City Council on 2026-07-16 6:00 PM - Jul 16, 2026

At this time, we'll call to order the July 16, 2026 meeting of the Clearwater City Council. If you wish to address the council tonight, please complete a comment card. Comment cards are located by the clerk seated at the rye in the dais. When called to speak, please hand your card to the clerk. At this time, we'll move to item two on the agenda, and that's our invocation. Please stand for the invitation tonight to be given by myself. I'll remain seated so that you can hear me on the microphone and then ask you all to remain standing afterwards so that we can have the Pledge of Allegiance. So if anyone would please bow their heads in respect. Our Father, we are grateful tonight. We pray for our gratitude for the opportunity that we have as elected officials to serve this great community and these great citizens. We ask for your wisdom tonight and your discernment as we consider difficult questions and difficult issues. We ask for humility and grace to be shown by all as they hear opinions and perspectives that may differ from their own. We pray that you give us the ability to respect others' decisions and their opinions and the words that they may say, and that we engage this meeting and we conduct this meeting with respect for others. We also ask that you continue to bless our city. This city has been so blessed in so many ways, and we ask that you continue to bless our city. And finally, we ask that we pray for the safety of all of our first responders here in this city, those that are in the room tonight and those that are out in the community serving as we speak. We pray for their safety and the safety of their families as they serve not just us, but they serve all the citizens of Clearwater. And all this we ask in your name. Amen. I pledge the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Before we go further in tonight's meeting, I'd like to introduce our dais. To my far left is our deputy city clerk, Nicole Sprague. To her right is our city clerk, Rosemary Paul. Good evening. To her right is our interim city attorney, Owen Kohler. Good evening. To his right is Council Member Alina Tashada. Hello. To her right is Vice Mayor Ryan Cotton. Good evening. To my right is Council Member Mike Menino. Good evening. To his right, Council Member David Albritton. Good evening. To his right, our city manager, Jennifer Poirier. To her right, our assistant city manager, Dan Slaughter. And to his right, assistant city manager, Al Battle. With that, we'll move to item four on the agenda, and that is the approval of the amendment. Approve the minutes of the June 18, 2026 city council meeting. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Moved approval of minutes. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. We now move to item five on the agenda, and that's our consent agenda. Are there any items to be removed from tonight's consent? Hearing that, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. It's time to move to item 6.1 on the agenda. So, council item 6.1. The item four council is to approve a 30-year franchise agreement with Duke Energy Florida LLC for the purpose of providing electric and power services in the city of Clearwater. Pass ordinance 9929-26 on the first reading. In December of 1995, the city entered into a 30-year franchise agreement with Florida Power, and in years that follow, Duke acquired Florida Power. Duke has been providing local electricity service since then. Now, as the 30-year franchise agreement reaches to conclusion, the city evaluated its financial and operational feasibility of the city distributing electricity directly to customers, which is similar to how the city does it for its water and sewer utility and the Clearwater gas system. In 2024, the city hired Nugent to prepare a feasibility study. In September of 2025, Nugent presented that feasibility study to council, and council approved the voted to move forward with an appraisal, and the city has received an appraisal, and they received it in June of this year. Now, since the expiration of the franchise agreement, Duke and the city of Clearwater have been operating on a month-to-month basis. At the same time, the city staff and Duke have engaged in negotiations for a new franchise agreement. So, under the proposed franchise agreement, Duke will continue to construct, operate, and maintain its electric utility facilities to the city and its residents. The new franchise period is for a new 30-year term. The city will continue to receive the 6% franchise fee. Now, Chapter 32 of our Code of Ordinances requires that a franchise agreement be approved via ordinance. Now, in addition to the franchise agreement, the city and Duke will enter into a memorandum of agreement. Now, the memorandum of agreement is not before council today. It's just to be discussed. The first reading of the franchise agreement is. Now, as it relates to the memorandum of agreement, it's for a same 30-year term, and I'm going to read a list of investments by Duke and benefits to the city of Clearwater and its residents. So, as part of the memorandum, the parties will agree to create a vision community action plan, which will be paid at Duke's expense, and Duke will provide ongoing economic development support and furtherance of the plan. It amounts of $20,000 annually for the first five years of the memorandum. There will also be a creation of a downtown retail development strategy. There will be funding for that strategy through five installments of $30,000, followed by site readiness review. There will be assistance with the city's increased infrastructure resiliency goals, and in further support of that, there will be donations of $100,000 for six consecutive years. There will be site readiness evaluations of city-designated downtown areas and the Hercules Industrial Park. The agreement will also provide for five annual installments of $20,000 in economic development funding for the North Greenwood CRA. There will be the completion of construction of a loop electrical feed for the city police headquarters. Duke will donate $10,000 annually for the first 20 years of this memorandum for the city's beautification efforts. The Duke and city will draft and execute a 20-year naming rights sponsorship agreement for Coachman Park improvements to include shade structures, with Duke contributing $30,000 annually. Duke will provide annual GIS updates. Also, the city will be allowed the continued use of property adjacent to the Clearwater Beach Restoration Center and the library at 2191 Soul Road, and also allow parking on the Duke's right-of-way at the Carpenter Complex and a daycare ballpark. There will be a vegetation management plan, and then the Duke agrees to appear annually at regularly scheduled council meetings to provide information on resiliency plans within the city. And I believe that concludes at least my portion of the presentation. Should we go ahead and do a reading now? Just go ahead and set that. Ordinance number 9929-26, an ordinance granting to Duke Energy Florida, LLC, doing business, Duke Energy, non-exclusive electric utility franchise to occupy municipal streets and rights-of-ways in the city of Clearwater, Florida, for the purpose of providing electric and power services, prescribing the terms and conditions accompanying the grant of franchise, providing for severability of provisions, and providing an effective date. At this time, is there anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this agenda? Yeah, so I have some cards, Mayor. You have the cards, yeah. Thank you. First one, I have Brian Onks, Jr. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. Brian Onks, 625 Court Street, here on behalf of Duke Energy Florida. So the second part of the dynamic duo of Cole and Onks. You heard from Katie at the work session, along with Melissa Satius, Duke Energy Florida president, who was honored to give you a presentation on what we hope is an outstanding improvement to a relationship that's based on your leadership, based on your due diligence, on your investigation, on your time, on your energy, on the staff's energy, on your outside experts' energy and diligence, on what is the city's options now that we're renewing, or at a point where you have the opportunity to renew a franchise agreement. This isn't about renewing a franchise agreement. It's about renewing and reaffirming a relationship, a relationship with Duke Energy, which is simply getting better for the citizens of Clearwater, who are our customers and who are your citizens and your constituents. And you had them at the forefront of this entire process, and I think that's why you see amongst Clearwater residents broad support for the renewal of this improved agreement with all of the benefits that you've already heard from the city attorney and that you've all discussed and you've all brought different things to the table from downtown revitalization, utilization of Coachman Park, improvements of critical city infrastructure, on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment that Duke Energy has already done and will continue to do, to be at the very, very, very top level of customer service and of citizen service and levels of service, as they have been, that competes with anyone across the nation. So here, really, tonight, we're here to say thank you for your consideration. We hope that you will agree with your outside experts that renewing this agreement is something that is a good option for you to do tonight, and it's only gotten better and improved with your leadership and all of the effort and time that you've put into this two-year process, and the city manager and her outstanding team, who've been there every step of the way, evaluating all of these critical choices. Ms. Satious is here again tonight. We do have that PowerPoint. If you want us to go back through it at any point in the evening, we're here to answer any questions that you have. But we're here really mostly on behalf of the Duke Energy team, our citizens of Clearwater who happen to work for Duke Energy and live in the city of Clearwater. We're just grateful for your consideration and for all of your leadership. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Henry Daly. My name is Henry Daly. I'm a Clearwater resident and a Duke Energy customer. I'd like to thank the city council for their time and effort in considering options for the city's energy good and allowing public comment on this important issue. First off, I have no problem with the public utilities. There's plenty of cities that do that. I have no problem with Duke Energy making a profit as a regulated monopoly, even though I think they should seriously consider a rate reduction. Other than getting a feasibility study, it appears the city of Clearwater, to me, that's not ready for such a massive and expensive project could take years to complete and cost taxpayers billions of dollars. You know, my biggest concern is really just getting energy back after a hurricane. I like to think that's pretty what most people think after a hurricane, get their energy back. So, without recapping everything that's already occurred to date, on balance, I just think it makes better sense to renew the franchise agreement with Duke. I hope both sides work to develop a clear understanding of how Duke and the city can fairly efficiently continue and serve the residents of Clearwater. And thank you for your time. Next speaker. Mark Bunker. Hi, I'm Mark Bunker, and I wanted to say that I appreciate all the investments that Duke Energy is going to be putting into all the city projects. I was a little surprised to hear Brian Onks, Jr. talk about the amazing level of customer service rivaling any in the country. I got a call yesterday or the day before from a woman who's got a 100-year-old telephone pole in her backyard that's damaged her home, and she has been calling Duke over and over and over. No one's responded. I would like to see in the memorandum of understanding not just these financial things, but some commitment to actually respond in a certain amount of time to customers' concerns. And I think that would, you know, be the best thing for our city. If Duke doesn't want to put up a page on their website, perhaps the city should put one on there as well. That would get all those comments for Duke into our hands so we can forward them to Duke and make sure some action is taken. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Adam Shiloh. Adam Shiloh. Good evening, Council. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm a supporter of Dump Duke coming from St. Petersburg, and thank you for letting a visitor speak in your beautiful city. There are three reasons why I believe that going with a municipal utility would be the best move. Reason one is it's the most democratic way to let the people themselves decide what the utility should do, how it should be organized, and you, their competent representatives, be the ones to administer it. It's the closest to direct rule of the people. Number two, this proposal has no animus, no hostility whatsoever to the wonderful workers who work for Duke Energy. In fact, a municipal utility would continue their wage rates, would continue their wages, hours, and conditions they have, and for those who are unionized, maintain their union contract. Thirdly, dig through as you do your diligence and study, and you'll see that after Duke Energy has paid for the costs of the maintenance of equipment, the buying of raw materials, the paying the wages of its hard-earned workers, it's guaranteed a profit of slightly more than 10%. Think if that 10% was taken off the table and stayed here in Clearwater to be used for the benefit of the people of Clearwater rather than that 10% going to the shareholders of Duke Energy. That would be 10% less than costs, 10% for maintaining the equipment here in Clearwater and for the wages of the Duke workers, of the municipal utility workers. So for that reason, I strongly urge the council to think of a municipal utility. Thank you very much for your time. Next speaker, please. Jorge Vasquez. Hello, and thank you so much for having me today. I want to start off by thanking you, honorable councilmen and women, for your time. You're doing something that is incredibly selfless, every day fighting for a just and equitable reality for your constituents and for your neighbors, and I'd like to contrast that with a corporation, one that is publicly traded, like Duke Energy, which their sole purpose is to raise and maximize shareholder value, and that's not necessarily immoral, but that's how corporations work. The customer will come second. And this is not some type of warning. It's a promise that we're going to see rates go up. In North Carolina, they're currently fighting to get prices, rates up by 18%. That is showing us what is going to happen here. We've already done a study and have seen a reduction of 10%, according to the Nugent study, within the first year of municipal energy. Along with the appraisal, that looks to be about 15% in the first year. That's incredible. That's $35 million. That's way more than the $2 million that Duke is expected to spend in the city on all of the programs that were mentioned here today. And so when we do that over 30 years, assuming that rate stays the same, that's over $1 billion in savings. That will do so much more than the investments that we could see from Duke. And so what I would like to mention here is that there are already other counties that are saving money. In fact, Winter Park did dump Duke before the potential of that happening here. And they are saving rates 30%, sometimes 20%, less than we do. So we already know the consequence of leaving Duke. And we could see constituents save so much money. We have the opportunity today to do something that is incredible for the locals here and make a profound change in their lifestyles. A 30% reduction in cost, 20%, 15%, that's money that could go to restaurants, bars in the area, and other local businesses that could see success, especially in trying times where gas prices are up. Inflation is absolutely crazy at no fault of this council. But we can try to do something to give relief to some of the locals here in this town. And I also would like to mention as well that it's the fiscally responsible thing to look at other options. I think we all know that before we make a large financial decision that we take the time to weigh every single option. As far as I know, people in Clearwater have not heard about the appraisal or some of the results or information. I think we owe it to them to discuss this into further detail so we could see what opportunities lie ahead of us. So I'm pleading with you to reconsider the deal, look at the options, and see the opportunities that lie for local people here in Clearwater and St. Pete more broadly. And, again, I appreciate your time. Thank you for being so selfless and coming here today. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Jeff Munth. Hello. I want to thank the council for being here. I've lived in Clearwater now pretty much my entire life. I've seen my rates with Duke Energy go up year after year. I have been getting squeezed financially. And in the midst of an affordability crisis, you all have the opportunity to help the citizens of Clearwater. You can be their champion. You can do – you can literally give power back to the people and help them save in one aspect of their lives. But thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Aidan Critchlow. Hello, council. I'm here because I'm a strong supporter of the Dump Duke campaign. And I just wanted to say that I'm a little confused, so maybe my confusion can be squared away. To my understanding, the feasibility study said that it would be cheaper for consumers to move forward with a public utility. So I'm just confused why we're not moving forward in that direction. You hear a lot of concerned citizens here tonight who want cheaper utility bills. And I think that would be a real benefit for people dealing with the affordability crisis. And I want to say there are a lot of concerned citizens here who are not paid to be here by Duke Energy. I can't say that for everyone. But I just hope you strongly reconsider this item. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Karen Lemming. Thank you for holding this all together. This is my first time speaking at something like this. But I've been a Duke customer in multiple states now. I moved from North Carolina in 2024, and now I live here. My time with Duke has not been great. I think that in North Carolina, there's issues with turning off power in my apartment and things like that. I ended up having to eat like three or four months of that rate after I moved. Things like that. Never got any help doing that. Here, even recently, we lost power for, thankfully, only a couple of hours. But knowing that the profit will come first for Duke is like a scary thing as a consumer because I know they're going to cut as much safety as they can to increase profit as much as they can. And at some point, that's going to come down to me at home with my dog in the summer of Florida, and it's going to be 100 degrees outside and hopefully not 100 degrees in my house. So I think I support the Dumbtube program. I would like to see a public use. Thank you. Next speaker. Shane Meager. Hello. So first, I wanted to thank you all for starting the feasibility study, doing the appraisal. It's been really refreshing and kind of empowering as a citizen to feel like those who represent me are doing work that would benefit me and exploring information. That you did a feasibility study that showed, as was mentioned, 15% savings in the first year, 20% for 10 years, and after that, up to a quarter of people's bills. That the appraisal came back at half the cost of what we thought it would, but from the feasibility study. So to me, the logical next step would be to continue with that process, not to sign a 30-year contract with a company that's going to charge us all the opposite of that. So that's, for me, what is the guiding thing here, is the steps of logic. And public power, the argument for public power operates off of logic and fact, as we see in the feasibility study and the appraisal. Unfortunately, Duke's argument operates off of fear. It operates off of negative ads against our city council people. It operates off of pressure campaigns. It operates off of manipulating residents of Clearwater and St. Petersburg through dark money groups, which has been proven and shown. And that's really important that you consider that and the people you're assigning a three-decade deal with. A deal where almost two generations of children could turn into adults. Where you could save in their lives over $10,000 for that one child from their family with these savings. This isn't a small thing. And this is locking in people who won't have a choice after this. They're in a deal with the devil. Signing this would be an implicit statement that Duke can exploit us for three more decades, take advantage of our crises, and bully public officials. All it will take is one disaster to raise our rates back to getting their profits where they want them and where they've been. That agreement that they have for us is meaningless. It's meaningless. They know that they will get what they need. They know their profits will be protected and perfect. They know everything will come back at some point because they have strategies. The city's strategy will be to help residents. Their strategy will be to get back to where they are now, to continue that, and to get more every single quarter. Bigger bonuses. Continuing to take from people for themselves. So please, please do not sign this, essentially. It just would not follow logic. Mainly, it's a big decision to make that seems rushed, that would lock us in for such a long time. And that would be really hard for me to wrap my head around, essentially. And so let's not sign this agreement. Let's operate on facts, and let's get those facts to the citizens of Clearwater. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Marlee Price. I really appreciate all of you taking the lead on something this bold. I know it really probably wasn't easy. I was a little disappointed to see the agenda come out with it having the 30-year agreement. That's a really long time. Even Newport Ritchie just signed a 15-year agreement, and mostly because there's a really big difference between what the feasibility study found you guys could save in the first year versus what Duke is offering. Over $30 million in the first year alone, I'm pretty sure, versus like $2 million spread out over 30 years, that's crumbs that they're offering. And I feel like if you're really set on signing with Duke again for some reason, you should use the study to get a better deal for the community versus signing something like this. And if not, I think you have a really good chance to do something really brave and make history, similar to how Winter Park did. The council that did that, they are like, the city loves them there. They are known in history books. The city's always talking about how great they are. Their rates are lower. They have like 85% of their lines underground. They have beautiful trees all over. They're having a great time over there. And I would love to see that here. And I would love for all the other cities and the county to follow so everyone can work together. I just think it would be really awesome. And, yeah, thank you all again for the work that you've done. And I hope you keep an open mind on this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Alex Schechter. Hello. Thanks for having me. Sorry to bear with me. I'm a bit tired. I'm not being paid to be here. I just want to say I was born and raised in Largo, Florida. I'm 18. I joined the military. And I was stationed in Goldsboro, North Carolina. And now I live in St. Petersburg, Florida. I've never seen – I've never not paid a Duke energy bill. And this body unanimously are the ones who introduced me to just how much savings there are with public power, you know, 10% in the first year, potentially. I just think, you know, you guys have really – I've really just introduced us to just how much savings there could be with this. And I've been really proud of this city. And I've been speaking to my council members in city council in St. Petersburg about just how incredible it's been. And I do find it strange that you guys have – you know, I hope you guys continue this path. I find this pivot a little strange. With your previous city attorney, you've unanimously voted for both the feasibility study and the appraisal. So I just really hope that under this new city attorney as well, you continue this path forward in looking into our options. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Jason Scott. Good afternoon, council. I want to first thank you all for bringing us to this point and investing into our options, you know, funding this feasibility study and then the appraisal. And I just want to say right now I'm a little bit disappointed the way it's looking with us looking at a 30-year franchise agreement. I think the next step after getting the appraisal would have been maybe public education and discussion around those results and why there would be any conflicts and why we would look into going back to a 30-year agreement. I haven't seen anything public from the council or from the mayor or the city as a whole on why we would want to flip back to a 30-year agreement with Duke Energy after we had what seems to be amazing results from the appraisal. And just to break it down, from what I saw, it was $235 million for the buyout of the assets from Duke Energy compared to what Duke was saying was, what, $1 billion? And that's over 10% savings for every resident here in the city, as well as potentially those enclaves outside of the city as well. And I just, I'm right now just perplexed why we wouldn't have those public discussions, having public input or education. So right now I'm asking you to take a step back from this first reading and set out a plan for that public education. Not to move forward with this reading until we have that public input and education. And, you know, I know there's also potentially some conflict on the advice being given from varying consultants or legal advice that might be holding this up based on public reports. But I would like to see what's holding us back. Overall, I'm in support of public power when it comes to reliability and affordability. Even Cree West has better reliability than Duke Energy across the state of Florida, which seems ridiculous. And then for the affordability, you can look at the appraisal results. So I really just are asking the city council to take a step back. We don't need to rush into this. The franchise agreement has only been expired for over six months now. And really look into how can we have public education and discussion on this topic before looking at a 30-year agreement. And also, please take it back. We cannot have 30 years. And we need to have the legal team remove the item called injunctive relief. We cannot have that in the agreement. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. William Johnson. Thank you, counsel. And thank you. And my comments are if you choose to adopt a Duke Energy extension, I think there are some concerns that should be addressed that I haven't seen in the agenda item or the description that the attorney proposed. Some of you know that I have been volunteering with the Parks and Rec Department out on Clearwater Beach to remove graffiti and stickers. As a result, I've become aware of the Duke maintenance of beach transformers. As a result of requests from Assistant City Manager Dan Slaughter, Duke has been embarking on repainting many of their transformers out on the beach. And I thank them for doing that. It's positive, but there is still more work to go in that regard. But still, the biggest issue for me is the above-ground power lines, particularly in our downtown Clearwater. It's very unusual for downtown to have so many above-ground power lines so close to our buildings. And this is on Myrtle. Along Myrtle, these power lines were just recently rebuilt without considering undergrounding them, as most cities have done. I see this as a lack of consistency with vision and disconnect with our economic development partnership. We used to have a great economic development partnership with Duke. I think that's deteriorated at the present time. Myrtle, this Myrtle line goes right by our new Cleveland Street Entertainment District and our City Hall, as well as residential development there. I can't see how somebody would enjoy looking out their bedroom or their living room onto power lines. Disney has a saying that everything speaks, that whatever you see communicates the concerns or the thoughts of those in the community. And this photo shows that collectively we aren't interested in being a first-class downtown. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Steve Wisher. Good evening, Council. I appreciate the opportunity to let me speak. I'm relatively new to the town. I moved down two and a half years ago just in time for the hurricanes. That was great. I come from Colorado, and I lived through the Boulder municipalization effort. It was 10 years and millions and millions of dollars, and nothing ever came of it. I believe they had the best intentions, but this is not a short or easy process to go through, and I'd hate to see the City of Clearwater go down the same path. And my other point is I heard several people mention the feasibility study, and there's going to be 10% savings, 15%, 20% savings. My understanding, reading the feasibility study, is that the city would only be buying the distribution system, and that's one quarter of the bill. So I don't understand how you can get 10%, 15% savings off of one quarter. That's making the distribution system suddenly cost half as much. So reading the feasibility study, I didn't quite understand the committed savings that it promised. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Douglas James. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Douglas James. I reside in Clearwater, Florida. I've been here a couple years. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I appreciate the time and effort that has gone into the study, studying this issue over the past two years. The city invested significant time and taxpayer dollars to determine whether there was a better path forward for Clearwater residents. My concern tonight is not whether Duke Energy has provided a service. My concern is whether committing Clearwater to another 30-year agreement is the best long-term interest for the people that actually pay the bills. The city's own feasibility study indicated that a municipal utility could potentially reduce rates over time. Even if there are challenges and significant costs to creating a city-owned utility, those findings deserve careful consideration before making a decision that could shape our community for the next three decades. 30 years is a very long commitment. Technology, energy markets, and our community needs will change dramatically during that time. Once this agreement is signed, future generations of Clearwater residents may have a very limited flexibility. I respectfully ask you to consider whether this is the right time to make a 30-year commitment or whether preserving future options would be better served to the citizens you represent. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Lori Green. Hi, counsel. Thank you for hearing me. I've been a resident here since 88. I bought my house in 93, and I've been a Duke customer. And 10 years ago, the pole in my backyard is almost 100 years old, and it's listing worse than the Titanic. So it ripped a hole in my roof. And I contacted Duke, and through much negotiation, I finally agreed to fix it, pay for it. Well, come forward, 2025, that same pole ripped another hole in my roof, and I submitted a claim to Sedgwick, and they gave me a form letter of denial. It's not our fault. It's rotten. So I submitted more paperwork to them on June 2nd. I sent it to Sedgwick, and I sent it to Duke in St. Pete. Didn't hear a word. Not one word. So I contacted the Public Utility Commission. They got in touch with them. They didn't call me right away. So I had to call them again. Well, then they called me, leave a message. They didn't get me. I called them back several times before I got them. All I got was voicemail. Called back to the Utility Commission again. Finally, they got on top of them, and they called me. And they got some guy to come out and loosen up the cable. But nothing about the damage, which I documented to them. I gave them pictures. I gave them what they needed. Not a word about what they're going to do about the damage. In this time that has passed, it now has ripped out that black line there, which comes from, I think, Verizon. Verizon, wow. And there's still no answer. They're not doing anything as far as what damage, how they're going to remunerate me for the damage that they've done. And it's like, really? I mean, who holds these people accountable when their polls are damaging people's homes? Now, a guy came out. He said he's going to put it in a Newark order to replace it. I think we're looking at a few months. Still nothing about how they're going to repair the damage. So who holds this group accountable? We're looking at 30 years. If this is how they're dealing with their customers now, I'm a customer, pay my bill every month, what can we look forward to? There's other polls in my neighborhood that are also bad. So what's the answer? What is Duke going to do to answer this? It's a bunch of Duke people in this room, but I'm not hearing from the people in St. Pete, nor am I hearing from Sedgwick. That's my story. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Green. Next speaker. Gloria Campbell. Gloria Campbell. First of all, I want to commend this council. I have been in and out of this council for the last six years, and I think you guys drew the short straw. When you were first sworn in, I think some of you dealt with Drew Street, and it's been going downhill since then. So tonight I want to say that, number one, I give you credit. I was excited about the study because I thought maybe the municipal option was the best option. But then I thought about, as I see how things are happening today, when we see what's happening in the Middle East with oil and gas, do we really want the city of Clearwater having to be responsible for our utilities? A feasibility study is just that. It says what may happen. It's a guess. It's the best guess. But there's no guarantees. But what I really came up here to talk about was one of the initiatives that Duke has done in the North Greenwood area, which is weatherizing our tenants or some of the citizens. They have spent, and we have seen several people who have called and said they have seen their bills reduced by the weatherization that's been done. They've gone in. They've blanketed hot water heaters. They've put in new thermostats. They've put weather strips in around windows and doors. And that has led to, in some cases, a 10% drop in bills. And for people who are living on fixed income, $20, $30, $40 a month is a lot. And so I just really wanted to thank them for what they've done in the community, thank them for the opportunity to be good citizens. And I know that there are a lot of people here who are not happy, who have had really bad experiences with Duke. I haven't been one of those. I've lived in the area for 40 years, and I've had Duke the whole time. So I think that, I hope that, and I believe that the people who are sitting here in this room are subject matter experts, or they have hired people who are. And when they make this recommendation, they're making it in good faith in the best interest for the public. So thank you for your service. I hope your load gets lighter. I hope the rest of the things that will become for council will be less intimidating. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Gamble. Next speaker. Kevin R.T. Laughlin. My name is Kevin R.T. Laughlin. Hello, I know most of you. I have experience with this. I lived in Bel Air when Florida Power Agreement expired, and the councilman and mayor there had the courage to put it before a public referendum. And then I saw the commercials, and then I saw the wine and dines at the country club. I spoke at that country club, and as I told this story in one of my responses, the heads in the crowd that you could tell who lived in Bel Air back then, because they saw that. They saw, I don't want to say bribery, but the commercials were horror stories. And that's a rich community. Unlike us, they have the defined borders. They have a better advantage than we do in putting our own MEU in. But a few things I want you to consider. The proposal does account for a third option where you can delay this, study it further, maybe put out an education program, because this is the second time I've been through it, and these things are hard to understand. But a few things I don't think have been considered. Okay, one, to hire the staff that you're going to need, the people that work for TECO, that work for Duke, that work for Floor of Power and Light, they have non-compete contracts. You're going to be digging all around the country to find staff. Our recent compliance with Tallahassee, which cost us our communication union, because they fell below 60 percent, and you're going to have to reason with union line workers to come here and work, knowing that you won't stand behind their union. Those are difficulties we're going to face. I'm not against this. I am fully for this. I think this is something you can do. Mr. Mayor, I heard your piece where you think we can do this. And number one, how are we going to do it? The lead man is behind it. And with your leadership, I think we can get together. I think we can hire the right people. I think we can make this a realization, but please realize, the MEUs that they site around the state are, for the most part, homegrown. When they incorporated Jacksonville, people use that as an example. Jacksonville is Jacksonville. It is Duval County. That's a huge population and refined space to utilize an MEU. Lakeland or any of those, they're homegrown. They said we're going to incorporate it as a city, and we're going to have our own utility. No one has ever stood up to one of these monopolies and got an MEU out of them. I watched it fail in Bel Air. We just saw it fail the entire state of Maine. This is going to be a tough road if you decide to do it, but I think we can do it, and I think we have the courage to do it. We can break away from that. When people talk about all the benefits, those benefits that are coming back to us are our dollars that they took in profit, a small percentage that they took in profit. So I hope you consider those factors when you look at this, too. Look at the little bit of a delay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Joe Lugo. Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Joe Lugo, and I serve as the Director of the Foundation and Entrepreneurial Services for Amplified Clearwater. On behalf of our organization, I wanted to thank the City Council, the City staff, and Duke Energy for the time, professionalism, collaboration that they have gone into in this process. We recognize that these discussions involve important decisions for our community, and we appreciate the thoughtful approach that has been taken. Amplified Clearwater's mission is to strengthen our local economy by supporting businesses of every size, developing future entrepreneurs, and creating opportunities for residents to succeed. We do not take position on every policy issue before the Council, but we do value partnerships that help move our community forward. Over the years, Duke Energy has been a meaningful partner in many of those efforts. Through the support of the Amplified Clearwater Chamber Foundation, Duke has invested initiatives that expand opportunities for minority-owned businesses, provide entrepreneurial education, and mentoring through our Ignite Entrepreneur Center, and inspire the next generation of business leaders through our Young Entrepreneurs Academy. These investments have made a real difference in the lives of local entrepreneurs and students. We are equally appreciative of the City's commitment to fostering a strong business climate and creating an environment where organizations like ours can partner with both the public and private sectors to serve our community. As Clearwater continues to plan for its future, our hope is that the spirit of collaboration demonstrated through this process continues. When local government, community organizations, and private partnerships work together, our businesses have greater confidence to invest, our entrepreneurs have greater opportunities to grow, and our residents benefit from a stronger local economy. Thank you very much for your leadership. It is appreciated. Thank you for your willingness to engage in thoughtful dialogue and your continued commitment to the success of Clearwater. We look forward to continuing to work alongside all of our community partners to build a stronger future for our city. Thanks. Mr. Lugo, next speaker. Zach Schera. Hello, counsel. Thanks for letting me speak tonight. I just want to echo what others have said that I admire a lot of the leadership that you have shown here in getting to this point, in going through the study, and doing your due diligence. But I just, I'm completely perplexed why that's being thrown out. You know, I work with electricity data and energy data professionally. And so there's some very simple facts in this case. The facts are Duke was the most expensive utility in the state of Florida in 2025. The average municipal utility customer in Florida pays 20% to 30% less. And Duke does not have better reliability than the average municipal utility. So this is a very straightforward case of signing this agreement is agreeing to pay more for the same product. And that's just basic common sense not to do that. You could ask a child and they would understand, you know, pay more for the same product. And so I just, you know, the feasibility study was clear. The assessment came back even cheaper than expected. And so then to just rush into a 30-year agreement, it just boggles my mind. At least don't make it a 30-year agreement. You can do a shorter agreement. You can just go, you know, on an ongoing basis. There are other options here. And to do so, when, again, the facts are so clear in this case, it really brings into question the decision-making and the motives of the leadership in this city. And then one other point I wanted to say, a man just previously said that there has not been a municipal takeover in the state of Florida. But that's not true. There has been one. It was within the 21st century. It was taking over the utility from Duke, and it was in Winter Park, and they pay significantly lower rates than we as Duke Energy customers do. So thank you for your time. Please make logical decisions. Don't make us question the decision-making of this council. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Andrew Hernandez. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here. Thank you for letting us speak, Mr. Mayor. I'm a resident of Pinellas County, and I'm fully for public utility. Lakeland, Winter Garden, Tallahassee, all of them pay significantly less, and it's been shown. The study came back pretty straightforward. People pay less. It's not easily done, but it's something worth doing. The middle class are worth it. And so thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Lacey Lingelbach. Thank you, Mayor and council members. I'm a resident of Pinellas County, and I have been for the last four years, but my family's lived here for about since the 60s. And I want to thank you guys for taking a step that's pretty unique in doing the feasibility study and actually trying to find the information to make sure you're making data-informed decisions. But I'll be honest. I'm a little bit disappointed because I feel like this vote kind of came out of nowhere. When I think of what 30 years from now is, I think, okay, that's 2056. What are we going to be seeing by then? Well, we should be expecting about a half foot at least of sea level rise, more frequent flooding, more extreme heat days. Everything that threatens our infrastructure, but also everything related to electricity right now is the way we can prevent all of that from happening and make our communities more resilient to climate change. You know, it's important that we make these decisions thinking through not just what does it cost right now, but what will it cost us in the long term. And I think while weatherization is great and having programs like that is great, the other aspect to this is investing in renewables. And you'll never truly be able to control that when you are operating under a private corporation like Duke Energy. On top of that, I think it's a little irresponsible to be jumping into a decision like this when we have a referendum coming up in November about property taxes that will honestly probably increase the cost for many citizens, especially renters in the area. And so when they're going to have those increased costs on top of the increased cost of just what we should expect with Duke, phrasing their rates all the time, you know, I just think there's no reason to rush into this. And that's just why I really advocate to either delay the vote or truly consider, you know, is 30 years the right term in this language? And honestly, I would love to see Clearwater be a leader in the realm of sustainability and resilience and also just helping people actually afford to live here in the future, people like me or even our senior population that is experiencing hardships right now. Thank you, guys. Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other speakers? If not, then we'll turn to council discussion. So at this time, see if council members have questions or comments they would like to make. Duke is here. If somebody has questions, but there are no questions, then we'll just go into discussion. So, Council Member Albritton. Okay. Well, first of all, I want to say thank you to all that came out tonight, whether you were for or against, and thanks for all the e-mails on both sides of the issue. Didn't have my mic on. Sorry about that. Might repeat that. All right, so we've studied this issue for over a year now, and I still have concerns. How many employees would be required? What is specialized training, engineering expertise? Union costs? What's the cost of all that to be involved? What would happen if a major hurricane struck before adequate financial reserves are established? What capital investments would be needed for vehicles, equipment, infrastructure beyond the taking of Duke's property by eminent domain? There are also significant legal and financial uncertainties. What would be the ultimate cost of acquiring Duke's system through eminent domain? Although current estimates have declined, the courts, not the city, will be the ones to determine the final price. How many years would it take to resolve Florida's largest eminent domain case? If litigation delayed operations for five or six years, what effect would that inflation and rising operational costs have on electric rates? You know, I saw a newspaper article stating that, you know, that if we decide to dump Duke or taking on electric as a MEU, that we could save citizens $18 a month. So I looked at that, and I said, what they're saying is we could save $18 a month, or we could sign a 30-year franchise agreement. Other questions I have is, why are Duke's future rates increases projected differently from the city's? How would the storm restoration resources be secured and prioritized? I mean, I don't want to do this, and then all of a sudden, you know, the city takes it over, and we have a storm like we had a couple of years ago, and we can't get any of the power lines put back up before Duke people could. What would be the proposed service boundaries? Would that create additional litigation involving enclaves? Because we don't have straight boundaries in Clearwater, and we have a lot of this, and I think it would create litigation that we're not even counting on. Finally, with property tax referendum, that could reduce Clearwater's annual revenues by approximately $20 million. Is this the right time to assume an obligation of nearly $1 billion? With all these concerns still lingering, and franchise agreement looks pretty good, Duke is putting in about $2 million to sweeten the deal, and that's four times what we spent on the study. Now, commissioning the study was the right decision. Before considering a municipal utility, we needed a clear understanding of both opportunities and the risks. It's important to remember, however, that this was exactly what it was claimed to be, a feasibility study. It offered analysis, not solutions, and it was careful to acknowledge that many of its assumptions and projections weren't guaranteed. The city of Clearwater and Duke Energy have worked together for many decades. Like any longstanding relationship, there have been occasional disagreements and challenges, but those moments have been far outweighed by years of dependable service. I look forward to continuing that relationship over the next 30 years under this new agreement, and we'll vote in favor of the ordinance which approves the new franchise agreement. Next, Councilman Manito. Sure. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple questions. Can I have questions before I make a statement? Is that okay? Questions of Duke or City of Texas? No, I'll ask staff if that's okay with you. Appreciate all the speakers that got up. It's definitely not easy to get up and speak at a hot mic to an issue, especially when the room's split and there's views on both sides. So I appreciate everybody that came out, whether you're a Clearwater resident or you came over from St. Pete. You're appreciated. Just a couple questions, staff, if you don't mind, and you can city manager direct who might be best asked. A couple things in the MOU I think are worth talking a little more in depth about. The first one is there's a lot of talk in the MOU and several items regarding economic development, funding, and strategies associated with that. I hope maybe somebody on staff can talk a little bit in depth about that. And then my second one was this process, and we've heard the word rushed a couple times. I believe we started these conversations in 2024, so I don't necessarily feel it was rushed. But in the beginning of that process, we did have some deep discussions and obviously emotions in the room about the protections of our tree canopy when possible, as well as questions regarding vegetation management and mitigation for storms. So I'm wondering if we could have somebody from staff just touch on the MOU regarding those two items. Yeah, absolutely. ACM Battle, if you will please go through some of the economic development strategies. Sure, sure. Thank you for the opportunity. So as I got engaged in this discussion, some of the things that we were asked to provide in terms of negotiating points was a list of what would we like to have Duke help us participate in advance as far as the city of Clearwater being successful. And I offered a few items with respect to economic development, specific targeted redevelopment efforts, as well as retail development, and how can we enhance our partnership and collaboration with them in several areas across the city. So I'll go through these as summarily as possible, not take as much time, but I did want to explain them in a little bit of detail because I think that's what you're asking for to help with your discussion. So I'll do my best in this space. So the franchise agreement provides an opportunity for us to reboot and support efforts from the last time that the city completed an economic development strategy plan, which was back in 2011. So since we have not invested specifically in that type of arrangement in terms of looking at the city from a framework of how we want to recruit for things such as how do we want to develop future land use across the city, also how do we want to encourage and incentivize investment across the city, what type of business retention and expansion climate we want to create, how do we want to pursue business development on a large scale, small scale, and, you know, mom and pop level type of scale, if you will, and also what do we want to put in place with respect to talent and recruitment and keeping the talent in the city of Clearwater, in Pinellas County and having them work in the city of Clearwater. So some of the things that we asked for them to consider, and they provided some back and forth with respect to what that would look like. We're in four areas. One of them is specifically recognizing our lack of investment in a strategic plan from a city-wide standpoint, and that's why you see a five-year commitment, $20,000, $100,000 in total, for us to put some framework around some of those things that I just mentioned and try to target those. And over the five-year period, we can, if you look at it at a high level, come up with a mothership approach to how we want to look at economic development and what's the overall strategic plan, but then layer underneath that specific tactics and strategies that we can take advantage of based on a changing market and a changing Clearwater. And I think you all would agree that we're headed in a direction that's different than where we were in 2011. In addition to that, we also asked them for some help in really enlivening the retail experience in downtown Clearwater. We've got a lot of initiatives focused on downtown. We also have a ton of investment focused on the area. That's why you also see a commitment, multi-year commitment, to help us develop a retail strategy. There's a significant amount of retail investment, not just by us, but by others in this space, Cleveland Street Alliance, private development, county properties that are coming on the market in terms of their overall redevelopment efforts, and also city properties that we want to see change hands from us to private development interest in order to continue to build a tax base and provide jobs and opportunities to our local residents. And so we see this as an opportunity for us to help frame the discussion around what type of retail, restaurant, and entertainment experience we want to be versus leaving it to the marketplace. We want to be proactive in that effort, tell people what we want versus them giving us what they think we are the best for, but try to help them and meet them in the middle in terms of those resources when people are looking and making those initial inquiries about what's the best fit, where is the market, and where can we fit in in terms of what's happening in Clearwater. Also, the site readiness part that you see mentioned there, this is really talking about collaborating with them on the front end. In many cases, as my experience is, is that utility providers are brought in in the process in terms of large development projects and identifying where capacity is kind of late into the process. They have agreed to be very proactive with us, be up front in terms of the conversations with those developers, and also be at the table, advocacy, marketing, talking about how we can help them identify where infrastructure can, is, or needs to be upgraded, and also target where those investments can be, whether it be downtown, whether it be the 19th U.S. 19 Corridor, or the Hercules Industrial Area where we have a lot of job growth opportunity based on a huge manufacturing presence, which doesn't exist in all parts of our city, but that's a place where we want to see that advance. And the last one, the North Greenwood CRA, excuse me, you heard a little bit of that mentioned just earlier about Ms. Campbell in terms of what they've been able to do with small things, such as weatherizations of homes. But we also have been given a commitment to do something that helps our North Greenwood CRA, which is a very early in its development life CRA, doesn't have a lot of resources. Those five-year commitments of $20,000 will be huge that allow us to leverage those funds, collaborate with Duke, collaborate with the community, and use dollars that aren't, city Avalon tax dollars, CRA dollars, but another resource, another tool in our toolbox to really advance economic development in that effort, too. So we think that those investments combined are huge benefits to us. The ratepayers may not necessarily see those in terms of a reduction or a savings, but if we're able to advance and bring more economic development here, it will be a boom in terms of what we receive back in terms of the investment capital from the private industry in terms of these types of tactics and strategies. Thank you. Also, as Ms. Campbell mentioned, so we did have our experts sit in and participate in these negotiations and reviewing both the feasibility report, the appraisal, and then participate in the negotiations. And so for our next expert, I would like to ask ACF Slatter to talk about the tree canopy. Sure. So it's going to be no surprise to the council or even some of the people in the room that there was a lot of consternation at one point about the vegetation management that was occurring in the city and in surrounding areas for some required activities that Duke had to manage and had to do. What came out of that was many, many meetings of city staff along with Duke staff to try to identify the best way to do that moving forward. And what you see in the agreement under Exhibit A is essentially reflecting what we came to as an agreement and how to manage it, and it's been working very effective for us. Essentially, the agreement or the exhibit acknowledges both that Duke has to do vegetation management but also that the city has a responsibility to protect urban canopy and consistent with our strategic plan. It provides for minimum notification requirements to both the city so that we can evaluate where those activities are going to occur and make sure that the proper public outreach, but it also requires us to collaborate on the public outreach so that not only is Duke using their outreach efforts, but we're leveraging the city outreach efforts with our neighborhoods teams, with our outreach, and then people are receiving it from multiple different directions, and, of course, we hope they receive it, the message from one particular potential. The other thing I think it's important to mention, though, is that we have an obligation in this agreement to promote Right Tree, Right Place, which is what we believe in and we support, both in our public outreach campaigns or public outreach efforts, but also through, like, the planning activities so that we can avoid these kind of conflicts between the urban canopy and the power lines in the future. From a practical standpoint, just to explain what happens currently now, which we are very appreciative of the collaboration with Duke and seems to be working very efficient for our community and for our staff, is when they have vegetation management activities, their staff that are responsible for those activities reaches out to our arborist. They share maps and collaborate and discuss where those activities are going to occur. Certainly there's an assessment that's done where they identify what activities need to be, whether it's pruning or removals. Our arborist and their staff travel in the exact same truck together. They drive the route. They look at all of the vegetation that's going to be addressed and make sure that there's essentially a consensus that this is the appropriate activity that needs to move forward. And then there's a reference in the agreement that we're going to work collaboratively with both of them to resolve any differences or issues or concerns that come up inside those activities. And we've been fortunate to kind of have this particular language in place for the last, what, year and a half now at this point, if not two, and I can tell you it's working very effectively for the team. Thank you. I greatly appreciate that. That's one thing to go through the process and for us to roll our sleeves up and be engaged in it for two years with so much information. It's another thing for the public to see a punch list with a bullet next to it and not really understand the true depth to it. So I appreciate a little deeper discussion on it. I did go to the Ross Norton Community Neighborhood event that Duke put on. It was an awesome experience. I appreciate Duke for hosting that. I think the room was full. I think everyone in there was very skeptical at first. What do you want from me? What kind of information are you going to take and how much is this going to cost? They thought there was a trick or a bait and switch, and there 100% was not. I think Ms. Maryland got up and gave her personal testimony on the amount of money she saved right away, which was more than the $18 we discussed and everything from weatherizing hot water heaters to the changing of water faucets and shower heads to giving away digital thermostats for people's walls. They were amazed by some of that, but the savings was far greater than some of the savings were discussed here, and I don't believe Duke had to do that, and you continued to serve the community. I appreciate that. I appreciate the collaborativeness that's gone through the last two years in the process. Any meeting that I was able to be updated on or communications that I had, it was open dialogue, and I truly and I believe staff truly felt that Duke representatives were not just listening. You heard. You heard our concerns. You heard some of the things that we were hoping we could help our taxpayers with and help our community with, and that shows up directly in the MOU, and I appreciate that. I want to say I appreciate the city manager being a lead negotiator in this. I know that was a lot of meetings, a lot of lifts. You and your team did a great job. I appreciate the constant communication and updates that you and your team gave to us as council members. I also want to say that the public was not ignored in that two-year process. We spoke many times about making sure we shared that feasibility study online and with our residents, making sure we created a fact sheet on there so people could understand fact and fiction, which was important, especially with so much misinformation out there, to help guide our citizens to find truth. I thought that was important, so I appreciate the collaborative efforts and all the work you and your team put into it. For me, tonight's decision is not simply about re-signing a franchise agreement. It's about our responsibility as a dais, as stewards of the public's trust. Throughout this process, all of us, I commend all of my colleagues, have approached this decision from the very opening conversations with an open mind, and I thought that was extremely important as we traveled this process. We listened carefully to many different presentations. I can't tell you how many flow charts and charts and lists we went through, reviewed all available information, and truly weighed both the opportunities associated with this as well as the risks, and that's important in this process is opportunity is great, but it also comes with the risk and making sure we understand both sides. To me, the idea of municipalization of our electric system, it definitely deserved extremely thoughtful considerations. We understand as a dais and as a leadership team, affordability challenges, not just in our community, but throughout the country. And any opportunities we get, whether it's a millage rate or taxes or just being responsible with every tax dollar, we give that the consideration it deserves. But I think our obligation is not to pursue the most ambitious option in this process, but to pursue the option that gives the best long-term interest to the people we serve, the citizens of Clearwater, the taxpayers of Clearwater, the businesses of Clearwater, and that's what we have to keep in mind. As elected officials, we have a fiduciary responsibility to protect all of those constituents, and that means making decisions based not on optimistic assumptions, but on evidence, on prudent financial stewardship, and on careful understanding of true risk management that this process truly deserves. The potential benefits of municipalization remains largely dependent on assumptions, not facts like we've heard, not concrete logic, but based on assumptions. And those assumptions are regarding acquisition costs, financing, litigation, operational performance, long-term market conditions, and those are true risks. Conversely, the risks associated with eminent domain, protracted legal challenges. I think our feasibility study identified they believed an eminent domain legal process may last three years. We just heard Boulder, Colorado tell us it lasted over ten. That drastically changes financial assumptions short-term and long-term without a doubt. The uncertain financial valuations and significant financial exposures are real, and ultimately it would be borne by the taxpayers. That's who would pay for that risk. And that doesn't hit us lightly, that's for sure, none of us up here. But for me, personally, this decision comes down to one fundamental question. Have we reached a level of certainty, facts, logic, that justifies placing hundreds of millions of dollars of public resources at risk? That's the decision that's before us in the question. To me, I come to the conclusion that I do not believe we have. I believe that risk to the taxpayer far outweighs the ambition. Approving a new 30-year franchise agreement with Duke Energy, it's not a decision we're making up here that's against innovation, that's anti-future opportunities, but it's a decision based on stability, based on reliability, and fiscal responsibility. It provides certainty for our residents while allowing our city to continue to advocate, as we just heard, for improved services, stronger accountability, and investments that benefit the community at large from beach to bay. Our responsibility is not to make, again, the boldest decision in this process. Our responsibility is to make the wisest one. I truly believe that. For those reasons, I will be supporting the 30-year franchise agreement with Duke, and I look forward to the help and the assistance and the partnership as we continue to go forward and appreciate everything that you've done through the process, the collaborative process, as well as the benefits to our community going forward. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Tasheda. I want to thank everyone. I think it was over 21 people that came and shared their thoughts with us. I thought you did it in such an effective and compelling way and in a respectful way, so therefore you were heard better. So thank you so much. It wasn't anything that I did not hear before in the chances that I got out to go in the neighborhoods and various organizations where we had these discussions. I heard the same thing, the same arguments, all very compelling. Everybody makes sense. Everybody has a valid point. So thank you so much for coming out and to effectively and in such a great way share your thoughts with us. With that being said, I think it's important that I take this moment to thank everyone involved in this initiative. I acknowledge the extensive work that has gone into evaluating this opportunity, and it was a long process. I believe all the received information, data, and opinions were thorough, professional, and well-supported. But as I've been reviewing it, I found myself looking beyond the appraisal, beyond the feasibility study. An appraisal can tell us what something may be worth. A feasibility study can tell us whether it's achievable, but my decision has to take into account a much broader picture. There's so many moving parts. For example, I've been weighing the financial exposure, the costs that have yet to be quantified, the potential for challenging extended litigation, the impact on our other capital priorities, our aging infrastructure, and the uncertainty surrounding future revenue sources. And I'm also mindful of what I see as an increasingly uncertain environment for local governments. Over the past several years, we've seen more decisions traditionally made at the local level become subject to increasing state preemption. Whether we agree with that or not, I think it's another factor that adds uncertainty, especially when we're considering a significant, challenging, and long-term financial commitment like this. I don't want anyone to think or to mistake my comments as a lack of confidence with our ability to potentially operate a municipal electric utility company. For me, the question is not simply whether it's feasible. The question is whether it's prudent. It's not whether we can do it. It's whether we should. I believe we could succeed. I just don't believe that this is the right investment at the right time, given the risks before us. So, for those reasons, I will be in support of renewing our new agreement. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Thank you, sir. First, I want to thank Duke, our staff, Nugent, and our outside council for the tremendous amount of work that went into negotiating this franchise agreement. These negotiations were not simple, and I appreciate the professionalism, diligence, and persistence demonstrated throughout this process. I believe they have negotiated an agreement that positions the city well for future while protecting the interests of our residents. No agreement is ever perfect. Every negotiation involves compromise. The question before us is not whether we could imagine different terms. The question before us is whether this agreement serves the long-term interests of the city of Clearwater. After reviewing the agreement and hearing the recommendations of our staff and outside council, I believe this agreement is in the best interest of Clearwater. I want to be clear that my support for this franchise agreement should not be interpreted as opposition to municipal – oh, my goodness, municipalization. I removed that word. Right. Goodness. Tongue twister. I continue to believe local ownership deserves serious consideration, and I remain interested in exploring whether municipalization could one day provide lower rates, greater reliability, and greater local control for our residents. However, I have a responsibility to govern based on circumstances before us today. There is a very real possibility that municipalities across Florida could face significant budget challenges in coming years depending on the outcome of a statewide property tax referendum. However, Clearwater could potentially face a reduction of approximately $21 million in annual revenue by 2028. With that uncertainty on the horizon, I do not believe it is prudent to commit the city to what could become years of costly litigation in pursuit of municipalization, particularly when we have a negotiated franchise agreement before us that I believe serves the interests of our residents. Good government requires us to carefully weigh both today's opportunities and tomorrow's risks. I believe accepting this agreement is a more fiscally responsible course of action under the circumstances we're facing today. Good government is not about chasing perfection. It is about making prudent decisions with the information we have while protecting the taxpayers we serve. For those reasons, I'll be supporting this franchise agreement. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chair, I'll go, I always go, not always, but most often go last and risk of repeating what others have already said. But I'll try not to do that. But I do agree with several of the comments that have been made by my colleagues up here. And I just want to make sure that our citizens, our taxpayers know and maybe answer some questions of those who came in here tonight to speak against our adopting or accepting this motion or this agenda item, that our focus has been, from the beginning, the welfare and the best interest of our citizens and taxpayers. We engaged in this, all five of us unanimously, with a concern for affordability. And our franchise use agreement, our franchise agreement was terminating soon. And so it was the appropriate time for us to consider this question. And I think that the entire council all along was interested, as Vice Mayor just said, can we, as a city, operate the electric service and provide electricity service to our citizens cheaper than what we could by having any outside entity do it, including Duke. And I think that remains our concern. We've been very interested in that and what we could, if we could provide it at less cost to our citizens. And the study came back and said that we could. And then we had an appraisal done. And the appraisal, to the point that was made by someone here tonight, came back showing even more favorable number than what our advisors had said. So that was interesting, I think, to all of us. And I made the point on Monday, I'll make the point again, regardless of what we do tonight, the information we gathered from this study is so helpful to our city going forward. We heard the staff talk about some things that are coming out of the MOU that are going to be addressed. We understand electric service to our citizens better now than we did, far better than we did before. And we also, I think, at least for me, I understand that we could and we could run it ourselves at some point if it was appropriate and circumstances changed and maybe years from now. But as I made the point earlier, we've operated a gas company for 100 years. It's been so successful, it sells into multiple counties. So, and gas is different from electric, and I understand that, and this is a big undertaking. But for me, that information, the confidence that we would have was important. And then with all that the city is getting back, the taxpayers and the MOU that Duke has agreed to do some really great things for our city, that we save our taxpayers' money to help us more than recover the cost that we put into doing the study. This is really important to me, too. It came down to me to what the vice mayor just said, is that, you know, our advisors were very clear that this is not up, you know, flip the switch, decide to do it tomorrow, and you just start. There was going to be a lot of legal involved and illegal involved for a long time. And although we could absorb those costs and pass them on, according to the advisors, over time to rate payers, we could not do that immediately. The immediate cost over the next several years in trying to transition to a municipally owned electric service, all those attorney's fees, and they were going to be significant, it was going to cost our taxpayers a lot of money. And in this environment, with the pressure we have trying to make our taxes affordable for our citizens as well, I just don't feel the timing is right to put that pressure additionally on our budget to go ahead and try to do that at this time. That, in light of all the benefits that Duke is offering, the MOU, continuing the relationship, makes sense for me. So, for those reasons, tonight I'm going to also vote in favor of this agenda item and to move it to the second reading. So, with that, is there any further discussion? If not, then all those in favor? We need a motion. We need a motion first. Motion to approve agenda item 6.1. Second. All right. Motion and second. So, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Thank you for all who attended tonight on this agenda item. And thank you for those who spoke. We now move to agenda item 6.2. Approve a tentative millage rate of 5.8850 mills for the fiscal year 2026-27 and set public hearing dates on the budget for September 15, 2026, and September 21, 2026 to be held at 6 p.m. Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. As we discussed on Monday, this is the first reading of the millage, and Kayleen Castell, our budget director, will go through the budget presentation now. Sorry, I was having a problem with my mic here. So, this presentation for the budget, the city manager's budget that's being proposed, does have a balanced budget, once again, for the 26-27 year. And what is being proposed is at the same rate as the current year, meaning the millage will stay the same. That is based on the direction that was provided from the council at our strategic plan workshop. We do have an increase of FTEs proposed in this budget of nine, and that is as a result from collective bargaining agreements previously that were approved by the council, like going to effect this year. What this budget is focusing on is that we're focusing, we're maintaining what we discussed at the strategic plan with a continued alignment of our work plan that we go through annually, a focus on maintaining our current facilities, services, and pay structures. Council, as a reminder, we went through a significant comprehensive pay study where it was recommended that we go to the 75th percentile, and this budget includes keeping us at that 75th percentile. Looking into the future, so what we've got coming up in this next budget year, it's quite a bit, but we're going to have the grand opening of our city hall. We are going to continue focusing our attention and the excitement and the momentum around our urban renaissance that's occurring not just in downtown but across the city. We've got the county property redevelopment option that we've discussed many times. That RFN is out previously, or I'm sorry, is out now, with an expected return for a master developer to return their submissions at the end of September, so we'll be working on that project significantly next year. We've got major street renovations, Osceola being one of those. Then we've got the bluff development, and then obviously what's on everybody's mind in terms of preparing for any potential changes in our revenues, such as the property tax referendum. So with that, I will now turn it over to Kayleen. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Kayleen Castle, Budget Director. This is the fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget for all city funds. That total is $800,214,596. Our operating funds and special revenue funds are $609,673,696 of this total, and capital improvement funds are budgeted at $190,540,900. And in total, this represents a 5% increase from the fiscal year 26 amended budget. This slide further breaks out the operating portion of that last slide, showing totals by fund type. So the general fund for fiscal year 27 reflects a 3% increase from the current year's amended budget, and I have a few slides that further detail the general fund a little later in this presentation. Our utility funds total, which include the budget for water and sewer, stormwater, gas, solid waste, and recycling operations, reflects a 4% decrease from the current year's budget. This includes 476.8 FTEs that support these utility operations at a cost of $44.4 million. Across these departments, transfers of $73.8 million is budgeted to fund capital maintenance projects, and $10.9 million is budgeted for the payment in lieu of taxes, and these transfers total 36% of that total. The budget for operating costs include expenses like commodity purchases, utilities, dump fees, supplies, and chemicals are estimated at $71.3 million, and debt and internal service charges are budgeted at $35.9 million. The enterprise funds total, which includes the budget for the operations of the Beach Marina, the Clearwater Harbor Marina, the airport, and our parking operations, is a 13% increase over the amended current year's budget. To support these departments, 75.1 FTEs are budgeted at $5.5 million. Transfers of $1.2 million will fund capital projects and $1.2 million for the payment in lieu of taxes from these departments. The budget for all operating costs, this includes expenses for fuel, for resale at the marinas are all of the utilities for these departments, parking meter contracts, merchant fees is estimated at $10.2 million. This is 53% of that total. And debt and internal charges for these departments is budgeted at $930,000. The internal service funds include the budget for information technology, utility customer service, building and maintenance, and fleet and radio communications, and also the central insurance fund, which supports the operations of risk management and employee benefit programs, and also the employee health clinic. The budget for internal service funds reflects an increase of 6% from the current year. This total includes funding of $15 million for 159.3 FTEs, transfers of $1.4 million for capital maintenance projects, a total of $41.2 million is budgeted for all of our insurance costs and claims citywide. And also the budget for all other operating costs of these departments includes the cost of technology software support and agreements, citywide fuel costs, maintenance and vehicle for the city's fleet, and the building and maintenance contracts, and that is estimated at $24.9 million. $9.6 million is budgeted for short-term debt for vehicle purchases and replacements, and the internal service charges for these departments are budgeted at $2.3 million. Special revenue funds reflect a 23% increase from the current year. This represents changes in funding of Penny for Pinellas projects that are planned next year versus the current year. These funds include the special development fund. This accounts for restricted revenue sources that are allocated to capital projects, such as Penny for Pinellas, road millage, and fuel tax, and these totals are budgeted at $26.8 million next year. And special funds also includes the special program fund. This is used to account for both revenues and expenditures related to grants. This is budgeted at $1.8 million and also includes our other housing assistant funds budgeted at $1.2 million. And finally, capital improvement funds reflect a 16% increase from the current fiscal year amended budget, and I have a slide that further details that also later in this presentation. This chart represents the change in taxable values over the last 11 years. Our 2026 preliminary values received from the Pinellas County property appraiser reflect an increase in property values of approximately 2.5%, from $19.2 billion in 2025 to $19.7 billion. The proposed millage rate of 5.8850 mills is recommended for fiscal year 27. This is the same rate as was levied in the current year. Due to the value growth, this rate is proposed at 0.13% greater than the rollback rate. The rollback rate is the millage rate that would provide the city with the same property tax revenue as was received in the current year, and this is adjusted for the value of new construction. Using the proposed millage rate, property tax revenues are projected to be $110.9 million in fiscal year 27. This represents an increase of approximately $1.76 million, or 1.6% over the current year's budget. Of the $110.9 million projected, approximately $105.6 million will support general fund operations, and $5.3 million represents the road millage set aside for the maintenance of city streets. Revenues that support general fund operations reflect a net increase of 3% in comparison to the current year. As discussed on the previous slide, property tax, our ad valorem revenues are budgeted at $105.6 million. This is a 2% increase over the current year, and that source of revenue represents approximately 46% of total general fund revenues. Utility taxes and franchise fees, they're always a little bit volatile based on the consumption of electricity and gas. These revenues, which combined, account for approximately 15% of total general fund revenues, they're anticipated to increase for next year's collections. The category of other taxes includes business tax receipts and communications services tax. Communications taxes is budgeted at a decrease based on current revenues, current year's revenues. The category of intergovernmental revenues includes sales tax, state revenue sharing, fire and EMS tax, and other local funding and reimbursements. The budget for these are estimated at a 2% increase over the current year, and this category accounts for 15% of general fund revenues. Charges for service revenues represent approximately 9% of the total. This includes fees at our rec centers, revenue collected at the pier, as well as service charges between our operating funds. And we're anticipating a 4% increase in those revenues next year. Transfer in revenues include the payment in lieu of taxes from all of our proprietary funds, and also transfers for admin and staff costs from the CRA, as well as our special program funds. These revenues are approximately 6% of total and are budgeted at a 1% decrease in comparison to the current year. Other revenues account for 7% of total. This includes building permit fees, fines, interest earnings, and other smaller miscellaneous revenues, which also include our ticket revenues and naming rights for the sound. This category is expected to increase by 10% next year. General fund expenditures in total reflect a 3% increase across all operations. This proposed budget for next year includes all personnel costs and adjustments in line with approved labor contracts. It also includes the anticipated cost of insurance increases, operating expenses necessary to support all of our existing service levels, debt service costs for the imagined Clearwater bonds, and capital funding for road maintenance and facility improvement projects. The police department budget is increased by 6%. This represents increases for personnel costs related to wage and pension contributions. The increase by 11% in the fire department is related to personnel costs, which include the addition of nine new fire medics as approved in the collective bargaining agreement, and also the increase related to personnel costs for that agreement and pension contributions. The parks and recreation budget is decreased by 9%, and this is related to transfers to the capital in the current year versus what's budgeted next year. And the non-department budget includes the costs for minor general expenses. It includes general fund-wide property and liability insurance costs, the transfer for the CRA for the city share of ad valorem taxes, and it also includes transfers to the capital fund for ongoing maintenance projects at all of our general government facilities. So this total is at a 12% increase is primarily due to the increases in capital funding as well as liability insurance increases compared to the current year. This pie chart also represents general fund expenditures by department. The budget for public safety is approximately 46.5% of the total general fund, with the police department representing 28% and fire and EMS at 18.5% of that total. The next largest cost is our parks and recreation department at 22% of the total. This distribution is very similar to the current year, with public safety increasing by 2.5%, and that increase is offset by a decrease in the parks and recreation budget. Same total general fund, but this chart shows it by category. Personnel costs continue to be our largest expense at 62% of total. This represents funding for 1,172.4 full-time equivalent positions that support all of the general fund operating departments. Operating expenditures represent the next largest category at 15%, and internal services, 10%, and you can see the rest of the distribution. I want to point out that interfund transfers are 11% of the total, and this represents $17.3 million transferred to fund capital repair and replacement projects, and $2.1 million for one-time major facility renovation or road construction projects. And also of that transfer total, $4.4 million is transferred to the CRA, representing the TIF contribution for this year. And debt and capital expenditures combined are 1.5% of the total. A total of 1,904.8 full-time equivalent positions are proposed across all funds for fiscal year 27, and this is a net increase of nine positions from the current year's budget. In this graph, the sand-colored portion represents the general fund, and this is a total budget of 1,172.4 positions, and it's a total increase of actually 11. In comparison, the green portion represents all other funds. It is 732.4, a decrease of two compared to the current year. In the general fund, FTE changes include the nine new fire medics that we mentioned, and this is added to the fire department to provide for staffing to cover a reduction in the work week that was approved in that collective bargaining agreement. And in public works, a business systems analyst has been added to support the implementation and maintenance of the new asset management software system, and an additional position to support the city's growing geographic information system needs has been transferred from the information technology department into public works. And then that decrease in all other funds represents changes in information technology. The position that I just mentioned was transferred to support GIS, and also a vacant network analyst was eliminated. The total budget for the capital improvement funds is $190.5 million for fiscal year 27, and this represents the funding for capital improvement projects by category. All of our utilities, this is the planned capital maintenance projects for stormwater, water, sewer, solid waste and recycling, and gas are budgeted at $103.1 million. This is about 54% of total capital funding. General government projects are budgeted at $48.6 million, 26% of total. This includes projects for fire, police, sidewalks, parks and recreation facilities, libraries, and maintenance of all city buildings and facilities that operate general government functions. Projects in support of internal service operations are budgeted at $19.4 million, 10% of total, and these are projects that support fleet, radio communications, general services, information technology, and utility customer service. And the capital budget for small enterprise funds, which is the air park, both marinas, and our parking facilities, is proposed at $19.4 million, also 10% of that total. New projects in the capital plan this year include the fire department radio replacement project. This is an estimated cost of, total estimated cost of $1.4 million. And in the current year, we moved existing funding of $413,000 in our last amendment, actually. The remaining funding of $828,000 will come from the general fund, and it's going to be transferred across fiscal years 27 through 29, so a phase of that project. And then we anticipate fire reimbursements from the county to come in fiscal year 29 at the completion of that project. The Stevenson's Creek Park project is added to complete the property renovation after hurricane damage in 2024. This project has a total estimated cost of $1.5 million, funded by general fund revenues, based over fiscal years 27 through 29. And also, the East Clearwater Resiliency Project is added to provide for infrastructure improvements in the Bayshore Corridor. Total project costs are estimated at $1,090,000. And this is funded by revenues from the general fund and stormwater fund over fiscal years 27 and 28. For the water and sewer system, we have several new projects that are in the capital plan with fiscal year 27 funding. This includes the automated meter reading project, estimated at $7.6 million, funded over fiscal years 27 through 32. The water reclamation facility consolidation project, this is estimated at $900 million, funded over fiscal years 27 through 32. Wellfield improvement project is estimated at $37 million, also funded over all six years, fiscal years 27 through 32. Our lift station and point repairs and improvements are estimated at $110 million, funded 27 through 32. Sewer point repairs and improvements are estimated at $201 million, funded over all six years, 27 through 32. The water reclamation facility maintenance and repair project is estimated at $23 million, funded over the years 27 through 32. And our water reclaimed water well repair and improvement project is new at an estimated $169 million, funded over fiscal years 27 through 32. And some of these projects that I just mentioned replaced other projects that were in there that were kind of combined in one big umbrella. And we're really just breaking these out for kind of transparency so you can see the movement of those projects. So, Council, the action requested of you today is to set the tentative millage rate, which the city manager has proposed at the current rate, 5.8850 mills, and to formally set the two public hearing dates for September. And all of this information will be provided to the county, and it will be included in the trim notices that are mailed to our residents in August. Just to note, if you set the tentative millage rate at this proposed rate, 5.8850, it can be reduced before final adoption in September, but can't go higher without a first-class mailing to each taxpayer at our expense. We've scheduled a special work session as an opportunity for you to further discuss the proposed budget with all departments present, which will be held here on August 11th at 1 p.m. And both of our public hearings are scheduled as special meetings this year, the first one planned on Tuesday, September 15th, and the second hearing to formally adopt that budget is planned for Monday, September 21st. Both of them will begin at 6 p.m. The full proposed budget is available on our website. It was posted on June 30th. We posted our digital book again this year as well as a full PDF document. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Well, first, thank you for all that's really important information, but it's not the easiest to present, so I appreciate how you do it every time you get through it quickly and you present it in a way that's easy for us to hear. So, City Manager. Thank you. So, I just wanted to point out a couple of things with this. One, the importance of our strategic planning and what we, as in our team, does with that information. And so, what you see before you in this budget is a result of those decisions, collective decisions, that were made at the strategic plan. So, it was our goals were to provide a millage rate that was at the same rate, but while also looking, going through and looking at where we had opportunities to make improvements and efficiencies and or reduce costs. And I think it's extraordinary that our team was able to present a budget today that holds the millage rate at the same rate, despite all of the increasing expenditures that we have, including keeping a competitive workforce at the 75 percentile, adding in those nine new firefighters, and doing so at an increase of only 3 percent to the general fund expenditures. So, our team really did a phenomenal job. So, to the department heads and to the assistant city managers, I thank you for taking that exercise so seriously and making those reductions so that we would be able to present that budget to you today. Thank you for pointing that out, just public, when it talks about an increase in employees over the previous year. It's firefighters that we're adding. It's not folks. You know, important, the community cares a lot about first responders and those are the personnel ads that were in this budget. So, thank you for sharing that. I do have, and apologize if I missed it, I may have been focusing on a prior slide, but the two public hearing meetings, the one on September 5th, 15th, do we vote at that meeting? We don't vote at that meeting. It's just a public comment. Not on the first meeting. It's the first meeting. So, we would vote at the first meeting. But it's a special meeting instead of one that's on our regular docket. Correct. Okay. Well, with that, let's first take public comment. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this agenda item? Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members, and staff. My name is Patrick Raffery. I'm a resident of the countryside area of Clearwater. This item I have no issues with with respect to its proposal and the maintenance of the current millage rate that I believe will result in about $110 million of addition. Additional funds to be managed by the city. Each year, there is excess funds available to the city, even though the millage rate is kept the same because our property values have gone up. Most of us, I believe, can absorb that increase without too much difficulty, and we do see the city prudently using those increases, very focused on maintaining good budgeting. The concern that I have is the November Amendment 3 that will be on the ballot. Now, that could be a disaster with respect to the financial planning of not only Clearwater, but many cities in the state of Florida. We do not know the exact results of it, but we do know in 2027 there will be an immediate credit toward our property taxes that will result in reduced revenues. Therefore, what I'm suggesting to the council, to the city's public information office, and the lobbyists that will be working on behalf of the city in Tallahassee, is that there will be a focus on what that would really mean to the city of Clearwater so that we may educate the residents and citizens of Clearwater that if they see this as nothing more than a reduction of their property taxes, what would be the significant impact financially to the city of Clearwater and this budget that was just presented to us now. I think it's very important that they understand that because, as in many things, when you mention cost reduction, everybody is on board quickly. But they often do not think of the implications of that cost reduction and a reduction to our property taxes we would all like to see. But we need to balance that with what the impact will be on the budget for our city. So, therefore, what I'm saying is that there needs to be a focus on the possibility of that amendment passing in November and the dramatic impact it's going to have on our budget process. And we need to educate everyone with respect to what that would mean to us. And hopefully you'll undertake that focus and educate and inform us so that when we do vote in November, we know exactly what we're voting for and what the impact of that will be. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Anyone else here from the public desire to speak to this agenda? Okay. Hearing, seeing none. Oh, council discussion. Vice Mayor. Thank you, sir. Kayleen, thank you for the report. Over the last decade, Clearwater's ad valorem tax revenue has seen a growth of $46.6 million to the proposed $110.9 million. That is an increase of approximately 138%. During that same time period, cumulative inflation in the United States has been approximately 39%. I recognize that inflation has increased the cost of providing city services, and a portion of this revenue growth reflects those higher costs. But even after accounting for inflation, the city is collecting substantially more property tax revenue than it did just 10 years ago. My question is not whether we have more revenue, because we do. The question is whether we are exercising the discipline and stewardship of our taxpayers' expect. Before asking our residents to pay more, we owe them the best possible use of the resources they have already entrusted to us. I do appreciate the work that staff is doing, but I am going to ask them to continue making hard decisions and continue looking to make their budgets more efficient. No matter how small the reduction, I would like to see us hit a rollback rate for this budget year, and depending on what the people decide in November, look to do a millage rate decrease next year. Thank you. Further counsel discussion? If not, I'd just like to add to what the vice mayor just said. I said on Monday I support giving taxpayers relief, and if this ballot measure doesn't pass, I'd like to see us look at reducing the millage. But personally, I just don't think the timing is right for us. We're already navigating the what-ifs. We had Mr. Raftery come to the podium and speak a minute ago about the pressure it's going to put on our city and some difficult decisions we'll have to make if the referendum passes. So I just think, although I support reducing the millage, I'd love to see us try to do that. I'm so thankful for the many years that our real property owners in this city have, by their contributions, have made this city what it is. If they haven't been paying the real property taxes over the years that they had, we would not have one of the most beautiful cities in the United States, and I respect their commitment in the past of doing that and what they're doing to support this current budget. I'm just personally concerned that reducing the millage at this time, without knowing what the impact may be of a vote that's going to happen in November, that that's not in the best interest. But I did want to say that I do support this idea, and much of what you said, I think we'd need to consider. It's been a while since we did reduce the millage, and I think depending upon what happens in November, we need to look in the future to see what we can do to reduce the millage here. So with that, is there any further discussion? Councilman Menino? Appreciate you. I think Council Member Albritton wants to speak as well, but I'll touch on it. Appreciate you. Thank you. It's so fun, right? Exciting. You do it with such a smile. And I appreciate all the work that the team puts into the process and really keeps us informed and educates us along the way. It's interesting. As the budget process goes through, it's based so often on projections and assumptions. And when the actual numbers come in and financial numbers really hit the board, sometimes decisions can shift and pivot, and that can't be easy on staff when we give you direction to go one way for months and months. You're smiling because you know where I'm going. For months and months, and then to kind of throw a curveball at you. But you and your team are always flexible. You adapt. You're professional. And I appreciate that, so thank you. Like all of our families, not just Clearwater, affordability is an absolute challenge. And we've all been hit with higher cost and inflation, and we see it at grocery stores, gas pumps, energy bills everywhere we go, and there's no way to insulate ourselves away from it. I believe that as a government and as a dais, we have an obligation to live with our means. And I know our city believes that. And this leadership team and your staff have shown that the last couple years. I think last year we reduced our spending over 10%, which was great to our taxpayers, kept the millage rate the same. And this year as we approach the process, we got hit with about a $12 million shortfall and gap and deficit. That we had fears that that would change maybe the quality of life or the level of service that our residents have come to expect and deserve. You produced a budget that made our community safer, without a doubt, by adding first responders personnel, but also didn't change those level of services and the quality of life, and that's important. I did not speak to this item on Monday, as others did, because I still had several questions, and I wanted to know what really I saw that percentage of 0.13%, and it seemed so minimal. So my questions were kind of based on what does that 0.13% look like in a dollar sense, and does that 0.13% change that level of service or quality of life, and can we manage it and not put us in financial instability or risk, and can we continue that level of service that our residents deserve? Property tax referendum has come up several times, and that's a drastic measure. That's going to be a radical change if passed to our citizens on that level of service and quality of life, and I agree 1,000% with Mr. Raftery, and I know staff does as well. We should be talking about it more often, and I know city manager and team does have opportunities and workshops scheduled going forward to truly educate our residents. At the end of the day, they'll be making that decision on what they want their community to look like, what level of services, and their quality of life. I think after discussing with the finance team and the city manager, I believe we do have the ability, and I'm confident, we have the ability to absorb that 0.13% that would put us at a rollback and continue that level of service. I do understand that this is tentative, that anything approved today still has an opportunity going forward to lower but not raise. But I do believe that we have an opportunity now to make that statement to our residents and our citizens that we hear you. We understand the struggles. They are real. We understand the realities of the environments that we all live in. We've done that on this daish for the last two years. I think we have another opportunity to do that going forward, and that $12 million gap is covered. Your team did an amazing job. I think, like the council member said, that little extra, that 0.13%, I think we have the ability to overcome that and continue to do some work going forward. But for those reasons, I'm sorry I threw a curveball at the finance team or at the city manager in this, but I do proudly support a rollback. I do have confidence in your team and in our leadership team that we have the ability to not only absorb that, but to exceed expectations and performances that our community and residents deserve on the quality of life side and the level of services. So with that, am I correct in understanding that this doesn't have to be a super majority vote to push this budget through? No, because this is just the information that's being submitted to the county for trim notices. So your trim notice, which I'm sure is probably your favorite piece of mail all year because it's very easy to understand. So the trim notice actually shows the rollback rate every single year in one column, and then the last column is what all of these proposed rates are. So all of the agencies on your tax bill, they're making the decisions like this right now, it shows what that rate is. So this isn't the final decision, that's the notice to residents, it's not what their final bill is. So it's literally, you're approving the notification to the county of what we want to put in the trim notices for our residents. Appreciate you. Yeah, I'll support a rollback rate. I believe it reflects both sound financial management and our commitment to the taxpayers of Clearwater, but thank you. Kaylee, I got a question. So it's such a small difference on the rollback rate. I was told somewhere around what the actual citizens would probably find out of it is like a $2 difference in their tax bill. Have you figured that out, something like that? Yes. It would be $0.77 per $100,000 of taxable value. So usually in September I share a slide that shows like a $250,000 taxable value, and that's $1.92. $1.92 would be on like that $250,000. But you just multiply out $0.77 per $100,000. But maybe if $250,000 is average, it would be $1.92. Right. So, I mean, the way I look at it, it's a great thing to say we're going to go back to the rollback rate. This year it's so small. I mean, it's such a small thing we're giving back to. I think we could do more, as Mr. Ravridi said, educating the people as to what's coming with this referendum and, you know, the possibility of things that we're going to have to cut back if it passes because we've got to, you know, we've got to maintain budget and, you know, we don't want to do it on fire and police. But a lot of things that people really take for granted in the city of Clearwater, like the parks, the libraries, I mean, you're going to see a decline on some of those things that people use every day. It could be soccer fields, it could be a lot of things because we have a very big parks and rec budget, and I can see the impact taken mostly on that. So to be honest, I think that, you know, just by saying it sounds good to say, hey, we're going to accept the rollback rate, you know, really only means a couple of dollars for most people. I think keep it as the way it is and then tighten our belts. And I want to tell you, and I'm the city manager and all the department heads, again, it seems like we say this every year for the last three years, you guys do an amazing job on tightening the belt. I mean, we were way ahead of this whole, you know, cutting back and tightening the belt thing that Florida went through a couple of years ago. We were already doing it, and every year we do it. So, you know, we don't really, I've seen we don't spend a lot of money, just everything we spend are what really makes Clearwater great and people use. So I think that because of such a small amount that I would go just where we are right now, not the rollback rate, and because we are going to have to really tighten. I have a feeling we're going to be tightening our belt a lot here coming up after November. That's one more to share. Well, initially, you know, I've said it before, it keeps me up of light, all the responsibilities we have. And so my knee-jerk reaction was like, no. But then I was, you know, having a conversation with the staff, and then I see how it's doable and it can be done. And I acknowledge that it might be perceived as a small amount, but perhaps it may be. I was thinking because the staff has reassured me that it has a nominal effect, I guess, and it can be done, I'm open to it. I understand the argument that it's only, let's say, $2 per person or per household. But I'm thinking, you know, is this going to be perceived as an olive branch to the citizens? So I can see both sides. Can I ask, what's it mean in a dollar amount to us in our budget if we went to the rollback? What's the total amount? The total that we would receive? Not for each property owner, but what's the total amount? At the rollback? The difference, yeah, that we would be receiving. It's, can I tell you this short story long? It just helps me kind of paint the picture. So we base the preliminary budget on early estimates from the property appraiser. They come, you know, in late May. And then we get our final numbers, which is what I reported to you today. That's what we use through this whole process. Our numbers changed a little between the two of those. They increased a little. And that almost absorbed the rollback rate. That increased. So what we presented in the document, what we released, and then that tweak of numbers almost absorbed the rate. So we would not have to make a huge change. It would be $145,000, a little over $145,000 reduction in the revenue. I see it differently. Because like I said earlier, I support the idea of rolling back. And I would agree, even though it's not a big amount, it's not, you know, for each property owner, it's not a lot. I think it does send a message, which we've been trying to share with our citizens already. I mean, we have credit for the staff for doing this. The staff has worked very hard over the last two years to find savings and to find ways to do things more efficiently. To keep our costs down, we continue to do that. We're mandated by the state now to do that every year. But I didn't realize that, you know, the rollback rate would result in that much of a difference. And hearing what the others are saying now, that they're open to it. But if I do understand it, whatever we put in that, we can't go back to the current rate. Tonight we're setting the ceiling. We can roll it back further. You could, but you wouldn't want to go through that process. Right. But we can. Yeah. So I would, Vice Mayor. A little shocked, to be honest. I mean, I understand and I noted that this year's rollback was going to be a small reduction. But going from what I thought Monday was a lone island to hearing a little bit of support, I appreciate it. I think that this is the good governance that I talk about, right, is to be able to have these open discussions and see where we can help people and make a meaningful impact. You know what I mean? $2 to some is more than others, right? And that's only on the first $100,000. So $4 might get somebody something. I don't know what that's going to be. But the Wendy's meal. Anyways, it starts us looking and trending in the right direction of trying to hit a future rollback rate. I think that's kind of the overall arching message. No matter what does happen in November, I think we're setting a tone going forward that, yes, we acknowledge through the city manager, through her diligent staff, and through all of our directors on tightening the belt, as has been said, that we are maintaining this is the people's money. We want to be good stewards of it and try and put the best foot forward for those people, while still producing the best services and best product that is their hometown to give to them. So I'm very grateful for the conversation we're having tonight. I don't know if anybody else wants to continue this. Yes, Mr. Albritton does, so I'll be quiet. Thank you. Well, I can count. So I don't want to be the lone guy that says I'm going to raise taxes. No, it's such a small amount. All I wanted to get across to everybody is belt tightening is coming. And Clearwater is better off than most, especially rural municipalities. They're going to really be devastated. But we do have, I know we're going to have to cut back, and we're going to have to tighten our belt, and some services are going to be cut back. Yeah, and we need to put, I think it's a great idea to put that out to the public so they understand what they're voting for. So I'll go along. It looks like we have a 5-0 thing here about the rollback, right? Maybe. Councilman, to share. Yes, yes. Okay. I know it's symbolic, but I think it sends a message, and I'm for it. What would that rate be, though, to make the motion? Can I? Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I do want to thank you. I did not, again, speak on Monday because I wanted to know what that figure was. And I know you did make calls to all of us to make sure we understand what that figure was. Now, whether we had that dialogue or you had that dialogue is a different story, and on each of us in that relationship to manage. But that figure was not a surprise to me, and I appreciate that. And that's why I made that decision because I felt that $144,000, regardless of the $2, it is doable, and I have the confidence in our staff to tackle it. But I thank you and the team for getting us all that figure and those answers before tonight's meeting. And if you would just allow me, and I know that you here because you meet, you know, every week with Jennifer, but to your point of recognizing belt tightening and change is coming, you know, I'm on the front lines with my peers. And what they present, and it's been made clear from their bosses, like, regardless, we know and we've heard and we're working toward it. And they've been challenged to rethink. And so we are, you know, we know that this is what you want. It's what you wanted this year, and it turned out to be not a very large change. But it is absolutely the direction that, you know, my peers are hearing. And, you know, when they're looking at their budget this year and when they're planning for next year, they're really, they've been challenged to think hard, you know, regardless, because it is what your direction has been since you've been sitting at the dais. So I just want to reiterate from me on the front lines of my peers that it's not easy. And they are looking for, you know, for improvements and opportunities to bring you back, you know, an even lower budget for the next year. Thank you. If not, is there a motion? A motion to approve the new military at 5.8773. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanalous. Thank you. Let's take just a few-minute recess since we've got more on the agenda. And we've been here for over two hours, so let's take a short recess. We'll call back to order the meeting of the City Council, and we'll move to item 6.3 on the agenda. Council members, item 6.3 appoint 10 members to the 2026 Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to include the appointment of a locally elected official and adopt Resolution 26-12. Staff is asking that the item be continued to the next meeting. The reason being, since the work session, I received a call from Ms. Byers, who is no longer able to serve on the NAHAB board, which NAHAB representatives, the board members of NAHAB must serve as AHAC, which means we're short one member. So, at the next meeting, I do have applicants available for council consideration, but I'll present it at the next meeting. Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll move to item 6.4 on the agenda. Declare a surplus or in real property located at 103 Northeast Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, 33755. Approve the transfer of said property to the City of Clearwater Community Redevelopment Agency and authorize the appropriate officials to effectuate the transaction. Good evening, Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Managers, other respective members of the dais. Chris Edwards, Economic Development and Housing Director. From our presentation on Monday, tonight's action is an administrative step that declares the current city-owned property located at 103 Northeast Avenue as surplus and transfers the property to the City of Clearwater CRA. This transfer allows CRA to strategically manage and market the property for future redevelopment that supports downtown revitalization, expansion, expands the tax and economic base, as well as advances the goals of the downtown community redevelopment area. Stand ready if you have any questions or comments. Does anyone here from the public tonight desire to speak to this agenda? If not, may we have a reading here? Now, this is to declare a surplus. Is there any council discussion on this item? If not, is there a motion? Move to approve agenda item 6.4. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. General item 6.5. Provide direction on the proposed development agreement between MHG, Palm Pavilion Hotel, LP, Six Flag, Planted LLC, and the City of Clearwater for property located at 10 Bay Esplanade and 18 Bay Esplanade, providing for the allocation of 91 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design, and confirm a second public hearing in City Council Chambers before City Council on August 20, 2026 at 6 p.m. or soon thereafter, as may be heard. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor of Council. Ted Cozai, Planning and Development. So, over the next two hours, I'm going to go over this. So, we have a very short summary here. The site location existing conditions. The site is 1.06 acres. West side of the property is to remain the existing restaurant. East side of the property, a demolition to offer a path for improvements for what is proposed. The district is in the tourist district, resort facilities high for future land use, Old Florida District of Beach by Design. The development proposal is a permitted density of 50 units per acre, allowing for 53 units on its own. An additional 91 units from the Hotel Density Reserve is requested. There's a total of 144 units at 136 units per acre. The height is proposed at 75 feet. The parking is on the first four levels. There is a small swimming pool on one of the floors. There's hotel rooms on the fifth through the ninth floors. And the amenities is that aforementioned restaurant, 93, 89 square feet, other small amenities in back of house. The proposal, as proposed, is consistent with the Community Development Code pertaining to setbacks, height, parking, and landscaping. It's noted that in the future, the required FLD site plan. If so, this reserve is moved forward and other plans will be reviewed by the Community Development Board. And that will need to be substantially consistent with what you're reviewing now. The proposal also is consistent with Beach by Design pertaining to design guidelines and the provision of a tropical modern architecture, which complements the tropical vernacular envisioned by Beach by Design. Also envisioned in the Beach by Design and to be eligible for what is requested is the allocation of units they need to demonstrate compliance with transportation requirements, including the provision of review of a traffic impact study that has been reviewed that concluded that traffic operations would continue at an acceptable level of service, mandatory hurricane evacuation and hotel closure provisions, transient hotel operations, internal hotel access and reservation system, and acknowledging the return of any unused allocated rooms to the reserve. So, therefore, the proposal is in compliance with the standards for development agreements consistent with the comprehensive plan and it furthers the vision of beach redevelopment set forth by Beach by Design. Thank you. And I'll take any questions. I believe there's a presentation by the applicant. Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. Katie Cole with the law firm of Hill Ward Henderson, 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 800, Clearwater. No, I know. I was getting through the – here tonight to speak about the redevelopment of the Palm Pavilion Inn and the allocation of hotel units from the Hotel Density Reserve. I have to print it out if I need to. Oh, see, I could – oh, there it is right there. Oh, wait, no, that's staff. It's not. Fifth one up top says Palm Pavilion. I know, that's the staff presentation. It's okay. I can flip through on the helmet. I can't see it in front of me, but I can barely read my own notes. Let me grab it and I'll just put it on there. Low tech. Yeah. I'm guessing that's going to be the staff presentation now. You want to pull up the conceptual significance? I'll put it on there. There's – not rocket science. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to introduce Mr. J.B. McKibben of McKibben Hospitality, who's the owner of the hotel portion of this property. As you know, the Beachside Group is the owner of the Historic Palm Pavilion restaurant, which is now Crabby's Beachside. And they began operating that after the two took title in January. So, J.B. Sure. Kate, thanks for the introduction. Evening, Mayor, Council Members. Just wanted to introduce myself to everyone, seeing who I was. But J.B. McKibben, President McKibben Equities. And McKibben is a 100-year-old, this year, family-owned business, some fourth generation. And we're headquartered in Tampa, just across the bridge. We've operated in Clearwater for a long time. We run the Hampton and the Dolphin Sands Hotel for the Page family. And just really excited now to be a deeper part of this community with the Palm and looking at the future vision for that project. It's going to be more resilient, add more jobs, more income, and more features for the community. Just generally, McKibben, everything we like to do to reinvest from the art top to bottom, keep it local and in the community. That's a big initiative for us. And really excited for the opportunity to put our special touches here right next to home at Clearwater Beach. As you know, we're here tonight to request your allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve. And we understand, I'm not going to go through, I know we did this in May, so I'm not going to go through in detail. And you've also seen it, and you've been here before. But we recognize you've received a significant pressure to stop the implementation of one of the most successful redevelopment plans enacted throughout the state. Beached by Design, I have my very tattered copy that sits on my desk. It was implemented by the city 20 years ago specifically to encourage the tourist and hospitality industry. The council members at the time did an amendment in the growth management plan to the comprehensive plan, hired consultants to look at traffic, infrastructure, employment, and job opportunities in Clearwater and what would best generate income and revenues for the city. It was determined then and has continued as the result of the very successful implementation of the plan to make and turn Clearwater into the world's most best beach, which it receives on a regular basis. I appreciate that there is concern of some of the neighbors as to the redevelopment, but I think it's important to note, and I'll just go through this very quickly, that if you request for unified development to retain the spirit of the historical pavilion restaurant, together with the new hotel. After the allocation of units, the owners then do need to go back to the Community Development Board for an approval of the actual site plan. At that point, the traffic study will be analyzed with the engineers, not on a conceptual level, but on an implementation level. Where are the access points? What conflicts exist, et cetera? Libby Rodriguez, the project's traffic engineer, is here with us tonight and happy to answer any questions that you may have as it relates to this. It's important to note these are the existing conditions. Much of the correspondence you've received today is from the Pura Vida Hotel, or Pura Vida Condominiums, which are here. The Pura Vida Condominiums is 75 feet from high, from base flood elevation. The request before you tonight is for a hotel 75 feet tall from base flood elevation. Here is the hotel. You can see the existing restaurant that will remain in the parking lot, and the existing hotel will be redeveloped in hotel. It's very specifically considered to face the hotel rooms toward Kendall instead of the public noise-generating uses like the pool and the restaurant areas to provide that buffer. This is just an example of the elevation and the floor plan on the floor, which shows the pool deck area and the amenity. Mr. Kovac went through the Beach by Design requirements for the allocation of hotel density reserve. You'll hear a lot tonight about why there was 1,300 units that were allocated by Beach by Design and how many are left. The 19 that are remaining to be allocated after this allocation, presuming you do that, does not consider the undeveloped units that are still out there. There is a tally that the city staff has that I'm sure each of you have seen as it relates to the development of this project. The Old Florida District is specifically contemplated to serve a mix of uses, and it specifically says in the project that the Old Florida District is an area of transition between resort uses in the Central Beach to the low-intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. To that end, Beach by Design supports the development of new overnight accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the district with limited retail commercial and mixed-use development fronting Mandalay. Additionally, waterfront restaurants are encouraged to remain and or locate on property fronting the Gulf of Mexico. This project does exactly that and introduces additional overnight accommodations in the Old Florida District while retaining the historic Palm Pavilion restaurant. With that, we're happy to answer any questions and appreciate your support. Well, with that, let's first see if there's anyone here from the public tonight that desires to speak to this agenda. Jonathan Wheat. Good evening, Mayor Rector and the City Council. Since this is the first time I've addressed the Council, I'd just like to first thank you all for your service to the City of Clearwater and Clearwater Beach. That being said, and due to the short time that we have, I get straight to the point. My wife and I live at Pura Vida, a 22-unit residential condominium community, immediately adjacent to the Palm Pavilion property. At its closest point, our homes are only about 35 feet from the proposed development. I have submitted a letter in opposition, and our condominium board has also submitted a formal letter on behalf of our community. One concern I have is that the residents who will be most likely and directly affected by this proposal have received remarkably little attention through the whole process. Pura Vida, for example, is barely mentioned in the staff reports, and previous notices concerning this project have never been received by us. It's almost as if our neighborhood doesn't exist. However, my primary concern, however, is that the sheer scale and intensity of what has been proposed, the City's own planning history recognizes this site as appropriate for 14 hotel units. In 2024, the existing 30-room inn was allowed to continue because of its longstanding, non-conforming status. Now, less than two years later, the applicant is asking for you to approve a 144-room hotel on the same property. This proposal is not simply redevelopment. It is a fundamental change in the intensity of the development on this site, more than 10 times what the zoning originally contemplated. I also reviewed the minutes from the May Council meeting. I was surprised by how many direct questions received answers, such as generally consistent or appears to be consistent. With respect, generally consistent should not be enough when considering one of the largest density increases on North Beach. The Council deserves clear answers. Either this proposal complies with Beach by Design and the hotel density reserve criteria, or it doesn't. Finally, I'd like to ask you to consider the broader question, what kind of North Beach do we want in the future, 10, 20, 30 years from now? Many of us chose North Beach because it is different. It offers a unique balance between residents, visitors, small independent hotels. Appreciate your time's up, though. Thank you. We're time limited on speakers, so thank you for coming tonight. I just respectfully ask you to vote no. Do we have our next speaker? Thank you. Patrick Raftery. Good evening once again. The night grows late, but I'm still full of excitement. No problem. I've spoken on this matter before, and my concern, even though I reside in the countryside area, is for the traffic density and problems that it may present to the Clearwater Beach area. There's an allocation request for 91 units, which will result in a 10-story, 144-unit hotel to be put on this property. As the mayor pointed out, I believe, at the work session on Monday, the traffic problem is essentially south of the roundabout, and that is because all of the development thus far pretty much has been south of the roundabout. This development starts the development north of the roundabout, and may be the start of that development continuing up there, and we already know there's a significant traffic problem for those residing on Clearwater Beach. This will simply add to it. At the work session on Monday, Council Member Cotton also pointed out and requested some information about a traffic study that was being done. And if I'm not mistaken, we learned at that work session that that traffic study will not be complete until November of this year. And it is a detailed traffic study of the situation on Clearwater Beach right now, which we know is a problem. I believe Council Member Cotton's suggestion was that he would like to propose the 91 units be allocated, but the balance that remained of 19 units, we hold up doing anything with that until this traffic study is released, and the implications for Clearwater Beach are known. I would suggest you may want to consider that pause now, because we know there's a problem, and we know that it has not yet been resolved, and we know there's a traffic study that's due in November of this year. Also, as Council Member Cotton pointed out, with 19 units remaining, there could be additional units returned to that pool, and the problem might be faced once again with somebody wanting to develop north of the roundabout. I reside in countryside. I go to Clearwater Beach very rarely at this time because of the traffic problems. Those that reside on Clearwater Beach, I think, must really consider running to the CVS for an errand with the traffic that they see. So I think what I'm asking to say to yourselves is that at some point, enough is enough, and you need to pause this and say, what will we do to address the problems with traffic and the density of things that are there already and say beach by design may have outlived its usefulness? Thank you very much for your time. Next speaker. We have one more. Good evening. Mayor Rector, council members, city staff, management. In relation to this project, I would like to share some supply-side economics about the need or lack thereof for additional hotel rooms on the beach, especially those added through increased density. Through discussions with Councilman Cotton, we received occupancy and capacity data, plus other information for Clearwater Beach. What I'm handing out, I point to it right there, is on the attached documents, page one, you will note that the occupancy for 12 months ending April 2026 is 71.2%. The highest months for occupancy are March, which is spring break, and April at 88.7% and 86.2%, respectively. On page two here, the current fiscal year, meaning October through April, the year-to-date occupancy is only 70.6%. The demand year-over-year comparison follows the same relative trending curve, which is right here, over the last three years. Through this past year and ongoing, we will be seeing the addition of 91 units at the new Marriott on East Shore Drive. The future additions already in the system include 200 units at the Marriott at Sand Key, a project of 135 units at 405 Coronado Drive, and 158 units for the Hilton on the Bluffs. Though the Hilton is not really on the beach, its proximity, including transportation to the beach, will add to the beach hotel capacity. It's that close. These four projects total an additional 584 hotel rooms. These increases, coupled with the fact that a 60-unit hotel was converted to a condominium, the downsizing of 405 Coronado, and the return of these 100 units that make this available of Captain Bly project, would seem to suggest the industry is already reconsidering how many units are necessary. So the question is, is there really a need for an increase of another 91 hotel units on the beach, especially via density reserve pool? And with an annual average occupancy of 71.2%, there is no need to just keep building more and bigger. It is time for a pause on any more distribution or redistribution from the hotel density pool. Can we hear a motion, please? Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that desires to speak this to you? Not that I'm aware. Okay. None. With that, we will move to Councilman's. Do I have any thoughts that you want to share? Councilman Rolpren. All right. So I've got a lot of – I know probably most – all of us have e-mails regarding different things about this project. Here's the way I see it. The project abides by beach by design. When beach by design was adopted, a density pool was established based on the load that the sewer water, electric, gas, and traffic could support. Beach by design has been a proven plan that has worked on Clearwater Beach for over 20 years. The formula for placing density units for this project is legal. The traffic study has been done and approved by staff. Neighbors who complain about a mixture of commercial and residential property too close together must know that this occurs in the old Florida district where this is placed. Neighbors who complain about losing their view must know that Florida law does not give a property owner a legal right to preserve a view across a neighbor's property. So I don't find any really reason to deny this property owner the right to 91 density units. Now, it's going to go to the CDB, and all the plans will be scrutinized, and the traffic, as they said, the traffic study will be looked at again. But, you know, that's why beach by design was made. And, you know, the only thing I would say to staff now is, okay, we've got, after this allocation of 91 units, we've got 19 units left. I'd like to see that the staff consider allocating the 19 units to strategic positions on the beach, not just random. Because I know that we can build in some areas, and other areas probably are too densely populated already. So I'd like to not pause anything about it, but I'd like to just start thinking about strategically using the last of the 19 units. But I will support the 91 density units. That's one. Menino. Thank you, sir. Can you read my notes over here? I can't see that far. What are you doing? What are you doing? Yeah, I'm supportive of the project. Beach by design was, as said earlier, was an absolute amazing, well-thought-out, comprehensive plan. It was not rushed. It was not built around assumptions or guesses. It was built around years of professionals, the best in their industries, doing a complete comprehensive plan and an evaluation of where Clearwater was at the time, identifying a need to shift away from residential units taking over the whole beach to tourism being able to support our tax revenues and to build out so tourism can continue. Yes, it has been a long time, and that's credit to an amazing plan, not to anything else. I did get a little nervous on Monday when I heard the dreaded M word for development as well as the pause word, so I'm not going to use that again. But I do think we've come to a place where, as we find an exit ramp, similar to what the council member says, I think we need to have a deeper discussion, almost a strategic visioning session on identifying what our original plan was for, where are some of those gaps, like the intercoastal boardwalk was supposed to be built and be an amazing amenity to tourists and to our residents. There are a couple gaps in that, so maybe we identify where those opportunities and gaps are and then strategically start to allocate opportunities for allocation in a strategic spot manner and not just stick hands in a cookie jar and pull density out. I think that's where we've come. I am supportive of this plan, of this project. I think it will add to North Beach. I appreciate in the Beach by Design plan that it's not just, you know, grab density. You have to qualify for it, and you qualify for it on high standards of meeting development agreements and challenges that city staff puts in there to make sure the capacity is met, to make sure that traffic can handle it, and all of that has already been said this evening, and traffic studies do show that. So I am supportive of this project moving forward, and I do hope, I believe, the council member has already put on the next agenda session that discussion about it, and I hope that can shift away from the M&P word and more into a strategic visioning of an allocation side. Thank you. I don't know that the M word was said, but I did definitely say pause. To any developers watching, I'm not saying that we're closed by any means. But to the locals, again, I'll just reiterate that we know that we have a traffic study that we now know is coming near the end of the year, and it comes down to all of us that live here, right, and to the tourists that do come and visit. Trying to move people onto our beach and off our beach is going to be a priority. So we'll get into that pause discussion. Next work session, I look forward to it. I look forward to some of the data points that are coming from it. But I do also support this project and all the future projects that are coming. I do agree with your sentiment that Beach by Design, being 20 years in, did take into account future impact studies, and that it is a good plan because we've been able to implement it with minimal changes going forward. So thank you very much for the time and the clarification. We'll talk again next session. I'm in full support of a discussion. There's a lot of confusion. There's a lot of opinions out there, and I think that would be healthy to kind of just get all the information out there and have that discussion. However, I will not deny the right of this property owner to get the rooms that they are requesting. It is well within their right, and it is part of the plan. And before we do anything to derail that, I think we need to be very careful, intentional. So, yes, I support the allocation of these 91 rooms, and I am looking forward to a discussion. Leaves me. So I just want to start by saying, I think uniquely for me, going to and from, up and down, all around Clearwater Beach has been part of my daily life for almost 10 years. I've lived out there for almost 10 years. It's my choice. When I first moved out there, folks, my friends thought I was crazy. Why would you go out there? And I can tell you why. I not only have been there for almost 10 years, but I stay there. It is one of the best places in the world to live. Despite all the development, it is a phenomenal place to live. And so, but I understand, you know, why my neighbors out there are concerned about additional growth because there are times where it is uncomfortable. But we all choose to live out there, those of us that do, because despite the inconveniences, despite all these tourists, it is still the best place in the world. And I am thankful that we have become ranked in the top 24 beaches in the world, one of only three U.S. beaches to be ranked in that category because we have kept and we have developed the beach over time in, I think, the right way. 20 years ago, long before I became mayor or any of us were sitting up here, we made a decision. We were going to raise our density, we were going to attract these flag hotels, and many headaches. I can tell you I've been stuck in that traffic like some of the folks I see out here in the audience at times, and it's frustrating. But it has been a phenomenal success. We have reaped so much benefit as a city, not just those of us who live on the beach, the entire city, from the success of Clearwater Beach. We generated, I just went to the Tourist Development Council meeting yesterday. In the month of May, Clearwater alone generated $2.6 million of bed tax in one month. And that's about anywhere between 35% to 40% of the county's entire bed tax. And what that means is, you know, some of those monies, the bed tax come back to allow us to do many nice things and improvements. The marina is getting some money right now. The barricade ballpark from that bed tax. We're able to do many nice things throughout the city because we made that decision years ago to grow our beach in this way. And it's not just the bed tax. It's all the folks who work out there, the families that rely on the income that work in these hotels. It has been a phenomenal success. And although if you pull together the folks who approved all this originally 20 years ago, maybe they wouldn't have put as many rooms in the pool as they did, but they did. And despite any second-guessing Monday morning quarterback, it has been a phenomenal success. So I want everybody to remember that. I also want folks to remember that we've recovered so much faster than all of the other barrier islands for a couple reasons. One reason is that our staff did a phenomenal job in putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. But because we are part of a larger city that has a phenomenal growing economic driver out there on the beach with the hotels we've added that were built more resiliently, we came back so much faster. So I know, again, I feel it. I know what folks out there who have been concerned about adding additional units out there are concerned. I get it. You know, at times it's tough. But we choose to live out there. And we choose to live out there knowing all the growth and all the additional growth. And there's not a whole lot of growth left. The units are all almost, except for 19, already allocated. So there's just not much more they can do. So that's part of my decision. The second part of my decision is this property, property owners do have rights. You know, we all have rights. But those folks who have relied on this plan to, and the Kibben's here today, investing. There was some comment made about, well, you know, maybe, you know, we've already added too many rooms. We're not filling them. I can tell you that from the TDC yesterday, four of the six months of tourism and hotel occupancy and bedtags have been four of the six months ever in Pinellas County. We are filling them, all of them. And I'm sure that's driving the desire of McKibben to add these rooms out there. So I understand all the concerns. I feel it personally. But I just feel like, as Council Member Tosheda said, you know, we also need to understand the property owners who have relied on this plan to develop. And to help us create the great success that we've all been creating. So, you know, we're going to consider it again on August 20th. So if folks want to come out that aren't here tonight, that want to voice their concerns or try to change their minds, they certainly have another opportunity to do that. But for me, I think that I'm going to be voting to move it forward to the August 20th. With that, is there any other discussion? Now is there a motion. Move to approve agenda item 6.5. Before the vote is taken, I just want to remind everybody you're only approving the public hearing date. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Did we get a motion and a second? Mm-hmm. There was a motion and a second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. With that, we'll move to our next agenda item, which is the line here. 6.6. 6.6. Appoint an individual to the Sister Cities Advisory Board as a business community representative with an unexpired term through March 31. 2028. Council members, as directed at the work session, I did invite the prospective applicants. Of the prospective applicants, Ms. Acton is here. Mr. Johnson did withdraw his application as he no longer qualifies to be in that category, to serve in that category. And then I did share the application for Christine Michalak, who lives at 855 Bayway Boulevard and is a retired AARP consultant. And she is also here today to answer any questions. Okay. So, at this time, is there anyone here from the public that desires to speak regarding this agenda item? If not, then we'll have the council discussion. Thank you, sir. To the applicants who came and stood through this riveting meeting, I appreciate you all. Thank you for coming. Ms. Michalak, thank you for applying as well. And Cheryl, thank you for being here as well. Also, I'm going to stick with my original recommendation for Cheryl to get this appointment due to her travel experience, again, with Delta Airlines and being a part of that business, that community that just deals with travel and overall knowledge that she would have. And I believe international travel as well. So, again, I will nominate Ms. Action. Is that a motion or are we having a discussion? I figured there would be discussion. Okay. I can make a motion. Councilor, you can make a motion. I agree. I had the same discussion on Monday and thought Cheryl was a good fit for the same reasons. Travel, experience, tourism, as well as serving on multiple community associations and board roles in addition to being part of the Citizens Academy. So, I think that's probably fair to continue my support for Cheryl. Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilor, I agree. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to appoint Ms. Cheryl Action to the Sister Cities Advisory Board as agenda item 6.6. Is there a second? Second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Thank you for serving. Move to agenda item 7.1. So, Council 7.1 is a second reading. Do you want me to go ahead and read the title? Ordinance number 9909-26. Ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, amending code of ordinances, Chapter 30, Traffic and Motor Vehicles, allowing payment through mobile platforms, allowing digital parking permits, clarifying continuous parking period requirements, allowing phone and email response to parking tickets, requiring an original affidavit or plea to contest parking tickets, increasing the penalties for parking fines, creating mobile payment parking zones, and eliminating the requirement to display parking receipts, and many dependents A, schedule fees, rates and charges, Article 14 streets, 19 streets, sidewalks and other places, sections 5-4-5, increasing administrative fees, and increasing fees for removal and reinstallation of pay stations, providing for severability and providing an effective date. Is there anyone here tonight from the public who desires to speak to this agenda? Okay. Hearing none, is there a motion? Motion to approve agenda item 7.1. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Agenda item 7.2. Adapt ordinance 9888-26 on third reading, Vacate and City Right-of-Way Alley Drainage Utility Easements, as more particularly described, and recorded Bayview City Subdivision Platte Book 9, page 43, and the abutting Bayview Terrace Subdivision, as recorded in Platte Book 12, page 63, of the Public Records of Pinellas County. Evening, Mayor, Council Members, Marcus Williamson, Public Works Director. We've seen this one a couple of times. On Monday, we did highlight there was going to be a slight change, so what's in front of your packets as of today incorporates that slight change. That's the removal of that little section up there on Tennessee. So this is the current one that's in your packets. So standing by if there's any specific questions. Is there one here from the public tonight that's starting to speak for this? We say none, but we have a reading. Sure to read it. Sure to read it. I read the title. So ordinance number 988-26. An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, vacating City Right-of-Way Alley and Drainage Utility Easement, as more particularly described herein, and recorded in the Bayview City Subdivision, Platte Book 9, page 43, and the abutting Bayview Terrace Subdivision, recording in Platte Book 12, page 63, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, providing an effective date. Any council discussion? If not, is there a motion? Move to approve the agenda item 7.2. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unantilous. Gen item 7.3. Adopt Ordinance 9884-26 on 3rd reading, annexing certain real property whose post office address is 1903 Douglas Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33755, together with certain rights of way of Douglas Avenue and Sunset Point Road into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition. Anyone here from the public tonight desire to speak to this, hearing and seeing none in the council discussion? If not, can we have a reading? Ordinance No. 9884-26, an ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, annexing certain real property located at the northeast corner of Douglas Avenue and Sunset Point Road, whose post office address is 1903 Douglas Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33755, together with certain rights of way of Douglas Avenue and Sunset Point into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition, providing an effective date. Now is there any further council discussion? If not, is there a motion? Move to approve agenda item 7.3. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Agenda item 7.3. Ordinance No. 9885-26, an ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, amending the future land use element of the comprehensive plan of this city to designate the land use for certain real property located at the northeast corner of Douglas Avenue and Sunset Point Road, whose post office address is 1903 Douglas Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33755, upon annexation to the city of Clearwater's Commercial General CG, providing an effective date. Does anyone in front of the public tonight desire to speak to this agenda? Hearing seeing none, may we have a reading? That was the reading. Okay. With that, then, is there any council discussion? If not, is there a motion? Motion approved. Agenda item 7.4. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Agenda item 7.5. 7.5 is the third reading. Ordinance No. 9886-26, an ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, amending the zoning atlas of the city by zoning certain real property located at the northeast corner of Douglas Avenue and Sunset Point Road, whose post office address is 1903 Douglas Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33755, upon annexation to the city of Clearwater as Commercial C, providing an effective date. Does anyone here from the public tonight, that are left of you here tonight, desire to speak to this agenda? Hearing seeing none, is there any council discussion? If not, is there a motion? Motion to approve agenda item 7.5. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. We'll now move to agenda item 8, citizens to be heard on topics pertaining to city business, not on tonight's agenda. Are there any citizens to be heard? Patrick Raftery. I believe I have outlasted anyone that wanted to speak on an item not on the agenda. Does that mean I'm entitled to 30 minutes? No. No, not tonight. No. I hate it. The lights will go out. Absolutely. I'm glad there's enough of a crowd here to hear me. I would like to speak to you on a proposal that's going to be presented to you at the August 3rd work session, and that is in regard to the landings. At the present time, you have letters sent to each of you from the Stevenson Creek Advisory Group, the Sierra Club, and Melissa Stamos with Marymount relative to being in opposition to this. Melissa was here tonight, but she could not last until this late hour. Her letter is definitively detailed as to the objections that that neighborhood has to this development. Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition will discuss and approve this opposition as well at our August 3rd meeting, and you will get a letter from us. Not too long ago, there was a referendum to put light industrial businesses in that area, and it was overwhelmingly defeated. I think the sentiment of the neighborhood is quite the same with respect to this most recent proposal. You will have a chance to hear that proposal in its detail on August 3rd and ask questions of it, and you may decide to proceed with it. You may decide not to. I would like to add another option that I would like you to consider. This was an unsolicited proposal on a rather significant piece of property in central Clearwater, the landings. I don't think it's appropriate for one proposal to be decided in the absence of any other bids that could be made. I personally would suggest to the council that you request additional bids from other developers who have looked at this property and may have ideas that are more conducive to the neighborhood than the one that's presently before us. I spoke to the developer at this first presentation, and he told me the two biggest benefits to the neighborhood would be, one, proximity to this new business, i.e. they could walk to it. That didn't strike me as a very interesting benefit. Secondly, they could also have their property used for parking for those that needed to get onto that development. Again, I did not think that was very good as well. But one significant benefit to the city will be property taxes, of course. However, there's a great deal of issues with respect to the proposed development of that entire area. So I would ask you to carefully consider what's going to be proposed on August 3rd. Make your decision accordingly, but keep the option open of saying we want to hear if anybody else has an idea for the development of that property and to solicit their bids before any decisions are made. Thank you very much. Any other folks? I believe. I don't know if I need to know my name and address. Chelsea Gert, 407 Pennsylvania. I live and I'm the president of the Plaza Park Neighborhood Association, which you all know. And I'm actually the closest neighborhood to downtown Clearwater. So I just wanted to basically say how excited I am for the development happening down there. It obviously affects myself as well as all my neighbors and my neighborhood. And I'm excited. I travel extensively. And some of my favorite places include Annapolis, Maryland, Savannah, Georgia, Charleston, South Carolina. And one of the things they do is they preserve their history and the historicness of their buildings. So I appreciate the developers in downtown for doing that. And then I also just wanted to say, I also wanted to mention that the new mural that is going up on the Parks and Rec building has started. That's in my neighborhood. And I really appreciate that you guys have worked so hard and done that. Obviously, it was devastating when I lost my mural originally that was on the ground. So I'm really happy to see this new one going up on the Parks and Rec building. So thanks for all that. Thank you. Anyone else? I believe he has left, Zachariah Wade. I don't see him yet. All right. We'll move to item nine on the agenda, city manager reports. Thank you, sir. I just wanted to mention, I know that we've had a lot of community requests for additional information and educational opportunities as it relates to the property tax referendum. And so just wanted to remind everybody, we are working closely, collaborating with the legal department and with the Florida League of Cities as to what the city is allowed to do as it relates to educating on this topic. And so it's not as easy or straightforward as one would seem. And so it's not any times of a means to not educate. We're just trying to follow those rules. But we are having a community engagement specific to the budget so that we can hear from the community as to what they would like us to prioritize. And that meeting is scheduled for August 1st at 10 a.m. at Morningside. And so if you will please just help us get that word out. We really are hoping for a large crowd to be able to engage the community specific to the budget. Thank you. Thank you. I say attorney. Nothing to add. It's time we'll move to item 11.1. Discuss city attorney candidates and next steps. Council, can we take a five-minute recess so we can have Mr. Kohler leave the building? We'll recess for just a few moments. The meeting back to order and again move to 11.1 on the agenda. Discuss the city attorney candidates and next steps. We've had a round of one-on-one interviews with discussions with the candidates. And then we had this morning, we had a work session where they presented to us. And so I feel like I, again, want to thank the staff, Tiffany, for helping the consultant pull together with us. And we had some really good candidates, I thought. So I thought all four were very capable and all four would make good city attorneys for our city. So I appreciate your efforts in having us do that. So with that, does anyone like to start our discussion with candidates and who they may prefer to fill the board? Council Member Roller. I'll start first since I've done it all night. Yeah? Okay. The city attorney position requires an individual with good moral character and professional integrity, capable of making well, reasons, difficult, and thoughtful decisions quickly and independently. SGR has brought together a very professional group of applicants interested in becoming Clearwater's next city attorney. As I mentioned early today in our special session, applying for the position, knowing that a longtime attorney with the city attorney's office is also applying, it took a lot of moxie from all the rest of the applicants. In my opinion, each applicant had strengths and personalities that would work very well as our city attorney. I remember Andrew Mai as an applicant in our first search back in 2021. He's worked with both county attorney's offices and cities, and he has a real attraction for Clearwater. Camilo Soto worked as an assistant city attorney for Clearwater for over a decade and would be very familiar with our city attorney's office and our city's culture. John Anastasio is a Florida-based municipal attorney with more than four decades of experience in local government law, land use, labor, and employment matters, public records litigation, governance, and governance counsel. He seems to have the experience, but in my opinion, he wouldn't fit comfortably in Clearwater's culture. That leaves Owen Kohler. Owen has been Clearwater's interim city attorney twice since 2018. He knows Clearwater's culture, and I found that he is a very detailed-oriented attorney and a team player in City Hall. He's always been a phone call away with any questions I've had, and he explains strategies and legal concerns in our weekly meetings in an easy-to-understand term. I was happy to see that he wanted to step up to be city attorney, and I support him in that role. Vice Mayor. Thank you, sir. So before I share my thoughts, I want to thank each of the candidates for their time, preparation, and professionalism they have shown throughout this process. I also want to thank Tiffany and staff as well for going through this with us. It's been fantastic, and I'm very appreciative of it. It is evident that each of them care deeply about public service, all of the applicants, and I appreciate their willingness to place their names in consideration for one of the most important positions in our city. This has not been an easy decision. Throughout this process, I've looked beyond resumes and credentials. Every finalist is a capable attorney. My focus has been on identifying the person who I believe is best prepared to serve the City of Clearwater on day one, provide steady legal counsel, protect the interests of our city and residents, and continue the tradition of professionalism that this office has established. I'm looking for someone who demonstrates sound judgment, communicates clearly, remains composed under pressure, understands municipal government, and can earn the confidence of those they advise. Those qualities become especially important in the city as complex as Clearwater. We regularly navigate significant development projects, major public contracts, constitutional issues, sunshine law obligations, and the matters that receive considerable public attention. Throughout the process, one thing became increasingly important to me. While interviews and applicant material tell us a great deal about a candidate, there is no substitute for seeing someone perform the job. Over the past several months, Owen has had the opportunity as our interim city attorney. He has advised this counsel through complex, high-profile matters, including a citizen-led petition process, the Duke Energy Franchise Agreement, the Phillies Agreement. In each instance, I have seen him remain prepared, composed, and focused on providing clear legal advice so this counsel can make informed decisions. I was also encouraged by his understanding of the role itself. When asked what he viewed as the city attorney's most important responsibility just this morning, he spoke about providing legal advice to the city as a whole, ensuring the counsel understands both the law and the risks before making the decision. That answer reflected the philosophy I believe this office should embody. I also believe there is value in continuity. Owen has built productive work relationships with the counsel and staff, understands this organization, and has demonstrated that he can effectively perform the responsibilities of this office. It does not diminish the qualifications of the other three finalists at all, all of whom brought meaningful strengths to the process, as Council Member Albritton noted on a little bit, and I'm sure others will, through this. All of them should be proud of the way they represented themselves. Rather, it reflects my belief that at this moment in Clearwater's history, Owen is the candidate that is best positioned to continue serving the city with integrity, professionalism, and sound legal judgment. So again, I sincerely thank each of the candidates and their willingness to serve our community. Based on my evaluation of the entire process, I will be supporting Owen as Clearwater's next city attorney. Councilor Chishade? Yes, I also would like to thank all the candidates for their time, professionalism, and willingness to put themselves out there. We were very fortunate to have an exceptionally strong pool of applicants, and I sincerely appreciate the effort each of them invested throughout the process. For me, the decision was not about so much the credentials and legal experience. They were all talented. They all had something to bring. The more difficult question for me was determining who is the best fit for this organization and for Clearwater. And this was based on my experience in the corporate world when I entered a sales position. And my manager, who still I revere much, when she hired her whole team, no one really understood where she was coming from. There was no pattern until she completed her team. And then we realized she made sure that every strength was represented and every weakness was covered. And so we became the number one team in the nation consistently because she hired for a whole rather than each individual for their strengths. So to me, this was not just about filling a position. It was about strengthening a leadership team. I wasn't simply looking for the most qualified individual. I was looking for the person who would make an already talented leadership team even stronger. An effective leadership team is more than the sum of its individual talents. Its strengths come from how well those talents complement one another. That's especially true in this position, where the city attorney works closely with council, the city manager, our executive leadership team, staff, and ultimately the residents we serve. So while legal ability and experience were certainly important, I also considered integrity, judgment, communication, temperament, collaboration, institutional knowledge, and the ability to build trusted relationships across the organization. Sometimes the most qualified candidate on paper is not necessarily a best fit for a particular organization. For me, this decision was not about finding, this decision was about finding the right fit for Clearwater today and in the future. After considering all those factors, I believe the candidate I'm supporting is best overall for our city and for our organization. And that would be Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you to staff. I know early in this process of serving, I was quickly reminded by the city manager that, sir, you're here for policy and not personnel. And you had to tell me that a couple times up front, and I eventually got the hint, but I appreciate it. But this is one of the instances where this dais, like yourself, does have that ability to participate in it. And I think it's important that staff did facilitate that process for us to be truly included from the very first meeting. And I appreciate that. I appreciate the organization you put into it. I appreciate our consultant, very thought out, well-organized, very communicative, collaborative process. I think, as everybody has said, the candidates they put before us were all extremely qualified. There was no questions about that. Each and every candidate has a passion to serve. We all felt that in our one-on-ones and in their presentations today. There was no question about their experience, all knowledgeable and professional. So they all checked those boxes. They should all be proud of who they are and their ability to serve whatever city or county organization they continue to serve in. They all had individual qualities and characteristics that I truly did enjoy. Mr. Anastasio was extremely mission-focused and a problem-solver. I enjoyed that and realized that real quick. Mr. Mai was extremely even-keel. His leadership style was calming, refreshing, and that was definitely a positive for him. Mr. Soto had an extreme positive energy and vibe to him. He was upbeat, had a good smile, and that energy was contagious. But for me, at the end of the day, a lot of very important characteristics and what we need to lead our city attorney's office as the chief legal advisor was somebody that would bring us continued stability, somebody that brings that stability not only in their leadership style, but stability in our culture and culture in that office. They bring that stability and comfort. Clearwater is unique in so many of its opportunities as well as its challenges. And for me, Mr. Kohler definitely checks that box. I'm 100% not only comfortable but confident in saying that Mr. Kohler should and look forward to him continuing to be the city attorney for the city of Clearwater. Thank you. So I, as I said earlier, and I appreciate what the others have said about all four candidates, that we would be in good hands with any of the four that we chose. It does take a lot to put your name out there when there's an internal candidate for any position, let alone this position. And I want to assure all the candidates, and this was not a done deal by any means in the beginning. We were very open to considering anyone who, and that's the reason we engaged a firm to look for our next city attorney. And they got really good candidates, and we are appreciative of that. And I could go on and on, and some have mentioned the individual qualities of each. And as an attorney myself, I had great respect for all of them, enjoyed my conversations with them. And I think the thing that I noticed was that each one of the four of them would have brought something different to our city. They had something about their background. They had something unique. And all four would be a great fit. But I agree with the others here that, for me, you know, there's, you know, certainly Mr. Kohler can't, he's not naive to anything that's happened here over the years or happening now. He's seen it all. So he's going into with the eyes wide open as far as the challenge we face and the difficulties and challenges. And he's helped navigate us through many of those. And he has been, for me, since he's been interim, he's been very easy to work with. And I think we've all acknowledged that. So I agree with the others that, and we'll make it unanimous, that we select or we offer the position of city attorney to Owen Kohler. And then with that, I think we have consensus. So our next step, I think, is for Tiffany, for HR, to work with Mr. Kohler on an agreement to become the next city attorney. Yep. We can certainly do that. As far as the drafting the agreement, looking for some direction from council, would you recommend that we go to an outside council? I think that that's appropriate, that we get an outside council to draft. I think that's typical. That's what my understanding is, that Mr. Kohler would prefer as well, and we have agreements that we can go ahead and get settled with. Okay. So, yes. Excellent. Thank you very much. We'll take it from here and be in touch. All right. Thank you, Al. Very good. Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll move to item 12 on the agenda, closed, and comments by council members. Who would like to go first? Council members, to share. Okay. You almost had a straight flush, but no. Okay. So, to me, I need to talk about our 250th anniversary. I was really, really pleased with it. So, I want to recognize our city manager and the many staff members who made Clearwater's celebration of America's 250th birthday such a tremendous success. What impressed me the most was that there wasn't just one thing going on. There were so many things. Whether it was patriotic crafts, ping pong tournaments, many community events, there was truly something for everyone. It was a wonderful example of city departments working together alongside our local businesses and community organizations to create a celebration that reflected the spirit of Clearwater. I also want to recognize our parks and rec department and public communications team for creating Clearwater Celebrates 250th brand and bringing the entire initiative together. It gave the celebration its own identity and made it easy for residents to discover all the activities taking place throughout the week. Special shout out to Chris Cook and the special events team. They were challenged to make this year's celebration at Coachman Park memorable and different, and they absolutely delivered. From the kids' zone to the outstanding musical performances to the inspired addition to Clearwater's Got Talent, they created the kind of fun that Clearwater really enjoyed. And also, Mr. Dan Slaughter, thank you so much for championing the addition of the Laser Show. There was a moment there where I thought I was like Eastern Europe. You were laser. Yeah, who, laser? So, thank you so much. Honestly, the Laser Show added something different. And I got a lot of positive feedback from it. And, of course, fireworks was a great, perfect way to end it. But a lot of people worked very hard, and the results showed. Advice, Mayor, do you have anything? I do not. Councilman Renato? Good. Yeah, Mayor, thank you. Definitely follow up on that. I won't go into too much of it. But the 250th celebration, not just the weekend, but leading up to it, Steph did an amazing job. We now know who the man is for the Laser Light Show. So, you've got that, and that's good to know. But it was awesome. I hear it was much better when you're down under it than on top of it. But we definitely learned that. But what a great celebration that our city and our country deserved, 250 years. It was definitely magical. I was questioning at times during the fireworks show if it was ever going to end. It was extremely long, and it was absolutely beautiful. I also today had the privilege of touring our recently renovated Long Center Pool. Absolutely beautiful. This is truly a generational-type project and is part of what separates us as a city from other surrounding communities throughout the state and the region. As I walked around there, it was just easy to visualize the children from summer camps and how many hundreds and thousands of kids have learned to swim in that pool for their first time, all the way through the ages to the elderly in the therapy pool, individuals that can't be out in the sun. And that's the only exercise they get. That pool checks so many boxes outside of college swim tournaments and stuff. I could see them in there. It felt beautiful in there. The air was crisp and great. The pool water was in HD. It's absolutely clean as can be. And I just wanted to commend the great collaboration that went into it between our leadership team, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Wanamaker, Jensen Architects, and Creative Contractors. And then to top it off, I think we're still waiting to find out what that final number is. But it sounds like that beautiful project went off, and we could be saving over half a million dollars when the numbers come back. I've seen preliminary close to 700. That's awesome. We almost got a sun deck built. And I know that was some pushback on that. But kudos to the entire team, the collaboration project. I did say, tell the team that I was going to talk about it, but they said, make sure you say it's not open yet. So it officially is not open. They are running around on final touches before they get the CO. So they said it should be days, not weeks, hopefully. But it is an absolute beautiful project. So thank you to all the time and energy that our staff put into that. Our community is going to enjoy that for many years to come. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Member. Nothing, Mayor. I think I've said enough tonight. Okay. Well, I hate to, after good news, close on a sad note, but there were two individuals that passed away in our community here in recent weeks that I just wanted to remember them and remember their families. First one is Paul McMullen. He passed away, and his funeral was last Saturday here in Clearwater. Paul played for the Clearwater Bombers. He's probably more well-known through the community for his family business, the McMullen Oil Company, which he took over from his father, Guy McMullen, who lived to be over 100 years old. And Paul's grandfather was Captain Jim McMullen, an original homesteader here in Pinellas County. And you hardly go anywhere in Clearwater. You're going to see a McMullen Road or McMullen Tennis something, McMullen. And Paul was a member of that family and really was very involved in the community and used the success of the McMullen Oil Company, which his father had founded, to carry that on and contribute in many ways to our community. So to that family, we want to send our deepest sympathies to them for all that the McMullen family and certainly Paul contributed to his lifetime here in Clearwater. And the second death is we'll attend the funeral tomorrow, Jack Letvala. Jack served in many capacities in elected office. And then Jack also helped many, many candidates from not just Clearwater but across the state be successful. So in addition to his own legacy he left through his leadership in elected office, he helped many others in this city and other cities succeed and reach to the point where they could have an impact. So if you count all the people that he advised from their campaigns and helped get elected, he may have impacted our community, our entire state, by not only his own leadership but helping others more than any other political leader here in the state of Florida. Anyone that knows Jack, he could have his moments where he could be a little tough. But I don't think anyone can doubt the impact he had through the breadth of the influence that he had over many. So tomorrow we will attend his funeral and our thoughts and go out to the Letvala family on the passing of Jack Letvala. So with that, we will, if there's nothing else to come before the council, we will adjourn the meeting of the Clearwater City Council for July 16, 2026.