. We'll do is. Hold on. We can look at we can look at the words when we get there. Yeah okay okay. But for here I think you need to also address that, no, I'll change that whole. Whereas okay. You need to expand that. Yeah That whereas is I'll remove the language that I use because I'll be more. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I have a question? I have a question. So on page two, on the second questions please. Oh, by the way, we never go back. We don't. Okay, well, so the second word as we're section three of the charter, provides for the acquisition by the City of Real Property under limited circumstances here on page two. Yes. The second was provides for the acquisition by the City of Real Property. Yes. You have to do anything now with the land swap in that I will, yeah, I'll address that change in that language. Yes. Okay That's all. Thank you. Great Thank you. Oh, that was a good catch. Gotcha. So, is there any. Okay, so I'll make the change under 26. All right. That's where we are. So wherever okay. So did everybody catch that? What? Michelle suggested is that on two where it says where a section three of the charter provides for acquisition by the City of real property under limited circumstances. And then the next one addresses dredging and spoil. We also need to add Mr. Turpin's change and there'll be a whole new whereas for that new whereas okay, so we're all we're all we're all on on same page with that. That was page two. Page three. Now we've just just discussed expanding the language on the whereases for section 26 to, to address the. The, the change, the what we agreed to on the sidewalk fund, which was to withdraw up to 300 K and requiring the city to create a sidewalk improvement fund that needs to be added to the whereas carry for plan and. I'm sorry carry. You're talking about adding into the whereas that that's in the whereas you want that in the whereas that needs to be added to the Whereases. Yeah. I mean okay, I missed what you said. I'm sorry. Okay. On section three for section 26, it was what we spoke of before. You need to expand the whereases to address the city requirement to have a sidewalk plan in five years and changing the amount of the withdraw. That's possible. Okay That'll be added. Okay. Are there any other changes to page three? Page four. The second, whereas, it's a typo, but AdventHealth doesn't have a space between it. Right Where is that, the second. Whereas Andy on page four, the second line of the second, whereas where it says DBA, AdventHealth, I made that change on my on my compute, but I yeah, I see it. Yeah. You may have changed it back in the last section. Did you catch it in the whereases too? I thought I did. That's okay, maybe I didn't. Maybe you did. I'll get it. That's okay. What's a space among friends? Right. I have a question on that. The because there was a as most of you know, there was a huge lawsuit about this whole thing. The city of Tarpon Springs owns the hospital, not the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation. I know, but it's that's what they changed its name to. No, they actually, they can't change the name. No, it's a right. Jimmy. Yeah Absolutely right. Yes. I mean, it's what do you mean? So it's not the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. DBA AdventHealth. The city. The city owns it? Yeah, the city of Tarpon Springs owns the hospital. The hospital foundation may have some lease. Position, but I thought the city leased it. You guys discussed. So, I just went by what you discussed. So it's not supposed to be in there? I have no idea. I was gone, I think I was gone that day. John's correct. The city owns the hospital. AdventHealth leases the hospital. AdventHealth has changed their name from what we had in the charter. As the leasee to what we are adding. So. But that's what I put in there. The city hospital has changed its name. So you want me to say the hospital this. Okay. So Andy, here's how it was. They may have been a slight change. The City of Tarpon Springs always owned the hospital, still owns the hospital. Okay. It's leased either to the hospital foundation or it's leased directly to the Advents. I'm not sure there's still a foundation. So it could be that the foundation is the in between. I think that, yeah, I think that's the comments we received from the foundation is just a lease holder. Yeah. But okay, so I guess the question is what we put in here is we were just dealing solely with the city hospital name to be correct. No, but you've got the foundation owning the hospital, and that's not correct. That's what we were told at that. No. Here, here's the thing. It's right in the charter section. The whereas needs to be changed. So it reads the city charter presently references the lease holder of the city hospital. Okay At the bottom line has been all along is that under no circumstances should there be any confusion about ownership that the city owns the hospital. So any way you can ride around that right now, the charter language is correct here, that that was a good, good, good catch. So anyway, it's if you can just add in the lease holder of between thee and city and the first whereas and then replace in the second one the city hospital with the lease holder. Okay, okay. I have I have notes on that. And that the Board of Commissioners shall require the Board of Commissioners shall require on all leases of the city owned property, dba AdventHealth North Pinellas, that AdventHealth North Pinellas, dba the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation and all its successors and assigns may not unilaterally blah blah. This section shall be required to be referenced in any lease agreement, and because of that city owned property. Right? This is correct. Well it well, why don't we look at at the changes right. But those are the changes to the section, the Andy, the thing, the language. But, Kerry, I don't think the language is correct because it says all leases of the city owned property now known as the city owned property, now known as AdventHealth. That should be maybe now leased to AdventHealth North Pinellas, acquiring all leases of the city owned property. Yeah. Now known. I just I mean, it was a huge battle. So I think Jimmy will tell you just we got to be really clear that it's city owned property and we lease it to somebody. And I'm not clear anymore because it's been a long time. Whether we lease it to the hospital foundation, who then in turn leases it to the advent, or we lease directly to the advent. And the hospital Foundation is a good guy's outfit. Well, we could you know, we can just change it to lessee. Forget the first. Forget the first one and move up a lessee and all its successors and assigns and be, you know, lessee. Is it is it necessary to include the DBA Hospital Foundation? I didn't do that because you don't really mention the DBA. You mentioned the what the original what the company name is for our purposes. But we could just to take out AdventHealth completely and just put lessee. Yeah but Commissioner Koulianos is here and you sit on the board. Right. The foundation board. John. I'm on. Yeah, I'm on the AdventHealth North Pinellas Foundation. I'm not on the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation hospital Foundation. Do you know the relationship between the hospital foundation? Who's got the documents? I mean, I you guys shouldn't be making any changes here unless you write the actual document, right? We had we had what we had is the hospital came and made a presentation, but he didn't bring documents. No. You need to see the document. And when you when you say that the hospital, the city owns the hospital, are you referring to the building or are you referring to the actual the bill, the bill, the building and the dirt, the building and dirt? So when you say the hospital, the hospital is a is a functioning entity that's different than the building. But remember, this is the current language. What we're trying to say is we're not leasing the hospital to them. We're leasing a building to them. We're the dirt and the building. Right? Yeah. No, there's a there's a the business is owned by the Advent's. That's what you're saying. Yeah. I don't disagree with you. And if somebody could own the hospital and she actually owned the functioning entity and then leased them that to somebody, I don't think that's what's happening here. That's not. So when you guys refer to leasing the hospital, it should be leasing the building. And I've seen the documents. You guys shouldn't make any changes unless you see the doc. I agree with you because it's because you don't want any. There's you don't want any any contract. Contradictory. You're right about things in your charter. It's too important. Yeah So I agree. Yeah. This the city of Tarpon leased the hospital to advent for numerous years. 7570. In my notes, the hospital, you know, the lease would tell you when they purchased it, it was a when they leased it, it was a hospital and their intent was to continue its, its use as a hospital. So just so you know, the section is called city Hospital. That's the entitled entitled section. And the only change that we made in this, the only change we made right is go is taking away the space between advent and health and adding city owned and no. Yes Yeah. City owned property and section down at the last sentence. Oh, the last sentence. Yes. I'm sorry, but there's one right. That's the only change we made. The only one to the charter carry. It doesn't mean that it's right. No, it doesn't mean it's right. I'm just saying what we what we did. I think Commissioner colonies is suggestion that we get the document. There was a lease. And I remember I think the lease was approved in referendum because it had to be for more than ten years. And I think the lease was approved for 30 years, and it went up substantially from what it used to be. I would ask that Mr. Saltzman pull the lease and see what it says. But I know that it's the city of Tarpon Springs leases the hospital to either the advent or to the hospital foundation. So let's assume so. All right. So let's talk about assume I find the lease says that it's leased to, Advent Health. That's fine. Okay. So then we would leave this language the same can I or would we say, or would we go back to what I was saying, which is, I mean, what if what if it changes again? Right. Are we going to lessor or lease. So my understanding is that the city owns the dirt. No The building is reverts to the city upon the end of the lease, releasing the land to them, well, that's not my understanding. That's that's not my understanding, John. Well, how about if you just reword it along the lines? How about that, Mr. Saltzman? Is saying and say shall require an all leases of the city owned property operated as a hospital that the lessee and all its successors and then be agreement between the lessee and all its successors. That's fine with me. That covers this. And I would move that. We table it until we get the lease out and see what it says we don't need, we don't need. I move that we table it until we table it or defer it. Well, defer until we get the lease. And the most important thing is when they made their presentation, there was it was very clear where they were headed. They've been heading in that direction for a number of years. And we wanted it clear in the charter that that hospital building and dirt belongs to the city of Tarpon Springs. Now, how you write that in a lease to advent is another story, but the lease is already there. Jimmy The lease is there, but they want this stuff changed. I know, but the lease was written by some guys who were really competent in what they did. As far as the lease, so I would want to see the lease before we change. Problem with seeing the lease, I'm just letting everybody know this is one of the most important, if not the most important thing that we're dealing with, right? I agree, yeah, I think I mean, we have to make the language here match with what the lease says, right? Well, the only thing that would be in the lease is paragraph A. What And the extent of change there is correcting how the name of the hospital is referred to in this document. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. That's what I've got. But the it was a lease and a referendum and the last one. No I'm just, I'm just reading the lease. Well get you to change it to match the lease or to change it. Yeah. Not match the lease. They wanted the charter to change right. I just they need to change the week. Well the lease is with Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation Inc. so that's so Andy. Here's what happens. The city leases it to the hospital foundation. And they in turn lease it to the Advents. Because if we're leasing it to a hospital foundation Inc, we can't simultaneously lease it to the Advents. Now they're they're under a DBA relationship. It's just a name, right? But it's well, that's why I put it in there DBA Advent Health. But we could remove Advent Health completely and just put it in Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. Yeah, that's who the lease is with. There's no mention of DBA. There's no mention of advent Health. I say we match the lease. Okay so help me understand this. Yes Doing business in. The night. We don't have to have that language in there at all. I mean, probably it's. Yeah, it's probably better just to put the foundation right and leave out advent Health because Foundation is who we had the lease with. That's where I'm at the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation. Right. But I think I looked up, I think I looked up Sundays to see how they were listed, but no, it's cleaner to just do it as Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. That's who we have the lease with. And the definition of those members is what? So what Jimmy, the definition of the foundation, well, the foundation there's a Florida not for profit corporation. Right. It's a 500 1C3. Right Yep. Could that be members of advent. They are on the foundation. It could be. But remember there was no reason why we put in Advent Health. If that's not who we have. The lease with. You got the lease right I'm looking at it so I could change this language to just remove Advent Health completely. Yeah. And that and that's why I thought the first occurrence you'd have the whole thing there. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. dba Advent Health North Pinellas in that first sentence. And then you can refer to Advent Health after that, because you know, because then that makes sense. Here's my problem. No. Here. Listen, if you read section 14 and I'm pretty good at reading these things that says to update the name of the city hospital to the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, right? No, that's not what we're doing. No no, it's the city of Tarpon Springs hospital, not the hospital. Foundation's actually, you're right that that's how it has to be changed. The foundation has members from the hospital on it, and we're worried about maintaining that. Right. So it would be the update, the name of the city hospital. We see in the charter section. Section 14, new, totally new or the new. No Section 14 is just, it's just a summary of what we're doing. 2019, section four 2019. You're right. Section 14 is just a summary of what you're doing right? So section 14 is incorrect. Then we make the change to section 14. It doesn't change the charter. Yeah. You're not I mean we're not changing the name of City Hospital to the leasing name. We're changing the name of the lease to the leasing name. It's just basically right. So proposed amendment of to section 33 of the city charter to update the leases name. Right And then. But what about the first the preamble kind of thing ending. That's that's not right. Which part proposed amendment to section 33 of the city charter to update the name of the city hospital, right. No, no, I was changing that. Okay. So it should say city charter to update. The less the leases name to remove the of the city hospital. So it would say proposed amendment to section 33 of the city charter to update the leases. Name to Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. Do you want the DBA or not? That's my question. No. Okay. So if we remove the DBA, then that's gone. Then it'll say, and to clarify that future leases and amendments to leases or articles of incorporation shall only involve city owned propert. So we'll and then, so we'll remove the word advent where you see advent health. It'll be replaced with Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, a under section 33 A, B. And right before that, well, it's more than that. It's not known as that. It's leased by. Yeah leased by. Got it. So leased by on that first paragraph and then the other two will just, well you got to correct. You got to take out Advent Health, right? Yes. Advent health will be removed completely. Okay. And it'll be replaced with Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. Okay And North Pinellas that I didn't say every word. Sorry The name will be removed and changed to Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation. Name I guess I'll make a motion to that effect. Is that necessary? Yes. Okay. Could I ask one more question? Sure. Now we have to have a second. Second. Thank you. John so we can take out Advent Health. Yes. In the language. Yes. If in fact, in the future, all members of the hospital advent are the only members on the foundation. Now there's a mix, Jimmy. They got a they got a couple. It's not in here. Right. But but we would I understand what you're saying. If the entity changes and it's necessary to change the lease, we would do that accordingly. But right now our lease is solely with that entity. If the foundation changes. Because that's who is leasing to advent. And every member of that foundation is advent. That's not true. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to us, doesn't matter, only matters to us. If the foundation ceases to exist and ceases to who the foundation leases to or or does their thing with is irrelevant to us. We only care that we're our leases with the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. now if they change who they are and become Advent Health as a business, then we would amend our lease accordingly. So ten years from now, the foundation could not sell that property without the citizens going to a referendum. No, they don't own the property. No, they don't own it. The foundation doesn't own it, Jimmy. They have we own the property. They lease it. They're the lessee. Correct I'm just missing that fact in those paragraphs that the city owns it. And that's what's most of our language at the city. Yes, but that's what we've been discussing is changing. Is specifically identifying advent health as the lease as opposed to it, because we don't put in the charter of any land with their relationship. Maybe that's those are the changes that are being made now to make Jimmy happy. No, don't have to make me happy. No. Yes. I won't be on that, on that. The health facilities of the 40 during the battle where it says the proposed amendment to section 33 of the city charter update the name of the city owned hospital. That that part's. That would make me very happy. City owned hospitals. But we said we don't own a hospital. We do own the hospital. Yeah. We own we own the dirt and the buildings. So we don't own the hospital. We own the land. We own the land and the building own the land and the building. Okay, let's assume we you we own the land in the building, but we don't own a hospital. Well, you're considering the hospital to be a business. And most people would consider the hospital to be the structure. Yeah, I consider it a business. And it's. I didn't say that. Let me ask you. Let me say what they own. What they own is a health care business. We own the hospital structure. What? Okay Let me ask you to do it. Yeah. Let me ask you. It this way. Why would we list that? We own a city hospital. We don't own that. We don't list that. We own city recreational areas. It's owned. We own it. We don't have to put it in because we're leasing it to an independent party. And because there was a huge lawsuit about the ownership of the property to the foundation, and it was just ugly. If you want me to put in to update the name of the city owned hospital, I have no problem doing that. What what about actually saying the city owned hospital building and land? There you go. There we ar. That's completely clear. You're assuming that we own that. I got a check that. Okay Jones, do you have a question in the back. Kerry all that land. Okay. Do we want to reopen public comment or I move to reopen public comments? Second, I move that we open them back up. Second, well, we'll just do it. Sorry, George. I was okay. Four minutes. John Anthony. We built that structure to separate the citizens of Tarpon Springs, building the addition to that. Well, a lot of the a lot of that, the a lot of it was built by the hospital Foundation, who was who? The original foundation. John, who built the hospital were philanthropic members of the community. Well, you asked the question, built that big structure that's there right no, the highest building at that time. What's the point? Okay. The point is we don't own the building. We own the land. We lease them the land. No, no, this for a fact. No no, the building reverts to us at the end of a lease. Okay? They built that all that high rise structure. Yeah, it's so they can build. And how is that when you're writing in there, the building and land may be inaccurate. Well, John, if it's a, if there's a reverter that the building goes with the land, that's ownership. And Andy is that right? I got to look at it to make sure that's I don't want to say anything. I was looking to see if they. I think we should come back to this. Honestly, I guarantee you that those buildings are on their balance sheet. That's those buildings on their balance shee. I'm not so sure about the original high rise. That that was a six story. Advent came in after I moved here, and that building was there when I moved here. They've redone their emergency. They didn't they didn't buy it. They didn't buy it. Correct. Kerry They bought it. Yeah They didn't buy it. They didn't buy it. Okay. That's all I'm saying. But well I know they did spend $40 million on the emergency room. It is new. Moral is moral is right that the six story building was built by the original Tarpon Springs hospital Foundation. Okay. That were good guys in the community that turned. Maybe they got a little twisted. But still, they built the building and they issued $30 million worth of revenue bonds because I was the chairman of the Health Facilities Authority that monitored those bonds. And the $30 million went towards the six story building that was built. And Jimmy was on the authority with me, as well as Doctor Francis and George, who's now deceased, and one other guy that I can't remember, but the $30 million built the building. I don't want to inaccurate. That's why we don't either, John. But but it's your four minutes. Are you got, like, 30s left all right, just for the record, Joh, when we did this five years ago, I questioned the previous leader of the hospital when he was going to change those windows in the building because they didn't make they didn't meet Hurricane qualifications. And he looked at me and said, yeah, yeah, yeah, we promise to do that. We'll get around to it. They never got around to it. They never owned that building. It's not safe. They moved patients out of that hospital. When? A few years back when we thought they was going to be a bad hurricane coming. So okay. When I recommend we have a we have a motion on the table right now, Andy, do you feel like you can summarize? Poor gu. The, changes are going to be first proposed amendment to section 33 of the city charter to update, the lessees name of the city owned hospital and land the Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation and then under the actual section where it says Advent Health, AdventHealth Advent Health will be changed to Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. and, from that top sentence, the Board of Commissioners shall require in all leases of city owned property leased by. Leased but leased. Leased by the hospital Foundation. Leased by the. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That that that jives with what I've got that. I think it makes that change. Makes it pretty clear. Right. The lease to make sure we're leasing both the land. Yeah And the building. Well, I mean, one thing that if you look at the second advent thing on a I guess or. No. Yeah. A where it says North Pinellas and its successors and assigns may not unilaterally amend its articles of incorporation without the ratification of the city. That ought to tell you who owns the place. Well, and I suspect it may be in the lease broken down somehow, but there probably are like the new emergency room that they spent $40 million on. They probably do own it still reverts at the end of the lease, but but I suspect as John said, it's on their balance sheet. But by saying the city owned. Yeah building and land that breaks out if it's clearly marked that that emergency room isn't city owned, then it the wording still works. Yeah. I mean I mean, at the end of the day, I'm not really worried about we added the city owned land and building the city doesn't own the building. City owns a building. But let's just assume for argument's sake that they don't build said city owned land and building. If you don't own it, it's irrelevant. It doesn't mess up. Yeah, the charter said I would in general, if you are leasing a building and you make a permanent attachment to the wall, it's part of the that's the building right. And the emergency room is a permanent attachment to the wall. The lobby is a permanent attachment to the wall. It's part of the somebody else's own building at this point. But, you know, they made an investment because they needed it to do business. That's right. They needed it to satisfy their patient needs. And the, the, the cost over whatever length of the leases I have. I mean, this is yeah, this is this is a long term thing. It's anyway, so can we have a, we can we have our, confirm that the motion that was made reflects what, our city attorney just stated. So moved. Second. Second. All right, any further comments? Michelle, would you call the vote, please? Doctor Boukouvalas? Yes, Miss Jennings? Yes. Mr. Seaman. Yes, Mister. Chair. Penny. Yes, vice chair. Colonies. Yes, chair. Yes Okay. Let's see now. So we've got that. That this changed. All right. Yeah All right. Do we have any other changes or things to discuss on page four? No. No. Page five. And this is where we're going to now add paragrap. I for the land swap. Change Mr. page. Okay. On page five, right above where it says section three. Yeah yeah, yeah. We're going to add a paragraph. I And we're still going to buy the dredge and spoil sites without a referendum. I'm sorry, I said we're still going to buy the dredge and spoil sites without a referendum, no. We are domain. Yeah, that's what I said. Without a referendum. Yeah. Just for the record, I'm not for tha, but. Yeah. Yes Are there any other comments on page five? Looking at this one? Okay. Page six. This brings in, Mr. Koskotas recommended change that's on the screen right now. Yeah. The blue is his change, right? Right. Yeah So are we in agreement with that? I, too, read the result of the effects of population growth. Comma Environmental changes and impacts, comma. Including the introduction of invasive specie. Comma. The city of Tarpon Springs. Oh, you can see it better up there. I'm sorry. The yellow is a part that I did not put in, that you had originally discussed from the memo I created, so I added that to establish this from what I was expecting to see was we've got a paragraph for the comprehensive plan. We have a paragraph for the strategic plan. I was expecting to see a paragraph for the sustainability plan, a separate paragraph. That's what I was expecting, I think. I yeah, this doesn't really work for me. It's two different topics. I think it should be separate, separate paragraph. For. Mary was was what you're proposing in this memo? Yes. But it's not worded as nicely as I probably should have. I just point out the fact that what was there was not what I expected. I didn't tell him how to change it because I thought that it was worth a conversation here. Okay. The language that you originally adopted this, this is yellow. The yellow. But that. So, Kerry, that is a separate paragraph. Right. Well, not right now, it would need to have after the yellow. It would that when it goes to review and update the comprehensive plan, that's where a paragraph should be added. So if you want I to be where the blue and the yellow is and the rest of the underline to be a J and then renumber all the way down. Yeah. Where it says to review make that so a new paragraph, I would move that we make a. Who's got the cursor, can you scroll back up to where it's blue and yellow. So we thank you. Yeah. John's making a point right now a motion. So I would move that the blue and yellow on the screen be paragraph I. And where it starts the white underline to review and update the comprehensive plan. Be the new paragraph J. And then renumber the following paragraphs as needed. Or read the second. Any further discussion? So the second paragraph is going to be J j. And then we're going to change all these others. Yes. Any further comment? Can we call the vote please? Yes, miss Jennings, yes, Mr. Seaman? Yes. Mr. Penny. Yes. Vice Chair Bolanos. Yes Chair. Ruth. Yes, do we have, any other comments on page six? Moving on to page seven. Moving on to page eight. 2021 be changed 2020, which is beginning fiscal year 2021. Oh, that's under R, it's under three on the top. Hasn't been done yet. And if we change it to 2026 it starts the clock over then. Yeah, I think. Okay I wouldn't change it. Yeah. You don't want to change that right now okay. No I wouldn't think. I wouldn't think so. Is Corps of Engineers with an S at the end? Yes The corpse? Yes Yes, I believe it has an S at the end. It does not engineers not here. Mine's got an S. The corps doesn't though. Corps. The corps doesn't. Where's your where do you. Know Corps. Let him finish discussing corpses. Okay. We're going to add an S to course. Then, I think let's look it up, I think. Did you notice that it does have a scrivener's error? Andy, I'm looking at it now. I just looked it up. It is a crops corpse. Okay. All right. Your comment now under three of page eight, I, I thought when we discussed this, we talked about having language that the city had to maintain the cuts, meaning they're responsible for the cleaning of the sand or what have you. That's not the main channel that the feds are responsible for. It's under. But this says the city shall maintain a navigation chart of the local channels and cuts. It doesn't say they're going to. What about on page seven, Jimmy? Page seven. Yeah. You guys are messing with me now, that's the last paragraph on page seven. Does that cover it? Yeah. The prior paragraph two says that. It says recreational boating access to and between Anclote River estuaries and city bayous shall be provided by maintaining a safe navigational depth, as determined by the city, state regulatory agencies and the. The Corps of Engineers. As the cities historically established by local channels and paths appreciate it. All right, page eight. Yes. Page eight. We're on page eight. Okay. So, section 11, I think we almost got it right. No, it's not, as I said, almost. What do you think is wrong, Andy? There's not a stat. Well, I was talking a little more than grammar, but. Well, you can fix the grammar in the qualifying period. It's 30 days prior to. Whatever the code is, it's really now it's really our time period. The code has a time for qualifying under 213. It says no person may qualify as a candidate in accordance with section 212. Prior to the 112 day preceding the next city election. Well, that was in the paragraph above. It Yeah, but I'm trying to you wanted to add the qualifying time and we're trying to figure out how to what to relate that to, to get the 30 days. Well, but I had other like we left some language was left out that we agreed upon, which was that the, the notice also, Tells what seats and are they eligible? Who holds the seat? Which who holds the seat? The notice should say who holds the seat? And are they eligible to run again in the in the notice of the election? They're not eligible. You mean if they're eligible to run past that seat? Well, you get two, you get two two terms. So if they're in their first term, they haven't. They're eligible to run for a second term. And if they're in their second term, they're not eligible. And then, to be an open seat. Yeah Thanks. Good. Doc okay. So there's no you're right Michel. John, there's three sentences. Each one has kind of a very specific focus. So but that was a group we agreed upon the second sentence. You're saying that shall be the notice. A notice indicating who holds the seat and if they are eligible for reelection, right. But, shall be sent to all city registered voters 30 days prior the qualifying period. ET cetera. Oh, I'm sorry. The indicating who should go after the commission seats open for election. Indicating who holds a seat and if they are eligible. Okay, so that's the third sentence is okay, what's the starts the third. And the information shall be posted on the city's social media website and announced it should be the information shall also be posted just the word also. Okay And how about the first? The first sentence is now where the question is when do we need to say what the qualifying time is? Every election just say 30 days prior to the qualifying period? Yeah. 30 days prior to the qualifying period. Not the not a date or anything 30 days prior to the qualifying period. That's on the first sentence. That's underlined. Okay. You understand that that's going to change every time. So okay, what's going to change? Well, that's something that the city clerk will manage. What's going to change. It's not something the charter has to manage. Qualifying. Yeah. The date is it is the language. It's language. It's the. That's why we have the code section. Right. Well the trouble Andy, was that that that it was changed by a city manager and a commission back in ancient history. So I don't think that the notice of the elections of the, of the, of the city commissioners, I think, are so important that we don't want the people to be able just to change it, like an ordinance change. And you're right, we changed like an ordinance. So we need to make the ordinance consistent with if this charter change passes, then you have to make it consistent. The ordinance would be, yeah, I agree. And I talked about this. Would we change the ordinance to conform to whatever the charter changes? Okay. So we're happy with the charter change suggestion for the first sentence. Qualifying time for the office of the City Commissioner shall be 30 days prior to the qualifying period. The state qualifying period? No, just just state is removed. Okay. Am I the only one that's still confused by that? The qualifying time is prior to the qualifying time. Qualifying time? Yes City Commissioner shall be 30 days prior to qualifying period. There's a qualifying period that changes every election, so that's different from the qualifying time, right? Okay I don't think anyone's going to understand that. So the qualifying period is pretty easy. And for the March elections people are going to say, what's the difference between Thanksgiving? I know, but people are going to read this and say, what's the difference between the qualifying time and the qualifying period? Well, the people that. Care people who pay attention, they're the ones they're the only ones that really care. One one says, we're going to let you know when there's an election coming. The other is, I'm running. I mean, that is what John's saying. It's true. It's what we're doing. Yeah. Well, what is telling you? It's just the wording is awkward, but it is. But honestl, what happens is somebody is running for office, comes in and talks to the city clerk, and they tell them you have to do it by this date. So I'm not worried about somebody knowing. But the problem, Andy was in a lot of elections in this town since there was no notice and such eight days to qualify that that it people, people got elected. Nobody knew there was even an election. No And I know the idea that you're trying to do is broaden the knowledge, be more specific as to what positions are open, what what people are currently running for, whether it's one term and maximum of two terms, I get it. And notification. Obviously, there needs to be more notification. Yeah, no, I think that makes sense. So we're making two changes here. In the first sentence, we're removing state and the second sentence we're adding to the end indicating who holds the seat. And if they are eligible for reelection. And then we're doing a third is the third sentence. Also post also shall also. And then we're adding also to the third sentence. Yes, I guess I need a motion for that. So moved. Second, any further discussion? Michelle, would you call the vote on that? Yes. Miss Jennings yes. Yes. Mr. Campaigning. Yes yes yes yes, John five minutes. Oh, yeah. Let's take a five minute break. Be back here at 20 after. I did that for Mike. In his honor. Yeah, yeah. Yes. It is crazy. I'm so used to freezing. Are we halfway? The charter review commission. All right. We were on page eight. I think we've taken care of section 11, sub paragraph a. Are there any other changes to this page? Yeah. Well, and the Scrivener. Okay. Moving on to page nine. I think, paragraph D could use some discussion after what happened recently. Paragraph D yeah. About You know, replacing people who have left office. Can you clarify that already has a different opinion. Okay Basically there are two ways to fill the position. One way to fill the position is you take a current, member of the board and select that person to fill the position. They fill the remainder of that term. They are then they vacated their position, and that position needs to be filled the same way, which is within 60 days. Someone needs to be selected. If you don't do it within 60 days. We contact the governor and the governor appoints the interesting thing I think about this section, and I give whoever drafted this, whether we want to be all, a lot of credit, is that it doesn't count towards the person's two term, which I think this is an area that could have been very confusing for my city, so you're filling the person's position, but it doesn't affect your ability should you decide to run for that position. I so my question then would be if you have a commissioner that's in his second term and he's appointed to fill, let's say, the mayor's spot, does that mean he can run again? For two more full terms because right now you can't. He's in his second term and he fills in at the end of that. He can't run again because he can only hold two. So in other words, he can't run again. He can't he can't if he's if he can't he's if he's at the end of his he's in his second term. In his second term and he and he fills in for him. Right. That's what he he fills in right. For three months. He can come back and get two more years, okay. If he's if he's in his first term, his, his his first term. Yeah he can. And he fills he he still gets another whole term. He gets another. He gets a let's say one of the commissioners is deciding to run for mayor. And that person, if they're serving for the seven months that are remaining, doesn't count against their ability to run. As long as he's had a term coming to him. Yes. If that person, though, going is in their second term and they they took a position as is mayor temporarily and then an election was held before the end of their term. They can't go back to their old position. Obviously So they're so they're just done at that point. They're done. Yeah. Now the other way of doing this, which is probably the cleaner way of doing it, is actually what was done before, which is to appoint somebody from the outside that was in that position, and then they fill the remaining seven months of, can you turn your microphone? Oh okay. So it fills the remaining seven months that they have. And then everybody, whatever the normal election cycle is going to happen as far as the language you think it's well written. I think it was, I think this is a very hard section, and I think the language was well written and I like the idea that it addressed the issue of subsequent terms and whether it counts for your subsequent terms. I like that I thought that was good foresight by the charter revision Commission, which maybe you guys did. I don't know. Was there another question that you wanted to have addressed by? No, I just I think what Andy said is very valuable. I think he cleared up a lot. And the other issue, honestly, if we ran into a problem with this, we would go to the attorney General's office. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anything else on that section, section E, paragraph D yeah. Where it says any mayor or commissioner who shall, shall struck miss two regular meetings in succession shall be deemed. Why did he strike out. Shall. Because I looked it up grammatically. Okay. It's the grammar police has struck. Put it in. I figured I can't let something slide if it's. Well, shouldn't it be Mrs. Then who misses two regular meetings? No because it's a it's an orb. So it's reflecting an individual. He misses two regular meetings kind of tough. Kind of tough. If you're not liked by the board of commissioners. Yeah. You're done. You're done. And that goes to the right. It's worked this way for a long time. Has it been in there a while, Jimmy? Yeah yeah, it's always fun. It should say misses. I would say misses because it's. Or you just leave the shower when I put it. I amen to that. When you said misses initially I thought Mr. Misses. I know who misses too. Regular meetings. It's actually tough. You know, sometimes people regular, but it's regular meetings. So we have a special meeting that doesn't count. I don't think a budget meeting counts. Workshop doesn't count. So this can't be gone for more than a couple of weeks on a normal cycle. And then on 12, carry the zoning powers. Andy, why did we strike out, or did you strike out special exceptions, we had this discussion. Let's see. Because we said it the way it reads now is to hear and decide appeals solely from administrative staff decisions for special exceptions. We're not limiting. We don't want to limit it. Okay? So it's not taking a power away from them. It's you're not taking power away from the board of Adjustment. You're adding you're adding it okay. All right. That's fine. Okay I'm good. Okay. Are we ready to move on? We're done with nine. On to page ten. I have a question on 13. We have a we have a city manager. We have a city manager form of government. Why would we want the elected officials interfering? I don't understand why we're taking that language out. Maybe I missed something. Well, on seven eight, there was a discussion and we wait a minute. On 513. That was way back. We made a decision to remove that last sentence. Yeah, I just, maybe I was asleep that day or something, but I think that's just in total conflict with a city manager form of government. Well, I think it's redundant because if you go and you it says that the board of commissioners or members individually, shall deal with city officers and employees solely through the charter officially supervises that city officer employee. Where do you see that carry where do you see that? That's that's the first sentence. I think that's what yeah, I think it was redundant. That's why that's that's why that's why we did that. Right. Okay. Yeah. So it doesn't we're not changing it to where the commissioners can interfere with the city managers. No, no, we're encouraging them. Them telling them if they want to do something they got to they have to go through him. Okay Okay. That's. Are there any other questions on page ten. Over here I read where when the city internal auditor finds a proble. That's probably on page 11. It's on 11 Jimmy I, I think is what you're looking for that we haven't gotten there yet. I don't read ahead. I'm in a hurry to. Okay. Are we done on page ten? All right, let's go to page 11. Yeah. And it is here I see. No, no one on there. I think in I there probably should say before being provided to the Board of Commissioners. I agree with tha. Yeah. Report of all finding or noncompliance issues to the city manager and the city attorney to review before being provided, or I have meant to after end or before providing them to the either one. Yeah. Either way, yeah. One or the other. Okay. And I have a question about exempting personnel issues. Is that or is that where. No, it's in my notes. Who did we vote on that. Well we discussed how personnel issues should be dealt with. And that's why adding the city attorney was added. There so that those that could be discussed by the city manager and city attorney and directed, you know, the feedback. Well. Also, they could determine if there's a personnel issue that shouldn't be exposed publicly. I mean, they could make that decision. Jim Yeah. That way it won't be a big thing on the Tuesday night. It shouldn't have been said. Right, right. I've heard that somewhere. It was a good change. On the number three the, the very last sentence the assistant city manager will serve as the acting city manager. When the city in the city manager's absence reduced sentence. The very last sentence on the page. Any city manager shall serve as the acting city manager. In the city manager's absence. Yeah. I think the reason why I didn't put that. Because there's a section that talks about when you would have an acting city manager. In other words, when the city manager is absent. Yeah. I think so. Do we need to repeat that here for clarity. For my simple brain it would help. I mean it's a good commen. Let me just would it hurt to be redundant on that Andy. So somebody reading this for the first time without looking at the whole charter, they say, oh yeah, it's the city manager. That's why I didn't put that whole section in there. That's why I just want to look at it real quick. Okay. So what it says is under Acting City manager, the city manager shall designated writing, subject to approval of the board of Commissioners, the qualified city administrative officer to exercise the powers and perform the duties of city manager during any temporary absence or disability. Now, remember this section is literally right in front. It's section two, so it's right above the assistant City Manager section. That's why I didn't put it in there. But whatever. I'm happy. Can you just move that section into this document? No, no okay. I have a non related question. Is that ordinance terminology to have section numbers or section numbers. Yes. That's really confusing. But I appreciate that you did the bolding to indicate that that's how you do a, any section in an ordinance. Okay Shall I, so you'll know that they're different, right? They're different issues that are being discussed. Okay. So Andy, that you just what you just read where where is that? It's in section two, which is literally right in front of that section. But this is section eight. So how could it be right in front of it. It's section. You're looking at section eight, I misspeaking section 16 is what you're looking for. Yeah. Okay Section 16 has a one, a two and a three. I did not include I don't include sections that are not okay. Part of the changes here. Right. So section two spells out everything about the acting city manager. Okay. Can I ask a grammatical question, point G prioritizing future capital improvement programs and making such recommendations to the board. I think it's right. I don't think it should be prioritized. Not prioritized. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And if something was wrong there. Yeah. You know why I didn't put prioritize and say keep the board of Commissioners fully advised that the financial condition and future needs of the city. Oh prioritizing future capital improvement programs because that's part of what they're actually doing versus then it then it needs a comma after the clause. Yeah you're right. Okay. And then then mistake is then make is correct. Yeah. Yeah. So you want to leave because I had looked at that a couple. This is yeah prioritizing stays in correct. Yes. It is. There's a comma after programs and then make remains make under. That's correct. Step okay. Okay. Any other comments on page 11. Under page 12 when you get to 12 can I address it before we go any further? Yes. Section 12 page 12. All right. This was a little complicated. You guys spent a lot of time. You came up with some really good suggestions on this. However I screwed up a little on my writing. Let me see if I understand correctly what everybody wants to do. The first paragraph I added, which is, I think the simple one that was saying that we're going to make the city manager, assistant city manager, fire chief and police chief within the boundary limits that you created. That's not a problem. The second paragraph is a bit of a problem. I wrote it the way you discussed it, but I did talk to the city manager about this, and I think he had a very good point. He was suggesting that instead of all department heads and directors, that we go back up to the first paragraph and take anybody that wasn't specifically put in the second paragraph and list them in the third paragraph. So instead of saying all department heads and directors, we would say City clerk, Administrative Services director, Public services director, development director and planning and zoning director are required to live within ten miles of the Tarpon Springs City Hall. I think it's because all directors do not need to be within ten. I don't that that's the city manager's point of view, but that wasn't the point of view of. No, no, I'm I'm I'm just saying what I think the concern was. Yeah, again, was hiring and finding people that are qualified. We gave quite a bit. But the one mistake that I see is the last sentence. Yes, that it should be. It should be within the ten mile radius instead of city planning boundary. I screwed that one up. I know, no problem. That one I will fix. Okay. The other thing too is I'm happy with it. As soon as we put more positions in here in an org chart change happens. Well, you are correct, but I guess the point that he was making and I'll be his advocate for this, is that those positions that are mentioned are the are mainstay positions that are necessary and required, right. That's why we listed them to begin with. In the charter. You thought of those positions as being the positions that are needed to be close to the city. Okay. I'm happy the way it's written. Well, then maybe you this might be facilitated by taking your first paragraph and kind of working it into the first paragraph here to just mention those. Your second sentence in that paragraph should maybe come at the end of it, and then we aren't mentioning all those other positions, and then we can just say all department heads and director and go ahead with your second paragraph. But that's what he's objecting to. That's what he's objecting to. He doesn't want all department heads and directors. He wants to limit only those. I think needed positions to be with. So you have your your super group that has to be within the city, righ? Your next group that is needed needs to be within ten miles of the city. And the rest of them do not. Is what the city manager? Well then put those down there. Oh, but John. I think that it conveys the reflection of exactly what we agreed to after a couple hours of discussion. So I would move that that say like it is, with the exception of changing it the last sentence to ten mile radiu, and it reflects what we talked about. And if it's not right, they can fix it in five years. They can. What happens in five years? I just say leave it alone. The second one does say ten miles. What was that? No, no, no, at the very end, the very, very end of the second paragraph. Okay. It should have said ten miles must reside within the ten mile. I think Andy caught it just how we ask for it to be caught. So I'm. Yeah, I would, I would agree. Other than that it's what we intended. I think. Right. And I'm happy with it. Now I agree with John. I mean, we spent a lot of time on this. Okay. And if you know the really to really to consider it, we would have to have a list. You know, he was saying the list is he wanted it to be this specific list that it's in the top. The first paragraph and it's not included in the second paragraph. So that's why I was saying he was recommending City Clerk, administrative Services director, public services director, development director, planning and zoning director, and they just changed what happens when they change the names. You know, they just change the name in the org chart. That's how you get around that. So I, I think you did a nice job writing that. Thank you. I don't want to stay. We're staying the course with the exception of that ten mile update okay. And that was just that was my mistake. Okay. Does anyone else have a change or a statement on 12? I'm running out of pages here. I really thought we were going to be here until 5:00 today. We hate to disappoint you. Well, in on 13, we've already addressed the issues. Well, I haven't gotten there yet. Okay, don't jump the gun. I'll have to gavel you. All right? Oh, God. I'll be the first. Page 13. We address these issues, and I'm going to add the language. The sidewalk. Oh, I have a thing. If we're taking out that the monthly financials were made available in the office of the city clerk and the collector and quarterly financials made a report, where do people see them? How do they know where to look for them? On the. Word striking out the monthly financial statements. Do we put those on the online. They're online automatically online. As long as that's in the office no one's ever come withi. Then my only thing is, if we're taking it out where they're where they're not going to be, we should at least tell people where they will be right? I mean, when I'm looking for something and I do frequently, I just go to that section where all the documents are listed and I look in there, you're a little more sophisticated than the average bear, though, when it comes to city government. Yeah, but you can't put everything in here that they might know. We're taking something out. We could. It just said, I don't care. I just it just hit me that we're taking it out to where they, where they you can find these financial statements because it was already in there. It was already in there, Tina, that here's where you can find the financial statements. And now we're taking it out, but we're not telling them where you can get them. No, I just don't really feel like it needs to be there. I think I think, I think it's pretty common not just for the city, but for a lot of places that these things are available and you just look around the site. Okay. Well, I agree with Tina. That is what everything is done now online. Okay. Well, you know, to borrow my thought, we had a statement we added about having things available electronically. So I'm kind of being pulled back from John's perspective. Well I'm looking for that because everything I mean, there is a requirement now to put everything online right. Oh there. That's right. There was there's already a requirement. That's why we didn't specifically put that in here. The only time something isn't put online, frankly, is if we get a situation where it's difficult to meet, some kind of Ada requirements. That's the only time we don't because sometimes it's, it's financially impossible. Well I don't think it would be hurting anything if we left monthly financial statements shall be made available via the city website. That's what you're asking for. Whatever you want it. If it helps somebody leave it in there. Right. Yeah Yeah it does. No it's not I mean, it's a new it's a new sentence. We don't say it. I mean, I just think I would certainly go to the website before I went looking through the city charter to figure out where things are. I mean, I got to tell you, that is Norm. And I agree, the norm is that everything is online now and frankly, the other thing is people will contact the city clerk's office and say, I'd like to know where such and such is. And the city clerk who is also, the public records custodian, has an obligation to tell them where they are or provide it to them. Right Okay. I'm a I'm a don't care. Do we want to voice. We don't care. It's not a hill worth dying on. But you're you know, leave it deleted. This is not something you want to die over. Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah. All right. We'll leave it as it is. Okay now, just for clarification, on section 26 was about the sidewalks. Yes, we're going to add the sidewalk improvement plan. The city is responsible for adding a sidewalk improvement plan. What we're going to do is by 2029, and that the city to budget a minimum of 100,000, to withdraw up to 300 K from the fund, to be spent during the according to the terms of the charter. Where are you? It's section 26. It's not on there. Yeah Where it says, section 11 in yellow. Yeah. Okay. I didn't hear the I didn't read the language you were saying. That's okay. No. Well it's not there. That's the problem. Right. It got omitted. So we're we're not gonna put it back. We're. Yeah. We're saying put it back. Yeah. Can you say again the points. Okay. There's two points. One is that the city is to budget a minimum of $100,000 for sidewalks in order to be able to withdraw up to 300,000 from the fund to be spent, according to the terms of that section. The second thing is the city is required to create a sidewalk improvement plan by 2029. Yeah Okay. Okay. Moving on from that section. Is there anything else on page 13? We decided not to do a special section for sustainability. Correct? Right. We added the sustainability plan okay. With the other plans. Right Okay. Page 14. We've already discussed section 14. Right Which is the city hospital. Right. So all references to AdventHealth North Pinellas are deleted. So we don't need to talk about that again because we already covered it. I'm sorry. We don't need to talk about that again because we already covered it. So what you're saying. Yeah, we've already discussed that. And the question is, is anything else on this page? Meeting discussion. This is another page. Yeah. Okay. Let's take just a minute and talk about next steps. We have two sections that should probably be reviewed. One is, the rewrite for the section 26 on sidewalks, since we have not seen it, and the second is the review update to section 33. In the Whereases and charter language, which is the hospital we want. If we want to make sure we're all happy with that, I'd like to see the lease and see the lease. If we could get a copy of that, that's fine, Michelle, do you have access to the lease? Can you email that out to all of us? Okay. No, you could pull it up and project it. Is there. No. Okay. Thank you. Sorry Now, as far as, our schedule, this needs to be briefed on Tuesday to the Board of Commissioners that means on Thursday, the packages have to be ready to go to the commissioners. That means the last time we can see this is on Wednesday sometime. And I know that Joan and I have a board meeting that starts over at leepa-rattner at 3:00. Right Yes. So don't take long. Right to just it's. Yeah. Well I sometimes I think this will be a 15 minute meeting too. And it goes three hours. So about 1 to 230. What's that 1 to 230 on Wednesday, I know that we can do it 9 to 12. I don't know about when. Wednesday. If we can start early. Michelle, do you have that information? I just don't remember what I read because I asked. I asked Irene to tell us what times were available. And then when is Mr. Saltzman available? That's the other big question. It's this room. It's when Michelle is available and when Mr. Saltzman is available. And then it's when the availability of this room and for it to be, recorded is Wednesday the 28th of Thursday. Either 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. Looks like it's open Wednesday between 9 and 12. Wednesday morning. Can we make it? Is everybody available? I have a meeting probably from 830 to 10. I could see about maybe starting if we could start earlier or something. I have a doctor's appointment at 1030, but it's just to check. On Thursday I can't do Thursday. No, I'd rather not be up against when this has got to go to the board. I'd like to give Mr. Saltzman a little breathing room to have the package ready. I'd really like to get this done on Wednesday. I mean, it has to be Wednesday. Yeah, it has to be Wednesday, Michelle, how early can we get in here? I should say Wednesday afternoon. Afternoon? Yeah. Can we could we start at, like, 12 or 1230 or something like that? You had a meeting? I thought that's Wednesday morning. Morning. You can do Wednesday morning. All right. So Wednesday morning, you know, this can be quick or not. I mean, if we get eight people in for public comments, there's no control over it. How about how about 10 to 12? 10 to 12. What? I can change my doctor's appointment and the 12, 10 to 12. Okay. That we'll do that. And Michelle, can you put, comments after, our review. So if we do have people coming and wanting to talk, we can get our business done first. Okay. All right. I'm going to just that concludes our, draft charter ordinance section, board and staff comments. I will start with, Mr. Saltzman, I'm going to try to get it to you tomorrow morning. That would be awesome. So if everybody reviews it and they're all happy faces, we'll be here for five minutes. Right Oh, wishful thinking Michelle. No comments, Mr. Chair. Nothing. Mr. Simmons all good. Mr. I'm good. I have to change a doctor's appointment, but that will be easy. Doctor Boukouvalas no, no, Miss Jennings. Yeah yeah, I'm. I'm okay. All right. Well, I'm going to be a little longer, but I'll speak really fast. First off, y'all have been outstanding to work with. I really appreciate your insights. Your experience. I think we're giving the Board of commissioners a very good package to review. That's very been very, very well considered. So I want to thank you all. I also thank you for all the prep work you all have done to make sure that these meetings move, move smoothly, the second thing I wanted to bring up there was I heard through the grapevine some criticism that we had not considered the emails that had come through, to the sport. So I wanted to summarize those that I have seen, that we all have seen and that we have considered as a part of this work. Just so it's on record, we have a email on 510 from Commissioner Coleus. That was a summary of the topics that he was going to discuss. We had an email on 526 from former mayor Viceland on the terms for elected officials. We got an email on 623 from Denise Menino, who is the sustainability advisory Committee chair on sustainability. Background and their MOU. We had an email on seven five for Sharon Landrum on building height restrictions. We had an email on seven nine from Liz Lindsey, citizen Bill of rights, with a response from Mr. Kiger versus via miss Jacobs. We had an email on 712 from Thomas Kiger, public services director on the sustainability plan. We had an email on 717 from Jax Burke and others who represent the preserve Tarpon group on building height restrictions. We had an email on, 718 from Denise Menino on who's the Sustainability Advisory Committee chair on whether or not to put the sustainability into the charter, and we had an email from Mr. Trapani was that yesterday? Today, I don't know what the date was. I didn't write it down. Okay. Yesterday, regarding swapping of public land, so we saw these, we considered them. We read them, they went to all of us. And that is the set we considered. Thank you very much, I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Look at that for 4:00. There we go.