Council Work Session on 2026-01-12 1:30 PM - Jan 12, 2026

current market conditions, and provide sufficient funding for financial commercial projects, and further support the North Greenwood CRA goals. Staff recommends approval of these updates, and I'm happy to answer any questions at this time. Any questions from the trustees? Now, is there anyone here today from the public that desires to speak to Agenda Item 4.5? Hearing saying no, is there a motion? Motion to approve Agenda Item 4.5. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. And if I can just say one thing, I'd say the best for last. If you want to apply for any of these grants, go to MyClearWaterCRA.com slash grants. Okay. Thank you, baby. Appreciate it. Move to Agenda Item 5.1. Director's Report for December 2025. Good afternoon. Jesus Nino, CRA Executive Director for the record. Today I'll be presenting the Director's Report for the December 2025 month, walking through some of the updates in the downtown CRA, North Greenwood CRA, and our property disposition strategy. Just now. Thank you. I don't see it up on the screen. It's just on that. Thank you. So the agenda review today, you know, first we'll go again over this downtown CRA updates, second North Greenwood CRA updates, and then the property disposition update. So this one is a very fun slide. You know, we do community police innovations in the CRA. That's one of the items we're allowed to spend some of the increment funds. So we have partnered up with the police department on multiple occasions. But this last one was, as you see it up there, Ms. Ann Lopez, thank you, for Plain Santa. But the CRA did sponsor the purchase of e-bikes for the downtown. So far they've been very successful to the PD officers. That's on the agenda, and that is to adjourn the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting of January 12, 2026. This time we call it out of the work session of the Clearwater City Council, and we'll move to item 2.1 on the agenda, January Service Awards. There are three service awards today, and first I'd like to call forward Christy Epperson from Public Communications, and ask the city manager to read the write-up on this award. Christy began working for the city of Clearwater as a recreation programmer, and then volunteer coordinator in the Parks and Rec department. Then she was promoted to information specialist within the public communications department, then to public information coordinator, a title she holds today. Christy currently provides communication and public relations support for the city's human resources department, city clerk, marine and aviation, aging well center, finance, and planning and development departments. She does a fantastic job serving as a communication liaison for her client teams who regularly share kudos and compliments about Christy's dedication and hard work. In addition to supporting her department's programs, Christy manages the city's Facebook and Instagram feeds, and she serves as editor of Connection, the newsletter for city employees and retirees. She's a highly skilled builder of content for the city's website. She's built complex web pages, such as landing pages for the marina construction, new city hall, launchpad photo galleries, and many more. Christy is always happy to jump in and help her teammates whenever needed. She's a leader among public information team and is a strong mentor for our new employees and interns. She often will step in and land a hand and do whatever it takes to get the job done. In her spare time, Christy and her family can usually be found somewhere at Disney, where they visit many times a year. She's a great mom and aunt, volunteering time for her sons and nephews' after-school activities. Through her work, Christy constantly advances the city's strategic priorities of building a high-performing government and delivering a superior public service. She ensures information is accurate, timely, and accessible, helping residents and employees better understand city services, projects, and initiatives. Christy's collaborative approach, attention to detail, and commitment to excellence strengthen internal operations and enhance public trust, directly supporting the city's strategic plan. Our team would not be what it is without Christy. Her bubbly personality, kindness, and positive attitude make every day better in public communications department. Thank you, Christy. Congratulations, Christy, on 20 years with the city of Clearwater, and thank you for your dedication to our city and citizens. Next, I'd like to call up for the 25-year employee award, Heather Parsons from Public Communications. I guess it's Public Communications Award Day. And I ask the city manager to read the recognition. A lot of years of service in public communications. Heather began her career with the city of Clearwater in January of 2001 as a staff assistant in the Clearwater Fire and Rescue Department. In March of 2003, she was promoted to senior staff assistant in the public communications department. During her time as senior staff assistant, she attended USF and earned her bachelor's degree in English. In 2007, Heather was promoted to public information specialist, a title she held until October of 2014 when she was promoted to public information coordinator. Heather was promoted again in 2019 to senior public information coordinator and has been responsible for highly visible communication pieces such as the utility bill stuffer, My Clearwater Magazine, and now electronic My Clearwater e-newsletter, which is distributed weekly. In 2025, Heather was promoted to public information manager, a title she still holds today. And she oversees the city's four public information coordinators and major communications projects. There's rarely a printed piece that goes out to the public where Heather hasn't fixed poor grammar, spelling, writing, and comma splices. If you have a grammar question, she is your go-to staff member. Outside of work, Heather has reached the highest level possible in the Toastmasters group and has accredited public relations. She is a busy mom of two girls who does a great job of handling all the home duties when her boat captain husband is gone for months at a time. In her leadership role, Heather plays an integral role in advancing the city's strategic plan by supporting a high-performing government and promoting superior public service. She provides thoughtful oversight of citywide communications, ensuring messaging is clear, accurate, and timely for both residents and employees. Heather's strong editorial skills, collaborative leadership style, and high standards elevate internal processes and reinforce public confidence in city communications. Her dedication and professionalism continue to strengthen the public communications department and the city. Congratulations to Heather on reaching this 25-year career milestone. Thank you, Heather. Heather's done a lot of things. And Heather is a fellow grammar corrector. That's a role that's not always appreciated. So I thank you for all you do for our city. Next, we'd like to call up Kelsey Johnson, Parks and Recreation, for the November 2025 Employee of the Month Award. This fall, Kelsey managed an extraordinary volume of work with exceptional skill and dedication. Her efforts saved the city tens of thousands of dollars while simultaneously providing residents meaningful opportunities to serve and grow in their commitment to the community. As the administrator of the city's volunteer program, Kelsey is deeply passionate about transforming volunteer opportunities into a sustainable culture of service that mutually benefits both residents and the city. Throughout the year, Kelsey actively engages individuals, businesses, and visitors to expand and strengthen the volunteer program. Under her leadership, the city's Adopt-a-blank program have grown each year she's been with the organization. This fall and winter, in just a matter of weeks, Kelsey served as a lead for the city's big cleanup event, coordinated several hundred volunteers for the Achieva Clearwater Turkey Trot, and placed volunteers at each of the city's rec center events. The sheer volume of work she manages is impressive, but her attitude and approach to service are even more so. Kelsey is creative, solutions-oriented, and consistently finds a way to say yes. She is a true builder, bringing others into work in ways that support their personal growth and development while advancing the city's goals. Cities both larger and smaller across the country invest multiple employees and significant resources into volunteerism programs that do not operate as efficiently as Clearwater's, which Kelsey leads as the sole paid employee in this area. Through her daily efforts, Kelsey exemplifies superior public service and demonstrates what a high-performing government looks like in action. She helps make the city brighter and more beautiful every day, and her consistent dedication and impact make her highly deserving of this recognition. Thank you so much. Congratulations, Kelsey. Now move to item 2.2 on the agenda. This town quarterly report. Susan's not here, but Bobby Rossi is here. Good afternoon. Happy New Year. Good to see you as mayor and city manager and council and staff. And I'm here to report a recap for the 2025 Season 2 for the BayCare Sound. So let's start with the blank screen up here. We enjoyed that report, but we were hoping we weren't going to see it twice. So that's good. The sound is a lot to celebrate. And I think you all have copies of this already? I have them. We do have some in the back as a follow-along. But generally, you know, we're really ecstatic about year two. A lot to celebrate. We did 59 events this year, up from 24. And we celebrate our 100th show in September. And we broke our attendance record not once but twice with Old Dominion and then T-Pain. And as well as setting the highest grossing revenue event as well with Old Dominion. In addition, we created our ninth configuration for seating slash standing, which, again, anytime you have that variety available to an artist based on what their needs could be, that enables us to bring in artists of all different genres based on what their expectation is for seating the populace and coming over to the sound. So we had eight, and we have nine now all approved by the city, approved by fire and police for safety and aesthetics as well. So fully reserved, fully GA, and everything in between. So, again, making strides to secure artists in every possible way. Our paid attendance increased, of course, in 2025 from 24. And our average attendance per show increased by close to 400 patrons across the board. So anytime that incline begins in year two, it starts to trend upwards with more knowledge, more awareness, community support, and the fever that is about the sound. And so we are ecstatic to see those trends moving in that direction, as I'm sure you are. In addition to our existing partnerships with our colleagues at AEG and Live Nation and other promoters, we worked with two additional promoters this year, 98 Rock and Outback Concerts. So we now have five or six partners that are out there helping us secure the greatest in live entertainment on a daily basis. And the word through those partners are the artists love it. Obviously, they see the fans having a great time. Management agents have been out visiting on a daily basis of shows, and they have nothing but phenomenal things to say. And even some is declaring that it could be the nicest venue of its size in the country. So those are what we want to hear. That's why we keep investing back in. And in addition to the normal, you know, pop rock country type categories, we expanded this year into comedy with Nikki Glaser, classical with Hauser, Latin with Estropical, Hip Hop, T-Pain, and your favorite, Krung Bin, with a category all of their own. So of the 43 shows that were sort of national hard-ticket concerts, 33 of the artists this year were new to us compared to when we opened in 2023. Again, a great trend in format and in artists, as well as we love having the repeats that come back as perennials for our traditions. So all in all, we're just continuing to invest, you know, up with millions of dollars in sound lighting, video, iMag, barricades, artist amenities to enhance not only the patron experience but also the artist experience. And in addition, we, as you alluded to earlier, Mayor Rector, about all of Clearwater being supported, but especially the downtown, we had a great meeting in December. Some of you were at where some of you were at with the merchants, and it was great to have this sort of open house type thing. We did it at the Capitol where we got to hear their feelings about shows and nights of the week shows occur on and when there's a show at the Capitol and the sound and how to better handle the traffic in the sense of patron traffic and times. And it was really an eye-opener, and we think it's really broke some great ground with our neighbors that are on Cleveland Street to hear what they have to say instead of letting it go by months and months, that we'll hopefully meet on a regular basis and have our staff visit with them on a regular basis to hear, to keep them better informed on show editions so that they're not just maybe utilizing the guides that are out that quickly get outdated, much like this one's already dated because we already confirmed four more sound shows that you'll be hearing about, so that they are better to prepare to staff and be ready for the traffic that could come their way. Or if a show cancels or postpones, that there's nothing happening on that night at the Capitol or the sound, or if a date moves, or if we add a second show with an artist. So all that communication on expected attendance, whether it be the Capitol or if we know trends in walk-up that we can help them with, that we could walk up 1,000 people like we did on certain nights at the Big Hair Sound this year, they can be ready for that instead of just basing it on what might be a typical reserve seat attendance where you might not walk up as many. So I thought that was really valuable, and we wanted to share that with you as well, that we're hoping that together. We're better to celebrate these shows and be better prepared from both ends on that for this coming year ahead. So that being said, we're really looking forward to 2026. We have a lot on the books. We have a lot held in all categories, and we're going to kick it off next month. And we're already 1,000 over sold on sticks where we were a year ago. So these are all just wonderful little tidbits of information we have that hopefully leads to a great year ahead. So thank you. Any questions for Mr. Rossi? Vice Mayor, we'll start with you first. Yes. One of the comments that you made actually resonated with me, and that is the flexibility of your seating. I saw firsthand how useful and helpful that is. For example, when we watched Hauser, he was so interactive with the audience, so it was great that we could, you know, adapt our seating to that. Or the regular seating of Nikki Glaser, and then the huge mosh pit with the EDM groups. So that was one thing that I didn't realize the value of it until I've seen the bride variety. And then I want to close with this. As one of the many people who were early believers, we never questioned whether it was going to be special as we fought along the many years that we did. And we always knew it was going to be special. But if someone told me two years ago, you know, hey, the sound after two years, two calendar years, or operating years rather, is going to rank third in the world for Polestar, I would never have believed it. So I need to give you credit for that. This is an incredible accomplishment that this city has done, and it needs to be recognized for it. Thank you. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Thank all of you. I mean, you know, we speak often, and you look when we're in the throes of a hugely successful show, and you look out at the crowd from the view, and you see this is why we do it. You know, I mean, from all my years at Ruth Eckerd, the hard part is getting it. And then for that two hours when the artist takes the mic, it's in their hands, right? And then you see the reaction to thousands of fans who, this is their special night. This may be the only show they come to all year. This is what they're saving their money for. This is what they have, you know, got the babysitter. They went to dinner. They're, they've been putting on their calendar and marking the days until they get to see that artist, and to observe that from, you know, the bird's eye view looking down of the collaborative effort of all of us and the staff back at the hall to put it together in this community is just magical, you know. And I like watching your guys' expressions, too, because you'll hit me and go, I never heard of this act, but my goodness, you know, we're learning together. And that's why when we mentioned the new genres that we hit with those successful shows, it's just, you know, you know, it's all baptism by fire. We're trying, we're throwing it in the ring, and thanks for believing, you know, 10 years ago, we wouldn't have believed it either. We knew it could happen, and we knew that sweet spot of the 3,000 or 4,000 was our number, and we're seeing that on a regular basis and then more, you know. So it means a lot, and there's so many to thank, and our work's not done. Like I said, we just keep investing back in, in manpower and in money and trying to procure every last artist that we have to get. And it was the same way at the hall all those years. People said, could you ever get this artist or that artist or that artist? We said, be patient, because eventually, you know, something's happening, and you do get, you know, the Ed Sheerans and Jimmy Buffetts at the time to come and play and Billy Joel's. It just might be a different situation, but, you know, you've got to believe that our industry is all about that, you know. And so thank you. Councilman Robbreton? Yeah, you know, during this whole process of figuring out that we really wanted to have some kind of a music venue bigger than what we had before, which was really a band show, I knew that it was going to be successful, but I had no idea we would be where we are today, just like Councilman Tichet has said. And, you know, I remember talking about with one of the people that came in and said, you know, you should make it like $2,500. That should be the tops. And I'm like, I don't think so. You know, because I was thinking that, I was thinking of Ruth Eckert all along that you guys would probably be managing it, and you've already got that. I mean, you've got the cap, you've got Ruth Eckert Hall, and from what I found from calling around at different venues in Florida, it seemed like that was the size we needed to have. And I'm so glad we went with that, and thank you so much for, it's so much more than we even ever thought it would be. So, very happy with it, and the types of artists that you're bringing in now are great. So, thank you for that as well. Thank you, too. I know you were a believer from the beginning, and you were relentless on your support, and we appreciate that. And we're just getting going every day, you know, so it's a lot of fun, and when it stays fun and inspiring, when you get out of bed every day, we hit the ground running, and we're just trying to make the unthinkable happen down here in a good way, and that's what's going to drive folks to our beautiful city. Thank you. Bobby, I appreciate it. Thank you for the update and the report. I will say the tangibles that you focused in on and putting the shoes on the patron and trying to make it the experience and understanding what they're going through and, you know, that they've saved their money and that this might be the one show of the year they get to go to and trying to make it memorable. I think that just goes to show the conviction that you all have to make it that wonderful experience. And with conviction, you know, the sky's the limit with that belief and opportunity. So I, too, am taking back three in the world. That's fantastic news, fantastic numbers, and the shows that you already have on hold, the ones that are already locked in, the future's bright, and I look forward to it. So thank you very much for what you're doing, and I know that the region is thankful for it as well. So thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Menino. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for being here. Nice to see you. Those are accolades worth celebrating, you know, number three in the world and number three in our country. And this fast is awesome, and you and your team should be applauded for. It's a lot of work, and the city of Clearwater should be, and we are, thankful for what the team has done. I love seeing the numbers and the growth and hearing about trends. I know the dais does as well, but I've said before, what goes on behind the scenes and your team's commitment and philanthropic giving to our nonprofits and our community, that means more to me, and I appreciate that. I took your group up on an offer for a tour with a handful of other leaders in the community, and that's the story that was being told in there, not just these accolades of how amazing the shows and the growth, but the outreach, and we don't discuss that enough, I think. And five, six, seven of our nonprofits that mean so much to our community, your team is hands-on, boots on the ground, assisting them on a daily basis in so many different ways and from kids all the way to elders, and you should be thanked for that, not just the numbers. So thank you and your team for that. Please pass that message on. Your investments, and like you said, I think patron and artist experience, it's noticeable. Every time we go to a show, we can feel it. You feel a difference. You see a difference. You can touch a difference. It's been a lot of fun to see the business morph and grow, and congratulations for that. It's been an awesome ride. So I just, again, thank you and the team, and my message is continue to share what you're doing outside in the community philanthropic. I know we've asked and beat you up over the last two years for numbers and metrics and data, but the other side, the heartfelt side, is important as well, and I know our nonprofits appreciate it too, so thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. One of the things we hear a lot from the board and our community members is to not telling our story as best we should. So you're alluding to that hopefully inspires others to spread the word because it is a good story, and it's a story that's unique in its own, especially in our business. We do shows to make five cents if it's the right show to do, and that's always been our theory and our motto. Let's get this artist or this event here so that people from the community, at whatever price point, we can get them to see it. That's what our role is to be, different from commercial entities, and hopefully that comes out of the pores a little better as we move ahead, but thank you for that. It means a lot. It's the other side that isn't on the posters. It isn't on the marquee. It isn't there, but once folks find out, hopefully they understand our mission alongside all the excitement, like you said, but it's appreciated. Thank you for bringing it out. Thank you, Bobby, for a great report and all the work you do. I do have one question, though. Yes. For somebody who's not in the industry, and I don't understand completely, how do these holds work, these offers? I mean, is it like 60 days, or do they have a chance to get out? Because there's 60 of them on here, and what's on average, historically, a percentage of those that result in a contract for a show? It's really kind of – it would be hard to pinpoint exactly a percentage of those that will occur or won't, because, quite honestly, the two shows I confirmed since we did this two weeks ago were not even on there. So sometimes they just come out of – especially after a holiday, they'll come out of left field. Artists will get through the holidays. They realize, here's a new year. We better get to work. We're freezing. Let's go to Florida. You know, so it happens like that sometimes. Other times, we could be holding an artist for months, and everything could be in place, and they'll get a really, really big offer to go do something in another part of the country, like a big festival or a television event or something, in which case all their avails shift to the West Coast or to the Northeast, and then they kind of keep ours to, okay, we know you guys are all interested. We'll get back to you with new dates. So that's always kind of evolving. It's breathing. It's living all the time. So our staff is phenomenal about really being resilient on holds and updating and shifting. And then we just really are super aggressive on communicating with our agents and managers to even asking, like, really? Can they come back and get that on the end of the tour? Can't we start the beginning of the tour like we did with Google Dolls a couple years ago? Add us on to that part. You've got to play this place, you know? We still, one of our, you know, still our biggest hurdles is recognizing why we should play Clearwater and the fact that a lot of our industry doesn't know we're here and our connection to Tampa Bay and what region we're in. Still getting asked if Naples is a conflict three hours away. So we're still educating. Megan Brennan is here, our VP of Marketing, and Sharon Reid-Kane, our VP of Education, joined me today. But we just did a video for a huge artist whose agent wasn't really like, okay, well, I'm playing, I'm going to play St. Augustine in Miami. Why should I? I know you're driving right past us. So we put together a great, like, special video with a clientele that might be more suitable for that artist as opposed to maybe the general admission, you know, barricade party people in the front. That may be more of a reserved theater crowd, if you will, and combined with all the aesthetic beauty of the drone shots. But we interspersed maybe some other artists in the video that were more core to that person's, you know, their other colleagues, if you will. So it's just constantly changing and narrowing down. There's one artist on there that confirmed this week for October that the avails were made October. So literally it's the beginning of the tour and the end of the tour. But we have to hold them and let them know. And then if we get another artist that wants a date within that window, we let them know, hey, we need July 15th back. Okay. And we challenge it. And then they give us that date back. But keep holding all the other ones. And so they're working as hard as we are to get their artists booked. We just, you know, are relentless on staying on top of it and selling the sound, you know, to them all. But that's kind of why that kind of goes in ebbs and flows a little bit there. That really was a snapshot on the date it was due of what we had on hold. It'll look different today. Similar but different, you know. So good question, though. Yeah, thank you. Good question. Okay. Well, thank you, Bobby. Thank you so much. Appreciate you. Appreciate you. I look forward to seeing you out there again. That will move to item 3.1 on the agenda. Sunset, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and adopt Resolution 26-01. Dylan Mayhew, I'm the housing manager. On August 21st, 2025, the city council adopted Resolution 25-11, which appointed the city's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, or the AHAC. Following their appointment, the AHAC conducted a review of the city's existing policies, procedures, and land development regulations related to housing. Their role was advisory in nature with the objective of identifying specific actions and initiatives that could encourage or facilitate the development of affordable housing within the city. The committee completed its review and provided recommendations to city staff in advance of the preparation of the local housing assistance plan. These recommendations were formally presented to council on December 4, 2025. The AHAC has now completed its assigned work for fiscal year 25-26. As a result, the committee's purpose for this cycle has been fulfilled, and the council may now sunset the committee. Resolution 26-01, before you today, formally acknowledges the completion of the AHAC's work for the fiscal year and terminates the current appointments. With that, I'd be happy to address any questions. Any questions? Good. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank you and the team. You know, Board, you gave me the prestigious honor to serve on that committee, and I appreciate that. I just want to say you and staff did a wonderful job at facilitating each and every meeting. Clearly open and receptive to all ideas, and they came from all over the map, obviously. But you and your group deserve kudos for the way you handled it and managed it. And I think it's a great report for the city of Clearwater. Thank you. Thank you. Agenda item 3.2. Declare a surplus certain real property located at 706 North Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Good afternoon. Hey, Susan Nino, CR Executive Director. This is a request to surplus the property, the armory property located on Missouri Avenue. The address here, I just had it, and I lost it, so I apologize. This property here is located at 706 North Missouri Avenue. This is the armory property that Parks and Recreation is currently located in. This property was basically deeded over by the state of Florida to the city of Clearwater. The city of Clearwater is basically surplusing the property over to the Community Redevelopment Agency. That staff is here for questions. Any questions? Not. Thank you very much. To an item 4.1. Authorized purchase orders to the Florida Industrial Products of Tampa, Florida, Hue Supply, H-A-J-O-C-A Corps of St. Pete, and Mill Supply Company for supply of galvanized steel pipe and fittings. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. My name is Jim Fry. I'm the Operations Division Manager for CGS Energy, and we're requesting authorization to purchase galvanized steel pipe fittings. And in the amount not to exceed $200,000, we've received six bids with a huge supply of mine and mill supply, techno gas representing the three lowest, most responsible bidders. The galvanized steel pipe and fittings items in this contract is what we use to build the meter sands, everything we do for the above-ground infrastructure projects. So I'm happy to take any questions if you have any. Sorry, please. Any questions on Agenda Item 4.1? Can we have consent? We have consent on 4.1. Thank you. Agenda Item 4.10. Authorize the purchase order to AECOM Technical Services for Design Consulting Services. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Alex Leon. I'm the Assistant Director for CGS Energy. This is looking for your authorization for AECOM Technical Services. This will be for the engineering design services for two gas pipelines that will be crossing the intercoastal. This was done through an RFQ process. We received ten bids or ten responses. Of those ten, a selection committee narrowed down to five, and from those five, AECOM was selected. Then we engaged them on scope and pricing services, and we have this item set on AECOM. This will be for the not-to-exceed total amount of $934,000. I'll take any questions. Any questions on Agenda Item 4.2? Council Member Albrecht. So we already have gas lines running just to the beach, right? We have one that crosses the intercoastal. Just one? Yes. Okay. On the north side, yes. All right. Is this going in the same location or south of the causeway? So the current plan, it might change once design engages. However, the current plan would be to go slightly north of where the existing line is today and one on the south side, roughly around where the hospital is. I actually forget the name of the street right now, approximately in that area. That could change once design, once we start in design and field conditions may dictate different locations. At the moment, those are the current proposed locations. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? Do we have consent? Yeah. Do we have consent on 4.2? Thank you, sir. Agenda Item 4.3. Ratify and confirm an increase of the purchase order with Trillium Transportation Fuels. Again, Alex Leon, Assistant Director for CGS Energy. This is looking for your approval to ratify and confirm for Trillium Services for a total amount of $15,575.74. This is unfortunately due to the fact that we had unforeseen repairs that were just not, it was impossible to predict last year when the original PO was done. The bulk of the repairs were due to a gas detector, which is unforeseen. As a result, we are asking to ratify and confirm for this total amount. I'll take any questions. Any questions on this agenda? Do we have consent? Do we have consent on 4.3? Thank you, sir. Agenda Item 5.1. Approve a purchase order to Bayside Dredging for Inspection Dredging Services. Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor, Council Members, and esteemed city leadership. I'm Ed Wilmiss, the Manager of Stormwater Division Public Works, and I'm presenting for review, consideration, and approval via consent, a request to enter into a piggyback agreement with Bayside Dredging, LLC of Clearwater, Florida, utilizing contracts awarded by the City of Tampa and the City of Lighthouse Point, Florida, for miscellaneous dredging services in an annual amount of $750,000. The Stormwater Division of Public Works is continuing our efforts to build a strong team of skilled employees and service providers as we develop new and creative strategies to provide proactive stormwater maintenance services. We continue to take a comprehensive look at our stormwater management system, which consists of public and private storm sewers, catch basins, inlets, creeks, lakes, and ponds. While we have a significant number of water features within the city that have been constructed to assist with stormwater control, conveyance, storage, and management, like all aging systems, the stormwater management system has deteriorated over the years. And as a result of this, the incidence of street ponding and neighborhood flooding has increased in recent years and was greatly exacerbated during 2024 as hurricanes, multiple hurricanes, each made landfall. Excuse me. As detailed in your council packets, staff is requesting and recommending that Bayside Dredging, Clearwater Bay's company be awarded a piggyback contract to undertake and complete dredging of select creeks and ponds, vegetation removal from various ponds, and that a purchase order in the amount of $750,000 be issued to Bayside Dredging. Utilizing their existing and competitively bid agreements with the city of Tampa and the city of Lighthouse Point, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Very much badly needed. Very badly. So I appreciate you about leading this. Do we have consent? If I may, I'm happy to report that since we've started outsourcing some of this work, we've got approximately 300, not 300, 170 contracts and work orders in place for this type of thing. So we're making great progress. Thank you. We have consent on 5.1. Gen. Item 5.2. A further roadway transfer agreement with Town of Bel Air. Council, I believe staff is considering continuing this item. This particular item came to our attention this morning that we would benefit from doing a public ad associated with the property, so we're going to proceed with that. There is no issue with us postponing it to another meeting. If you're willing to just continue it until the next meeting, we'll post the ad first thing this week and have it ready for review then. I had some questions about it too. So consent to continue it? Yeah. Thank you. Okay. I move to agenda item 6.1. Approve the annexation initial future land use map designation of residential medium and initial zoning atlas designation medium density residential for unaddressed property at South Vic Mullen Booth Road. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Adrian Young, the Planning and Development. This annexation request is for a voluntary annexation petition of 0.65 acres located east of South Vic Mullen Booth Boulevard, approximately 326 feet north of Gault Bay Boulevard. The parcel is currently vacant. The applicants request the annexation to the city to receive sanitary sewer, solid waste, and water from the city. The plan development staff announces it concludes that annexation petition is consistent with the compass of plan and community development code as detailed in the memo and recommends approval. I'm open for any questions. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. agenda item 6.10. Approve the annexation issue future land use map designation of residential suburban and initial zoning atlas designation of low density residential for 2265 North McMullen Booth Road. Again, Adrian Young, Planning and Development. This annexation request is for a voluntary annexation petition for 1.07 acres located 550 acres west of North McMullen Booth Road, approximately 223 feet along Lauren Lane. The parcel is currently occupied by a detached dwelling. The applicants request the annexation to the city to receive sanitary sewer and water from the city. Planning and Development staff analysis concludes that annexation petition is consistent with the compass of plan and community development code as detailed in the memo and recommends approval. So, come here for any questions. Any questions on Mr. Jenna? Okay. None. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Item 6.3. Update on North Ward, elementary school roof repairs and disposition strategy. I didn't send music. We're sorry about that. Good afternoon. Lauren Matske, Planning and Development, and I have Assistant City Manager Battle with me as well. So, we're back to provide some additional information following staff's discussion about the North Ward School and Row Architects reports closing out 2025. During that meeting, City Council asked some questions about the roof proposal, the two options that were made available. So, roof replacement for the three historic buildings, as you recall, would cost just about $280,000 based on the initial quote received from General Services. That would be for the asphalt shingles. So, there was another option that was provided that showed a less expensive, what we were calling a shrink wrap. There's a few pictures that were provided within your packages. The estimated cost to cover the three roofs, again, those are for those three buildings that are designated historic, would be approximately $83,000. And then, City Council had asked how long would that last, and the manufacturer warranty would be for about one year. So, that would be assuming Florida sun and elements. So, that would give it that protection over the year while we're seeking other uses for the building. So, would you like me to touch on any of the marketing or using? So, that was all my part. And I'll hand it off. Thank you. So, they would guarantee it for a year, but it could last longer. Yes, yes. The warranty, and, you know, hopefully all of our items outlast their warranties, but sometimes they don't. So, thank you, Lauren. That was really the meat of what you asked us to bring back to you as we move forward with marketing the property. So, we've started to do some preliminary work in preparing to actively market the property. Wanted to get your feedback after today if you wanted us to pursue moving forward with the shrink wrap approach or the roof shingle approach or nothing. But that won't prohibit us from continuing to market the property. We are starting to put content together in terms of a standalone website on the city's website about the property. So, it will do a full, you know, overview of what the redevelopment opportunity looks like. What we're looking to get in terms of responses, in terms of what the process, if you will, us doing a protracted approach and trying to market it. Also, introduce it to the development community. We've also started to put together some content with respect to having tours. So, folks would contact our office, contact economic development staff. We have a point person who would organize said tours. The tours are only meant to last between about an hour, an hour and a half. This isn't a proposal presentation opportunity, it is a tour of the facility, here's the information about it. When we're ready to accept proposals, we'll let them know what that time frame is. But we want to make sure that everyone is treated the same, fairly. They get an opportunity to walk through it if they want to set up that type of time. So, we're starting to do some of those underpinnings of what the next steps would be. But, as we said, we'd come back with this information, get from you what the next steps you want us to pursue. But, if that means nothing, then we'll continue to market it and let the elements hopefully not take, as we reported as well, there weren't any visual observations of any water damage. So, we feel good about either way, being on a whole position and doing nothing or doing something a little bit more to make sure that we're protecting the property. But, we're ready to market it. We just want to get your further endorsement of that next step. Go first. Councilman McCutton. Yeah, thank you, Lauren and Al, for that update. I will propose shrink wrapping it. I mean, even though there's no major signs of water damage now, we don't want to have a bad roof that potentially does open something up and then expose us to further damage down the road. And then I'm also for preparing the property for developers and allowing those walkthroughs. I think that that's a great idea. I'm giving them that one hour, 45 minutes, whatever it is that you guys deem necessary to get those future RFPs and see where we can do with such a great piece of property that's just north of us here. So, thank you again for the report. And that's where I'm at. So, I look forward to the discussion. First of all, the idea of shrink wrapping it. Is that the consensus? Yes. Shrek wrap? I have a question. Is white the only color? Do we have options here? That should have been my question. It's the best for reflecting sun. Yeah, it's also the best at showing dirt and mold and mildew or bird stuff. I'm not. I'm working literally of all I've seen them done in either white or blue. Okay. Right. The examples that we were provided were all white, so that's the ones that we provided. I would say white over blue, but blue tarps implies storm. Yeah, no, no. Just asking for info if it's there. We can ask and circle back offline. We'll find out. Yeah, no, I'm supportive. The consensus is for it. Okay. And the second thing was to allow folks to do tours and to self-market it. Absolutely. The consensus is to do that, too. I think that's great. To create interest in it before we put it out formally. Absolutely. Yep. Okay. So, if you have folks that come to you, they approach you, send them our way, and we'll coordinate big time and get that done. That's great. Thank you. Thank you. 297.1. A purpose services agreement with Charter Communications. Mayor, Council Member, Dan Mayer, IT Director. This is for a renewal of a not-to-exceed number for Spectrum Services. We still use them at several locations across the city and for cable services. We expect the actual outlay to be much lower. They are going to move to a streaming package, which will consolidate all of our TV services at a greatly reduced cost. And I also have to mention there is an indemnification clause, and that was another reason we had to bring it to you for approval. So, I'll take any other questions. Okay. Any questions on this or not? Council Member Cotton. Dan, how are you doing? Good. Thank you. I think we all know where I might be going with this is I see it's just Spectrum. Did we shop this out to see if there's a better service through Verizon, Frontier, anything like that? We do. I mean, we do business with Lumen, Frontier, Crown Castle, and not for all the same services, but they all get business from us. Okay. It's mostly ISP service moving forward. Once they go to a streaming format, we'll just bring everything across streaming. Perfect. Thanks, sir. Okay. Do we have consent on this one? Yep. We have consent on 7.1, 7.10. Authorize an increase of the purchase order with Acela. Mayor, Council Member, Dan Mayer, one of our subcontractors, if you will, for software, it is ePermitHub. It does the online plan review. They were purchased by Acela, so we're consolidating these two agreements, and we're going to have them coterminous in 2030. So this was a large number. We had to modify the contract. This includes all the maintenance we pay for Acela plus the online portion, and that will include some AI functionality. Hopefully, in the coming three months, they should be releasing their AI agent for plan review, and we will be testing that with planning and development, and I hope that that adds value to our customers. Take any other questions. Questions on this agenda item. Not that we have consent. Yep. We have consent on 7.2. Thank you. Thank you. Agenda item 8.1. Approve an agreement with Kayenta. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, City Council, and Nemanja Kuzmanovic, Utility Customer Service. This is a utility billing system that we have been using for over 25 years, and we're seeking a five-year agreement extension. They will ensure continuation in service delivery, and we're also looking to utilize professional services for integration with other city systems, and we're also planning to invest in Kayenta AI agent to support our call center. I would be happy to answer any questions. Any questions on this agenda? Council Member Cotton. I do have a few. Let me turn this back on. I do have a few. So in the integration, who is ultimately going to be accountable? Should something fail or underperform, given that Harris builds integration, but the city manages the configuration through a third-party consultant? We use Harris to help build the integration. I mean, ultimately, we're responsible for the integration. Okay. They assist us when we do upgrades, so they're aware of the fact that we've done an integration, and they will give us early release so we can test in their environment. But that's our shared responsibility when we do basically custom integration. We will be moving to a warehousing approach, which means we'll be pulling data from our production systems and putting them in a neutral site so other systems can grab that data without risk of integrations to a live production system. It reduces our risk, and it makes data much more available to users. All right, cool. I've got three more. Are there any business processes or data exchanges that the city expects that are not shown in Appendix A, where the workflows are, especially around inventory, asset lifecycle, or reporting or such? That's from the kind of the system? No, I mean, we will be doing it. We'll be moving a lot of those things into Trimble Unity, which was CityWorks. But there's always a data exchange on the meters. The meters need to be kept in their system for billing purposes. Okay. But we're able to mine that data pretty risk-free. All right, cool. I think that actually does take care of my other questions. So thank you, guys. I appreciate it. Any other questions? Do we have consent? Yes. Do we have consent on 8.1? Thank you, sir. Thank you. And I'm 9.1. Accept for a Department of Transportation grant agreement. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Mike McDonald, Marine and Aviation Director. This amendment updates the scope and funding of the parking lot expansion and rehabilitation project at Clearwater Executive Airport to include the provisions of a temporary modular office facility required to maintain fixed-base operator operations during construction. Demolition of the existing terminal building will displace required operational space, and the temporary facility is necessary to ensure continuous and compliant airport operations for the duration of construction. The amendment increases the total project cost of $1.9 million with FDOT participation capped at 80% of eligible cost and formally incorporates the modular building into Exhibit A as an allowable project expense, and FlyUSA will reimburse the local match. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions on this agenda? If none, do we have consent? We have consent on 9.1. 9.2. Approve a purchase order to and lease agreements with Mobile Modular Management Corporation. Mike McDonald, Marine and Aviation Director again. This item approves the temporary modular building to maintain fixed-base operator operations at Clearwater Executive Airport during construction of the new terminal. The existing terminal will be demolished through the grant that you just consented to. FDOT will reimburse the modular trailer at 80%, and the remaining 20% will be local match, will be reimbursed by FlyUSA. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Questions on this agenda item? Do we have consent? We have consent on 9.2. Thank you. Agenda item 10.1. Authorized purchase orders of core and main LP and Pasco pipe supply for ductile iron pipe fittings. Afternoon. Excuse me. Afternoon. Mayor, council. My name is Michael Vaca. I'm the Public Utilities Infrastructure Manager, Water, Wastewater, Reclaim Water Division. Before you, as you heard, today's request approval, purchase of ductile iron fittings, polytubing. These fittings are necessary, are part of our purpose of our inventory for our field repair. These products will be stored in our centralized warehouse and tract. These are critical parts that are daily used in our maintenance and also our emergency events. As you've heard, the two contractors are approved. They're the lowest in the responsive bids provided. As far as the city's strategic alignment, this request supports high performance of government by maintaining public infrastructure through strategic management and efforts. I'm happy to respond to any questions that you may have. And any questions on this agenda? Not do we have consent? Yes. Consent on 10.1. Thank you. And item 10.2. Authorize an increase and a 90-day extension of the existing purchase order with Odyssey Manufacturing. Afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Travis Stuber. I'm the Manager for the Wastewater Treatment Division at Public Utilities. Today, I'm requesting your authorization to increase purchase order with Odyssey Manufacturing of Tampa by $300,000 and extend the contract term for 90 days to April 16, 2026. The increase will bring the annual not-to-exceed amount to $1,800,000 and will ensure a continued supply of liquid sodium hypochlorite, also known as bleach, as a critical disinfectant required for water and wastewater treatment. This action directly supports our strategic plan for high-performance government by maintaining responsive levels of service for public facilities and also promotes our environmental stewardship by effectively using resources and meeting all state and local federal guidelines and requirements for permitted use of this water. I'm happy to respond to any questions you might have. Any questions on this agenda item? If not, do we have consent? We have consent on agenda item 10.2. 10.3. Thank you. Approve an agreement between Hadronix and Smart Cover Systems. Afternoon, Mayor and Council. Michael Vaca, Public Utilities Infrastructure Manager, Water Gravity, Reclaimed Water Divisions. Today, I'm requesting your approval for a two-year agreement renewal with Hydronix, doing the business as smart care cover systems in the amount of $438,39, if I can get it right, $438,398.64. This is non-competitive. This is a two-year request renewal. This is essentially monitoring real, at-live, now-time monitoring the wastewater collection systems and its operations. By allowing us to have this type of service allows us to help prevent and capture any SSOs before they begin. This funding covers not only the software, but the hardware maintenance and the potential acquiring of new 30 units, if necessary. This investment directly supports high-performance government by optimizing city assets with evidence-based measurements of tools and systematic management of our public infrastructure. Wow, what a challenge. Thank you. I apologize. I'm happy to respond and answer any questions about this product, which I greatly support and currently promise. Please. There you go. There you go. We can take it. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Any questions on that? Okay? Not that we have consent. Yes. We have consent on 10.3. Thank you, sir. It's in item 10.5. Authorized purchase orders to Corn, Maine, for an Empire Pipe and Supply Company. Again, Michael Vock at Public Utilities Infrastructure Manager, Water Gravity Reclam, Mayor and Council. Again, this proposal is for purchase of brass fittings. This purpose is essentially water infrastructures, connections, and repairs. The vendors that we've selected as a primary and secondary award, this is to ensure that we have readily available for those products, these products are critical infrastructures that will be stored and trapped inside our warehouses and used for our maintenance emergency events. By the strategic alignment, this request supports high proficiency of government through maintaining our public infrastructure while through systematic management and efforts. Happy to respond to any questions that you may have. Are you just as excited about brass fittings? I can be. It's very hard to come by, but we are very excited. Thank you. A few other questions. Do we have consent? Yes. Real quick. So Mike Baca, he's basically the – we refer to Matt Anderson as the Baca of Parks and Recs, by the way. So that's how I'm going to put it. He came in today, I just learned, to do these presentations. It is his 24-year anniversary. His wife has sat through the entire four hours here. Aw. He was supposed to go to an early lunch – or late lunch. I think now it's going to be an early, expensive dinner. I wanted to thank you for coming in today. He wanted to do the presentations himself. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Happy anniversary to you. We're so sorry. Yeah, we have consent on agenda item 10.4, 11.1. Approve a professional services agreement and work order with PBK Architects. I'm – oh, I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council Members. I'm Art Cater. I'm the Director of Parks and Recreation. The item before you did – I was all up. You know, him going out in 24 years and everything, he ought to go to Ocean Prime. I know, I'm broke, I did that. It was a good meal, though. The item before you today is the approval of a professional service agreement and work order with PBK Architects for the design of the Eddie Seymour Complex Renovations, which will include the East Seymour Fields 1 through 4, as well as the soccer fields East and West. PBK work order will include the schematic design, design development, construction documents, permitting, bidding, and the construction administration. The plan is to have these services done within the next 10 months so that then we can go out to construction for the next 12 and be ready for all of the national tournaments that we have here in Clearwater on February 2028. So that is our goal and our hope. The city plans to bring on the design team and construction manager within the very next few months. You'll be hearing from us about that, just to put them on the team so that they can be there to help with the construction. The total budgeted funds for this project are $21,780,000 – why is everybody having trouble? No, no, $21,850,000, of which $7,750,000 is from a TDC grant, which all are very well aware of and have already approved. With this item, we are requesting a transfer of funds at midyear from Athletic Fields R&R Project M-2207 to cover this contract and any other costs that might occur during this fiscal year. The majority of all the funding is basically set up for the next fiscal year. That's why we needed to make those transfers. I'm available to answer any questions, or I have Mike Lockwood here as well, and I have Tanner. I'm sorry. They're here. And if anything goes wrong with it, they're the ones to play. They just don't want to be up here. So, any questions I can answer? Any questions on this agenda? No. Do we have consent? Yes. We have consent. Thank you. Gender item 12.1. Appoint John Carey to the Brownfields Advisory Board to fill the resident category for a term to expire January 15, 2030. Council members, Sue Hart was filling this position, the resident category. Back in 23, she completed a term, but it is difficult to find someone who actually resides in the area or represents a company. So, we finally have somebody who is a resident and is the only applicant on file. Okay. Do we have consent? No. Yeah. Okay. We have consent on 12.1. Thank you. Gender item 12.2. Reappoint Phil Kirkpatrick to the Brownfields Advisory Board to fill the government representative category for a term set to expire January 15, 2030. Council members, he is filling the government representative category, and he is not required to live within the area, but as a government representative, he works in the area. So, that is how he fills that category. Do we have consent? Do we have consent on 12.2? Yes. Approve the mayor's reappointment of Melanie Humphrey to the Clearwater Housing Authority Board for a term ending January 15, 2030. Council members, this is the one board where the mayor makes the appointment but seeks confirmation from the council. And she is the applicant on file, and she was willing to serve again on the board. Okay. Questions or do we have consent? We have consent. Okay. Consent on 12.3. 12.4. Appoint Mark Lutz to the Public Art and Design Board as a citizen representative with a term set to expire January 15, 2030. Sorry about the typo there. Eric Seiler was filling the citizen's representative category, and we actually have only one applicant who is able to fill in that category, Mr. Lutz. Discussion? Do we have consent? Yes. Consent on 12.5. Reappoint Dean Strickland to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board with a term set to expire January 15, 2029. Council members, Mr. Strickland has been serving on the board and completed his term and is willing and actually wants to be reappointed. Okay. Any discussion on 12.5? Do we have consent? Yes. We have consent on 12.5. 12.6? Appoint an individual to the Marine Advisory Board with a term set to expire on January 15, 2030. Council members, Ms. Stanley was filling and completed her first term. Unfortunately, she is unable to continue serving on the board. For your consideration, we have applications from Toby Bradenburg, an insurance agent, Yvette Compton, a sales executive, David Farrar, a real estate representative, James Martin, an attorney, Jamie Smith, from Stella Power Company and CEO, and Eric Van Cleef, a sales executive. Okay. Councilman McCutton? Yes, sir. Thank you. So, thank you to everybody who applied. That's a great representation of people willing to serve. That's always good to see people wanting to step up and volunteer. Based on zip codes and who's already serving on the board, two names that came to me. My top would be Toby. Mr. Brendenburg brings long-term Clearwater residency dating back to 1967 with direct maritime experience through boating in the U.S. Navy Service and demonstrated commitment to environmental stewardship through volunteer work. With Brooker Creek Preserve, Sierra Club, his background aligns with the Marine Advisory Board's role in balancing access, conservation, and waterfront quality of life, while also expanding the geographic representation of the city. My second would be Mr. – forgive me – Clef, is that correct? Van Cleef, yes. Okay. Mr. Van Cleef offers extensive leadership experience across large, complex organizations, according to the paperwork that they filled out and what I was able to read. With strong operational and process-driven mindset, his background in multi-site operations, logistics, safety, and customer service could provide those valuable system-level perspectives for maritime infrastructure. So, as I said, both of these gentlemen do not share a zip code with something that's already been represented as well. So, look forward to the discussion. Okay. That's my role, Brent. Again, this is – it's great to have, you know, six people going after this opening, and a few of them I could recommend. However, the name that stands out to me is Jim Martin. He's been a boater for over 65 years, and I know him. He's very involved with Clearwater on – and I think he'd be a good one to put on this board. Okay. Vice Mayor? I think this is the first time that none of us have mentioned the same name. I'm going to continue with that. I would suggest David Farrar only because I have served with him on several boards, and I have noted consistently that he is so active and passionate and responsible. He's very passionate about his city. And so, based on my knowledge of how he has conducted himself to this point, as well as all his involvement, I would suggest David Farrar. That's my two cents. There's one left. Councilman. Yes. Seriously. I think there's a couple names we missed, so I'll – I'm with you. I mean, obviously, this is an important discussion, but it's nice to see a handful of passionate people in our community willing to serve, especially on our advisory boards. These are important. I really just went through them briefly and wrote down one, and that was Mr. Bradenberg. Experience, long-time resident, geographic location that we've all said was important. But I'm confident and comfortable in any direction the board goes, but that's the name I wrote down. Okay. I know two of them, personally, who would – Jim Martin and David Farrar would both be great. I don't know that I know Mr. Bradenberg, but I was impressed, too, with his resume. So, I don't have a strong feeling. So, I'm not really familiar with everybody that's already on that board. So, do we already have a number from out on Clearwater Beach, Island Estates, and San Diego? But how about this? Since there is no consensus, we can push this to Thursday. If you like, I can ask the individuals who you've mentioned to attend the meeting, and if you have any questions, you can ask questions. But right now, it doesn't look like we have consensus on anyone. I think I'd like to wait. I'd like to learn more about these folks. I didn't realize there was going to be this – differences of – We can do that. And maybe even – I guess we're free to speak with – So, it'll be back on the agenda for Thursday, just not on consent. That's okay. Speak with the candidates ourselves. So, yeah. Okay. No, that's fine. I don't know that I'll have any questions from the information that's already going to provide. I'll be honest with you. But, yeah, absolutely, if you guys need that, for sure. Yeah. Would I go to that? Yeah. Let me give us a couple more days to gather on each one of us to think more about it. So, for sure. Good. That's nice. Okay. 12.7. I'll appoint seven individuals in the Community of Resiliency and Leisure Services Advisory Board with terms set to expire on January 15, 2030. Councilmembers, this is the new board that we consolidated three of our former boards. For your consideration, I do have applications from Candace Gardner, who was serving on the Parks and Recreation Board. Allison Greentham, a sales and marketing representative. Timothy Hughes, a retired environmental specialist who was also serving on the Environmental Advisory Board. Bianca Latvala, in marketing, served on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Kelly Kelly, a business owner and radio host who served on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Michael Rubino, air quality expert. Glenna Wentworth, a retired mental health counselor who served on the Environmental Advisory Board. And Nana Westmark, a retired environmental geologist. And if you have any questions. I just, just in full transparency, I did ask the board liaison for the Library Advisory Board to share that information that the applications were out. I did meet with them prior to the ordinance being adopted and advise them if they were interested to apply. But we did not get any applications. I just wanted to make sure that that was out there. Okay. Initial thoughts? I guess it's all but one. We've got eight applicants for seven spots. Yeah, you know, I, again, went by zip code and trying to see, you know, what their experience was. I put Ms. Westmark, Mr. Hughes, Ms. Wentworth, Ms. Kelly, Ms. Grantham, Ms. Gardner, Mr. Rubino, for various reasons. Again, different zip code representations. I'll just be brief here. Mr. Rubino specializes in air quality, environmental health. Ms. Gardner offers decades of Clearwater Civic Service, according to her application, with Parks and Rec Advisory Board, Library Advisory Board, and Community Relations Board. Ms. Grantham brings family-focused, resident-centered viewpoints that seem to be grounded in an active use of Clearwater's parks, libraries, and youth programs. With professional experience and communications and stakeholder engagement, Ms. Kelly, I think we all know her. She's obviously very engaged in the community and pretty much knows everybody as well as been to and documented all of our parks. Ms. Wentworth, once again, somebody who's very engaged, provides that critical connection between environmental resiliency and the human health aspect. I put Mr. Hughes, as he offers extensive public sector experience in watershed protection, stormwater management, GIS analysis, and environmental program implementation. And Ms. Westmark, bringing more than 30 years of professional environmental science experience. I'll leave it at that, because there's a lot of people to go through. But those are the reasons as to why, in accordance with zip codes, that I went with those people. Any other thoughts? Well, I agree with everything, except for I would exchange Ms. Grantham for Ms. Lettbaugh. That's the only difference between yours and mine. Any else? When I was going through it, I was just trying to make sure that of the boards that we're consolidating, that if we have existing members serving on those boards to make sure that we have representation that we're pulling from. I guess, is there anybody in this list, without going through it as a reminder, that isn't currently serving on one of those three boards? Yes. Ms. Grantham and Ms. Westmark, Mr. Rubino, are the ones who weren't on any of the boards. So out of all of those boards, they fill seven spots, huh? Interesting. That's okay. We got an application. Oh, no, no. They served on the boards. No, but those two that didn't serve, Rubino and Westmark, are the ones with air quality. It was an air quality expert and a senior geologist. So that, to me, more of a priority than whether they served before or not. So as part of the membership, there was a suggestion, a preference, rather, for three individuals with professional environmental background. So I know. I tried to get more applications. Yeah. For the seven Cs, but you got eight. There you go. Well, I think trying to carry people over. So Ms. LaValla, since she already served for it, I think I would agree with the vice mayor to, instead of Ms. Grantham, who, very impressed with her experience as well, I would agree to put Ms. LaValla on instead. So everybody except Grantham, basically. I do want to raise it, don't you? Yes. I think that's. Just trying to make it easier. I mean, I think that'll be fine, too. I think. Listen, we had a great amount of lists, and I think we all know Bianca as well. I think that she would be good, too, with marketing background and what she does as well. So it wasn't a set-in-stone list. It was just what I had seen basing it, too, on zip code differentiation. So that's why I did what I did. And that's the only reason I would do it. It's not anything against Ms. Grantham. I'm glad she applied for it, and I hope she applies for another board. But I'm okay with that. I'm good about it. Okay. Can I place it on consent? Yes. Okay. With that, we'll move to January 12.8. Schedule a special work session on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 9 a.m. And on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 2 p.m., for the purpose of holding a strategic planning session at the Morningside Recreation Center. So, council members, this year, staff is proposing two sessions, one in the morning and then the afternoon for the purpose of fulfilling the council rule. That's fine. Or rather, council rules. And they are held on your calendar, so we did make sure of that as well. Good. Consent to that? Yes. All right. Consent on 12.8. 12.9. Approve a 2026 state legislative agenda. So, council members, I have included a copy of the proposed items for the funding request. We have already submitted and have secured our sponsorships for our appropriations requests. So, elevate Bayshore Boulevard, backup emergency power generator connections, and the lift station rehab program. That is one of the benefits of having a now second year, I would say third year, second to third year, where we're actually having a grant schedule working with staff. So, it makes it easier to identify those projects that are ready for appropriations or grant funding. And then under issues to support, I can go through them all, but for topics, depending, I don't know, almost four o'clock, we have attainable housing, education, local governance, and a lot of the items under the local governance. Because I think, based on what we're going through right now, I've got, allow local governments to regulate vacation rental properties to protect the health and welfare of their residents, visitors, and businesses. Preserve municipal government authority over equitable property tax decisions that fund essential programs and services, such as public safety, infrastructure, parks, and libraries, which define a community and support residents' quality of life. And maintain municipal authority to establish reasonable extra-territorial surcharges that reflect the actual cost of providing services outside of city limits, protecting municipal residents from subsidizing outside customers. We all know that right now, most of our revenue sources are being under attack during this session. We really don't know what's going on. Bills are still being filed, and the session begins tomorrow, so the fun is about to begin. Um, public safety, I have prohibited the carrying of weapons, of firearms, into specified locations, including government buildings, educational institutions, and public government meetings. Provide additional funding to local governments to address requirements of unauthorized public camping, sleeping, and that, as a result of the former House Bill 1375, which requires local governments to address the problem with law enforcement as a compliance tool. Sustainability and resiliency, provide additional funding to my state Florida home. Assisting eligible homeowners with free and mitigation, with free wind mitigation, home inspections, and matching grants to fortify homes against hurricane damage. Continue funding the state's beach renourishment program. Increase funding for the Resilient Florida Grants Program to assist municipalities with implementing climate-resilient infrastructure. And our usual, um, items that we oppose, and, uh, that's protecting our home rule authority. Um, increasing the regulation of a restriction of municipal operating and budgeting. Deterioration of existing laws related to the offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Restriction or elimination of community redevelopment agencies. And imposed consolidation of municipal and county services. Now, these aren't all the bills that will be addressed during session, but I think these are the major ones. But we obviously work with our lobbyists and with the Four League of Cities so that items that do come that are not identified here will be addressed as well. Yeah. Any questions, comments? No, I'm fine with that. Vice Mayor? Yes. I'm fine with everything. I just wish that, um, especially with what's been happening lately, under issues to oppose, where it says increased regulation of or restriction on municipal operations and budgeting, I would love to include, um, including commissioned projects, activities, and public, or problems. No, no, no. I said as long as it's not in the road. Oh, no, there's no road. I'm talking about, um, commissioned. It was a joke. Artistic projects. You're good. No, it's too soon. It's too soon. I have a question. Um, I see this as an, in, in order alphabetically. When this is presented. The support. Or, yes, that's, the topics are alphabetical, but. I'm trying to picture our finished product that we will be distributing. It'll be nicer than that. I know it'll look nicer. Fine. But will it be presented in a different form, like priorities? Because I know from Florida League of Cities, uh, and some Coast League of Cities, they're basically only worried about property tax throughout the entire state. That's their biggest and only. And I feel like it's kind of buried. I feel like that is pretty high priority. Um, I, I'm supportive of all of them. I'm just wondering, sometimes when we leave these on a desk of an elected official in Tallahassee, it's scanned for maybe seven seconds and they don't see the rest or look at it because they're so busy, understandably so. But maybe if it's prioritized versus alphabetized. If the council wishes to rearrange, that, that is fine. I can just tell you that working with our lobbyists and I'm also working with staff and working with the League of Cities, just because it's not listed as the top, because there is no, no value given to it. It's all going to be advocated and worked for at the same level. But that, that's council's decision. And I guess you could say if you see it alphabetically, then it's kind of an indication that none of them are a priority over the other ones, I guess. And I've already been working with staff and working with the League of Cities, providing and sharing the information with all the bills regarding property taxes. So, I understand. I know that that is their main thing. And I know with the Suncoast League of Cities, it is their only item. But the city has, staff has identified other areas as well that we want to maintain as well. No, I agree. That was just the first thing that caught me was seeing it alphabetized versus prioritized. And I'm good either way. It doesn't matter to me. So, I just thought to put it in alphabetical order. But we can rearrange it. Okay. That's my Robert. Do you have a date firmed up when we're going to Tallahassee? Is that the third week in February? February 10th. February 10th. Yeah. Okay. It's already on your, it should be on your calendars. I've already, we've worked with your staff to reserve the hotel room. So, it's. Well, that's our best option to bring this with us and go ahead and talk to the people that, you know, can help us with that. Make further discussion on this. Not. Thank you. Move to 13.1. Mayor, 13.1 is a second reading. I'm just going to mention briefly on this one. We had what I believe will likely be the final meeting of the Pension Advisory Committee last Thursday. If this ordinance is approved as written, the PAC will effectively be dissolved because it no longer serves a particular function. Those functions having been transferred either to the trustees, to the city manager, or some combination of both. That said, I'm happy to answer any questions. Yeah. Any questions on 13.1? 13.2? 13.2 is our second reading on the private-public partnerships. As a reminder, this, the repeal of this, or I'm sorry, the amendment, does not mean that the city is stopping the concept of private-public partnerships. It just means that as the legislature updates the law, the intent is for the city to follow the amended statute, so that way our ordinance doesn't become outdated over time as the legislature modifies the law, which they've done a couple times over the years. Any questions on that? No, 13.3. Mayor, 13.3 and 13.4 are slip-and-fall cases. I'm just going to say a couple things on this. I'm, of course, not the substance of the litigation, but since Mr. Fuino was appointed as city attorney for Northport, we've been actively recruiting for his position. We have a recruiter who's working with us, and we've gotten a few applicants, but it's a tough time to be recruiting, at least for this position. The feedback that we're getting from the recruiter is that because downtown Clearwater is located so far on the west side of Pinellas County, it is hard to convince people to relocate, say, from Tampa, where they're living, or the east side of St. Pete, or to drive all the way from Tampa every day. We are currently a full-time in-office environment. We have gotten some feedback and some requests from a couple candidates as well as from the recruiter to consider it either making this a hybrid role, a remote role. That's something previously we have not done a lot. Manager and I have talked about this a little bit as it relates to staff interaction, but that's just something I wanted you to be aware of. The other challenge as it relates specifically to the litigator role is that, frankly, a lot of the people who are really good in this space are billing a ton of hours at private firms, and to take a pay cut to come and work for the government is not always very attractive. You're billing 2,000 hours a year at a big firm, and you're a real grinder as a litigator. And so we have both a substantive challenge in recruiting for the litigator position as well as our locational challenge in downtown Clearwater being so far from some of our other population centers. So just be aware of that. That's not anything we can do or control right now. I just wanted the council to know that me and my team have been, like, actively trying to recruit them for this role, and we're still working on that. So if it goes beyond my tenure as city attorney, we will continue to outsource because we have no choice. But within the realm of outsourcing, I've been keeping a very close eye on our spend for this. Right now, we're fine on budget. These law firms and these lawyers who do this kind of work tend to charge a discounted hourly rate. However, that's something we're keeping a close eye on from a budget standpoint so that we don't go over budget if we can avoid it. Do we have consent then on 13.3 and 13.4? Do we have consent? 13.5. Mayor, 13.5 is the renewal of our workers' comp agreement with the law firm of Banker Lopez. Mr. Hungate has been representing the city since 2008. However, he has been practicing law for many, many decades. I've had conversations with Mr. Hungate recently about how long he intends to practice, candidly. I mean, I would say he's probably in the twilight of his career at this point. I think he would agree with that. However, he has indicated that he does intend to continue practicing for at least the next couple years. I've seen no evidence or reason to doubt his capability in that regard, so certainly I'm comfortable recommending the renewal of that. He does have a lot of institutional knowledge regarding Clearwater and certainly is an expert in the field of workers' comp. Once the city does get through Mr. Hungate's time as an attorney or once he does retire, I would encourage the city to consider doing an RFP for this. Candidly, if I was staying here in the years ahead, I would do an RFP for this just because of the size of the contract. It is not required because legal services are exempt. However, I do think it would be a good practice for the city to consider that just as you look for taxpayer protection in the years ahead. Okay. Questions? Do we have consent? We have consent. 1.13.5, Janine Borting, city manager of the report. Thank you, Mayor. Just two things. One, I know we've had a lot of media and we've talked a lot about Mama Duck, but I did want to just make sure to thank especially Amber Bryce for all her efforts and her tenacity in continuing to ask for this duck. It's been a dream of hers for a couple of years and for her to stick with it and take being told no multiple times. But the timing had to be right, and I think indeed it is. So I certainly want to thank her, but not just her. As most of our larger, pun intended, endeavors, it's a group effort. I mean, there's a lot of departments that are involved in this, even public utilities, some of the departments that you wouldn't necessarily associate with some of our big, our large special event type things. So I just want to thank everybody who put in the work to make this a special event and to make Mama Duck be a success. So I wanted to thank all the teams for that. And then the second item I have is just some good news. I have shared just briefly in our one-on-ones, but Senator Moody had been doing some work to try and get FEMA to acknowledge in writing that they would contemplate the approval of some extensions on projects that have exceeded the time span that what FEMA typically allows of 18 months. And they had been working towards a meeting. They've had the meeting. They were successful in that meeting in so much as not to get a guarantee that there will be extensions, but that they're going to contemplate having those extensions. And they were very grateful. Senator Moody's office was very grateful to our team for all the work they put into getting them that information. And I've asked to have another meeting so that we can continue to be providers of information and data to help them with that as they decide how to formulate their responses to that. So our team will be meeting with Senator Moody's office to continue to further that. So, again, just some good news and maybe a little bit of hope in that some of those projects that are still being worked on will be eligible for consideration from FEMA. Thank you. Item 15, city attorney. Nothing right now. Item 16.1. Council Member Cotton. Thank you, sir. This is just my agenda item on bringing back public comment. The majority of the council wanted time to think about it. Again, same consideration or request, essentially bringing back public comment the way it was, just limiting it to 30 minutes instead of 60. Each speaker still gets three minutes, prohibiting time sharing. Yeah, that's it. So open for discussion, what your all's thoughts are now that we've had a few weeks to think about it and see where we're at. I'm not opposed to it. As I said last time, I would just like to see us do it differently so that it doesn't impact those folks who are coming, showing up for an important agenda item. Many folks come out for an agenda item. They've never been to a council meeting before. There's something really pressing. And so what I don't want to see us do is get back into the habit where this, if it's on the agenda, it's up front, where these folks who, you know, we've had a couple cases where they came out for an agenda item, first time ever really important to them, and left after all the, you know, the drama at the first meeting. So I'm not opposed to it. I just like to see us do it in a way that doesn't dissuade or discourage folks from coming out to speak on a regular agenda item. So I don't know what you might propose for doing it differently than what we did before, but that would be what I would like to say. After discussing with the city attorney, I mean, we can still put it anywhere within the agenda item that we want. So it doesn't have to necessarily be in the beginning then. We can put it at the end before maybe city manager verbal reports, if that's what we so choose. You know, I think it just goes back to when people are having problems being allowed to tell us about their specific problem and have all upper staff here, as well as ourselves, to hear that, take notice of it, and either contact them back or contact through the city manager's office the appropriate person to try and handle that problem better and give those people that opportunity to redress us. So I don't think it necessarily – I don't care where it goes within the meeting, especially not to try and inhibit others who do enjoy coming to the meeting and might want to speak to a specific agenda item from doing so. So if we want to even interject it at the end of the meeting, I'm fine with it. That would be my – do it in a way. And I understand what you're saying, but we all know that the folks have come and it got to the point. Maybe it was a temporary thing. Maybe it'll go back to being the way it used to be. But it got to be where there was very few people coming out for a legitimate, you know, community concern related to Clearwater. We had tons of people coming out to talk about things that had, you know, from four hours away that, you know, some might say we're putting on a show rather than, you know, addressing a community Clearwater concern. So I just think from my end, you know, I am certainly welcome that kind of feedback from the community and that opportunity. I just hope we do it in a way that doesn't discourage others from – local community members from attending. I don't know what other thoughts we have here. May I just respond to that real quick, too? I appreciate that, and I share those concerns. That's why I went ahead and, you know, originally it was 60 minutes. I dropped it down to 30. I had no time sharing. Therefore, I genuinely believe if you have something that you want to say to us, you should be able to say it. And those other people that are sharing time, if you feel similar conviction, don't just send the audience. Stand up and tell us. So that's why, again, I've limited it to three minutes, no time sharing – well, not limited it to three minutes. It's already been three minutes, no time sharing, and limited the time. And, you know, it's something that I think that the city clerk could just keep track of when we start that portion of the meeting. Thirty minutes, timer goes off, first come, first serve, max of ten people. We might not even fill ten people, you know, but it still gives all of those people that have something to say that they want to say to us the ability to do so. Was there any – I mean, there have been suggestions that we limit it potentially to Pinellas County residents, or is there – So I thought about that, I was disgusted, the city attorney and I, and I think that just puts more of a burden on the city clerk's office, to be honest, you know, and trying to vet those people just before coming in. What do they bring to show that they're a stakeholder? Do they bring a business certificate, a proof of ownership in a land or business here, as well as a photo ID? What happens if somebody has one but not the other? Do they still get time to speak? Like, that's why I think that we just go back to what we had with the new parameters that I'm petitioning at a different time in the meeting. And, you know, those people that really are passionate about what they want to say, they'll stick around. Those that aren't, they won't stick around. And, again, max of three minutes, no time sharing, max time of 30 minutes. Okay. Okay, other thoughts? Me? Okay, thank you. I'm okay with the thought and with the idea. I definitely understand where you're coming from. I mean, we've already walked this path of the decision-making process as a group, and it was a challenging decision on all of us. It wasn't easy. The last thing we want to do is take away the public's ability to be engaged in their local government and to communicate with us. I would say that, you know, it's a little easier to make a decision in this environment because it changed. But I think we should remind ourselves why it changed. What did we do to help that change and facilitate it? I mean, it wasn't that long ago citizens, staff, some of us on the dais felt unsafe. We were using words like hostility. We were rewarding grandstanding and mic drop moments. We were derailing some of our agendas. We were constantly hearing misinformation that doesn't help the community. And we were creating legal and ethical risks, not just for the gavel in the city attorney's office, but for our men and women protecting us in here. I think what we were doing in that system, so I'm open to finding something else. I feel like we were optimizing expression and not governance. And I think if the goal is effective decision-making and meaningful public input, the structure that we put in place in that decision-making process, I think that overweighs and beats the openness that we're searching for. So I have a challenge juggling this, but we went through this. We made a decision, you know, based on all those circumstances. And we were governing more efficiently. These meetings are more productive. Staff and everybody feel safe. And we checked a lot of boxes, although there are, you know, consequences that come with that decision. So I just want to remind us on how we got here before we make that decision. But I am open, and I'm not going to stand and argue either way or fight for one way or another. If it's a decision we make as a group, I'll support it. Congressman Robert? I think it's important to have it, although I have been enjoying the peaceful meetings we've had lately. But that's not really something I should not, you know, worry about. I do think it's good to have the public come in to say things that really need to be said to us and to staff. I think maybe moving it to the end is the best. I think limiting it 30 minutes with a three-minute no-sharing thing would work better. We can try it, and I think maybe we should. I'd be for doing that. But in the end of the meeting, that way people know that they can come at the end of the meeting and they can look at the agenda online and say, well, it's going to be a long meeting, a short meeting, and then we'll have to come to the very beginning of the meeting, and they can come in at some point. I think we're still going to get some of the same people that came before, unfortunately. But, you know, I think it allows our citizens to come and talk to us directly if there's any problems, and I think that maybe outweighs some of that stuff that we have to put up with. So listening to all of you, if I had to align, I would do it with Council Member Menino in the sense of, like, there's so much I'm considering. So in order to kind of, you know, keep that all together and try to figure out a decision, I kind of just put two rows, right? So on the one hand, you have those who feel that e-mail, voice calls, or I guess meetings are not enough. They want that public forum, they want it on record, and they want that venue to express what they have to say. There are many of those who have communicated to me that feel that that's important, that public, on record, maximum exposure to have their message be brought out. But on the other hand, you have fewer people, but who have a legitimate concern about their safety or being in a hostile environment. I don't like the challenges that it's a more difficult situation that it puts our first responders in, as well as our staff. So, like, how do you weigh that? So if we're going to reinstate it, I believe we need to ensure that we minimize the risk of that circus to happen again. Changing the time would be a great option. Maybe even decreasing the time so that it just doesn't become this arduous and circus atmosphere. So I'm willing to go forward, but it has to be further restricted. You have to have more control to honor those who feel that they were not safe or they felt that they weren't able to be here. So changing the time to the end definitely is something I would agree with, the other parameters as well. But I don't know if that's just enough. Maybe, I don't know, just a discussion. If I can, I will say that even with my discussions with, you know, the city attorney, I don't feel like First Amendments have been trampled here. When there's a business item, people have been able to speak to that openly, freely. Again, this just comes to the other information that people might be affecting them that they want to share with us. You know, when we first all got elected, it was trees, right? We've seen a cyclical little thing for a while until we put a pause on it and then it stopped. But there's always, you know, through certain rough terrain, there's always been a few people that had valid reasons for us to get the information, to reach out to a city manager, assistant city manager, legal, and try and help that citizen out, right? And call them back or get their contact information to set up a meeting or something like that. And that's where I think that, you know, even if it's one person, that's our job. That's why we're here is to be able to hear that one person. And, I mean, I don't know how much further of a restriction you are looking for. I thought that this was fair, you know, limiting the time in half, not allowing for the sharing of time. It keeps that person in their three minutes. And I think that that does a good service. You still have the ability to tell us what your issue is. I mean, we all know. We know. We don't respond during that time. I know the citizens usually don't know that. But at least we're able to get their side of the information. It might not even take three minutes. And we know that it's not going to go over that. And then we can filter that information by getting the information back from the city clerk and moving on. Yes, ma'am. So my question would be clarification. So I know that there was a discussion regarding limiting it to residents or Pinellas County residents or those who have business with the city. And confirming that information, I agree, would be difficult right before the meeting. Something to think about and maybe clarify would be if there is a sign-up sheet, the sign-up sheet can be in the back. They can fill it out but require them to fill out the comment card. And so that they present them, because right now it's not, it's suggested, but it's not a requirement. And so I think that kind of limits. But in the event we have so many and we run through the time of the 30 minutes, then I have them and I can share them with council. And then council can contact the individuals. And you're going to need a sign-up list or something to show priority in case you do run out of time. And with that, I would say that, you know, I mean, first come, first serve. You put that sign-up list, even with maybe security out there, are you here to speak? Here's your comment card. Put them on a clipboard and, hey, time's full, but we'll still take your comment card and maybe come back the next one. Let those people know then. Again, you know, we already have our 10 speakers at max right now. We'll still take your comment card and look forward to you maybe coming out at the next meeting. And if that is the case, then I think that should be clarified and maybe the city attorney can provide comments. If it's going to be a rolling list of speakers because one meeting had too many, which that's not what I envision. No, I would still think it's first come, first serve. Yeah, even we'll still take your comment card. That doesn't mean you're number one on the list next time. Each meeting is a new meeting. You have something that's important for you to say, you're going to be there. I mean, I know I would. Listen, I'm here, you know. Understood. 5.30, sitting in the line. That's just my thoughts on how this can go. I think that it's an equal compromise. I think that it could potentially steady the ship and then allow people to have that freedom back to let us know what's going on in our city, how we can help them. And my hope is that's what she's for. Right. Because that's really, that was the original purpose of it, is folks coming from the community and bring to us maybe concerns we didn't know about. But with all things Internet and social media, it got way away from that. It became, for some people, a broadcasting platform to push their own agenda, push their own. I had a group reach out to me the other day and wanted to come to a meeting to basically sell a product. They wanted time at a council meeting. And that's not what this is for. This is for us to hear from local citizens about issues. But with all the things Internet, it's become a chance for folks to campaign for something or sell something or do something. And that's what I've seen since we've been here for two years. It's been 80% to 90% of that, somebody pushing an agenda or pushing something and campaigning. And that's not what it was a ticket for. So I think we're all okay with trying it with the limitations we've had on. Sign-up sheet sounds good. So we've got priority. And then so we need to put on an upcoming agenda to change the council rules to do that. So there's a few different variables on this that I'm writing down. So one of them is the total time limitation. And so whether it's going to be 30 minutes, 60 minutes, whatever it is. So first, I want to make sure that there's consensus on the total time limitation. Is there a consensus? I propose 30 minutes. Yeah. Okay. So I think that's the first part. The second question is going to be at what stage in the meeting should these occur? I know we've been talking about potentially the end of the meeting, but that can mean a couple different things. So if we think about the sequence of the meeting, and Clark can certainly chime in on this, but I think the normal sequence is that we go through a consent agenda kind of early on, then go through public hearings, then go through ordinances. So if we're talking about, we'll say later in the meeting, one option is to put it after the ordinances, but prior to city manager reports. That's one option. Then another option is to put it after city manager and city attorney reports. And then a third option would be to put it kind of right before, I would say, closing comments by council members, right? So those are probably the three options. It could either be right after second reading of ordinances, but before city manager reports, or it could be between city attorney reports and council discussion items for the next session, or it could be right before closing comments by council members. And you can, by the way, you can always change these. So this is just for the initial drafting, because I have to put it somewhere when I'm drafting. I think I'd put it after the council discussion items. That way we're through all the scheduled business. So just before city manager verbal report? Well, no. Foreign of business, I guess. Yeah, but. I don't have the council meeting agenda in front of me. I saw that councilman brawl right now. Okay. So I just want to clarify something. We're talking about public comment here. And a lot of the public gets up and thinks it's a debate. It's a debate or it's a conversation. And they ask us, well, what do you think about this? And it's not that. It's public comment. And the whole idea is if they have an issue, they need to get it out so we understand what the issue is. We're not going to be discussing it with them. But we've got staff here that will listen to what they're saying, and that's why they get the comment card, because then the staff, the appropriate staff, can get with them and hopefully solve their issue or problem. But, you know, I've had so many people over the years get up here, and they think it's a conversation with us. And, you know, they're asking the city attorney, well, what do you think about this? And, you know, it's not. It's a comment, public comment. So you limit it to three minutes. You can say a lot in three minutes of whatever your problem is. And then staff can get with you and figure, you know, I don't care. It should be toward the end. I don't care really where it is. But that should maybe be in the comment card. This is public comment, not discussion. Someone, staff or city manager, will get with you and help solve your problem. But it gives you the, you know, gives you the opportunity to get up and say it so all of us can hear it. And then we can follow up with staff and say, did you get Mr. Smith's problem taken care of, you know, by speaking out with all of us, there's benefit to that instead of just an e-mail or something like that. So that's why I think it's important because they can get up and they can, whatever their issue is, they can talk. It's public record. And then we can follow up with it and make sure staff has, you know, responded to them appropriately. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Mayor. Just to remind us that, again, we went through this whole, you know, discussion in depth in all of our one-on-ones and with the city attorney and on the dais and with city manager. One of the things we went through over a year ago was open comment on the beginning of the meeting. Some were supportive that we're making this decision or this thought process based on an environment in front of us that's been used as, you know, hostile or whatever the words might be, and it gets out of the way and sometimes those distractions leave. What we were identifying then over a year ago was the fear of if you put this on the back end of the agenda like we're talking now, you might have that distraction in an environment for your entire meeting waiting for the opportunity. They're not just going to show up for the end and to say, now's my time. You're going to keep them in here, what time is it now, 4.30? We've been here three and a half hours. If Thursday's meeting's that long, you're going to have those distractions sitting here what could be, you know, three, four hours. So it's just a reminder that we kind of, we walked this walk already and made these decisions. So, again, I'll support front end or back end. It sounds like you're more supportive as a group on putting on the back end, but. If you have a 30-minute timeline, you can do it at 5.30 when the meeting begins. I think that the point is to have it during, and what majority of those people want is for their comment to be heard on the record, right? So I think that that's why it wouldn't be its own separate meeting. And I'm not trying to encumber staff by being here any earlier or doing anything extravagant. I, quite frankly, do not. It does not matter to me where we put it in the meeting. I think that we just need to hold strong to the rules we put forward. And if we agree to 30 minutes, the clerk starts a timer. As soon as you say we're in the public comment portion, 30 minutes goes off. We either stop it or, I mean, it should be perfect, right, three minutes, max of ten people, and just keep it going. I don't know that it would be beneficial to do a full second meeting, to be honest, or beforehand. You know, to be truthful, you're not going to have ten people come in at every meeting with issues from citizens of Clearwater. It's very rare that you'll get two or three of them. The rest of them will just be grandstanders that want to get up and have a circus. But I think limiting it is good, and three minutes is enough time. It's always been three minutes. And, you know, if we find that it doesn't work at the end of the meeting, we can change it, right? Can we change it? Which part? Are we talking about the sequence of it, or are we talking about having it at all? The sequence is certainly easy to change. The only caution I would offer is this. The sequence, I think, you can change as often as you want, move it wherever you want in the meeting, as frequently as you like. The only thing I would observe, and Councilmember Cotter and I talked about this a little bit before the meeting, if you modify the rules too often, and particularly if we modify the rules relating to who can speak too often, it may start to create a perception or appearance that we favor or disfavor certain viewpoints for certain speakers. And that's something I would encourage us to be really careful about. I'm not worried about that today. I don't think we're there right now. But if we keep doing it too often and keep deciding, well, it's going to be local stakeholders this month, and no, it's not going to be next month, and just change it too often or get rid of it, bring it back, get rid of it, bring it back, at some point I do have a concern that we may start to create a pattern that somebody could cite to. Again, I'm not worried about that today, but just something to keep in mind in the future. The sequence of it, I wouldn't sweat it. I mean, sequence, I think you could change as often as you want. But as it relates to who can speak, and particularly if you're going to have a rule for local stakeholders, I would encourage the Council to pick a rule and stick with it for a while if you can. What's the rationale for putting this at the end of the meeting? Is it just so that the staff and most of the people that are in the audience can avoid or have a choice of avoiding it? Is that why we're considering putting it at the end? Because you brought up a good point. I mean, mind you, they do walk away. But if we have problematic individuals who are just grandstanding, the idea of having them here for three and a half hours is not my favorite thing. Well, it's been safety. I mean, we've had not just elderly people. We've had women. They have to sit through all this craziness, and they don't feel safe. That's the reality. I mean, we, and that's my concern I started off with, what are we missing by not having this on our agenda? Essentially, I would share with you nothing. I mean, I've got a stack of handwritten letters that thick. We got 350 e-mails on one issue here recently. I mean, believe me, people are communicating with us about their concerns that are not on the agenda regularly. There are all kinds of ways to reach out. I mean, I really don't think we're quashing very much public input. There's anybody that says, gosh, I can't go to a meeting, so I can't express my concern. But that's my major concern is that somebody who does have an agenda item, maybe it's a zoning, maybe it's a neighborhood issue, that they never come out to a meeting for. They want to come out. They want to speak on this. And they are so intimidated or threatened by what happens during that, having this at the front of the meeting, that they don't stay. They leave or they say, I didn't sign up for this. I don't feel comfortable. I want to protect those business items. People are coming out to address something that we're getting ready to take action on. And that should be our priority for our meetings. And so I'm fine with adding it back on. But if we do, I don't want somebody to get up and leave because of whatever happens. And we can't control who's going to come to open mic and who's going to do a comedy routine or who's going to try to get thrown out so that they can do it. And that's where we're at. So I don't want to see that. We really want Clearwater citizens to feel, if we're going to have it, feel like they can come and share their thoughts, but they're not going to do it in a way that runs other people off. And we've seen some people don't care if they run people off. They don't care if they make other people uncomfortable or fearful. Thank you, sir. So speaking to safety, I understand what you're saying. But having or not having public comment is not going to deter a bad actor. If somebody wants to do something to cause true harm or safety, those people are going to do it. And I'm not saying that this is the belief of this board, but the men and women who sit here to protect us, I fully believe, are trained and prepared to do the job necessary. So I hear what you're saying with safety, but regardless if we have a public comment for items not on the agenda, it's not going to cause somebody to want to do mayhem. So when it comes to safety, that's just kind of where I stand on it. When you see uniformed officers out in the lobby at the start of this, you have them in the front and back. Thursday night, we might have four, each corner of the audience. If anything, that should exude safety. You're literally on four points protected by some of the best men and women in law enforcement, in my opinion, in the country. So the thought of safety is kind of a moot point to me because it doesn't matter whether you do a public comment on items not on the agenda. Somebody's going to do something bad. They're going to come through that door, and they're going to do something bad. It doesn't mean like, oh, this is my chance. Public comment for not on the agenda is here. I can do my bad thing. So that's just where I sit with the thought of safety. Now, I understand what you're conveying, the feeling of being safe in an elderly woman or somebody else. Single mom. Seeing somebody in a plate carrier or seeing somebody with a terrible language on their shirt. I don't know what to say to them. That's just, it is what it is. This is a public meeting for anybody to come and speak to us. I've tried my best to appease the board, if you will, in making certain limitations that I don't think are necessary. I think that have articulated why I've eliminated certain things or reduced certain time. And listen, I'll just leave it at that, but I did want to come back to the safety, because we do keep hearing about safety. I feel very safe here. I've always felt very safe here, no matter who stands at this podium, no matter what they're wearing, no matter what they've said. And I get it. That's just me. I've had a different life experience than many people. But I feel very safe here, and I don't think that a public comment is going to make or break the feeling of safety that I have in this room. Again, I appreciate you sharing that. That's your perspective. I'm sharing with you. There are a lot of folks who feel more vulnerable in their homes and everyday lives, and they express fears for their safety. That's their perspective. And, again, I'm not trying to dissuade public comment. We want public comment. We want people right to this cause. But for essentially a business meeting for the city, I want to make sure that folks who are coming out to speak to an item, a business item, on that agenda, that's very important to them in the moment. We're going to already vote on it, that they feel like it's a welcoming environment for them to come speak to agenda items. And that's my only concern, is that however we handle this, we handle it in a way that doesn't discourage people from doing that in any way. Yeah, I mean, the only thing that I can say to that is, you know, what one of our founders said, and that is if you're willing to give up liberty for safety, then you're going to in turn get neither, and you deserve neither. So, I mean, this is just the people's right to say what they need to say before their elected officials and city staff. And, you know, for the soccer mom and for whoever else the scenario is, it is what it is. If you have something that you want to come and speak to us about and you're sitting in the audience and something's making you feel uncomfortable, it might sound harsh, what I'm about to say. If you feel like it's unsafe and you need to leave, then you need to do that. I will also say that the past few meetings over the past few months have been seamless. They've been great. I think that we can all agree, right? I don't think that bringing back public comment is going to bring a certain amount of people back to a meeting because now they can have free range of anything. If anything, we'll probably get championing emails back like, hey, thank you for instilling this back, you know. I could be very wrong. I hope that I'm not. But regardless, I still do believe that we need to allow these people to not just send the six of us on a CC to email their issue. I mean, these people want, if you have something that you're passionate about that's going right or wrong in the city, when you come and stand before this podium and you are recorded, you're standing up for your conviction and you're sharing that with your elected officials on why you believe what you believe. And they have that recording now so that, you know, hey, I did this. When it comes to our inbox or goes to our voicemail, who knows where it went? They hope. They hope that they get a response from us. They hope that we're doing our due diligence on the back end. And I'm sure all of you do. But, again, it just goes to once that email is sent, what's the phone call is done? Well, great, I got one, but now I need to do seven more phone calls, right, because I'm trying to get these people. Whereas there are three minutes, they can do it, and done. I can go on. So I do, I hear what you're saying. Obviously, I'm one of five, so wherever you all, you know, will feel directed, I've just tried to see it from both sides, right? What is still effective, what is still fair to both sides, right? 30-minute time frame, three minutes, no sharing. We're not going to have 15 minutes to somebody fill in and scream at us and say whatever they want to say. They'll have three minutes to do it. And then they don't stop, gavel them, next, right? Max of ten people. I also would be hard-pressed to think that every meeting you're going to get ten people. If you're getting a multitude of people every meeting, not every meeting, I mean you're going to get them because the agenda item is going to be on there. So they're coming regardless, right? So to think that throwing a public comment on there, you're just going to start filling up the list every time, maybe we'll, maybe we won't. But it's something that I believe, just philosophically as a citizen, it's something that I would like to have. And being an elected official, that's what I'm going to fight for is those people's rights to be able to have that. So thank you for listening to me. I have a question for the city attorney. If we propose to move forward with those limitations and allow it back in, can we do it as a trial period? Sure. Is that allowed? Right. I mean, you mean a trial period for whatever the rule is? I think so. I could draft something that essentially is a new council rule by resolution that has a fixed term. I don't, unless the clerk has a problem with that, I think that's fine, right? So I could certainly draft something like that that has a fixed end date. So I think that definitely is an option. One thing I just, just as an aside, and this is not to complicate the decision at all, but just to observe that we're not alone in having these discussions. This comes up in many other local governments, you know, not just throughout the state of Florida, but also throughout the United States. So just FYI, the city of Palm Bay right now is actually defending a lawsuit relating to public comment because they just passed a rule relating to kind of their version of local stakeholders. Now, that doesn't mean that they're wrong. They may very well prevail in that lawsuit. So people get sued all the time for things that are completely frivolous. And lawsuits fail all the time. And governments successfully defend lawsuits all the time. So you should not necessarily be shy about litigation. My point is simply that these conversations that you guys are having right now are playing out. And by the way, that was a split vote in Palm Bay just to adopt that rule to begin with. And then, you know, we'll see how it plays out in their litigation. So I say that not to spook anyone, but more to say that these are healthy discussions that I think are taking place throughout local governments everywhere. And they're not always clear-cut issues. That's why judges get paid the big bucks sometimes. I can certainly say with confidence that, to Councilor McCotten's point, a system that is completely neutral as to the identity of the speaker is 1,000% defensible. And that's true regardless of whether it's a system in which you completely open it up to anybody or it's a system like right now where we don't open it up to anyone. Either of those systems are completely viewpoint neutral. When we do start picking and choosing the identity of speakers, it does introduce an element of something that sometimes a local government may have to defend later. Up until fairly recently, the law was honestly super clear on this, that cities and counties could restrict public comment for non-agenda items to local stakeholders. I mean, two years ago, I said absolutely law is 100% clear on that. Today, it's a little bit different, which is probably why Palm Bay is defending a lawsuit right now. And so law changes over time. And so something, and I know the mayor appreciates this, but something that was very clear two years ago sometimes is not as clear today. And things that were not as clear two years ago sometimes are perfectly clear today. So I think the direction that the clerk and I will probably need from the council, if there is any direction, will be to, number one, I think I'm hearing consensus on 30 minutes as a time limitation as far as drafting for the rules. Number two, to the vice mayor's point, if there is a proposal in regard to a trial period, this would be a good time to bring that up. Number three, local stakeholders, if the council would like us to put that restriction in there, we can. However, I think the clerk would probably have to speak to some of the administrative aspects and whether that would be workable for her from an administrative seat. I think we're all for that one. Yeah, I think that's fine. We don't want that. Okay. And then, so then the last part of it is really the sequence, and do you want it to be toward the beginning or toward the end? And again, that can be changed at any time, so I wouldn't sweat as much about that part of it. And we're good with three minutes, no time sharing. Yeah. I'd like to start. So is it more palatable? We can see. If we do a trial? Yeah. Just see. If we do a trial, it would be more palatable for all of us? Yeah, that's fine. We'll put a timeline. What is the period going to be? Three months. Three months? Is that fair? Yeah, I'm fine with that. I mean, honestly, what do you think, Vice Mayor? It was your idea. What are you comfortable with? I think one of the – I can speak for myself. I think one of the things that really concerns me is if we change it back and we realize we made a mistake, we're just going back and forth. Having it on trial, it suggests that we're actually testing it. So if we see that it doesn't succeed and we go back, it's more palatable. I'm more comfortable if there's a trial. If there's no trial, I'm just not ready for that yet. No, and I'm okay with that. Are you good with three months? Is that palatable? Or what is your time frame, I guess, for this trial? Three months is fine. I don't know. Okay, good. Perfect. Because that can sense. I've seen Mike wanting to say something. Go ahead. No, the word trial is interesting to me because I feel like we already tried this. We're not trying something new other than we're putting some more restrictions on it. If we're going to make this decision, don't make it fueled by hope something changes. Make it because you believe in your heart and in your mind that as a public servant you owe this service to the citizen. And that outweighs any of the other stuff we've talked about. But if you're making this decision just on hoping that something changes, I'm afraid that there's a pretty good chance that history is going to show us we're going to be in the same place again like we were a year ago, having a very similar discussion. But if it goes in that direction, I'm supportive. Thirty minutes makes sense. I'm glad you came in with a compromise. Restricting and not sharing minutes, that totally makes sense. To me, front end, back end, you know, whatever. But, again, don't make the decision on hope something changes. We've already tried this. And I wouldn't call it a trial. You can call it a trial if you want, but we tried this. Period. And then we can renew it. We didn't feel good. We went to the doctor and got a prescription. The prescription we knew had side effects. We took the medicine, and it made us feel better. We've seen it. There's no questions about it. But now we're telling ourselves, well, I think we should just take ourselves off this medicine and see if I have those side effects again. We got on the medicine because we needed to rectify something. I think we're going to find ourselves in the same place again, unfortunately. But I'll support it if that's a decision. It sounds like we're unanimously going. Can I respond? Yeah. Council Member Menino, you make a lot of sense in the sense that we've done this before, sort of like, because we have changed some of the parameters. And I am very sensitive to repeating the same mistake, right? However, there are changes. There has been a shift. Some of those individuals that were disruptive have had negative consequences, and we were part of those negative consequences. So there has been enough change that I think might change the outcome. But I do keep getting pressure from a lot of my constituents saying, put it back, put it back, put it back. And so I feel that this, I know you don't like the world trial, but this time-constrained thing would at least solidify either side. But if it happens again, then I feel, okay, listen, even though these things have changed, the problem didn't go away. Or, hey, we did enough changes that there's a new end result. But I do think there's enough changes that at least warrants we tried out for a few months. I'm good. Let's make a decision and let's move on. We've got other things to take care of, and if we're comfortable with, do you need any more direction from this? I'll just say what I wrote down, so anyone can correct me if I've misstated it. So what I've written down is we'll bring a resolution back that will have a fixed duration of three months. And during that three-month time, the following rule will apply. There will be a period for citizens to comment on items not on the agenda. Any citizen can comment during that time, but will not be limited to local stakeholders or regulated in that way. It will be a 30-minute total time limitation. The clerk will be able to keep track of the sequence of events in which that occurs, and that is the gist of it. The only thing I've wrote as an asterisk is whether to put it kind of toward the beginning or toward the end, or is there a preference? The other thing I didn't return on, but if you come over to speak on an agenda item, as I said, maybe the first time you've ever been to a council meeting, you should not have to wait a half an hour through all whatever happens, people coming up with nothing on the agenda, say whatever they want. So it's also a delay. You know, folks come out to make them wait potentially a half an hour before, you know, they get to their agenda. And that's why I would get at the end to start. Yeah. No, I'm good with that. Can you help me understand, what is the benefit or the point of adding a three-month period when, if it's a complete disaster for a month and a half, we would sit here and have the same discussion and want to rectify it? Why would we put ourselves through and put a time limit of when? What is the benefit of that? I mean, the vice mayor raised that, so I'd certainly have to defer to it. Okay. I mean, that's a policy call for it. Sounds like another council work session discussion. So, in my mind, what I'm trying to avoid is consistent chaos. I probably, you know, I do expect that those individuals will come back. But will they come back just at the beginning, just to kind of, you know, that first attempt? Or is this going to be a consistent problem? I'm thinking three months will be enough. That will be, you know, six meetings. You know, is it an isolated event? Is it a consistent event? That's what I'm looking for, a pattern. That's why I'm thinking three months. I'm looking for a pattern of behavior that either I feel is acceptable or the constituents feel acceptable or not. I'm okay with it. I just didn't, I mean, just, if we're going to institute it, institute it, and we know we have the ability and the power that if we get to a place where we're uncomfortable, someone puts it as an agenda item and we revisit it. I don't know what the advantage of for us to pigeonhole us into a three-month time period if there's not really a benefit for it for either side. So you want it open? We just, you want to try it without no closed date, closing update. That's the direction we're going. That makes more sense to me. Is it easier or harder? Is it easier or harder than me to draft a fixed period versus, it's not a problem in the way. I think I would, if we can say, just trial period. You know, it's a pilot program to see if we can put it back on. I don't know if that helps us or not. I don't know if that's still. I will agree to the trial. That would give us three. That's why it's not a 90-day. My whole point here was to try and just get it back on so it looks like we've agreed to certain terms. I fully understand what you're saying here. I agree we've got more on this agenda, pilot, trial period. I'm very appreciative for the discussion. I'm very appreciative for the collaboration and moving forward on this. And I'm 100% sure that our citizens and business owners, stakeholders, they will be too. So thank you very much. Is there anything else? Sounds good. I think the direction is clear. I'll give it to the clerk to make sure we're in alignment on that. The only other comment I have on this is to Council Member Albrecht's point about, you know, all the debate, right, and that back-and-forth dialogue that we've seen over the years. That's something that we could also just add as a disclaimer on the agenda. And it's something the mayor can also consider saying prior to the public comments. I'd like to, you know, sat for the same meetings and seen it several times. Because I think many times people reasonably expect in the public that this is actually a time for that two-way dialogue. And so this may actually be a good opportunity for us to set a little bit of that expectation so that we don't have that awkward pause when people start asking questions and wanting to have the debate and the discussion. So if there's consensus for that, I'm happy to put that as a disclaimer in there. And, again, the mayor can certainly add a line. We talked about the comment cards at the beginning. That makes sense. Okay, anything more on that? Who else? Thank you all. I appreciate it. No problem. Okay, we'll move to item 16.2. Before we get into 16.2, 16.3, I just want to share with folks that, you know, the whole idea of talking about an employment relationship in a public setting is foreign to me. I mentioned that when we did each year when we do city attorney and city manager. It's just uncommon. I realize Florida law requires that for us to operate in the sunshine. But the next two items really are a little awkward, more than a little awkward for us because it is an employer-employee relationship that we're talking about. So, and we know we're going to be searching for another city attorney. We certainly want to have this discussion in a way that folks who may be watching out there may be interested in applying to be the next city attorney or really employee of the city of Clearwater in general. I understand that we respect the confidentiality, the, you know, the very personal relationship that goes with an employer-employee relationship, and that I'm sure we'll conduct our conversation here in that way because, you know, again, it's very awkward to talk about these kind of issues in a public setting, but we have to in Florida. So that's what we're getting ready to get into. So with that, I just want to turn it over to 16.2 to Council Member Minino for that item, which is to discuss the city attorney's resignation. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to start out first by saying in the CRA meeting there were some very nice and kind words said to the city attorney, and you deserve that. And I believe all of us feel that same way, and I'm glad that was said from that side of the dais and that side. So thank you for those kind words. Also, let me say that in sharing with my colleagues, I'm confident that we can facilitate this discussion, just as the mayor said, without transitioning into another evaluation. I think we recently all did that, and all of us up here gave the city attorney extremely high praise and reviews, which deservedly so. So for transparency, you should all know that I already had this discussion respectfully at length with Mr. Margolis in an effort to ensure he wasn't blindsided, and that we allow him the opportunity to continue to participate in this transition plan, which is important to the city of Clearwater as we move forward, and definitely important to the city attorney's office. I would say that this isn't a discussion about questioning the professionalism or goodwill of the parting city attorney. It's about making sure we as a dais and a leadership team protect the city's legal interests. We maintain institutional authority. We assure accountability during a period of transition, and we protect the internal morale of your department that you worked hard for, and I know is important to you. You've said that since day one, how important your team is to you, so that's important in this discussion. The city attorney's resignation letter that we all received was dated December 12th, and it respected its contractual obligations of 60 days. There's no questions about that. It identified what I believe is appropriate compensation and described a transition plan, which mentions slight flexibility. I believe our discussion today needs to clarify and solidify the transition plan while eliminating some of that slight flexibility so we give clear, concise direction that a succession plan and a transition plan deserves, and not just for our friend but for the city. I think after having discussions, we obviously have a couple options, and I'll just identify a couple of those, and if you have others that you feel are fitting, please feel free after this to kind of throw them in there and discuss them, but I think we should be able to find something in one of those. I think in the first one, it basically accepts the letter of resignation as is, as written. Mr. Margolis and his responsibility, and only his responsibility is appoint an acting city attorney for his suggested dates of Wednesday, February 11th through Monday, April 13th. At the request of Mr. Margolis, we place the city attorney on a leave, a general leave, for his requested dates of February 11th through April 13th. I believe this direction in accepting what he wrote is showing good faith in this council and would ensure the continuity of his insurance coverage, which I think seems to be important, in a measure to ensure continuity of the city attorney's office, and as assistance is needed in going forward, by council consensus, I think we can appoint Mr. Margolis to manage certain tasks and processes as needed during that period of leave. We do know Clearwater has a lot of challenges. We do know that after five years in office, you have had your hands in a lot of moving parts in protecting the city, this dais, and respectfully so. I don't know if we need to sit here today and identify what those tasks may be. Maybe it's as we move forward we can identify what those are, Gotham and whatever else that I know you've stated are important to you and where, you know, your staff may need you. I think that can be identified going forward. And then as you stated in your letter, establish Monday, April 13th as your final day employment with the city. That's option one, and that seems to be a pretty clear path, and that's what his resignation letter requested. Regarding a transition period or a plan, there is a more clear-cut transition if desired by this dais and if we felt it was in the best interest of our friend in the city. The next two options would respectfully allow our friend the opportunity to begin the grieving process, to remove him from the burdens and challenges that this city has, and they are not going away just because a city attorney is on general leave or he places a title of acting city attorney on somebody else. They will continue to knock on the door, and they are not going away. We could accept his desired resignation date as a Tuesday, February 10th, 26th, respecting his 60 days, and establish that day as his last day of employment, which he has stated. But what I think what we must understand as a dais is that would possibly, I believe the city attorney probably believes it definitely does. I haven't seeked outside counsel to know definitively, but that would sever a severance clause in his contract, and there is a different form of compensation that would become due to him if we took that route. The other one is if we're sitting here in a place of acceptable outcome is triggering a severance, and you are good with that, you know, counsel has the option of establishing a different date for his resignation during that period. I just think it's important before we go on in this discussion to reiterate that this issue before us is not related to performance or intent. It's strictly about governance risk, responsible succession planning, and ensuring a win-win situation for our beloved city that we're trying to ensure we protect, but also for our friend who's leaving. So I think before we open up for a discussion, this is your last chance. Are you sure you want to leave? Positive? But I do think these are uncomfortable conversations. Succession planning and transition planning are important, and just to sometimes those issues are so much easier for both sides when you rip that Band-Aid of comfort off. We're doing our friend a favor at some point by pulling those chains and burdens off of him, letting him rightfully grieve and process his life and the next steps in his journey, as well as giving clarity to that city attorney's office that's needed. So I'll leave it like that and kind of open up the floor, Mayor, for some discussion. Yeah, I actually appreciate that. Appreciate everything you said. Very well done. I think I bring a little bit different perspective to this because I've been part of law firms for 25 years where we had attorneys come and go, and city attorney and I discussed even this morning. Regardless of what we decide here, it's going to be complicated, and it's going to take us a while, which is the next agenda I can get in another city attorney. Hopefully we'll get on it, and that's what I want to talk about next, and we'll get the process going soon and get that going. But it is hard to transition all these files that the city attorney has been leading on cases in 30 days. There's going to be a need for our legal department to reach out to him. So certainly his life would probably be better if he'd walk away on February 11th and not have any more communication or be held at, as you said. He could turn the page and start over. But I don't think he would do that because he loves his department. He loves the people that work in our legal department and certainly wouldn't leave them hanging. But it would be nice, I think, for our team to have him available, even if while he was on leave, to answer questions, do those things. And two, that he does have a contract, and it would trigger some things that we would have to think about in his contract if we changed what he's proposed. So I don't think he and I talked today. I don't think it's probably easy any way you do it, but my perspective is I think the way he's proposed is probably the easiest on our team and the easiest for us to be available to weigh in on some of these things that he's been leading on, and we are still in the throes of addressing it. Hopefully we'll get the city attorney in quickly before even his leave is over. But that may not happen, so we may have to appoint somebody interim at some time to serve until, and we may have to engage outside counsel. But I personally think what he's proposed is probably the best thing for the citizens in the city. Anybody else? So you're proposing just to accept the resignation letter as is, that he would basically on February, I don't know, 10th or 11th, I don't know what it is, that would be his last day, but he would be available through April 13th for questions or on any legal issues that is needed. So what happens after February 11th? I guess I know we have other attorneys in the office. Would we be appointing an interim attorney at that point? I mean, if Dave's not here, what? His proposal is to appoint he would appoint Owen acting. Acting, yes. It's a different process for us to appoint an interim. An acting attorney. That's what I meant, an acting attorney. If we ended it on February 11th, then we would need to appoint an interim February. Counsel's decision that we may end up appointing the same interim that he's indicating he will appoint his acting. Okay, but if Mr. Margolis leaves on February 11th, let's say, then it would, I guess it would, severance would come into play and we'd pay him his severance at that point. And then, I mean, would that be, would he still be available at that point if any questions, I mean, come up or we just don't ever ask anything? Well, that would be, that would be up to him. Sure. I mean, I mean, I'm not going anywhere physically. I'm actually renovating my house and doing other things that are enjoyable for us. So, I don't plan on, like, I don't think that will be a problem. I mean, as, you know, the mayor said and as Councilman Romino said, I mean, I care about my staff and my team as well as the city. So, no matter what direction the council decides and whatever you think is the best way forward, I'm definitely going to be available for questions. I think the harder aspect of it is beyond providing just background information because we do have several complicated things in progress right now. It will be important, I think, to specify, if we do it the way that I've put forward in the letter, what exactly that role is going to be between mid-February and mid-April. And I do agree with Councilmember Romino on this point, and he and I did talk about this. That's something I think is going to be important for the city as well as our external stakeholders. I mean, I know it's not obvious on camera, but we literally have, you know, Katie Christian from Duke Energy having joined us today. Welcome, Katie. And so, I'm sure that Katie is not just sitting here because, you know, she loves all of us, but I'm sure is literally here because she wants to see what this is going to look like and how it may affect those conversations with Duke as an example. And so, there are several things like that that will need to be addressed. So, Councilmember Albritton's point, regardless of how you guys decide, whatever you think is best, I will definitely be available for, you know, staff to answer questions and things of that nature. But as it relates to substantive legal work, whether it's meeting with external stakeholders, drafting documents, reviewing documents, any sort of substantive legal work, I would not do that unless I'm on payroll. Not just for my own, you know, financial reasons, but also from an attorney-client standpoint, the city will no longer be a current client. And so, it would not be beneficial to the city to have me do that if I'm no longer on payroll. So, that's, hopefully that answers kind of that question. And then, to the mayor's point about the acting city attorney versus the interim, under the city charter, both the city manager and I can designate acting officials when we are out of the office, for whatever reason. You know, maybe we have surgery, maybe we have vacation, whatever it is. That is something that she and I can do administratively. And so, that's what I've put in my letter because it's the only thing I can do administratively. I don't have the power administratively to appoint an interim city attorney. That power is only your power to make. The other restriction on the acting city attorney is that I can only appoint one for a maximum of 60 days. So, that's why the time period goes from February 10th or whatever until middle of April or April 13th, right, because February is a short month. So, I counted out 60 days and said, okay, that's the longest time window I could potentially offer the city. And then, finally, because the acting city attorney can serve only when there still is a city attorney, it has to overlap my period of employment. And so, to the mayor's point, if my employment ends on February 9th, you guys will have both the right as well as the responsibility to appoint an interim city attorney. Now, that could be the same person I was going to appoint, or it could be somebody different. But as long as I am still employed, you cannot appoint an interim city attorney because you have a city attorney. And so, that's something you guys kind of need to grapple with and decide whatever the best path is forward. Hope that helps. You know, as a fellow lawyer, if his last day were February 11th, he'd have to be careful on anything he might share with us that could be considered legal advice because at that point, he's not an attorney employed by us. So, you know, does he get malpractice insurance? You know, some folks who would have an attorney leave the firm, they would, you know, maybe hire them back as an independent contractor or do something to get that input. And to, again, to not put pressure on our legal department, which has already done a litigator, and now we've got to engage outside counsel to fill the gap that we could have had the benefit of having City Attorney Margolis continue on, even though he was on leave, to help us through this transition. Anybody? You want me to go next? Is that what I'm hearing? I want to hear what everybody's saying. Glad it was a poll. Yeah. Okay. Anyways, thank you. I appreciate it. So, Council Member Menino, you gave us the three options. The one option is to keep what the city attorney has proposed as is. Option two, accept the resignation February 10th as his last day employment, which would kick in his severance. And option three, establish a different date entirely. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Mr. Margolis, maybe you'll be able to answer this. If not, Tiffany, I would appreciate you to be able to answer this. What is the severance clauses should option two take effect? Come February 11th, what are you entitled to? Well, I definitely want to be careful in how I answer that. I mean, Tiffany can give an answer. I mean, I'll give an answer. You're not an employee now. I mean, that's why I pointed out Tiffany, because she's in here. If it's more comfortable for Tiffany to answer that, then I am all for that as well. I can give an answer, but I have to handle it a little bit differently for a Florida bar purposes. Perfect. So, I certainly prefer that. Good afternoon. Tiffany Mack, HR Director. So, my understanding of the severance that would be triggered would be 20 weeks of, and this would be a lump sum payment at the time of separation. So, 20 weeks of cash payment equal to 20 weeks of salary, as well as all accumulated and unused general leave. And so, I did some very quick math and have a very tentative number, but what that would look like would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 175,000. 175? Yes. So, real quick, that would be 20 weeks lump sum payment of his leave, as well as 20 weeks of salary. No, sorry, 20 weeks of salary, lump sum, and then any unused leave. So, by my math, and I apologize, I'm over here quickly crunching numbers, so I'm going to leave it ish behind each number. Roughly 456 hours of leave, in addition to 20 weeks of salary. I mean, I think that this is tough as, thank you very much, Tiffany, I appreciate it. I know, David, we've had these discussions very candidly about your decision to do what you have. I think there's very personal reasons behind that, and there's no place for me to share any of that. You know how I feel about you intellectually and legally. I think that you've got a brilliant mind and articulate things in such a manner that are just extraordinary. I think that you've done a great job in developing your staff. You know, this is hard because I understand what the mayor is saying of a leader resigns and the date is gone, and you'd like to retain him for the questions that will come. When I look at you and the team that you've formulated, I think that you've already set the team forward that might have little questions, but they'll probably do just fine, which I think is a compliment to you. I've diligently been just trying to take notes over what's going on, because even though seeing this on the agenda item, I didn't really know what to expect. And I'm also trying to, you know, keep our conversations what they were, right, because they were very candid, open, and honest. I think that you are doing a great job. I think that whatever comes next, you're probably going to kill it. And it's tough going, not going last, because I don't know what Council Member Tashada or Vice Mayor Tashada has to say. So, I mean, trying to connect the dots on what we're trying to accomplish here, if that's keeping as is or if that is accepting your resignation on February 10th and roughly paying you up at $200,000, I will say this, that we should have started yesterday in trying to start the headhunting process of finding his replacement, right, keeping a national search as well as in-house applicants who may want to do the job. Again, going to your team and what you've developed, I mean, we might have a great in-house attorney that would fill that role perfectly. You know, you've held such a good standard that, you know, kind of like Richard Branson said, train people well enough that they can leave and treat them well enough to where they'll stay. And I think that you've navigated that extremely well. You've been there to encourage your staff to better themselves to where they could go somewhere else. I mean, board-certified attorneys, I'm sure you could give me the number of board-certified attorneys that are within the state, probably a rough estimate off the top of your head how many there are. There's not many. So, it's a great, 300, perfect. So, it's a great accomplishment. And to say that we have more than one board-certified attorney within your wheelhouse is incredible. So, I'm going to end my comments with that. I don't know if that helps with what you're going to say, but I appreciate the conversation, seeing where we go with this. It will be interesting. Tiffany, thank you for the information. And I'm going to turn my mic up. So, you know, the Sunshine Law really, really has a negative impact on the law. You know, I appreciate hearing from my counterparts, especially on a topic that I really didn't know where it was going. It was just an open, you know, we're going to be talking about this. So, I try to, like, in my mind, figure out what are we going to talk about and even what do I feel about it. I understand that there might be an uncomfortable period of two months where there's two chefs in the kitchen. And so, that might be confusing. I acknowledge that and I understand that. But the severance pays. No joke. I mean, we've had arguments for $15,000 for e-bikes. So, I guess the question is, how much him, how important is it to this council for him to leave early? Is it enough for the $150,000? Because, again, just thinking, trying to figure out where this direction was, I was really focused on that two-month confusing period and how to simplify it for everyone. And so, I was thinking to divide very objectively what the interim or slash acting attorney would be responsible for versus the outgoing. So, for example, the acting city attorney would be all new matters, policy interpretation, counsel advice and one-on-ones, and final legal opinions. And then the outgoing would be historical background, status updates on existing matters, knowledge transfer only, and only if needed, and added cases, you know, according to the council, meaning just, let's say, everything I just said plus Gotham, let's say. So, during the transition period, legal services would continue to be provided through the city attorney's office to ensure consistency and continuity. The acting city attorney will serve as a primary point of contact for all legal matters, including advice to counsel. The outgoing city attorney will remain available in an advisory capacity to assist with background information and knowledge transfer on existing matters as requested. So, it's already been mentioned on the dais, we are already down one person. It doesn't look like we're getting them anytime soon. And we also have the office manager out on leave. These are the things I'm thinking about, but I've just been hearing what you're saying now. So, like, I'm trying to process it. But this is where I came in, but I'm not set on it. Just, I wanted to hear what you guys had to say. Thank you. All good discussions. Obviously, we're all tiptoeing around because it is uncomfortable, and it is the first time. The six-week break was tough. And if we were to have been together sooner, the process would have definitely started. I think, to the defense of the city, the process did start. I know, you know, David's worked with that thought since the 12th when he wrote the letter on what the succession plan was. And I know staff did the same thing on thoughts. I mean, the question right away is, do we have the talent in-house? If we do, do they want the job? And once we answer both of those, then it's, okay, if we have it in-house and if they want the job, do you still need or do you still do the executive search and do both? And I think that number, $175,000, is a little fictitious, and I'm not questioning it. And I only say that because I believe even if we didn't trigger a severance, he's still getting accumulated in general leave built into that. Is that correct? It's addition. Yes, he would. And I just, I also want to correct myself from before where I was speaking to the severance, and I should have caveated that with an if, if it's triggered. I don't know for a fact that it would be, but if it were, to do the math is what I provided. Gotcha. And do we have that number split, like what 20 weeks is? Because that's effectively what the discussion is about. If it triggers severance, he's collecting the 20, because either way, whether we trigger it or we don't, he's getting the other number, accumulated in general leave. If he's getting that regardless, it would only be the 20-week lump sum. So is that 100,000, 108,000? 111,700, roughly. 111,000, gotcha. And then depending on the general leave between, you know, what's used or what isn't, that's a flexible number. I mean, obviously, we're talking a short period of time depending on what happens. So there's a little flexibility in that. But as it stands today, if no leave were taken with the amount that's been accumulated, which is 456 hours, that total that I'm coming up with is 60, is the equivalent, cash equivalent of 63,700. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. That's what I was going to say. Okay. Uncomfortable, but a good discussion. Okay. So my thoughts. In the private sector, I've been through this a handful of times. It sucks for both sides. You try to navigate it to find how can we find a win-win for both sides. We definitely want a win for our friend. We know that. We're not trying to take anything from David. And we definitely need to protect and find a win for the city. And the win should not just be looked at as financial. I think that if we said, if we said, David, you're amazing, we're going to accept your resignation as of whatever that date, Wednesday, February 11th, we agree to trigger a severance and let him go on his way, he's not going to sit up here and argue that. No. That's pretty easy for him. That is, yes, that's definitely a win for him. And I know how ethical and morally he is, and he's never once asked for that nor suggested that, which 90% of the people probably would because you would definitely financially make out better. Having those uncomfortable, sticky situations of overlap, of a safety net, of what if new things come into the city manager's office? Do we go to him with it? Does it go to the acting, that stickiness of relationships? It does not help morale. It doesn't help internal leadership. It doesn't help the direction of the city. For me, it's always uncomfortable. But when you find a way to win and win, rip the Band-Aid off, let both sides go on their way. If nobody else wants that, is comfortable stating what their thoughts are. Mayor, I know you're kind of option A. I'm okay if we go that route. I think for me is let's just accept his resignation as of February 11th. Let's pay him his 20-week lump sum, and let's let him go on and grieve as he should and process what's happened in his life, and let's let our city attorney's office move forward. And I agree with what the gentleman said next to me is David has built a strong team. I have a lot of faith in his team, as does he, as does, I believe, the city manager's office and city leadership. I don't think I have any questions that they can't pick up the ball and run with it. I mean, who he's discussed about establishing as an acting city attorney, was here for a long time under Pam, who he then served five years under David. I have more than enough faith that the office can handle it. And if we did find a way and you did agree and pay David his severance and let both sides go on, I think David would have 111,000 reasons on why to pick up the phone if we called with an issue or why to pick up the phone to help a friend in his office that he has his hands on these tasks all day. He's not going to say, I'm not there anymore. He's got plenty of reason to help. So if that helps in the discussion, I hope he doesn't confuse it more. But that's kind of my thoughts is to just let both sides move forward. I would just say on the acting, if he names Owen acting, we go to Owen. Owen's the acting city attorney. I don't know where the confusion would come in. He does. I've seen it all day long. He's the acting, but once he's on leave, Owen's the one. Well, I get that. And by title, that sounds great, but it never works that way. There's people that will pick up the phone, and he would probably admit to this. They will call David. He has the most knowledge. He's had his hand on it. They would be most comfortable. David, what happened with this? Did you have this phone call last? He's going to be contacted, and there's no way around that. And you can't stop people from the city or businesses or legal or other law firms to contact them because that's who they believe is in charge. But, you know, and I don't know if you would argue that or even want to participate in this, and I don't want to put you on the spot. But I get what you're saying. I just think that both sides moving forward is a win for both. It gives clear, concise clarity and direction to our city's attorney's office that needs it. They're more than capable. Let's move forward, and we're doing our friend a solid. Let's move on right now. Okay. So I've given us some thought over the past few weeks, and I appreciate, Mike, you giving the different options. I think I wish David well, okay? I'm more up to option three, pull the Band-Aid off, have you leave on February the 11th, and send you off with a severance and your days owed. And, I mean, that gives you a chance right away to start looking around, putting your name in for another job, which I think you'll get offers for. Listen, I was here before Dave was here, and Owen was our interim attorney then, and he did a fine job. So we're in capable hands. It's not like we're going to be floundering around. But I think that that's the – I just think it gives you an opportunity to get on with your life. It gives us an opportunity to get on with ours. Yes, Owen can take over, and we can still process the things that are going on. And I think it's just cleaner that way instead of having Dave, like, in and out from February through April 13th. Go ahead and just, you know, get on with the next stage of your life. So that's going to be my proposal. Mayor, do you have something else? I think both of you make a good point. Mike, I just want to clarify something. We can call it whatever you want. I certainly do not want to be the person who's not going to give him an early separate. I'm willing – I'm very flexible on this because I see both sides. I guess this whole day is about that. If the council is comfortable and has a big concern about, as you call it, pulling the band-aid and minimizing discomfort or, you know, making the transition period better, you think that pulling the band-aid is better than actually having him as, you know, on the back end and being an advisor, I'm okay with it. I will go. I'm just honestly surprised that – I am very surprised that the council is okay with this. So that's all I – that's the thing that shocked me. That's where we're going. Yeah, thank you, sir. I mean, it is a shocking number right up front to the severance pay. I think Council Member Menino articulated it appropriately, though, that, you know, it's either the up front $175,000-ish, roughly. We don't know the exact number, but it's in the ballpark. Or it's just that over time. Either way, the city attorney would be getting it, right? So it's just are we doing it on the front end or the back end? This is tough because having the conversations, again, trying to keep what was private private, I know that he's struggled with it, and he has been a big asset to all of us, the city, each one of us personally. And it's – he's been clutch. He really has been, or is, because he's still here. He hasn't gone anywhere. He's just to my left. So – and I know him, right? So when you talk to him or when I have talked to him, and I will say this, it's he wants to protect taxpayers just as I always harp on, right, and do the job to the end of the day, and I respect that so much. I really do. Coming from the business side of things, though, I totally see it. If a person is going to resign, you separate, and everybody goes on their separate ways. There's no hard feelings about it. It just is what it is. And if that is the decision of which way we go, compensation is entitled to it. That's why we agreed to take on a contract that we did, right? Well, not us necessarily, but our predecessors. So, I mean, do you want to say anything, David? I'm not trying to just, you know, rain on the parade. I see the both sides of all this. I know that – I think each of us have said that if you have something that you'd like to say, you're more than welcome to. You do not feel pressured to, right? I mean, obviously, for some, this is uncomfortable. I think it's just a healthy conversation to be having. I've always been upfront and honest with you, you know, where all that stuff comes from. So there's no, I think, surprise from what I'm saying to you at all, and I'm not trying to throw you on the hot seat, but it is your life. Yeah, and I appreciate all that. And really, from my perspective, you know, I'm not fighting for David. I'm really trying to think about the city. And it's – I'll acknowledge, but the president has been very upfront on some very controversial issues that I would like to have the city and the citizens continue to have his engagement in. So even if he's on leave, he's still our city attorney, you know, for a little bit of extra time. We're going to pay him one way or the other, which has been made at point. I just think it gives us an opportunity to give the citizens some benefit, more so than just paying the check or whatever. But to David's point, I'm going to let him speak now. But I'm not doing this to lobby for David, advocate for David. David's capable of doing that. I'm just trying to find a transition that works best for the city and the citizens in light of at least two or more very controversial issues that he's been leading on. So, David, anything you want to share? Well, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? So I just need to – I need to be careful. So for me, the only awkwardness – I've lived my entire life in the Sunshine public service. So this is part of what we sign up for. So I don't have any objection to all of that. However, as a member of the bar, I have to be very careful about my ethical obligations. And I know Katie Christian, of course, will also appreciate this, even though she does not quite have to deal with it on my role. Nevertheless, as a member of the bar, she knows exactly what I have to deal with when we represent organizational clients. So I think this is actually, in some ways, a good opportunity to show the nobility of the legal profession, which sometimes is not – does not get perceived that way. The Florida bar has very extensive rules relating to conflicts of interest. This is not the first time in history this has ever come up. In fact, it literally comes up in private practice, you know, all the time. And so the bar tells us, as lawyers, how we have to handle potential conflicts. Sometimes the bar leaves it subjective, probably a little bit more subjective than I would like. But the rules are extensively worded, you know, shall we say. There is a concept in the Florida bar rules called informed consent, and it is part of the rules relating to conflicts of interest. The expectation of the bar that is on me in a situation like this is as follows. First of all, I know it may sound obvious, but I have to disclose to each of you as my client that I have a personal interest in this. I know that's all obvious because it's my life, you know, as was stated here. But the bar expects me to actually say that. Like, this is my life. And so because it is my life, I am not able to sit in the neutral, impartial way that you would typically expect of your city attorney. Now, I can answer questions and I can converse, but I cannot sit as your neutral legal advisor in a situation like this. So when I answer a question or if I'm sharing my thoughts, please know that all I can do ethically is speak as your employee and not to give you impartial legal advice. I think that's kind of the first part of it. The second part of it is that the bar requires me, not just me, David, but me as in lawyers, when there are conflicts of interest like this and a lawyer's personal interest can be involved, I am required to advise the client of alternative options, and especially as it relates to seeking legal representation and legal advice. Under our city charter in Clearwater, the city council has always had the right to seek independent legal counsel that has no relationship at all to the city attorney's office, no relationship at all to the city manager's office. I don't know if that provision was written explicitly for this, but probably something not far from it. I imagine the founders of our city imagined that there would be situations where the city attorney has a conflict for one reason or another, and so that option has always been enshrined in the charter where the city council as a body has the right to hire a law firm that has nothing to do with me, nothing to do with my team, and you guys set the compensation for that. Now, you certainly don't have to do that, and I'm not aware of any past in which the city has, but if there ever was a situation, this could be it where you might choose to do that. And so I am required to make that option available to you, and I'm not trying to complicate your discussion, but ethically, I have to at least make sure you're aware of that option. And so if the result today is to say, you know, we just want some time to consult with outside counsel, we want to have a different law firm come in and take a look at it, I want each of you to know that is totally appropriate. That is what I'm supposed to say as a member of the bar, and it's something that's available to you under the city charter. You don't have to do that, but you absolutely have the right and have the option to do that. There's nothing wrong with it, and you should not hesitate to do that if you have any sort of legal concerns, legal questions, et cetera, again, because I cannot serve as the legal advisor for the city in this situation. So that is the professional disclaimer. Does that make sense to everyone? Absolutely. Okay. I know it does to the mayor, obviously, being a member of the bar, but I have to say that. You're a tough spot. You're correct. Everybody is saying that. Well, I know each of you, you know, so well personally, but still I want to make sure that I'm fulfilling my ethical obligations. You know, as Council Member Menino said, as Council Member Cottenham said, I don't, you know, advocate typically for myself. There's no reason to do that, and there's typically no conflict when it comes to my personal involvement and that of the city. Okay. So with that being said, so, I mean, there's a few different options being discussed here. I don't really have a lot of comment on it, other than just to say that there's no perfect way to do a transition, okay? This is a good, healthy conversation among the Council because there are pros and cons both ways. What I can say with confidence is that if the city elects for me either to update my resignation or otherwise to make it effective February 9th, February 10th, whatever it is, and if the city determines that I should be and will be paid separation as part of that, then yes, of course, I would be available. I will be anyway, but, yes, I think it was Mr. Menino who said, what, I have 111,000 reasons. So, yes, I mean, I have a personal interest in that that goes even above and beyond how much I care about the city, how much I care about my own staff, et cetera. So I don't want the Council to worry about that either way. The truth is you guys could fire me tomorrow, and I would absolutely do the same thing because I have a team that needs to be supported, and I have people who may have questions about, you know, about things that I worked on. So please don't let that tie your hands because I will be available no matter what. Again, I'm not going anywhere in that regard. I think the big question for you guys is going to be what is the value in solidifying that transition plan? How does that add, you know, and what does it add for the city? And there's value in that. There are benefits to that. There is also a cost that could go along with that. And so only the Council can make that decision. I am not ever going to ask for anything that benefits me. It's just not, first of all, in my nature. And then, second, I don't think it's ethical. I mean, the mayor and I were talking about this a little bit before the meeting. As lawyers, we're trained to put our client first, you know. So when I submit my notice of resignation, it's designed to put me last in the process. If the council decides that they want to do me a solid, right, and the council decides as my client, hey, you know, David, we really want to help you personally, that's a client decision, but I would never, ever ask for that and would never expect that from any of you. Like, what I expect is the way that I have put it forward to the city. If you guys choose to do something different that is more beneficial to me and is more helpful so that I can begin some of that briefing and some of that other process, that is your call, but none of you should feel like that's an expectation, none of you should feel like that's an ask, and none of you should feel like you have to make that decision one way or the other because you absolutely have the right to have outside council take a look at it. So those of you, like, comments that I'll make on it. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, and as is stated in our one-on-ones, you know, I fully believe that, right? That's what leaders do. We lead, and you're not going to let your team just go to voicemail every time or not answer the text. They don't see that in your character, and I would never expect it. Is February 10th the date that you currently have? It is the, I believe... For resignation before the 60 days? I believe the way I've drafted it said that February 9th is my, contemplated, as my final day before appointing Owen as the acting city attorney. And so the idea, kind of the idea behind the dates is first wanting to make sure I honor both the letter and the spirit of my own contract, right? So my contract requires me to give at least two months' notice to the council prior to resigning. And so when I made that decision, the first thing I had to do was look back at my contract and say, well, what does the city expect of me contractually, number one? Number two, I have to admit I did very briefly, very briefly toy with the idea in my head of saying, well, could I actually resign right away and use leave during that initial 60-day period because I have the leave, as Tiffany pointed out, to do that? I admit I did consider that very privately, very briefly, because you guys know personally kind of what I'm going through right now. And I did, from a familial perspective, have an immediate consideration of that. But ultimately, to Councilor McCott's point, at the end of the day, I have a job to do. I mean, we're a busy city. We have a lot going on. And so I made that immediate decision that I would make sure that I'm honoring not just the letter of the contract, but also the spirit of the contract as well. And so I made so, to your point, I wanted to make sure that I'm working full-time during those two months and that no matter what happens and no matter what the transition looks like, that there is not going to be anything that would affect either my staff or hurt the city during that two-month period. Afterward, it's really a question of, you know, for you guys, you know, what do you want to see? What I've put on paper is what I think is least favorable to me, because, again, that's what lawyers are supposed to do. I'm totally comfortable with it. I have no problem going through with that being the plan. If Council wants to do something different, that's completely Council's prerogative. But I'm comfortable with what I have put on paper. Again, if Council wants to help me, you know, by doing me, you know, a favor, which is really all that would be, then you have the right to do that, but not in any way something I'm asking for, expecting. And, again, you can solve it outside Council if you have any sort of questions about that. I'm sorry for the long disclaimer, but, again, I think ethically it's important for me to do that. No, I sincerely appreciate it. Next question, if it is the Council's prerogative to accept your resignation February 9th, would we, with that motion, also have to include the appointment of an interim city attorney with that same decision? It does not have to be part of that same decision. However, it is something you will have to consider. So if there is a vacancy in the office of city attorney, you are supposed to appoint an interim city attorney certainly as promptly as you can. So if the Council arrives at that decision, what I would suggest then is putting that on the next agenda as soon as you can so that you guys can decide if there is an interim city attorney you're comfortable with, and is it Owen or is it somebody else, but is there an interim city attorney you're comfortable with so that you can make that appointment in advance? Part of my fear, a big part of my fear in submitting my resignation notice was having a situation where the city is deprived of a city attorney for a period of a month or two. Administratively, all I can do is appoint an acting city attorney. Again, I can't appoint an interim city attorney. I don't have the power to do that, let alone while I'm employed. So I have at least tentatively said that I will appoint Owen as the acting city attorney because that's all that I can do to make sure that Council has someone in the seat who is present, who is full-time. If Council decides to do it a different way and decides to accept my resignation as of the 9th, et cetera, pay me out however you decide to do it, at that point you will have a vacancy as of February 10th unless you've made an appointment prior to that. So you just have to think about the timing of that, and are you comfortable making that appointment that will take effect February 10th? Does that make sense? Well, so that's my question. If someone were to make a motion to accept your resignation immediate February 9th and in that same motion say while also starting February 10th appointing Owen as interim city attorney, could that go within the same motion? It can definitely go within the same motion. The only caveats I would offer are this. Number one, I mean, the manager and I have talked about this a little bit. When you appoint an interim city attorney, you may want to consider entering into an employment contract with that person. You don't have to. That's not a requirement of law. It doesn't have to be that way. I honestly do not remember, and not to put Jennifer on the spot, but when you became interim city manager, I don't remember us doing that with you, but correct me if I misstated that. I don't think we did. I don't think so. I don't recall. Yeah, I'm asking our HR director if she will do a quick search to see if we did. I think it was after the fact. That was my recollection as well. So the answer is I think, yes, you can do that. You may want to consider whether it's up front or after the fact, to Councilman Robert's point, but whenever you decide to do this, heck, even if we go with the original plan, and it's as of April 13th or April 14th, at some point you're going to have to, not have to, but at some point I would encourage you to do the same thing because that way it will set your expectations with your interim city attorney, and frankly it will give an imprimatur of support to external stakeholders. As you guys know, the manager and I are constantly meeting with for negotiations, for external partners, et cetera, and I do see some value, whether it's now or whether it's mid-April, whenever, but I see value in the formality of the Council executing a contract with the interim city attorney, and I think that will send a good message to external stakeholders that you have confidence in whoever that person is, just my opinion. But, again, you can do that whatever your timing is. If we're going to go that route, that's what I'll do. I think we'll agree. No, I appreciate it. I just wanted to get the ducks in a row so it was on the record. Yeah, that's my point. And I don't think anybody disagrees with the suggestion to appoint Owen or interim either one. I think, do we all agree on that? I agree on that, yeah. That's probably your agenda item next, and we'll discuss that. I do have a question, Mary, if you don't mind. Does this direction that you're needing right now just need to be a majority or a supermajority? Because I feel like 25 minutes ago we probably already had a majority in the discussion with this, but continuing it, am I mistaken? You can't vote now. No, no, no, but we were giving direction. It's already. You may be going on Thursday. So I think, like, so glad that came up. So a couple aspects to this. So as far as supermajority versus majority, the appointment of an interim city attorney or permanent city attorney will require supermajority. So, and that will have to be voted formally for sure. That's true for city manager as well. So that is a supermajority appointment that will have to be done by some level of formality by motion to answer that question. As to me, a little bit more complicated question, because it depends on how exactly council wants to do it, particularly given that I have already submitted a notice of upcoming 10. If the direction to me or ask of me, call it whatever you want, request of me, is to update my resignation notice to make it effective February 9th, I think that is an ask or a direction you guys can give informally, just like you do to staff or anything else. And I would just take that now if I heard clear direction to do that. But that's number one, is that in fact the ask of the majority of council? Number two, if so, is that how you want me to do it? And then number three, I do think, and not speak for the manager, but I do think that the manager is going to need at least some kind of direction from council, I would if I was her, as to what kind of comp is paid as part of this, if any. And so I want to emphasize again to you, you have the right to seek independent council on these questions involving interpretation of my agreement. So while you certainly have the right to say, yes, we want to do David a solid, we're not going to, you know, we don't have to mess with that. That's totally your right, but it is not your obligation. And so you have the right to ask me or tell me to go ahead and make my resignation effective February 9th. And then if you choose to, to defer the rest of it, hire outside counsel to review it, if that's your choice. Again, don't want to speak for the manager, but as to what she would need administratively to actually authorize payment is something that I would defer to her. Yeah, I mean, my thinking and going that direction, the last thing I think I'm interested in doing is to say February 9th, Monday, official, and start a fight over whether it triggers severance or not. And I think I heard was I'm not sure if. And I think that's – I don't know if I would be comfortable in going that route because if we're trying to find a win for David and a win for the city, I don't see how we're trying to peel off a band-aid, we're trying to draw a hard line in the sand and let both go. I don't see we're getting into litigation over does it trigger, does it not. Now we're hiring outside attorneys to help us litigate against you. That's against the entire spirit of the discussion we're trying to have. So I would hope that as a dais, if the direction we were going was February 9th, Monday, official day, and saying we are making that decision expecting it to trigger a severance, I would be comfortable going in that direction. But if I'm not comfortable in saying I'm unsure if it does, let's hire outside counsel to look into it and maybe create some legal war for the next three months, if that's against the spirit of it. So I appreciate hearing everyone. It's certainly – I learned a lot and I was shocked a bit, but that's great. It's good that we have this discussion. But I'm very comfortable with moving ahead with February 9th and just go ahead and give the severance after what I've heard. I'm very comfortable with option. Same. Same. I will say that I am comfortable with option, too, and I think that you deserve the payout, and you've done the city a tremendous amount of work, and I thank you for that. I know that my short tenure with you, I have thoroughly enjoyed it, and I think that you deserve it. So I appreciate you. That's very kind. But, again, I would still have to defer to the manager as to the administrative – Specific. Not just as to the specific, but also as to the process. And to be clear, so that Jennifer doesn't have to be the bad guy in this, it would be completely appropriate if the manager says that that should be done by motion, in which case it would be on Thursday. I'll defer to her on that administratively, but I just want her to hear me say publicly and the council hear me say publicly. I would fully support her if she says that that needs to be done by motion. I'm comfortable because of the amount of conversation and the documentation surrounding the public record of this, the consensus of the council, but I don't need a motion. So then does the council need me at all or want me to amend what I have already submitted? Or, I guess from an HR perspective, are you comfortable with what has been discussed here? Or, again, it's not leading. I really don't have a strong preference. I know it's kind of an unusual situation because I've already submitted a notice of intent, but obviously they can't vote right now because it's a work session. So, again, we'll defer to the manager from an HR standpoint. I think what we do is we try to come to an agreement with HR on what you're entitled to. And if there's a dispute over that, then take outside council and resolve the dispute. But try to work it out. Yeah. I wouldn't necessarily – I don't think that's – I would be surprised if that becomes a point of difference because it's pretty objective. You know, I think it's kind of, to be honest, like either you get it or you don't. I think it's kind of binary is kind of my reading of it. But I think the bigger question is from an exit standpoint, since my current resignation notice says April 13th, and since the council cannot vote today, really not to put Jennifer on the spot, but are you comfortable from an HR standpoint taking this informal direction and saying that my final day will be February 9th? Because if the answer is no, I can certainly amend my notice to make it February 9th, whatever is – And it's really a contractual question. I guess that's – there's an HR component, too, because you've got benefits and other things. But it's really a – it's a contract interpretation and a contract on our end. So I know we don't want to hire outside council, and I don't want to hire outside council either. But at the same time, it's really giving an opinion. And you really can't ask somebody on your staff who you supervise now to give us an opinion on your contract. It's really more than an HR question. It's a contract question for you and city manager on her contract. But does the – I mean, do you have – What would it hurt to amend it for the dates to match? I mean, does anything change? We're saying we're triggering severance regardless, so it's not like we're – Yeah, I don't think so. I'm totally comfortable with that. It sounds like you're just looking for direction of what you need to do. I'm just looking for direction to make sure that Jennifer and I kind of sync up on what needs to happen administratively. That's really all. You can amend it? The council's direction is that February 9th, correct? I want to make sure I understand. Yes. And then council has consented to pay the severance. True. Correct? That's what the record is going to say, right, Madam Clerk? Okay. So, you know what I mean? Like, it's at the will of the council, so I don't – I try to make things simple. I don't need anything else. I'm looking at the HR director and, you know, also our finance director's here who's over payroll. So, I mean, I feel like this is very much on the record in terms of direction, and we take direction outside the form of a motion regularly. So, I am comfortable – because we're not – we are not making an interpretation on his contract. We are following council direction. So, this is – this is council's direction to do something. And so, it's not a matter of us interpreting it. It's a matter of following the direction that has been consented by the council. Yeah, perfect. Essentially, you're calculating what these are. Just to clarify, because I think this is what David wants to make sure the record reflects. So, the resignation – there's consensus amongst council for the resignation to be effective February 9th. I mean, that's how I understand it, but I want to make sure that that's how everybody else understands it. Yes. For me, if we want to go down the road, effective February 9th. Yeah, I'm good with that as long as – I'm good with that. I'm fine with it as long as there's not some legal jargon that we're tripping because now we're getting calendar before your 60-day trigger or something, and we're triggering some other clause that we don't know about. I mean, if we're saying that the 9th or the 10th doesn't matter, then who cares on the date? Yeah, I mean, there's nothing I'm worried about in that regard. It's more about, to the clerk's standpoint and to the manager's standpoint, making sure that you have an appropriate record so that HR knows how to categorize it. If the will of the council is to accept my resignation as of February 9th, I think that kind of speaks for itself. But I wanted to make sure the manager had an opportunity to say anything else, not trying to lead, but just saying, if there is anything, this is a good time to figure it out. Absolutely, and I appreciate that. I just, like I said, based on how we've taken direction in the past, I am comfortable with the direction that the council has provided. So I'm good. Nothing further needed from my standpoint. It'll be reflected in the notes, in the minutes. Okay. We're done with this one. We're going to move to the 16.3 city attorney search process. So leading into that, I did pull together. I've reached out to three firms that are recruiting agencies for city attorneys. Two of them didn't give me a formal response, but one did, and I spoke with Strategic Government Resources. They did the successful search in Northport. I've apologized to the council, but I circulated by e-mail what they sent today. They sent last week, into last week, but I got to today. So that's what I would, as I said earlier, having Owen act as the interim, I think that that's a good idea, and that we would want, I don't mind putting that on our agenda sooner rather than later, and he would serve as interim while we are searching for a city attorney. I think it's good that we open it up to everybody. We had, last time we did a search, they got tons of candidates. They had very good candidates from all over. I don't know if there's anyone on our current staff that's interested. I've talked with a couple about it. I haven't had anyone say for sure on our staff that they're interested, but we would invite their applications. So I would like for us to go ahead and engage this firm. I would recommend Strategic Government Resources to start the process. They would begin by sitting down with all five of us, talking about what we wanted, what we didn't want. We've already got a job description and posting from the last time we had city attorney that opening that I think would be pretty close. But I would, and they told me, they told me that they had reached out to somebody or spoken to somebody in procurement that said that there was some piggyback relationship that we might be able to piggyback on. So I'm not sure if that's true or not, but this is what the gentleman told me yesterday or Friday. Karen Swaffer, Talent Acquisition Manager. Yes, that is correct. In fact, they do have an option that was one of the ones that we were going to recommend as well upon request. Regardless if there is a piggyback option contract, you still have the option to negotiate or get the quotes outside of the piggyback contract. And thank you for providing a copy as well for us to review. Do you have any additional questions? Did anyone else submit some proposals to you? I had one, but didn't I? No, we did not request for an informal. This will be an informal solicitation, less than $50,000. Which this is around the $28,000 mark. So we're anticipating $30,000 or less. And so anyway, that's, to customer, I've gotten to your point earlier. I'd like to see us get going. It's going to take a while to get good candidates in, and we want that. So I would recommend we go ahead and engage these folks. I think the sooner the better. So I've done some research, too, and, you know, this is one of the discussions that I had with the city attorney as well, which I'd like to hear what other options you all have for potential companies. But in my research, you know, I didn't come up against SGR, but I found good reviews and client response as well as top marks in the agency in looking for, number one, Major Lindsay Africa. They have an office out of Miami. I want to say that their headquarters is in Maryland. Number two, a boutique service. I'm going to butcher this. Renee Norlog, I believe, was the name. And number three was another one that I came upon was Baker Gilmore. Also had really high marks from previous clientele, and they all specify in public service as well as CEOs and those types of things, but also have a niche for litigators. So that was one of the search parameters that I was looking for. It was not just a headhunter organization, but something specific that had a niche with finding good, qualified litigator or just attorneys. So those were three that I had done a little research on. I knew this conversation was coming. I did not make any phone calls to these people first because I figured that we would discuss it. So that's where I'm at with that. So I got those three. You can provide them on reference if needed. Okay. Nice, Mayor. I didn't do any research either. I was hoping that the HR department would make some suggestions. I do like the idea of selecting or having two or three to select from, so that's what I would appreciate. Sure. Okay. Thank you. And now it could include what the mayor suggested, which one you suggested. I definitely didn't do any research, and I'll tell you why. It's because I feel in approaching this process, the first question that we should ask ourselves is, do we have the talent in-house? And, unfortunately, the direction of this discussion that we're already having is sending a different message than what I think I have. And what I've gathered from talking to the community and around is that they believe we do have the talent in-house. So I think we need to be careful with what message we're sending to our city's attorney's office. And if we have three qualified candidates that are sitting in that office, morale is important, and let's make sure that we are respecting that. I thought the discussion would be, are we promoting internally, or do we need to do an executive search? Not, I didn't expect us to sit down and people to say, we've already done our homework and started the executive search process. So that's new to me to learn. I had no idea. So it sounds like the direction from the dais is an interest to do an executive search. My feeling with this is nine times out of ten in an executive position, I think you have to do that executive search. I think when you don't, you don't allow Babe Ruth to possibly walk through the door, and you're eliminating that. This is a different beast. This is a different situation. Clearwater, we've all said many times, is extremely unique. Not unique necessarily in the challenges we face, but unique in the magnitude of them. And we have bits and pieces of challenges that many communities face, but we face them all. And from a world-class beach and all the issues that go with that and tourism to three entertainment venues to professional baseball and to our downtown issues with the Church of Scientology, we are extremely unique in the challenges that we face. I find a lot more comfort that if we address that question of do we have the talent in-house and we come to a yes, I find a lot more comfort in knowing that somebody in-house that has walked that path, that has navigated these challenges, even next to Pam and next to David, I find a lot more relief in that versus pulling somebody else from the outside from an executive search that's willing, finding somebody willing to take this job will definitely be of a challenge. So that's kind of my initial thought. So this kind of caught me off guard. I respect it and I understand it. It makes sense, but I find more comfort if we say we have the talent, we answered that correct, let's send the message internally that we promote within if we have that ability. And if it's an interim label and see how it goes and what direction it goes, and if we have problems or need to make a change, then we open it up. But I'll support whatever the dais decides. Thank you, sir. Yeah, I fully hear that. And if that is what was received, that was not my intention working in government, you know, I see it as an opportunity for our in-house. And I would 100%. I think that the first step is finding who the organization is, right? And then you talk with that agency to get all of our perspectives to hone in. One of the things being in-house people, right? Making sure that they get a full shot all the way through it. They're vetted, you know, because it gives them the opportunity to do it. Maybe not jump through the same hoops that others would have to. I mean, that would be a conversation that each of us have individually. But, you know, I would see this as an opportunity for our in-house people because just thinking of my promotions and stuff from a government perspective, I've enjoyed the process. It's allowed me to better myself when interviewing and going through what a fire department promotional exam is. And I would think that it would prepare these people, too, for the future. So, if anything, give them practice with it. And I would wholeheartedly encourage anybody in our legal department to most assuredly apply. Because as we've all stated up here today that David's done a stellar job of putting together a great group of internal litigators and attorneys and minds and encouraging them to do the best. Because we might have the diamond, right? I'm not saying that we don't. But still do the process and open it up. And then, you know, even if it comes to a point system, right? Fire department does point system. If you're a veteran, if those types of things. In-house, maybe they get extra points. Again, this is what we have to hone in on. But in no way was I ever trying to say that we don't have the talent in-house. I definitely think that we have some talented individuals, and I would hope that they would apply. And I would like to see them excel and maybe rise to the top, and that is it, you know. But not leave the city with the potential Babe Ruth that does walk through the door, you know. Maybe that's already in our door. But at least get there that way systematically. So, I'm not sure how we go about selecting the process. Maybe you guys can throw it out for an RFP with some things that we've thrown out there for certain companies. If anybody else wants to take time, I don't know. A couple things. One, and then to your vice member, a couple things. I agree with you. We had a great legal department. I told them this the other day. I had a chance to meet with them. I mean, they're great. We've got great folks. We can use another attorney, particularly to figure out the litigation part. I let them know they've been shorthanded. But, David, you've done a great job of building a great department. Great people. They serve the city well. I do think that, you know, echo what you said, that a competitive environment for this kind of position and city manager position is good. And we'd encourage anybody to apply and be part of the pool of candidates. But last time we got some really good candidates. And we chose a good one. But there were other, two or three other ones that were, I mean, it was very competitive. We had a good process and yielded some good candidates. So, I think we'll get that, too. But that would be what I would say. I would encourage anyone internally to apply. But I do think we're doing, in some respects, them a disservice if we don't do an open search. To just, you know, approach somebody from within without at least initially taking a look to see what's out there or who might be it. Vice Mayor? Yeah. I apologize if I came across that I wasn't appreciative of the legal team. I was just super focused on what was commenting, you know, what the mayor was commenting on. I have deep respect for the legal team and all the incredible work that they do every day. And I firmly believe, and I think I've proven that, that I do believe in promoting from within. It has definite benefits. It rewards institutional knowledge, dedication, and allows and encourages growth from our employees into leadership roles. An internal candidate has intimate knowledge of the city, its trust, and is fully aware of the challenges that we face every day. At the same time, conducting an external search can bring fresh perspectives, and it can also strengthen the credibility of the decision if an internal candidate is selected. So please do not interpret my super fixing on that topic as I do not have any appreciation for the legal team. I've actually intentionally not have said any personal things so that it would be less uncomfortable. But Mr. Marvolos knows how much I respect him and his team. And the other thing, you know, we can continue to sort of proposals, but I guess we, I mean, that would, our next meeting's February, it's off away. So if there was a way to select somebody before the next meeting, but I hate to punt it three more weeks out, you know, that would be the only advantage of going ahead and considering some that have, well, at least one, you know, or, you know, I don't want to, I understand if we want to consider other proposals, and you've mentioned some that I don't think I had a chance to talk with. At the same time, I don't want to delay it even further, which is already probably going to be, you know, or could be a longer process. Council, do you wish to schedule a special meeting just to discuss that, the search process, where AHR could have the opportunity to seek the quotes, and then council can decide which firm to go with? Yeah. Sooner than later. What I'll do is I'll work with the assistants and the staff assistants, try to find a date, and then hopefully have it on the agenda for Thursday, if that's okay with the manager. Yeah, that's fine. And the HR department did some preliminary work on this to be, just to be able to answer questions that you all may have, not to start any process or anything like that. That's why we don't have any quotes. The information that they have basically is based off of who has piggyback contracts out there, who has done this type of search before, that type of information. So if you, if while we're looking for a date, would like AHR to do anything else in terms of soliciting quotes, because they have not, that direction, you know what I mean, we wouldn't have to wait for the special meeting to get that direction if you want to provide them direction, the direction to tell them to do that now. Definitely the ones that Councilman Scott mentioned. Yeah, I mean, I would appreciate, I mean, if we could do the major Lindsay in Africa, that was one of the top ones that I had researched, especially looking for city attorneys. Renee Narlog, I can probably get you spelling later because I left my notes at home. But, and then the last one was Baker Gilmore, but that was my top three. Like that's, when I read the agenda item, that's just when I started my research and looking through different companies and being narrow-minded for, you know, niches within legal aspects of things. But I would greatly appreciate them being a part of the list. I have a question, and maybe David, the city attorney, can answer this. Fawino just went through this process, and we lost Fawino, and an executive search team is the one that hired him. Maybe we include that company in it. They have a fresh list. They just have probably a whole list of viable, that's this group? Yeah. Good to know. Perfect. Okay, so to just be clear, you would, the council is asking for us to go ahead and start soliciting quotes for this in anticipation of a special meeting and hopefully to have that information by that. I don't know how quick they will respond, but we will certainly work on that, if that's the direction of the council. Yes? Okay, so those three that Council Member Cotton suggested that we have the proposal from SGR now. Understood. Any other questions? Okay. And also anticipation of the timelines with guidance from procurement. If we go ahead and submit those tomorrow, Friday would be reasonable for a deadline for them to provide that quote. Okay, item 17, new business, any new business. Item 18, council comments. Anybody feel like I haven't had enough to you? 19 closing comments by Mayor, no. And so with that, we will adjourn the work session of January 12, 2026. Thank you.