Council Work Session on 2026-02-02 1:30 PM - Feb 02, 2026

With that, we move to Item 6, and that is to adjourn the February 2nd, 2026 meeting of the City of Clearwater Pension Trustees. This time we call the order of the February 2nd work session of the Clearwater City Council to Item 2.1 on the agenda.

Approve the Fifth Amendment to contract for sale for city-owned vacant land between City of Clearwater and Habitat for Humanity of Pinellas County and the Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services. For real property located at 1454 South Martin Luther King, Jr.

Good afternoon, Council Mayor. My name is Dylan Mayhew. I'm the Housing Manager, Economic Development and Housing. This agenda item is a request to approve the Fifth Amendment to the contract for sale of city-owned property located at 1454 South Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. This is to be developed between Habitat for Humanity and Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services. The project was awarded through RFP 43-22 and is consistent with Council's original direction to increase affordable housing, home ownership opportunities in Clearwater. The proposed development includes 24 townhomes. Half will be restricted to 80% of area median income and the other half will be restricted to 120% of area median income. Council has approved several prior amendments to this agreement. Each of those amendments were limited to extending the closing date to address pre-development issues, such as site plan approvals, easements, utility coordination, and hurricane impacts from the storms in 2024. The Fifth Amendment addresses timelines as well as a few other issues. The current contract requires the developer to obtain all building permits prior to closing. However, under the city's development code, the final 50% of building permits cannot be issued until the final plat is recorded, and the final plat cannot be recorded until site work and infrastructure work has been completed. As a result, the existing contract requirement creates a procedural conflict preventing the transaction from closing. Staff obtained an update on the permit status. A few outstanding comments remain. Fees are still due. However, full approval is nearing. The proposed amendment removes the permit contingency, extends the closing date to June 30, 2026, extends the project completion date to December 31, 2028, and allows the assignment of the contract to the developer's single asset LLC. It also specifies language that allows the city to revert ownership of the property if the contractual timelines are not met, providing the city with additional protections by specifying default terms. I also want to note that on January 26th, staff did meet with the developer and with Pinellas County. The county indicated that their funding has been approved and that they will be ready to close within our new proposed timeline. The remaining and final step is for the developer to obtain project financing. After speaking with the developer, he did indicate, or they indicated that the financing can be obtained. They feel comfortable with the new timeline, the June 30, 2028 deadline. So with that, staff does recommend approval of the Fifth Amendment. I'm happy to address any questions.

Any discussion on this agenda? No discussion? Then thank you. Okay. Agenda item 3.1.

Approve a professional services agreement to the Instigo LLC doing business as Instigo Agency of St. Petersburg, Florida, for sponsorship sales services for the city of Clearwater.

Thank you, Rose. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Chris Cook, Parks and Recreation Senior Manager. This item before you is to approve a professional services agreement with Instigo LLC doing business as Instigo Agency out of St. Pete to provide services for sponsorship sales for Clearwater assets. The agreement is the amount of $5,000 per month as a retainage fee, plus an additional 12% of gross sales from any sponsorships that are negotiated by and secured by Instigo. The initial term is for one year with four one-year renewable options pursuant to RFP 54-25. This would authorize us to execute the agreement. Background is in an effort to increase revenue for the city of Clearwater, and specifically parks and recreation programs, facilities, and events. We issued RFP 54-25 for the sponsorship and naming rights services on August 5th. September 9th, we received three responsive proposals. The evaluation team consisted of members from Finance, from Arts and Cultural Affairs, and Parks and Recreation. We reviewed and ranked all the proposals and unanimously agreed to award Instigo Agency for these services. That notice was issued on October 2nd. Since that time, we've been working with Samson, who's here with me today, to develop this agreement that you see, which includes prospect identification, asset identification, for things ranging such as sponsorships, naming rights, presenting and official sponsorships, hospitality, and other related and approved city assets. Included in this agreement are benchmarks that Instigo and the city has agreed to, which will allow us to track and measure success as we go. Instigo and city staff, we've already been working collaboratively in preparation for this agreement. We've provided a lot of information already that we've had and a lot of existing assets that have been identified to give us a head start if this agreement's approved. Earlier today, I had mentioned about Placer AI, so I won't go back into all of that, but this will be a huge tool that will aid in getting accurate data for our sponsorship partner. Identifying demographics, visitor origins, visitation patterns are all great valuable assets we'll be able to get out of this. A first quarter budget amendment is going to establish M2602, which will account for any revenues and expenses associated with this contract, so we can be tracking it as we go. Staff believes that this agreement will help us to grow in sponsorship revenue, increase accountability, and leverage these new data analytics tools to support our programs and events. Mr. Samsononi, the founder of Instigo, is here for any questions related to his firm or the agreement, and anything else that I could answer, I'd be happy to do so.

Thank you.

Okay. Questions from the council? Councilman McCartney.

No questions, more so a comment. Thank you, Chris, from Parks and Rec, and thank you to whoever was from finance and arts and cultural affairs on this board. Thank you, Samson, for coming through and working with our team. I think that this is going to be one of those unique out-of-the-box ways where government starts to see how to generate revenue sources outside of just taxation. So thank you very much. I look forward to what you guys can provide and the data that comes with it. So thank you.

So I have a question on, for those of you who don't think we read the documents attached to the agenda item, I'm sure you hear that we do. The contract, you know, you're getting paid a monthly fee, which, you know, $5,000 a month for 12 months works out to be $60,000. But that, there's no guarantee of collecting anything. But I did see an exhibit. It's exhibit A. There's a, you're giving us progress reports, but then there's, in Roman numeral 5B, it says, InstaGo agrees to outlining benchmarks for success, $45,000 by a nine-month mark from contract extension in the first-year contract. So that's what you think, that's the minimum you think we would be getting? There's no guarantee, but that's where we're going to kind of see if the monthly fee, you're able to generate things or not?

I'll answer first because that was something we, as a city, decided we wanted to put in there and add in there. Just to have some sort of metric to success, we understand it's going to take time to build partnerships, and we're looking at multi-year partners that will be with us for a long time. And while that does take time, we did want to have some semblance that we're going to be able to recoup the investment that we're putting into it. So benchmarks, not guarantees, but that will help us when we're looking at, you know, retaining for years, two, three, four, five, which hopefully is an easy discussion, but having an agreed upon, he was gracious enough to agree for us to add that in there. But that came from us and not from Samson.

And I think I saw, I don't know if it was your website or some response that you've worked with professional sports teams and different organizations in the past that you might share with us who you've worked with.

Yeah, absolutely. So, well, we've worked with the likes of the Cleveland Cavaliers who are in the NBA more recently because we are focused on our regional approach. Mostly we've been central Florida, so we've also worked with Orlando City Soccer. So we have a lot of experience from a professional standpoint, professional sports standpoint. In terms of municipalities, we've also worked with the City of Sparefish over in South Dakota. So we have a combination of the high standard of, you know, experience within, you know, in terms of certain industry standards within the sports world. That's, you know, where those standards get set. So we have that experience, but also local experience as well. So we're able to kind of combine that and hopefully bring some success to the city of Clearwater as well.

Okay. Okay. Anything else? Vice Mayor?

Yes. So you've identified three locations for naming rights, which is Cochran Park Plaza, the Splash Garden, or Splash Pad and the Garden. Is it just limited to those three, or are you looking at other locations or – my apologies. You named three spots in Cochran Park for naming rights. Are there any other locations that you're looking at that you're considering?

Yeah, absolutely. So I've been working with Chris over the past several weeks now just to identify some locations that would be of interest. We've already taken a site visit as well, and we've looked at some of the recreation centers as well. We've also taken a trip to Pier 60, and obviously there's a lot of assets within the beach area as well. Once I complete the initial site visit report, we'll be able to identify various other sites as well that we'll be looking at. Those are just the main naming rights opportunities that we'll have. One of our approaches will be to also identify ways that we can create packages to allow local businesses to get involved as well. So things like naming rights is a little too big for them, so we'll be looking at some smaller assets as well. We obviously don't want to plaster the city with billboards or ads, that sort of stuff. So we're looking at creative activations that we can allow local businesses to get involved as well.

A good example would be like the much-needed sunshade in Cochran Park as an option, let's say, for businesses versus naming rights. Exactly.

And we want to look at stuff like that. We don't just want to partner with Brand X just to put up a brand. We want a story to be involved in terms of how they can add value to their local residents and the tourists in the city. So something like that would be great so that the residents and the tourists can see that there's brands looking to get involved and improve the value of their experience as well.

But it's broader than just assets, right? I mean, it's events, really anything. We can get sponsorship.

And for the record, Vice Mayor, I know you all know this, but the contracts would be the City of Clearwater contracts. So you would not be surprised by anything. You would see any contracts, especially when it comes to naming rights. There's ways we have to go about notifications before we would name something. So you all wouldn't be surprised by anything when it gets to the point of a contract. But we want to be creative, as Council Member Cotton said. We want to be creative and look at things that maybe we haven't looked at before, and bringing in fresh eyes will allow us to do that.

Okay, anything else? Do we have consent?

Yes.

We have consent on Agenda Item 3.1. Thank you.

Thank you.

Agenda Item 3.2.

Authorize an increase in extension to the purchase order with Century Event Services for Citywide Services and Event Services.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members, our Tater Parks and Recreation Director. Century Event Services, they currently provide the services or security services that we have in the Municipal Services Building, City Hall, for the Library City Council meetings. Also, they patrol some of our garages and athletic and special event activities. Their contract with the city actually expires this month, and staff is recommending an extension of this contract for up to 120 days and an additional $86,000. The need for this extension is that the city issued a RFP 0126 for new security services. Because this one ends, we went out for another RFP and received 17 proposals. And you can imagine that many proposals that we had in, it took a little additional time for the committees to go through that to be able to develop a contract. They hope to bring something back. I just heard today, probably in March, with that new contract. But in the meantime, we are asking you to approve this additional extension and the money to cover several large events, which we have coming up, which are the softball tournaments that you see more complex, as well as the Sea Blues that comes up in February. With that, I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

That's what we've gotten.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Cater, I did see in the legislative text that, as you just alluded to, a 120-day extension for the $86,000, or if we find another provider first and vote to have that one take over, does that mean of that $86,000, because it's a not-to-exceed, I believe, right, would be refunded back to the perfect? Thank you, sir. Absolutely.

Any other questions, comments? Okay. If not, do we have consent? Yes. We have consent on 3.2. Thank you, Mr. Cater. Gen item 4.1?

Award a construction contract to TLC Diversified for the lift station point repairs and improvements.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm the Planning Interim Director of Public Utilities. The item before I use for a lift station is an award a maintenance contract for the lift stations. So with this, what we'd be looking to do is general structural repairs, VFDs, control panels, pump maintenance, all those different types of activities would be awarded to TLC Diversified in the amount of $5 million annually for the initial term plus the potential for three extensions of one year each. This is aligned with high-performing government, specifically with asset longevity and risk management, and I'm hoping to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions, comments on this agenda? If not, do we have consent? We have consent. Thank you, Mr. Corwin. Thank you. Gen item 4.2.

A proper work order with McKim and Creed for design and construction phase services associated with Coachman Station disinfection system update.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Fred Hamrick. I'm Public Utilities Manager, Water Production and Lab. So we are asking for your approval of a work order to McKim and Creed for design and construction phases associated with Coachman Station disinfection update in a not-to-exceed amount of $243,454. Essentially, what we're doing is that we have a work order that's going to include project management, data collection, site evaluation, and limited construction oversight to rehabilitate Coachman Station, which is right at the northeast corner of Coachman Park. So all the water to the beach flows through that station, and it has a chlorine system in it, but it was put in in 1990. It was never updated or started. We're finding that now we have a need for that system. We'd like to get it updated. So I'm here to answer any questions you may have and ask for your approval.

Any questions, Councilman McCott?

I do, Fred. Thank you for the information there. Just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. The part of this is going to be also providing low levels of chlorine, and I assume that's to what? Make sure that bacteria, algae, that type of stuff isn't growing inside the water distribution pipes?

Yeah, so we chlorinate water at the water treatment plants, and then it's traveling down through the city, making its way out to the beach. It takes a long time to get there, and a lot of times we find that seasonally, especially in the hot months, we have a very low chlorine residual on the north end of the beach. It doesn't mean the water is unsafe up there, but we have to flush a lot of water up there to bring the level up and maintain that minimum chlorine residual. The hope is that this will help us reduce water flushing.

Okay, understood. Thank you. Councilman Robert.

I'm familiar with the water line on Clearwater Beach. It's not a loop. It's just a line that goes and stops. So that has to be flushed out on a regular basis just to keep things flowing up there. And do they have any plans about making that a loop and coming back to keep water flowing in that all the time?

Well, that could be very challenging, but there are discussions. We're always looking at stuff in public utilities of that nature. I know in other parts of the city we're looking at maybe making a loop in other high-flush areas, but it's all really initial stuff. We haven't engaged with anybody yet. It would be very hard to, without drilling a very long, expensive pipeline, to loop that back.

I got you. And when you have an end point like that, and it doesn't go any further. Same thing with Island Estates. They have an end, and they're always blowing water off at the end of that one too.

You're correct. The ends of the fingers, like Harbor Island, Midway, those, we do have flush points there. We don't have to flush as much at those. Just the north end of the beach, there's a combination of factors. One is it's a long way. Number two, it's more than one pipeline. It's a whole grid of pipelines up there. So the water goes up there. And then also, kind of after the hurricanes, I think we have some lower occupancy up there too. And people are just not using as much water. Right.

Not using the water like. Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have consent? Yeah. We have consent on Agenda Item 4.2. Agenda Item 4.3.

Award construction contracts at TLC Diversified. Murphy Pipeline Contractors and Applied Drilling Engineering for the water reclaimed water and well repair improvements.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. My client and temp director of public utilities. So this is awarding a maintenance contract to multiple vendors. One vendor, TLC, for point repairs, asphalt and concrete. Murphy for trenchless pipe installation. And applied for well and pump maintenance and acidification of wells. The amount is $9 million annually. And we'll be looking for three one-year renewals associated with that as well. It's aligned with high-performing government, particularly regarding asset longevity and also with cost efficiency. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions on this agenda? Council Member Menino.

Thank you, Mayor. I believe just for clarification, as in the last of two agenda items before it, revenues from this are from the water and sewer utility? Absolutely. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. And the previous two before this were from the same utility in our first fund? And the next one will be as well. Thank you for clarification.

They can't be found in the attachment.

I guess we may get some questions about this one. And this is, we're not growing or we're just maintaining what we already have.

Yes, we are. So the intention of this one here is really what we're trying to do is make sure that our infrastructure is solid going into the future.

Okay. All right. Do we have consent? Do we have consent on 4.3?

Thank you.

All right. And item 4.4.

Authorized to purchase order to Ferguson Water Works for the procurement of Neptune Water Meter Original Equipment Manufacturer Replacement Parts.

Afternoon. Mayor, Council, Michael Valka, Public Utilities Infrastructure Division Manager. Before you is the request of the purchase of O&M parts. These parts are critical assets to our combination water and meter backflows. This allows us to continue to replace and repair rather than purchase new, which provides the city a good cost savings. With that, I'm happy to respond to any questions you may have.

Any questions on this agenda? None. Do we have consent? Thank you. Thank you. Gen. Item 5.1.

Approve the standard grant agreement between the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the City of Clearwater for the design and construction of six storm water pump stations.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council, Rich Gardner, Engineer of Public Works. The item before you today is for a standard grant agreement between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the City. The agreement provides for a $3 million appropriation for the North Beach Stormwater Improvement Project. The North Beach Stormwater Improvement Project is a multi-phase effort to improve performance of the storm water infrastructure, reduce tidal flooding, and reduce disruption events in the North Beach neighborhood of Clearwater. The State of Florida legislature appropriated $3 million to the City of Clearwater to cover a portion of the cost for the design and construction of approximately six storm water pump stations and associated conveyance improvements on North Beach. This project supports several of the City's strategic priorities, including maintaining public infrastructure and fostering safe and healthy communities in Clearwater. I'm asking you to approve the agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions on this agenda? For the public, we're simply accepting $3 million worth of grant money, and this is the agreement to do so. Thank you. Do we have consent?

Yes. Sure.

We have consent on 5.1. Thank you. Agenda item 5.2.

Approve a roadway transfer agreement with the Town of Bel Air.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm Anna Huller, Transportation Division Manager for Public Works. The City of Clearwater owns a portion of Watkins Road west of Bay Avenue. This portion of Watkins Road is a dead-end cul-de-sac where City of Clearwater's city limit and Town of Bel Air limits meet, and residents are required to go through Bel Air city limits and roadways for access. It has been determined to be in the best interest of both municipalities to enter into this agreement to transfer title to the road from the City of Clearwater to the Town of Bel Air. The City of Clearwater will retain ownership of the water main located along the north side of the road with the ability to access and maintain the line through a right-of-way easement. As a part of this transfer, the City of Clearwater milled and resurfaced the subject section of Watkins Road with the costs shared jointly between both municipalities. The City has received payment from the Town of Bel Air for Bel Air's portion. Any questions?

Any questions on this agenda? You good? Yeah. I did the same thing today. I was trying to figure out exactly where it was at on the map. Right. So I want to make sure you're in there. Okay. Do we have consent? Yeah. Okay. We have consent on 5.2. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm 6.1.

Approved a purchase order of Rattware, Inc. for solid waste and recycling service verification.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council Members. Kerbin, I'm your name is the Solid Waste Director. Council Members, Solid Waste Team, Solid Waste Recycling Team is requesting approval for implementation of Rattware Smart City Technology Platform to modernize a collections operation. The Smart City System integrates onboard cameras and driver tablets for real-time back office portals, providing enhanced oversight, service verification, and more efficient response to customer service issues. Key system features include turn-by-turn applications, digital pre- and post-documentation, breadcrumb trails tracking, and 360 cameras view. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions on this agenda? If not, do we have consent?

Yes.

We have consent on 6.1. Thank you. Thank you. I'm 7.1.

Appoint Chantella Davis of North Greenwood Community Redevelopment Area Citizens Advisory Committee as a nonprofit representative for a term expiring February 5th, 2028. Council Members, Ms. Davis is the only applicant we have on file who meets that specific qualification, which requires this individual to either live or provide services in the North Greenwood area.

Okay, well, I know Ms. Davis. She runs a nonprofit called A Mother's Arms, which does great work helping not all, but mainly single moms that really are in a bad spot. And she's been very active in that neighborhood and is increasing her presence in the community and her impact in the community by growing her nonprofit. So I think she would be great on this advisory board. So with that, do we have consent to add her to what? Yes. Is this consent?

It is. I just wasn't sure.

Okay, yes.

I agree.

Okay.

All right. Then agenda item 8.1.

Mayor, 8.1 is my agenda item. So this is the interim city agreement for Mr. Kohler to begin serving as interim city attorney effective February 10th. I'd like to go through it in a little bit of detail because I want to ensure the council is comfortable with the way that I've drafted it. I did put quite a bit of thought into this because we have to account for several possible scenarios since we don't know exactly how it will play out. In addition to that, I was mindful of the fact that Owen will not be able to give the city legal advice regarding his own contract. So I wanted to solve as many issues as I could up front, hopefully to prevent the city from having issues that could come up along this process. So with that, I have drafted it as such that he is by default going to serve as interim city attorney through August 7th or until a permanent city attorney is appointed, whichever occurs first. And that's a pretty straightforward scenario, I believe. But I also wanted to account for several what-if scenarios because a lot of things could happen along the way. So I'm just going to run through them with you, and if council members have questions or if you'd like to make any changes, then let me know, and we'll make changes to the agreement. I do want to say that Owen has seen this draft of it, that he's comfortable with it, has drafted today. So some of the scenarios to run through, and this is in no particular order. Actually, arguably in a little bit of particular order and only in the sense that I want it to go from simpler scenarios to more complicated ones. So one scenario is where Owen himself decides to apply for city attorney, and he gets appointed as city attorney. Now, he is not committed one way or the other as to whether he'd apply, and the council has made a fear there's going to be a search regardless. But if he were to apply and if he were selected, I had to account for that in the agreement itself. So the way that I have drafted it is such that if he is appointed as permanent city attorney, then all of this goes away. Essentially, this agreement that's in front of you immediately expires. It will get superseded. It's like it never happened going forward. That's a pretty simple scenario. Some other scenarios that I tried to take into account here. What if a different permanent city attorney is appointed prior to August 8th? Well, as I said, his agreement is written so that it expires either on August 8th or upon appointment of a permanent city attorney, whichever occurs first. So if you find a permanent city attorney who is not him, either because he has not applied or because he was not selected, then this will automatically expire upon the appointment of a new city attorney. So let's say it happens in June 2nd or whatever that date is. Does that make sense? So that's a second scenario. When that occurs or if it occurs, the way it is drafted is such that Owen will resume his role as lead assistant city attorney once you make that appointment, whoever that is going to be. The third scenario I wanted to take into account is, and this is very unlikely, but what if for whatever reason Owen were to resign from city employment altogether or was not employed during that time? We all go through life circumstances, obviously I know that better than anybody else, that can affect what decisions we make in our career. So the answer to that question is that if he were to resign for whatever reason from city employment prior to August 8th, then this agreement is still controlled by his original employment agreement. In other words, his original employment agreement, which was drafted in 2018, says that he must give at least 30 days notice. So let's say, for example, he encounters life circumstances and decides that in May that he no longer wants to be employed again. I think this is very unlikely, but I wanted to prepare for all possible scenarios. He would still have to give 30 days notice to the city, and that way you're not left immediately without someone sitting in the chair. So the idea is to account for different possibilities. Another scenario that I wanted to account for is, what if the council, for whatever reason, decides to appoint a different interim city attorney in the months ahead? That could happen, for example, if Owen, because of his own life circumstances, decides that he can still work and still wants to work in his role as lead assistant, but does not want to continue serving as interim city attorney. As an example, again, I don't think that's likely, but I wanted to prepare for as many scenarios as possible. So in that scenario, the council does have the ability at any time, for any reason and for any cause or no cause, to appoint a different interim city attorney at any point in this process. So while this is drafted as a commitment from him to serve through August 8th, nevertheless, council still preserves your freedom to, at any point in time, for any reason, either at his request or not at his request, to appoint a different interim city attorney. That is always the council's power, and I do think it's important for the council to preserve that ability, whether requested by him or not. If that were to happen, if council were to appoint a different interim city attorney somewhere along the way in this process, then he would automatically resume his role as lead assistant city attorney. So in other words, he would still be with the city, would still be working, but that preserves your ability, if you so chose, for whatever reason, either at his request or otherwise, to appoint a different interim city attorney along the way. Two other scenarios I had to account for here or wanted to account for. One of them is, what if Owen is serving as interim city attorney as of August 8th, but your permanent city attorney has either not been selected yet or has just not taken the seat yet? If you're hiring from someone out of town, for example, they may need to give notice to their current employer. They may be moving to Clearwater. You may have some lead time that happens in there. So what happens if Owen is still serving on August 8th and the council needs him to continue serving in that interim capacity? For what it's worth, at least as it stands today and based on his life circumstances today, Owen has told me that he is willing to serve as long as the council needs him to in the interim capacity. Assuming that that continues to be the case and if council is comfortable with it, the council will have the ability to extend his appointment beyond August 8th to serve as interim. So, for example, let's say you make a selection of your city attorney on, I don't know, July 22nd, as an example. But now your city attorney needs to give notice to their current employer. They need to move to Clearwater. They need to do all these things. They're going to have lag time in there, just like there was when I was hired. And so the agreement is written such that you can extend his time as interim city attorney if you decide to do so. And, again, at least as it stands today, he has indicated that he is willing to serve as long as the council needs him to and would like him to. And then the final scenario I wanted to account for is what if none of these things happen? And what if, for whatever reason, no action is taken by August 8th? Council has not reached consensus on a new city attorney. A new city attorney has not been appointed. But Owen is still here. What happens then in those circumstances? If that happens, you all need to do something. Because if that happens, Owen's agreement will expire on August 8th, and you will have a vacancy in the office of city attorney as of August 9th. So if you've truly taken no action at all, then please be prepared either to appoint an interim city attorney as of August 9th or extend his time as interim city attorney if he is willing and if you are amenable. Or otherwise, you will have a vacancy in the office. That's kind of the gist of it. Happy to elaborate on any of those. I know that's a lot to run through, but it's a short document, but I really tried to put a lot of thought into the different scenarios so that the city is not scrambling later in the middle of all this, especially since you won't have someone you can easily consult with on the legal side to navigate those issues. So if council does have any questions or if you'd like to make any changes, please don't hesitate to say so, and we can do that now.

Anybody got any comments, questions? Good. Okay. I think we're good.

Sounds good. So you'll see that the document that's attached to the agenda is labeled as a draft. We'll go ahead and replace that with a permanent version for Thursday night. If for some reason there's any changes that need to be made, we can still make them on Thursday, but I am going to ask the clerk to swap it out for the permanent version on Thursday because this one currently is watermarked as a draft because I didn't know if council members would have questions, changes, et cetera. So, good?

Okay. We placed it on consent.

Yes.

Yes. That's all I have on that item.

Okay. Move to agenda item 8.2.

8.2 is also my item. So this is the item that was discussed previously in regard to the restoration of public comment as to non-agenda items. So I think this one is going to be relatively straightforward. In the agenda item itself, there were a few key features that I picked up on from the last council discussion, and there was a lot of really good discussion among council members as to what this should look like. So I want to call attention to how I have drafted this, and then if council members have questions or if you want to make changes, this is the time to do that. But a few things I want to call attention to here. So one of them is that the time period for citizens to comment on non-agenda items is listed as 30 minutes for 10 speakers, whichever is greater. And that's to account for the fact that sometimes people don't talk very long. Sometimes they talk for 15 seconds or 25 seconds, et cetera. So I drafted it as 30 minutes or 10 speakers, whichever is greater. It's also designed to account for a situation where someone could be in the middle of their speech, and if they were to run out of time in the 30 minutes, you could have someone who gets up at 29 minutes and 15 seconds, and now they have only 45 seconds to speak. So I've tried to draft to accommodate those things. Again, it's drafted as 30 minutes or 10 speakers, whichever is longer. I don't want to speak for the clerk, but I have reviewed it with her. I think she's comfortable with the way that I've drafted it overall. So that's kind of one aspect of it. A couple other aspects that I want to call attention to. So as drafted, there is no time sharing between individual speakers or groups. I know that was something that was discussed. I want to emphasize that that will be a different rule than the rule that applies to agenda items. As it relates to agenda items, people are allowed to time share and have groups. And candidly, I don't think we could change that even if we wanted to because I think as it relates to agenda items, I think there is a statutory right for groups to come up and do that. But as non-agenda items, the council has way more freedom in deciding how to customize this. So as drafted, there is going to be no time sharing allowed. The third thing I want to call attention to was the timing of this. I know there was a lot of discussion among council as to whether this should be at the beginning of the meeting, whether it's best at the end of the meeting. It was very interesting to hear council discussion. Candidly, there's different feedback from staff as well. I mean, so these are things that can be changed at will, I would say. But as currently drafted, I put it closer to the end of the meeting. And I think that was the general consensus that emerged. I did take a little bit of editorial liberty here in the sense that I put it after most of the voting items or after all the voting items, but I put it prior to city manager and city attorney comments. And I did it that way because sometimes a citizen might raise a question or an issue that either the city attorney or city manager may want to either comment on, respond to, offer insight into. Sometimes it's as simple as just saying, we'll get back to you on that. But I did put it just before city manager and city attorney comments so that there would be some window of time to do that. We don't have to put it there. We could put it later. We could put it before. But that is currently how I've drafted it. And then the final thing to call attention to here is that this protocol, whatever the protocol is going to be, will remain in effect for only three months. So that is the current way that I have drafted it. This agreement, not agreement, this resolution will go through the May 7th meeting. After that meeting, it will automatically expire. So in other words, this portion of the meeting will go away after the May 7th meeting. That will be the last meeting on which it occurs. If anyone wants to modify that, extend it, change it, whatever, council members, we will have to put that on the agenda. Otherwise, it will go away. All of this, I think, has been discussed with the clerk. And again, I don't want to speak for her, but I think she's comfortable with the way that we have set this up. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Menino?

Thank you for that. My only question was, did we formalize the process for sign-ups? Are we setting a certain time, 15 minutes before? Are we establishing a certain location? I do see situations that may arise where there's going to be more than 10 people that want to speak. I would assume that, and it's happened many times here before. So have we formalized that into this process?

I have not drafted anything for that. I think I can. But I think the easiest way to deal with that administratively, subject to the clerk saying otherwise, is probably just to have a sign-up sheet. And it's going to be your first, basically, just go in order of the sign-up sheet, I think, is probably the easiest way.

I agree. That would be the easiest way, is to have a sign-up sheet at the front, at the entrance, but they would still have to submit their completed card. And I think that was, I think that's what the ordinance does require, or the resolution does require, is for individuals, if they want to speak, to submit the completed card. Otherwise, we will move to the next person on the list.

Is that what the county does? Doesn't the county have some type of sign-up?

They do have, I believe, an electronic sign-up, but I don't know if they use, if it's something on their website or if they're actually using the Granicus platform to sign-up, which we have available as well.

I think it's good that we have some type of, you know, rather than having an argument with somebody who got here first, you know, I guess you could have people jostling in line to try to get ahead of one another to try to beat the time limit if we had a lot. So I think some type of sign-up sheet and just go by whoever's one, two, three, four, you know, on there. It is going to, I guess, someone will have to monitor the sign-up sheet. Security. Yeah, I guess, yeah. But I like that idea of having, just having them sign up.

The question that just comes to mind is when would it be released, you know what I mean? So, like, how far in advance can they sign up? So just things to consider if we're doing.

I think it's here. You've got to be here. I think you get it.

So it's the day of?

Yeah.

Before the meeting?

In my mind's eye, yeah. If you have something to say, you're going to get here. You'll probably be here before the door opens. Security sits over at the clipboard. Do you plan on speaking today or please put a sign there that says please let security know whether or not you'd like to sign up for public comment? He'll take your name. First ten slots, done. As they keep it through, other people might ask. Sorry, we're full for today. Please come back next week. We enjoy it. Welcome you to sit for the rest of the meeting.

I think it's important that we have some sort of consistency. If it's 15 minutes before the meeting or ten, we can't have, you know, somebody came 12 minutes before the meeting and there wasn't a sign-up sheet there. But the following, the previous meeting, they came an hour before and they were able to sign up. But I think if we're going to formalize it, let's pick whether it's 15, 20 minutes before where that location is, somebody's with it, so we have the same consistency going forward each and every time. And we might have some pushback on that.

So, again, to that, I would say just mind's eye, it's whatever time security opens the doors, right? When they start wanting people or making them go through the metal detector, I don't know if that's a consistent time that we always do that. But that's where I thought. So the doorman who's monitoring people coming in can take that information, first him to sign up. I would think that if there's ten people that want to say something, they're going to get here early, right? If I wanted to say something, no meeting starts at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock. I'd probably be here on 5.30 at the earliest. If I see that wasn't early enough, the next meeting I'm coming at 5 o'clock. I'm going to make sure that I get my time in front of council.

So Chambers is open 30 minutes prior to the meeting. So it will be available then.

And then I did have one question, though. I'm not sure about eliminating it, the sign-up sheet, to ten. Because somebody could sign up and then decide they didn't want to stay, and now you've only got eight who are there. I mean, I think I would leave it open-ended, you know, sign-up, but just know maybe there's something on the sheet that says, you know, the first ten are, you know, by rule that are here at the time we call for public comment, the ones that read us. Alternate? Yeah.

That could be something that you even announce before we go into it, wherever it's set in the meeting.

But I think I'd let more than ten sign-up.

For sure. I agree.

Okay.

If we're eliminating it to ten people, we should have that. I don't see it in here anywhere where it says maximum of ten people.

On, I believe.

Or the first ten people can be scheduled to speak. Yeah. And like you said, it may not use three minutes apiece, but, you know, at least you won't have people say, I'm only going to talk ten seconds, and, you know, there will be a 30-people line there.

Well, that's exactly why I brought it up for discussion. So on the final page, which I guess is page four of the resolution, and, again, this is just draft. Oh, okay. Yeah, I see. So the way I've drafted it is 30 minutes or ten speakers, whichever is greater. And to the mayor's point, that also is why you wouldn't necessarily cap it at ten speakers, because you could have, you know, 17 people or 16 people, because some people don't use their full three minutes. So I think it's kind of designed to accommodate either of those scenarios. I was also mindful of the fact that if there's no time sharing among groups, then potentially that number of speakers becomes more important, because a lot of people may not be inclined to speak for three minutes, but they would normally yield to a group speaker, and that will not be the case, given how we're setting it up. So if you're not going to allow group speakers, then it becomes a little bit more sensitive to how many speakers you're allowing. So, again, as drafted, it's 30 minutes or ten speakers, whichever is greater. But that is subject completely right now to council's discretion. So that's why I'm bringing it up. Council can always tell us, draft it differently.

Got it. So I do have another thing that I'd like to bring up that the city attorney briefly mentioned, and that is I did have a few staff members reach out to me in regards to the timing. And those people did indicate that they believe that having it earlier in the meeting may be more beneficial. Therefore, if you do have people that get what they have to say, they get it out right in the beginning, and then they're able to leave instead of them sitting around for the entire meeting and maybe getting agitated that they haven't had their time to speak yet or whatever happens. At least they've had their three minutes and then can move on or stay for the rest of the agenda items. So I would petition to have G on page two moved up around, whichever fits better, clerk, before the previous minutes or just after? After the minutes. After the minutes. That's what I would propose.

After what?

Again, it came from a security perspective.

Well, the thing about the people who come for an agenda item, this is a business meeting. Those agenda items, the things on the agenda, should be the priority. So no one should have to wait 30 minutes if they came to talk about whatever. And we've seen it. I mean, for various meetings and meetings, there's not every meeting. We've had some meetings that haven't had a controversial issue or something that's really brought people out. But I get it. You know, that could happen. We have somebody. You know, we, you know, hopefully those who really caused the biggest to her will see this as an opportunity we're putting it back on. But I hate to see people who have business before us have to wait at all to get to their concern. You know, they have an immediate interest in something that, and they have, you know, we have, you know, single mom, we have folks with families at home that they, you know, 30 minutes might not be a big deal to us. But it's a big deal to them to be able to come in and get out of here and not have to wait even 30 minutes to get their agenda item. Because you don't always know what's ahead of you, too, on the business agenda. It could be extending, you know, it's one thing to sit there for an hour and a half and wait an additional 30 minutes, two hours to get to your item. You know, on a night that could happen where they're not the first thing on the agenda, so they're down the list. And now they're having to wait an extraordinary time. And we've had meetings where they just can't do it. They have to get up. So I just want to make sure that those folks who have an immediate interest, something that this is so important to them that we're voting on it that night, that we're not discouraging them by making them wait behind folks who just want to come in and comment on something that, you know, sometimes, I mean, Community Development Board had a national comedian come over and do a three-minute sketch, you know. I mean, I don't want to see a single mom or a family member have to wait. They've got to get back to their kids, put them to bed for school the next day. I don't want to have to wait even three minutes for some of the nonsense people saying. So that would be my reason for putting it.

So I understand that. And that's why, you know, I was just trying to work with the group. I just wanted you to know that, as the city attorney pointed out, I did have people who know much more about security than I do also give their insight and let me know that it might behoove us to put it in the front. I guess the adverse argument to yours is that those people coming to petition us have a grievance of their own that is of the utmost importance, and they are a constituent and business owner or stakeholder that want to let us know what they have to say. Again, that's why I tried to also be considerate by limiting the time as well, right? So baby steps, instead of an hour, 30 minutes. Instead of time-sharing, three minutes a person. Not everybody will use three minutes. Some people will try and go over, and we'll have to manage that when it comes. But, again, I'm bringing this up. It was brought to my attention. It might be better, more beneficial for the flow of the meeting to bring it forward. So just having that discussion. That's why I'm proposing it as is to go after the minutes. If it stands, and everybody, you know, as Council Member Menino says quite often, I can count.

I understand what you're saying, in some respect. I mean, it's very good, but, you know, like we've talked about before, you know, that person who wants to talk about something not on the agenda, they can reach out to us any time. They don't have to come to the podium at a council meeting to address it. But those folks that have an agenda, they have to come to that meeting because we're getting ready to vote that night. But these other folks, for something not on the agenda, they don't have to come. They can address this in a gazillion other ways, and many do. So that would be my only response to that. But I understand what you're saying.

May I just interject real quick? Because maybe this will make it just keep it where it's at. It expires in three months. If we see we've had a problem with it, we can move it then.

Nice, ma'am.

I just wanted to say that I was actually listening to you before I made a vote, so you would have commented wrong. But I can see the advantages from both sides because having it at the beginning would have a benefit to security, have those folks who tend to be the problematic ones get their fill, and then they would be free to leave. That's that advantage. Having it at the end prioritizes those who come here to talk about, you know, items on the agenda. I can see both sides, and I'm open to both sides. But I do think that if it goes back where it's challenging, I at least would like to change the time frame and actually put it in the beginning of the meeting. But until that happens, I'm open to either time slot.

I feel strongly about starting it. I mean, we can always adjust it, you know, see how it goes. But I really, I'm trying to recall back what issue it was. But there was one meeting where we were here a long time, and I know quite a few people left that wanted to speak on an agenda item. And because those, I mean, it may be one of those nights, whatever, but, I mean, it, I hate to see people, you know, have an urgent need to come out and speak on an issue and not be able to stay because the meeting, you know, ran long or whatever. So, but we can, I'd prefer to try it at the end and see, and we can always see how it goes.

I'm open to that. But interestingly enough, maybe if it becomes an issue, I would like to have a police have a say in it, get their feedback and ask them how they feel about if we have it, where it should be placed.

Well, I can, I mean, I can make an argument to the folks who want to put on a show. It's more attractive to them to have it at the front because now they've got a room full of people. They're, in addition to, you know, they're doing it for video and social media. You could also make an argument that they would prefer to have the room full of people when they do their antics, you know, because now they're putting on a show in front of folks. And we've seen some meetings where they've played into that quite a bit, the folks that are here to try to entertain. So I prefer we keep it as it's drafted. To start, we can see how it goes.

I got a comment. So this whole thing, this is what I like the most. It says the primary purpose of city council meetings is to conduct an orderly meeting. You got that right in there. So that's good for me because we've seen it get out of order plenty of times.

And it focuses us on the purpose of the meeting is to conduct the business of the meeting, not to take public comment. I mean, we take public comment, but the purpose of the meeting is to conduct business. And so it makes those business items a priority.

It sounds like there is at least majority support for keeping it closer to the end of the meeting, at least for now. It sounds like that's what I'm hearing from the majority. So for now, unless I misunderstood that, I'm going to keep that draft in its current form. Keep in mind it will be back before you Thursday night. It is not going to be on consent because it's a resolution. So you'll have opportunity also to consider it, re-review it, et cetera. But it will be back on Thursday night.

Okay. Ready to move on? Yeah. I felt that. Agenda item 8.3.

Mayor, 8.3 through 8.8 are second readings of land use. Happy to answer any questions.

8.3 through which one was that? 8.8. 8.8. Okay. Any questions on those? No. Okay. No? Move to agenda item 9, city manager verbal reports.

Thank you, Mayor. Just wanted to do a reminder that we do have our first strategic plan session next week on Monday the 9th at Morningside Rec Center. It is open to the public. The public is not able to participate. But really looking forward to having that session. Our staff is prepared for this and looking forward to working with council on that. And also that we will be in Tallahassee next week. So looking forward to that trip as well.

Item 10, city attorney verbal reports.

Mayor, I'll need to say that I think transition planning is going very well. I mean, I'm having constant meetings with my staff as well as others. We are doing as seamless a handoff as possible. We are now having multiple meetings per week to ensure that Owen's aware of everything that's going on. He has been joining me, as you know, during one-on-one meetings with council members, as well as with the manager, as well as executive team meetings. So I think that transition planning is going well. I'm proud of my team for how we're handling it. And so I look forward to Thursday. Thank you.

All right. General item 11.1. Council Member Alderman, this is your resolution, which you circulated here.

Yes. So this came through by e-mail a couple of weeks ago, and I took the liberty of just – they had an attachment on there that was a resolution opposing any new offshore oil and gas leasing in the Gulf, off Florida coast. Now, Florida already has a law of no drilling off the coast, but the new administration is pushing to do more land leases out in the Gulf. And, you know, probably all of us have been here long enough where we remember the devastation that the oil leak, when it was up near Louisiana, I think, caused. To us down here, the whole Gulf Coast of Florida, tourism died for two years. And, you know, once the Europeans know that we've got oil on the beaches, they go somewhere else. They don't even come here because – and if for two years and maybe even longer, a lot of them didn't come back. So I'm really opposed to any oil drilling, seeing how our biggest, you know, priority is the beaches and tourism. And so I brought this forward as a resolution that just says that Clearwater, you know, joins everybody else in saying, hey, we're opposed to this. And the mayor and I actually had a meeting on Clearwater Beach with the mayor of St. Pete and several other mayors and people about everybody standing together on this and opposing it because, you know, because of our tourism industry. So I think it's important, and I thought I'd bring it – just bring it up for discussion on the dais and see what everybody feels, you know, if it's something we want to jump in and do or not. So –

It would be for doing it. It aligns with what you and I talked about the other day. I'd love to see the city and the council get behind it too. I mentioned the other day at the press conference that in Congress, Senator Rick Scott has led this effort to oppose it. He remarkably has pulled together every congressional representative in the entire state of Florida to oppose it. And so we're just aligning ourselves with what our congressional delegation from the state is doing. So I would support it. The only tweak I would make here is where it says a copy of this resolution is sent to Senators Moody, Rick Scott, and Representative Castor and Ana Paulina Luna. I think I would just take out Representative Castor because she doesn't represent us. But I think the other three are fine. And I know from speaking with them and their staffs correctly, they're all on board with opposing this as well. So any comments from others?

Completely agree. I think that, you know, I mean, besides our economic driver, which is tourism and our beautiful beaches, you know, we also have commercial fishing and a bunch of other different industries that get affected with that. So I'm fully on board.

Okay.

Okay.

So we put that on for Thursday night.

Thursday, yeah.

Actually, in speaking with the city attorney, there are some modifications that need to be done with the formatting. So the city attorney will present it for the next meeting.

Okay.

As I said that I just pulled this. This was sent to me as a draft. We can rewrite it however, you know, is best for the city of Clearwater, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah. I'll make sure we coordinate on the handoff of this. So that way we will bring this back to the February 17th work session. I'm not going to make any substantive changes to it other than the one that the mayor just mentioned as it relates to those officials. But otherwise, the substance I plan on keeping the same unless council has any other changes they'd like to make. But we will format it in our usual format so that way we have a resolution number and it has our signature block, et cetera. So we'll have that in the next meeting. Okay. Thank you.

All right. For the next one, it's 11.2. It's best qualifications for new student attorney. And Councilman McCutton, thanks for raising this. Just up front, you know, after we engaged the search firm, we all remembered that for them to have one-on-one meetings, which they'll do, is important. But it's probably going to slow it down if we don't first have a discussion on some general things that we would want to see in the advertisement, the job posting, some things. And so I'm going to let you lead here after this. But I know we all have seen the city attorney posting that went out last time. So for me, this was a good place to look at some of these things and see what I thought may fit or not fit. But one thing I did see here is that I would like for us to talk about in addition to what the rest of them are talking about is the last time we required that the city attorney be a residing Clearwater or become a resident of Clearwater in a 12-month period of time. For the city manager, that's required by the city charter. For city attorney, it's not. So rather, I would suggest that rather than require that for the city attorney, we list it as preferred preference. I think it's good that it's definitely good if the city attorney does reside within the city. I think that, you know, living day-to-day, same lives the five of us do and what our citizens do help you understand the issues a little better when you know the streets and you know everything that goes on in the city. But I don't know if living actually within the city limits, I think you could live in a neighboring community, you could live in an unincorporated Clearwater and probably have the same experience. But I would just like to see at least that changed, see that the residency be preferred but not required.

Yeah, I agree. That's definitely one of the things I wanted to talk about was that, you know, the city attorney's responsibilities are so different than that of city manager. City manager manages thousands. Needs to be ready to address every crisis, whereas an attorney is more of an advisory role. So I also agree with you. A residency is preferred but not required. Definitely something that I think will widen the possibility of getting good candidates.

Okay. Council Member Scott.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Let me pull my notes back up. As you already alluded to, we did, we're able to find the firm to help us with our next city attorney search. And, you know, we need to look for somebody that's going to have the sound judgment, the ability to advise us, not just in our one-on-ones, but should we have a question on the fly in our work session and or in the heat of debate, right, to assist where necessary. So, you know, when it comes to a role that's so fundamental to protecting our city, going over some of those hard qualifications, not the individual warm and fuzzies, as to quote Council Member Menino again, when we meet with our one-on-ones with the recruiter. But, like, what are we looking for? And I agree to start with what the job requirements, it's a good start. Some other things, you know, is maybe looking for a minimum amount of legal experience, you know, within municipal government or something like that. Some other things, and what I mean specifically like that is, are they already a city attorney somewhere else or a county attorney? Were they a deputy city attorney or something like that? Because those people we would know have already handled those complex municipal challenges, whether it's public works or law enforcement, all the fun things that we see here. The difference is, and again, I don't need to tell you guys this, we're a very unique city, right? We obviously have world-class beach, major events here when it comes to the sound, Phillies. We have an executive airport, a marina. So trying to make sure that we have somebody that does have some experience, whatever those years are that we set as maybe a minimum collectively. You know, Mayor, you probably have more expertise in the legal area than I would, but I definitely have a discussion.

Well, on that, I'm not trying to interrupt you, but it does. This last time we required a minimum of five years of experience pertaining to the public sector, personnel supervision, training, and government law. Right. So, I don't know, five years is, you think? I'm good with that.

I just am going over, like, the hard questions. Again, I agree with everything that was sent out by staff. It was obviously good at what we're looking at. I didn't know if anybody would want to change that to an eight-, ten-year mark. And that's okay if we don't. I am good with the five years as well. I think five is fine. Perfect. Another thing that I think would behoove us, but I'm not trying to limit our pool, is if they're already certified by the Florida Bar, because then they'll be well-versed with, you know, Florida sunshine laws, the public records laws, and ethical frameworks. Again, just throwing it out there, seeing what you guys think. And, again, I know that there's specific requirements even up to things like a driver's license. I understand the document that we got, and it's a great start. It really is. Just some other things to throw out there. Yeah, lastly, you know, I put on here is we need somebody, and maybe this goes into the experience portion of it, too, or maybe we can discuss how to articulate it better somehow, that not just has the five years' experience, but what is that unique experience? Because we deal with some heavy hitters here, right? Duke Energy, the Philadelphia Phillies, the county. I mean, we deal with a lot of unique oddities, so, you know, I don't want to get too far into the weeds to where it limits us, and just as we're, I think, all agree, I don't know if we all agree, but taking away the has-to-live-within-the-city platform, I'm not trying to limit our pool, but I don't want to narrow it too much either, you know. I guess these are just some of the hard sets that I thought would be good for discussion. I think we do have a good framework to start building off of and go from there.

I think what's important is to have not only the qualifications, but the qualifications on managing a department. I mean, you can get an ace attorney, but if he's not good at managing his office, to me, that would be something, would be a positive thing, and I don't know how you'd say that.

Legal team.

Supervisory. Yeah, that's in here, too. Yeah. I mean, I really feel like the last post of it covers everything. It's broad enough. I mean, there's, I don't, I thought I saw it, but Mr. McGraw, as you may remember, we had something on board certified. Preferred board certified, or did we not last time?

When I was hired? Mm-hmm. So, I don't know. I might actually defer to the manager on that. I can tell you only my personal experience. It certainly must not have been a hard requirement since I was hired prior to obtaining my board certification. I will say on a personal note, I don't think you'd mind me sharing this because he's centered himself publicly. When I interviewed for the role, Mayor Hibbert had asked if I intended to become board certified. At that point in time, when I was interviewing for the role, I was eligible to sit for the exam. In other words, I had completed all the advanced education and all these things, but I had not yet sat for the exam because they only give it once a year. And so, I had the exam coming up, so Mayor Hibbert had asked if I intended to sit for the exam, and if so, would I pass on my first attempt? And I boldly made the promise that I would. Thank God I did. But I was nervous coming out of the exam. I won't lie. But it was not a hard requirement, but I was, in fact, eligible to sit for the exam at that time. And I just made a personal commitment to him that I would, in fact, take it and pass and knock on what I did. But I don't recall there being anything as a hard requirement, defer to the manager on that, since she was HR director.

To my recollection, because that was a couple years ago now, I don't, it was not a requirement.

It wasn't a post, it was just something that came up. Okay. Well, we're definitely, I mean, if you require that, it's going to let them poo quite a bit. So, I think I'm okay with leaving it out and just having it be something we discussed with the recruiter, you know. And if that's any one of our preferences, you know, for that, if they have somebody that has that board certification, if that's important to, you know, one of five of us, that we share that with the recruiter.

Well, what I would like is that the certificate is not required, but preferred, and maybe with the understanding that they can pursue it after hiring. But I just don't want to narrow the pool by requiring it before being hired. Yeah.

I don't know. I think everybody's leaving it out, the posting. I think that would come with the recruiter as something we say in those one-on-ones, like some of a preferential.

And then in terms of experience, the five years is pretty good, but I would, again, focus on the fact that not only experience in municipal law, but managing a legal team, you know. It would have to be both, five years or greater for those two. Everything else, I agree.

Are we considering just throwing minor additions to this document and then allowing HR to utilize it?

Well.

Because if that's the case, we need to get rid of the fax machine and copy machine. You know, we need to update that with, you know, more appropriate, you know, computer-based AI web stuff. I hope that our city attorney in the next week can use a fax machine.

I did, and, you know, not to brag, but I was something of an expert at the fax machine, and I do think it gave me a bit of an edge, we might say.

Do you have a rotary phone and a Rolodex, too?

Yeah. You can tie it.

Good point. That's a valid point, yeah. So you're suggesting?

Maybe just clean it up. However HR wants to clean it up a little bit to some.

You want to add managing a legal office as part of the five years and this education experience?

Yes, I agree with just having experience in municipal law is not enough, especially with this city. They need to be able to manage the legal team. Some experience to prove that they can. So the five years would have to include management.

In a management role. Okay. Possibly, yeah, something like that. I think that's fair.

And to the vice mayor's point, I mean, the previous iteration of this, I mean, the one when I was hired, says, among other things, that there must be, and I'm quoting from it, that there must be at least five years of municipal experience and supervisory experience over attorneys and other legal positions. So I do believe the current version, or previous version, I should say, was drafted with that in mind. And so council has the opportunity either to use that same language or to change it to whatever you'd like it to say.

Okay. Do you have anything else, Council Member Cotton?

No. This was just to get us on the same page, maybe get some hard facts out there so that, you know, because it all comes down to direction, right, what the city manager and Tiffany, as the point, need to know from us and how to draft the paperwork going forward. So that's why, you know, as you alluded to, we set the meeting to find the firm, and then afterwards, like, dang, we didn't go over qualifications. So that was the intent of this portion here. If we feel like we got that core set of hard factors that we need and Tiffany feels comfortable and doesn't have any other questions of anything, then I'm good with it.

Mr. Leo, do you have anything?

No, thank you, Mayor. All right, just to kind of run through what we talked about, I'm comfortable with where the rest of the board is on residency requirement. I'm comfortable on removing board certification. Sometimes you find if you put it on there and even say preferred, you get people that might not even fill out an application to go because they think we're going to automatically hire somebody that does and somebody will apply. So I think we're limiting our pool there, so I'm supportive of leaving it off. Experience was a big one. The minimum eight years that's listed here, I'm fine with that. I did write down some questions on the five years. I, too, as the vice mayor said, it says public sector. I prefer that they have in-house experience, which gives them somewhat of a supervisory role as well versus just somebody coming in that has outside counsel experience or they've been involved in training and governmental law. I think especially this role has been said multiple times. There's a lot of challenges and depths in the legal arena that this city presents. So I think that's an opportunity for us to fine-tune. I also agree. I circled fax machines and copy machines. I think we could probably update that just a little bit and leave off pagers as well because I don't think we're going to be paging our city attorneys.

Well, if you decide to, I was looking through some memories the other day, and I did actually find my old pager. Among other things, I also found some five-and-a-quarter-inch floppy disks if anybody needs them.

Well, if we get in trouble, we'll 911 change it. You'll need to call us right back. But outside of that, Mayor, I'm comfortable. I do think in the area of the five years as far as experience, I think we can give a little attention to that because just stating public sector, personal supervision, training, and governmental law, I think that's where we can kind of raise the bar a little bit for the next one. And whether we put in-house counsel, supervisory rules, something like that, that lends a little more credence than just the training or knowledge of government law.

So specifically, you're good with five years?

I'm good with five years. I just think the words that we follow it with.

Similar to what the vice mayor was sharing on a broader point.

I mean, we should highlight the difference between in-house counsel and outside counsel. I mean, those are what the city attorney could give us, too. But just bring in somebody from the outside that's a total different ball of wax they're dealing with, a different culture, playing nice with others. It's completely different. I think that's an opportunity for us to kind of highlight that role of preference of in-house as well as that supervisory role.

Well, it's different, I can tell you. Very different.

Only comment I have is just coming back to the residency requirement. As the mayor pointed out, there is no requirement in the charter to have groundwater residency. That was only a feature of my contract because it was something that was asked by the council at the time. If the council is going to articulate that it's preferred, are you envisioning that it will be preferred that someone is willing to move to the city? Because unless you happen to hire someone who's already living in the city, which is a very, very, very limited pool, how do you want it to be articulated by HR? In other words, would you like it to say a willingness to reside in the city would be a preferred qualification? Do you want to leave it out altogether? Just kind of make those, leave it out.

I would put in, you know, look, I want somebody in Pensacola to understand if they, you know, probably not going to work for you to reside and have your residence in Pensacola and be our city attorney. But that said, if you lived in unincorporated Clearwater or, you know, somewhere within Pinellas County or really within Tampa Bay, I don't know that that would bother me. That said, it would be best if you lived in the city of Clearwater for the reasons I said. You're traveling the same streets every day as we are. You're doing, you're around the community, involved in the community, at least living in the community. That's a plus. It's not a disqualifier, I don't think. But it would be a plus if you did. But if you didn't.

How did you just say it?

It could be, if Council so chose, it could be a preferred qualification that the successful applicant is willing to reside. Yeah, is willing to reside. You could do that. And I'm not, to be clear, I'm not trying to lead the Council one way or the other. There's pros and cons to this. Like I said, you have total freedom to decide how you want to do this. It could be anything from a hard residency requirement, which was my contract. My contract was I had to reside within city of Clearwater within 12 months. But in my personal circumstances, it was very easy for me to agree to that at the time. You definitely could end up ruling out a lot of candidates. I just happened to be in a position where I could easily say yes to that and where philosophically I was happy to say yes to that. A lot of other candidates may not be. So that's a tough one. To the mayor's point, you could have things like a hard requirement where someone must live within Pinellas County if you wanted to do that. Or if you want to open it up to the Tampa Bay region, chances are they're going to live in the Tampa Bay region anyway. The likelihood of someone commuting outside of the Tri-County area is extremely remote. Again, these are just completely your decision. We can craft it however you want. I just want to make sure that HR has good direction from the Council so that way Tiffany knows how to draft. And I'm happy to help with it. But she's going to have to know how to draft the qualifications. Does that make sense? We have to choose our words carefully.

Yes, sir. I don't want to lose the forest for the trees here. I think that we all already agreed that it narrows our pool. If we say any type of preferential location will drive people away. They'll scroll through. Maybe even just hot-button words, preferred. Bah, bah, bah, bah, bah. Oh, that's not going to be me. Maybe gentle wording or articulating it differently, like something to the effect of getting a commitment to be a part of the community in some type of way, shape, or form. So, yeah, you can still live regionally, but every now and then come to an event. Show that you still like part of Clearwater and, you know, it's just not the 9 to 5. Maybe that's an idea, right? But that wouldn't be a hard commitment. I would try, again, not to limit our pool, but to keep it open so that we can get more applicants, more qualified applicants.

I would say this. I would broaden it, maybe, to prefer to live within Pinellas County. I mean, so much of, I mean, we're involved in all kinds of things, you know, working with Pinellas County government and other communities around here that I think maybe, maybe, but, again, it's not, it doesn't disqualify anybody, but maybe saying preferred residents within Pinellas County would be good.

So I completely agree with that. Yeah, for sure.

But it's not going to, yeah. That's better than Clearwater. That maybe sends a different message.

I would prefer Tampa Bay versus Pinellas County because you could technically live in Tampa and actually be closer to Clearwater than some locations in St. Pete. So I would rather Tampa Bay rather than Pinellas County, just to keep it open. I think it's more, use your friend, well, yeah, Tampa Bay versus just Pinellas County.

Again, it's not, we're not disclosed on about it. Right. So, because I think it is a plus. It is. But I think it's a plus if you live within the county and you're familiar with the communities we work with within the county because you drive those streets and you work with, wherever you live, you work with the county government, and, again, I think it's a plus, and I think we should share that it's a plus that you live within the county.

I mean, I'll just give you some insight from my experience with employees that live outside of the county. You just got to take into certain accounts if they go to Manatee County. I mean, the bridge closes, you're adding 45 minutes to their travel time, right, so for a normal day. It's those types of intangibles that we'll just never be able to truly understand and set a time limit on. I think if the goal is to have as much of a net to get qualified candidates that we do just stick with maybe preferred Pinellas County, because that's not saying you can't live in Tampa. You know, you can't go live in the West Shore. It's just saying we prefer you to be here, and when they're here, I mean, I know you travel around the city and the county at certain points and times and have meetings around. I think they'll get to know the city, too, when they're employed here and having those various meetings and going to meet the department heads in certain areas of our city. So I'm still good with the preferred Pinellas County, but, again, I don't think that limits them. And, you know, whoever the applicant is is definitely going to be watching this meeting, too, so that's where we need to be careful as well, right? We don't want to be like, oh, you have to live by MacDill Air Force Base. You know, like, we've got to make sure that they understand. Open arms. We want everybody to make sure you're a qualified candidate, and we'll work with you.

Yeah, and we're not saying it's a squirt. We're just saying for, I think, two of us, it's a plus. But not that I'm going to make, I think making them aware in the advertisement what was plus for some of us, not all of us, is fair to them.

Are you giving them a time limit? Are you saying that they have a year, they have six months, they have two years? What kind of time limit?

They don't have to. They don't even have to be successful candidate.

That's almost one of those things, too, to be honest with you, that we could just tell the recruiter to earn one-on-ones, right? I mean, unless we want to put it hard within the packet, I'm good either way. But I don't, again, it's not disqualifying the candidate just because you're not going to live in the county. It's just we have a great county. We have a great city.

All right.

Brings us out to a great county.

So what we're talking about here is one of the highest paid employees of Clearwater. They're not going to have a problem living in Clearwater. It's not like it's a lower paid employee that, I mean, I know they have a hard time living in Clearwater. But if you do say Pinellas County, they're going to want to live maybe in unincorporated Clearwater if they find something. Maybe they can't find something. But I think that's fine. Just say prefer Pinellas County and be done with it. And most likely they'll live in Clearwater.

Well, let me give you a situation. If you have two children in school and you work very hard to get them into that school, would you disrupt them just so you can go into incorporated Clearwater if you live on the outskirts of St. Pete? Are we going to say no to that candidate or discourage that candidate or someone that just lives east of Tampa Road, technically Hillsboro, but just, you know, and they don't want to take their children out of that school? Or they have a family situation where they don't want to leave the home that they poured their heart into, but it's still 25 minutes away from Clearwater. I don't think we should discourage those candidates. They might be just the perfect one.

But we're saying preferred.

No one's discouraging anybody. You can apply, and you may get, I mean, arguably you could, I use Pensacola. I don't think that's a stretch, but, I mean, you could be some rock star attorney from Pensacola and convince us it's not required. But certainly, for me, it would be important to know that you are going to relocate somewhere close by, preferably in the county. But it's not, to Councilman Raulbritton's point, it's not disqualifying anybody. And preferred, but there's no requirement, if you took the job that you would move within a certain period of time. You good?

Tiffany's the point person, so I'll refer to her. You are? He feels like the...

You know, this is certainly something we could all flesh out further with, this is just about the advertisement. We can flesh out our preferences, but that's important to us with SGR 101.

Good afternoon, Tiffany Macris, HR Director. I feel like I have a really good handle on what it is, the consensus is here. But I also wanted to just give an update and let you know that the agreement is being circulated for signatures. So once that's fully executed, the lead recruiter, who is Kevin, gosh, I hope I say this correctly, Nutsen, yes, will be in contact. I know that they are, SGR is watching today's work session, and I'm sure taking copious notes as well. What I would ask is that once we have the language tightened up for the brochure, I hear we need some updates to our job description. So we will make those, remove references to technology of the 80s, and get it up to speed, and get that presented for approval.

I apologize. Now I feel bad for it.

Baby steps.

Anything else on that? No, thanks. And I guess now I've got to go home tonight and get rid of my pagers. I didn't realize nobody else was still using their pagers anymore. I use a pager every third day. Okay. With that, we'll move to item 12, new business. Any new business? Any new business? With none. 13, council comments. Anybody has any comments? That will move to closing comments by mayor. I have one. So we get compliments about all of our city departments. Solid waste data came up to me. The citizen came up to me the other day. It's very complimentary solid waste. We get them from all of them. We just have a great team in all departments throughout the city. But we got one, a compliment, here just this weekend from Clearwater Marine Aquarium. They had, you know, it's a very high profile organization out on Clearwater Beach. So they get interesting things happen when you have people visit from all over the world and different folks out there that have different, you know, sometimes issues that they want to deal with out there. And our Clearwater Police Department, according to them, did an outstanding job of dealing with the situation over the weekend. And so I'd just like to read you a nice note that we got from them. I guess we got it just yesterday. It says it's from the Clearwater Marine Aquarium. It's from Joe Handy, the Clearwater Marine Aquarium CEO. I'd like to extend my sincere appreciation to the officers in the K-9 unit for your swift and highly efficient response on Friday. Your team arrived promptly, assessed the situation with precision, and provided exactly the support the Clearwater Marine Aquarium needed during a challenging time. Your professionalism, calm coordination, and thorough assessment of the situation ensured the aquarium remained safe. Your presence played a critical role in restoring a sense of security for our staff and guests. We are deeply grateful for your dedication to public safety and for partnering with us to ensure the situation was handled with the utmost care. Thank you for the exceptional service you provided to CMA. CMA, your expertise and commitment made a meaningful difference in helping our team feel safe and supported, and your efforts allowed us to reopen in a timely manner. I just want to read that, and like I said, all five of us could tell you all wonderful things we're here, but, you know, challenging time for law enforcement throughout the country on lots of different issues. And I just can't tell you how much we appreciate our police department here in Clearwater. They step in in some of the most difficult circumstances and bring calm to very difficult situations, and clearly did that here in the eyes of our Clearwater Marine Aquarium over the weekend. So, thank you to all of them for Chief Gandy's not here, but certainly a great team we have in our police department, and I do want to share that very kind message from CMA. So, with that, with nothing further, we will adjourn the work session of February 2, 2026. Thank you.