Council Work Session on 2026-05-04 1:30 PM - May 04, 2026

This time we'll call and order the May 4, 2026 work session of the Clearwater City Council. This time we'll move to item 2.1 on the agenda. Authorize the purchase order in agreement with Olometer DPG LLC for natural gas main and service line locating services. Council, Mayor, I'm here on behalf of CGS Energy. I am the gas manager, and we currently have a damage prevention agreement with Olometer. Right now we're required by 614 of the Federal Code and also Florida Statute 556 to locate lines. We offer that service free to our public and excavators, and we're wanting to continue with Olometer. We had a committee that had a panel who took bids from five vendors. They were selected as the most responsible bidder. They've done a good job for us. Our ticket volume is up. We're seeing a lot of growth in Clearwater. That's a good thing. We're getting a great service with good quality. So we recommend that we go with Olometer and continue with Olometer. So with that, I mean, we're asking Council to authorize or sign an agreement with Olometer. It's a one-year contract in the amount of $670,000. There's three one-year one-ups after that, which would be based on the CPI increase. But that's about it. We're very comfortable with this team. The selection panel all agreed that Olometer was the vendor of choice. So that's what we're here to do today. And I've got a damage prevention guide here, so if you guys want one, y'all can have one. And also the little damage prevention card. So, you know, we are very big into public safety and utility interruptions and minimizing that. So we're very proud of our group and what this team has done. Olometer's done a great job. So with that, that's our recommendation. Any council discussion? Any questions? If none, do we have consent? Yes. We have consent. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Have a wonderful list. Move to the agenda item 3.1. Authorized to purchase order of Rick Croft Enterprises during business as Texas Trailers Sales and Services for the purchase of seven enclosed trailers. Good afternoon, Mayor of Council. Matthew Anderson, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation. The item for you is to purchase seven enclosed trailers and one forklift. These items are needed to help with our storage needs and also material handling. The seven trailers will increase our current storage capacity to 1,600 feet. Plus, it will allow us to transport our stored items back and forth from storage to events, also out to maintenance jobs and things like that. So it actually makes us more efficient than what we currently are at with having to load to take places. So, and the forklift will also increase our capability to handle all the supplies, paper products, and things that we stock the sound with, all the different facilities throughout the city. I'd be glad to answer any questions at this time. Questions. Not do we have consent. Yes. We have consent on 3.1. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, 3.2. Ratify and confirm a reimbursement payment to the Philadelphia Phillies in the amount of $2.6 million for repairs to damage caused by Hurricane Milton. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor, Councilmembers. Art Cater, Parks and Recreation Director. The item for you today is to reimburse the Philadelphia Phillies' costs that they incurred due to repairing the storm damage caused by the hurricane Milton to the Bay Care Ballpark. The damage occurred between October 9th and 10th, 24, and to have the stadium ready for spring training by February, a very short time frame, several things had to take place. First, the council approved the initial mitigation work to dry out the stadium. Second, the council approved some of the initial restoration work to pay ServPro. Third, the Phillies were authorized to make the remainder of the repairs needed, and they utilized their contractor that they had on board then, creative contractors. The partnership of the commissioners, creative contractors, and the insurance adjuster for the city ensured that the stadium was operational before opening day 2025. Staff has reviewed and approved all of the expenses to ensure that the funds that we are reimbursing the Phillies now were, in fact, done because of the damage due to the storm and that nothing in that reimbursement is for enhancements that the Phillies did or improvements that they did over and above the storm damage. It was important because that's why it's taken so long to come back to you because you may ask, well, why has it taken so long if you finish the work? And one of the things was to go through and make sure that that was accurate. The total amount of reimbursement due to the Phillies is $2,635,560.96. I'm available to answer any questions. Yes, sir. That's my role, Britton. Did we get any FEMA reimbursement or how did the insurance work on that? We received insurance and we have applied for FEMA reimbursement for we actually received, Todd Marone can answer that better, but we actually received a $500,000 decrease in our deductible. That's what we're seeking from FEMA. Okay. Yes. So we received a $500,000 deduction from the National Flood Insurance Program and we have FEMA reimbursement pending and then we received insurance for the other dollars. So at this point we're actually pretty close to whole except for the remainder of our deductible, which is about $1.6 million. Okay. Thank you. Councilman, I'll take care. It's actually a follow-up question for Dan. So what are the most recent updated numbers? How much is totally due to us and how much has it been already dispersed? So we tried to write this into the text a little bit and it is a little bit confusing because when you're going through the, you know, the insurance assessment, they provide you a certain value, you do the work, sometimes those numbers don't exactly pair up. But the total loss, total for the gross loss was, you know, $5.324 million. Now our deductible was somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.1 million, but that was reduced by $500,000. So we had the deductible of $1.6 million. We have received, have received the insurance proceeds in the amount of $3.1 million. So the remainder that Mr. Cater is talking about for FEMA is we are trying to seek the remainder of our deductible amount, the $1.6 from FEMA, which would theoretically, in the end, hopefully make us whole completely, which is optimistic. What about total, not specifically to the Phillies? Overall, how much does he still do? I would have to get that for you. I don't think Todd's here and he'd probably be the one because it is an algorithm of a chart to figure it out. Because we have multiple different carriers, multiple different policies, and multiple different ways he seeks reimbursement. So I don't have the total loss numbers off the top of my head. And the last time I asked, I was like, we only received 10%. I was like, oh, my gosh, let's speed this up, you know. We spent a lot. I can ask Mr. Avis to have Todd give a little summary of where we are currently to get you some updated information. Thank you. Vice Mayor? Yes, sir. Well, I'll speak to that a little bit, too. We're moving at the speed of FEMA. So that can take years. You know, certain disbursements are able to throw out really quick, like emergency protective measures and those types of things. But once you get into having your own insurance, going through that, providing the documentation back for the federal government through the state that the insurance has been paid, it's a whole weird moral. So I look forward to hearing what those exact numbers and what the roundabout numbers are, too. But, yeah, unfortunately, we've still got to buckle up and fine. Thank you, Mayor. I know you've commented on this previous, but, Art, I just want to thank you and staff and the partnership you just described on the task your group did to make Clearwater baseball ready. It was nothing short of miraculous. There were fish swimming in Bryce Harper's locker. Seriously. And it was unbelievable. Unbelievable, but that short time frame to turn it back around and be ready for the pitchers and baseball, the region was barely able to traverse on some of the roads throughout Pinellas County. But your team had the stadium ready. It was amazing. So thank you. Thank you. Two things. One, consistent with what the Vice Mayor shared, it takes forever. I know communities I've worked with through in my private sector who communities waited 10 years or more. I'm told by a city leader in the New Orleans area that they're still out some money from Katrina, from FEMA. So as the Vice Mayor shared, you get it, you know, priority monies get, but we're still out quite a bit and probably will be for quite a long time, just the way it works, unless we can get FEMA reform, which seems to be taking forever to do it in Washington. And then the second thing is, having walked through with you and Matt, that day after Milton, I mean, just seeing how inundated the locker rooms, everything under stands was with the water. It was a heavy turn and a quick turn to try to get that stadium ready for spring training. And your efforts were, you know, monumental, the Phillies, we all dug in to get it done. And, you know, we can look back at different things that made us more successful than other communities, but starting spring training on time, getting those Phillies fans back that early February, that sparked the recovery economically for the entire city. And it was tight, and we were making calls to get it done and get it done before that day. I think they were painting in the locker rooms the day before the players arrived. So hats off to you all for all that. But, folks, this is, you know, hopefully we'll get it back eventually. But regardless, it was money well spent because it came back in droves and what we've been able to recover. And by giving back so quickly. So thank you for all your efforts again. Well, thank you. And, again, it was a team effort on the city as a whole. And those people that I did mention today couldn't be done without us working together. Partner. Thank you. Okay. Do we have consent? Yes. Thank you. Agenda item 4.1. Authorized to purchase order to Lake Brothers LLC for the maintenance of city-owned lakes, ponds, wetlands, and mitigation sites. Afternoon. I'm Sarah Kessler, environmental specialist at the Public Works Department. This is for the approval of our lake maintenance contract. The cost of the first year is a little bit higher than subsequent years, and that's because there's an initial treatment at some of the sites. A 15% contingency is added to the contract, and that's something that we've done for many years because of unforeseen costs. So those costs are not for additional treatment of the sites. Like, we have a standard that those sites need to be treated to, and so that's part of the contract. Those unforeseen costs would be if we have a super cold winter and some of the herbaceous vegetation dies for replanting. As we have other projects come online, a lot of times we have stormwater ponds that need to be added to the contract. So that's what that 15% contingency is for. It's not for things that are within the contract. And those funds are not used without approval. So if you have any questions, happy to answer those. Any questions on this agenda? Do we have consent? We have consent on 4.1. Thank you. Gender item 4.2. Award a construction contract of concrete protection and restoration for the Garden Avenue Garage Restoration Project. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members. I'm Mike Chalet. I'm the parking manager of the Public Works Department. The item before you today is a request to award construction contract to Concrete Protection and Restoration, LLC, in the amount of $186,318 for the Garden Avenue Garage Restoration Project. This project addresses preventative maintenance repairs identified through a recent condition assessment of the garage, which is a 250-space parking facility that serves downtown Clearwater. The repairs are necessary to preserve the structure's useful life, maintain safety, and help avoid more significant costly repairs in the future. The work will be completed in phases to make sure you keep as much parking available during the construction as possible. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions on this agenda? If none, do we have consent? Yes. We have consent on this agenda. Thank you. Gender item 5.1. Approve the annexation initial future land use map designation of residential urban and initial zoning atlas designation of the median density of residential for the property at 2448 Nursery Road. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Adrian Young, Planning and Development. Voluntary annexation request for 0.63 acres located on the north side of Nursery Road, approximately 126 feet east of Lowry Street Court. The parcel is occupied by a detached dwelling unit at the moment. The applicant is requesting annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste from the city. Plan development staff analysis includes that the annexation petition is consistent with the community development code and the conference of plan. I recommend approval. If you have any questions. Okay. Any questions on this agenda? None. Thank you. Item 6.2. Approve the annexation initial future land use map designation of residential urban and initial zoning atlas designation of low-medium density residential for unaddressed Sunset Point Road property. Again, Adrian Young, Planning and Development. Thank you. This voluntary annexation request is for 0.14 acres located on the north side of Sunset Point Road, approximately 252 feet west of North Merlin Booth Road. The applicant is requesting annexation to receive city services and combined parcels. Plan development staff concludes that the annexation petition is consistent with the conference of plan, development code, and recommends approval. If you have any questions. Okay. Any questions on this agenda? Seeing none, move to the next agenda item, agenda item 5.3. Approve future land use map amendments from the residential urban category to the residential medium category for the property at 2446 Nursery Road. Hello again. Adrian Young, Planning and Development. This voluntary future land use map amendment request is for 0.440 acres located on the north side of Nursery Road, approximately 186 feet east of Road Street Court. The parcels are required by the detached dwelling unit. The applicant's request in the future land use map amendment from residential urban to residential medium. Plan development staff concludes that the petition is consistent with the conference of plan, community development code, and also recommends approval. Here for any questions. Okay. Any questions on this agenda? Are you saying none? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Agenda item 5.4. Provide direction regarding the city's tree preservation ordinance. I do it from this view very often. Good afternoon, Lauren Matzke, Planning and Development. So earlier this year, council had requested staff provide a summary of some changes that Pinellas County had recently completed to their tree code amendment, so earlier in 26. So today I'll provide an overview of the county's code structure and highlight certain differences between the counties and the city's tree preservation ordinances. Just for those watching from home, I've not provided or presented or prepared any code amendments, but following council's discussion today, we're ready to make any changes as requested. So recent council actions, including the recognition of Arbor Day and the tree canopy research study, and of course the support of the annual tree giveaway, reflect the city's understanding and importance of preserving the tree canopy. So these efforts obviously reflect the importance of that and all the other environmental benefits that they have, so I won't go into all of that. The community development code then is what tells staff how to implement or to achieve these policy directions. So I'll do this from, sorry. So I'll begin with areas that staff identified as possible refinement to our existing code. I'll summarize the city's process, review several side-by-side comparisons, and conclude with permit activity and the city's policy context. So as a difference from some of my other presentations, I promise I'm not going to go line by line through code today, and I'll eventually catch on to this part. So before getting into the side-by-side comparison, we did take a step back or up and look and identify some areas where there are opportunities within the city's code to improve the clarity, usability, and overall administration in line with some of the original correspondence on the topic. So some of these are more organizational in nature, like restructuring sections of the code or certainly incorporating better graphics. A lot's changed these days. People are definitely visual, and I find them very helpful myself. Some of the other recommendations that we would want to include are more technical. So there could be rating systems changing in how we handle residential tree counts, and then there's administrative items, including exemptions, how we address hazardous trees here in the city of Clearwater, and our current fee structure. These are all things that came out of our internal review as well as our comparison. So briefly, the removal or the permitting process here in the city of Clearwater, tree removal permits are typically handled administratively by staff. That includes the review of the application, conducting site visits, making a determination, and usually with input or always with input from the land development arborist. The land development arborists are part of our team, and they review both the trees in the field as well as when there are site plans or development applications in front of us that also include potential tree removal and also tree preservation. So the process is more detailed for multifamily and non-residential properties, but it's more streamlined for single-family and duplex properties, so two-family and single-family. When there's more complex situations, because sometimes these arise in the field, staff may bring in additional, their peers, basically, additional land development arborists, may come out and do an independent assessment of the situation, so that way we have multiple perspectives on a question or a tree in question or the situation in the field. And that's all done before making a final decision. And if a denial is being considered, they would also seek an additional arborist input and conduct further management review before finalizing that. So there have been times where the city has hired outside arborists to come and make an assessment of a tree also before moving forward with a denial as an example. I'm going to confuse things a little bit and switch to the Elmo real quick, because like anything, the more you look at your own slides, the more you're like, oh, I would do that slightly differently if I had another minute. So I spent some time reviewing the county's presentations. We spoke with their staff and really tried to get a better understanding of, you know, what they had before and kind of where they were starting from and why they were making their changes. And someone on my team actually made this slide. The left side is straight from one of the county slides, and then they created the right side for the city of Clearwater just as a comparison. And so, and I just wanted to use this because this helps illustrate that the county and Clearwater were starting at different places. So under the county's former code, which again is on the left side, even a relatively small residential project, which is what we see more often here in Clearwater, like an extension of a driveway would trigger a pretty major mitigation requirement. You'll see on there that under their former code for this small, typical residential lot in Clearwater, it would have required 27 shade trees or over $10,000 to be paid into their tree bank fund. Their landscaping requirement required two shade trees. And in the example, it's the removal of two trees totally about 40 inches in diameter at breast height DBH. So under Clearwater's code, like where we would be starting from now, that mitigation is obviously, or is clearly substantially less. So our mitigation would be two shade trees and about $1,900 payment into the tree bank fund. And in our overall landscaping requirement is four trees. So I'm just sharing this as context because it was difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison across the board. And I think it was really interesting to me when I saw this, you know, how different our, what was their code prior to January and where our code is now in comparison. They also have a wider variety, I would say, of situations out there. In their presentations, they also had to illustrate, you know, a two-acre lot that had 40-something trees on it in addition to already being developed. And I don't think we have very many situations like that here. So it just kind of, they were covering a wider gamut of situations than we have as a built-out community. So then I can switch back to my slides. Thank you. So now I'll jump into some of the comparisons. So this slide shows where each code begins in terms of regulating trees. And for shade trees, both the city and county start at four inches. It's called inches DBH, which is diameter at breast height. That's their standardized measurement. Where they differ is with palms, accent trees, and which we, the city, regulate or consider. And then homestead and residential properties are treated differently in Pinellas County. Palms count towards the tree requirements in both of the codes, but you'll see different measurements used. The city uses 10 feet in height, and the county is at six feet. The city also has a separate category for accent trees at two inches DBH, where the county does not distinguish between accent trees and shade trees in that regard. The county generally does not regulate trees on homesteaded single-family properties. This was a new addition to their code, and unless they exceed 24 inches DBH. So if it's on a homestead, it's very specific. So homesteaded residential property, if it's under 24 inches DBH, it could be removed without a permit. One of the next changes that the county made was simplifying their tree rating system. Previously, they had seven different ratings. They found it was, in talking with their staff, they found it was difficult to apply consistently. They said some categories were rarely used, and in some cases, different ratings led to different outcomes. So their revised system is a rating system of four, zero to three. They also combined specimen and historic trees into the highest rating, rather than treating them as separate categories. As you would have seen, I provided a handout that our team put together to compare both codes side-by-side without doing it all on the slides, and you'll see that we have a zero to six scale, which, in speaking with staff, they still believe it works well, but this is definitely an opportunity to create better alignment across the two municipalities, if desired. Next is the replacement tree. So this is one of the bigger structural changes in the county's code. It was pretty complex to understand. You know, I think we probably read it numerous times, and I would not be able to administer it myself right now, but in talking with them, I started to get the hang of what they were trying to accomplish. So instead of using an inch-for-inch replacement, the county ties mitigation to both the size and the rating of the tree. So the grade one, two, and three are the ratings. The size goes down the left column. But in essence, smaller, lower-rated trees require less mitigation, while larger, higher-rated trees require more. Their stated goal was to create a more practical approach that better reflects the value of the tree being removed, which I followed. And they allow for mitigation through on-site replanting, payment in lieu, or a combination of both. What I learned was they did not necessarily allow that prior to these changes, where we already have all of that. And so the difference between ours would be we're still an inch-for-inch approach. And then you'll see also on this, they give a credit specifically for the nuisance and invasive removals, and that's an opportunity for our code to be more clear. And I'll touch on that a little bit more in a minute. So the county also made adjustments to how minimum tree requirements are set for residential lots. In Clearwater, you'll see on the left-hand side, we have broader ranges for our lot ranges, where the county breaks those ranges down into smaller, more detailed lots. I think for the typical lot sizes that we share in common, the end result is pretty similar. But again, the county is a little bit more granular. So this is another area where staff thought some potential evaluation in bringing in this difference or simplifying our approach or aligning it more closely. So it just kind of depends. You can see at a certain point, you know, we are more trees for the larger lots compared to. But I added along the bottom, low-medium-density residential zoning district is our most prevalent zoning district, and that has a minimum lot size of less than, of 5,000 square feet or less. So I'm sorry, I'm going to do this again. Where's my other sheet? I just wanted to go back then to, let me do that, sorry. This is then a snippet from the county's presentation that they gave. And so you'll recognize now their former pre-January 2026 code on the left, the same graphic that I used in the other one. And then on the right side, you'll see what they've revised it to. And so in this scenario, again, it was the removal of two laurel oaks, 40 inches. They dropped it down to eight trees. So the tree bank contribution dropped from $10,200 to approximately $1,800, which is a pretty significant change through their amendments. And then the trees was from 27 trees to eight trees. So I can understand why some of the headlines were what they were when I really took the time to deep dive into this. So I thought this really illustrated the success of their changes because it really did reduce the burden of their regulations on their property owners. So kudos to them. I mentioned that the county's code clearly identifies certain exemptions from their replanting requirements. For example, trees that are located within a proposed building footprint or trees rated as poor would be exempt from needing to be replaced. In Clearwater, this is an area where our current practices are not always fully reflected in the code. So this is, again, another opportunity for clarity. For example, we, in practice and through policy, would not prevent the removal of a tree if it impacted the economic use of a property. But that's not explicitly written in the code. Also, then, how we handle the hazardous trees, we're relying on the state law, or we do utilize, or our residents primarily utilize, the state law, which allows for them to have a letter from a certified arborist stating that it's hazardous, and then the removal without a permit. In speaking with county staff, they were finding that everyone was using that instead of going through the process of their code because of the costs and the replacements. So they indicated that many times they might receive a phone call asking, and then they'd never hear back from anyone, but then the trees would be gone. So they had a, you know, they did not want that. They wanted to maintain and really incentivize the maintenance of the larger, more prestigious trees within their community. So, again, this is where clear guidance within our code would be beneficial, I think, for everyone. And we could bring forward some of those things that we've done by policy and actually codify them so it's continuous across teams. So this slide looks at the fees, how mitigation is calculated, and the enforcement of fines. Clearwater is tree bank because we use the inch-for-inch for our mitigation. That's what ours is based on, so it's $48 per inch DBH. It's been that number for a very long time. We've not changed our fee structure in a very long time, so that's why this year we're actually working on a fee study. The county uses a flat amount per tree, and you pay for what's not replanted. So lower rates for some residential properties and higher rates for the non-residential properties. So that's where you'll see for a single family or a duplex, triplex, they have a flat rate of $300 per tree regardless of size. But for those, reminder, for those that are homesteaded, it's exempt from all of this. And then it's $500 for the multifamily and commercial. So I had included this slide more as an example, like a visual reference for what a DBH actually looks like. In all fairness, when I started digging into this, I really had no idea what 24 inches DBH would look like, right? I mean, it seems big, but I really wasn't sure. So the visual person in me, I was lucky. I have arborists that were willing to go out and measure trees. Now, these are on the municipal services building property, so I thought at least that was someplace regularly accessible. We also had a department event at Crest Lake Park, and we measured some of those trees for fun because that's what we do. So, but, you know, these are, I mean, you know, y'all can come any time. But, I mean, these are slightly smaller than what the county would allow from a residential property, but I was hoping that y'all would find it helpful as well as I did because 24 inches is even bigger than this. But, you know, county staff, they have their reasons for this information. And, again, our code is different. Our staff is different. We have different things that we try to achieve here in the city. Over on this slide, so the DBH is where it splits into branches? Is that? No, it's, I would say it's probably right around here because it's supposed to be around chest height, which I think is about four and a half feet up. I have certified arborists in the crowd that could correct me if I'm going wrong. But, right, that one just happens to split there. It's a standard height. Yes, it standardizes, so that way you can. Got it. Which was fun. I didn't put in all the pictures with people in them, but I took a lot. Okay, I get it. So this, then, this, like, gives us the general sense of our current permitting activity because, again, you know, I know that our teams stay busy, but I really don't know what that means until you pull out the numbers, right? So these are specifically for the standalone permits, so I'm not doing anything to my house or either, and I just have concerns about a tree and I come through, or, you know, maybe it's fencing but not a brand-new development. That everything's coming in as part of a whole package. So the city processed, you know, just under 300 permits in 2023, fewer in 24, 25, likely reflect some of our waivers for tree permits post-storm. And then as of the first quarter of this year, we're at 44. And then you'll see denial rates have generally been consistent, around 11%, a small increase to 13%. We were kind of surprised at how consistent that is. But I think the, you know, the majority of our requests are approved. You know, each one is reviewed on a case-by-case scenario. So, you know, we're asked and we go out and look at, you know, because there's a lot of questions or concerns about, you know, damage being a main one, and I understand that. Like, is there a potential for damage? Is it currently damaged? Is it uplifting, you know, a sidewalk or a driveway? And so that's where you just have to get out on the field and really look at it. So our team goes out and does that. And, you know, based on their expertise and certifications, this is where we happen to have landed. So this was just for some context there. And then just because this is all policy-based or our code comes from, you know, what is in our comprehensive plan, I understand, like, this is a lot on one slide. But I did go ahead and do a review of Clearwater 2045 just to see, you know, or refresh my memory on the different ways that we talk about. This is a bigger policy level. Changes to our community development code are not necessarily inconsistent with this. You know, when we're looking at trying to make things clearer for our community and bring consistency across those things can still be consistent with the importance of maintaining our tree canopy. Again, as shown, like, just two weeks ago, several actions taken that were supported by all of this. So it's just to kind of pull it all together on one place. And so that's what I have for my slides in a comparison. I have a lot of support. I also have my team here who can answer if there's detailed questions. But what I might do is, and you all can look at it if you want to or not, is just pull up these, again, back to some of the recommendations. Because I think this was a very helpful exercise for us. You know, we do try to review our code periodically in different times. Sometimes it's because a question is asked, and that is just, that's what the impetus is for opening it up. Like, in a case like this, you know, talk about the tree code and what's been changed. It's a great chance for us to go through and evaluate and see what would we do differently. What are we doing that's not in the code? How can we make things easier for our customers? Because when it's easier for our customers, it's just a better relationship for all of us. So with that, I'll now stop talking for real. Okay. Discussion. Vice Mayor. Yes, thank you. Lauren, thank you and your staff for starting to look into this. And I appreciate the areas that you just went up to of kind of where you're focused. And welcome the upcoming debate of what we're getting ready to go through here. And, you know, one of the main reasons, and I'm glad that you brought one of the slides from the county, is to ensure, you know, pretty much what you did there is show what they're doing, how it's helped residents in our area to be more simplified in an area that we can get. So I'd like to be somewhere along that line. You also referenced when you were talking on page 9 about the state statute. And the reason people probably aren't reaching out is because of Florida statute 163.045, which puts a hard limit on local governments. When it comes to residential properties, I'm just going to read portions of it right here. Local governments cannot require a permit fee or mitigation for removing trees on residential properties. It's not just the home-setted properties. It is those residential properties if the tree is dangerous. And then you did hit who was able to deem a tree dangerous. They do have to, if we go out and ask about it, produce that letter, if you will. Yes, yes, it comes to the letter. And that is a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect. So I think that maybe we should try to reference that within wherever we go with this, whatever we decide, and how we incorporate that into our new coder or where we go from here. You know, I also want to say that this isn't just trying to clean up what we have. It's looking out for our residents and protecting those trees that matter most. You know, we've got some beautiful oak trees. We've got some beautiful palm trees. And I think that everybody here, you know, took a hard stance too when we were dealing with residents having issues with utility company that's going through. You know, so we all preserve, love our canopy and want to preserve it. But I want to say, you know, it comes back to making sure that when you see somebody else neighboring jurisdiction maybe doing it a little bit better, that we look at how we can either mirror that or do something even better. So my goal is to improve predictability, reducing unnecessary burdens on the residents, and maintaining meaningful canopy protection. I think that will also ease the burden on your staff too, right, not getting in. I know the last year you showed it was only 47 permits, so that's not too much. But the following years you're up to 300 permits. That still takes time up on one of your staff members after review. Maybe go out, look at the location, and see if that's something. So if we can get to an area where that's, you know, hey, you fit the diameter to where you don't need to do anything, have a great day, thank you for contacting us. One of those types of situations. Maintaining protections for specimen or high-value trees. I already hit that, so ensuring that those remain in place is going to be a priority. Identify the opportunities to shift routine low-impact tree removals to an administrative approval process. Just, hey, I'm looking to take out this tree. This is where it's at. This is what the tree is. Boom. And then review, as you've already alluded in your slideshow, the tree rank fee structure and the cost deliverable to our community benefit. So with that, I appreciate the time. I appreciate the work that you guys have already put into this. This is a great starting point. And hopefully those make sense. If not, I can definitely come back later offline and try and articulate better what the thoughts of my brain are. Thanks, Mayor. So I started reading this yesterday, and I'm like, I have to put it aside, finish the rest of the agenda, and come back. It's a lot to read, and I had to – and I still don't understand a lot of things. It's a lot to – even comparing itself was arduous for me. But one of the things right away that popped into my mind was, what is our goal? Is it to be more aligned with the county and therefore, you know, decreasing the confusion between the residents of Clearwater Proper and Clearwater, you know? Or is this an opportunity to revamp everything and take a second look? So that kind of – that question came early on. So if you don't mind, I'm going to just go down the list. Regarding the protected trees, I want to know what is that sweet spot, according to the city, between protecting trees that are established enough to truly contribute to our canopy versus overextending the definition of protected and making it an enforcement challenge, right? Okay, so the county has it at 6 feet, and we have it at 10 feet for palm trees. So I'm thinking, well, how is palm trees considered in terms of canopy? And that's a big discrepancy between 10 and 6. I just wanted to see what the city's perspective was in that regard to the permit threshold. I'm going to ask Ted Kozak to come up because he's our manager for development review, so they review all the landscape plans and everything like that, but then he's also a certified arborist. But what I will do also is just for everyone else, that is from our code, and this is our 0 to 6 kind of rating just in general for trees. So to one of the earlier points, it's like, you know, we have the 5 and the 6 are the outstanding in specimen, and those are a shall be preserved. That being said, you know, there might be instances where it is blocking the reasonable use of a property in economics, and we try to work with, they do, but. Thank you, Ted Kozak, and planning and development. I'll get a little nerdy on this first, so. I welcome it. Palms are not trees, but there's my editorial. It's very tall grass. So in the ranking of importance, palm is great, but it's not a canopy per se. You need to be a frog to get a little bit of shade under one of those. So they are fantastic, and they have their part because sable palms are, this is Florida's tree, so that's a conflict among itself. But Florida's tree is a sable palm. So saying that, clear trunk is measured to the height, so it's not the top of the fronds of a palm. It's where the fronds start branching out, if that's a better description. So in the aspect of number of trees on a property, the rule of thumb is one quarters on it, not taking the beach into account. So it's the typical property that requires four shade trees, and one of those shade trees could be a palm or a cluster of palms. So in the importance, it's worth one quarter, if you will. So what were other questions you had on that? The discrepancy between the county's height versus ours, like six versus ten. I was just wondering, like, what's this sweet spot? For the palm? Yeah. I mean, since palms do not have a diameter per se, they don't grow like a tree with those concentric rings. They're a bunch of little straws, so it wouldn't make sense to measure them by diameter or breast height, which is four and a half feet. So the county's six feet would just essentially make it a very smaller palm, which, in terms of establishment, the importance is it could die faster, you know, even my backyard. I lost two very new mango trees last winter because of how cold it is. So if they're smaller, they don't survive, they don't establish. So the sweet spot, I mean, between six and ten maybe, but typically ten feet, clear trunk is across the state threshold. South Florida, the jurisdictions I worked in, it was 12 feet. So, you know, the range, the sweet spot, the typical spot is 10 feet. Okay. And then for tree ratings, I kind of like the county because it's easier. A lot of the county's changes, I think, are simplified and easier to administer or at least to understand from that perspective, especially, like, when it comes to smaller defined tiers versus, you know, zero to 5,000 is this. And the county does it, like, by 2,500 feet, which means the resident can benefit from that, right? Having it clear and consistent would be fantastic, I'm sure everybody. I mean, now you're creating a new language for tree rating from just jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so that's a great point. It would be the protected trees. This is the tree rating system that the county had. So this is what I think you were talking about was, you know, compared to the one from zero to six. They have zero to three. It's still showing on the three. Oh, it's still showing on the three. Sorry. No, I jumped ahead. I apologize. That's a cool. Again, it was those things that I'm like, oh, I should have added that. Right. So from a zero to clear, I think that, you know, I don't think we had any concerns for what that's worth. That's obviously your decision and direction. But we find that where it's important and it still achieves, you know, our local community standards, that alignment is beneficial for all. And then this was the lot size piece that was referenced. And so it's just a little bit finer green on the county side, and I can see where that would be beneficial for, because we have a wide variety of lot sizes, even though the one zoning district is the primary zoning district. Within that, you can go down to 3,000. You can go down to 2,500. And in downtown, we don't have any lot sizes. But I think their system, the Pinellas County system, I think is more advantageous for the residents. And then the last but not least is their tree permit application fee. I do like the fact that they do have a promotional impact for the nuisance and invasive. That's just one thing that stood out to me. And, again, their tree bank fees are also less complicated. So whatever the county is doing that I think simplifies and gives more flexibility to the residents but simplifies the process, I would be in support of. May I ask a question on the fees specifically? As I mentioned, or as you'll recall, we're doing a fee study right now. Would you be comfortable with that? Would you like us to bring forward a recommendation on the fees based on the county's work, or would you like us to continue to have our consultant look at our fees specifically for trees? I think we've always acknowledged ours are low in comparison. The county was high, I think, in comparison, and so they found the challenge of that. I think we've both seen the challenges of our various fees as they were and are, because ours at 48 per inch is not much of a deterrent to take it down either. But at the same time, the county found the opposite being true. Their fees were so high that people were using the – it was easier to find an arborist that would write a letter. So the money we collect goes to the tree bank and stays in the tree bank. Yes, and so that's what gets used for Arbor Day and trees on city properties. But how much money do we have sitting in the tree bank now? I did not look that up. Public works administers. Yeah, I think the director may know. Afternoon, Mayor, Councilmembers, it's just under a million dollars. Yeah. So that would be my – you know, if we're able to – and that's after spending whatever we just spent on the annual Arbor Day giveaway. We shouldn't be sitting on that amount of money. So if we need it to – we either need to give it away, you know, more frequently or keep it the same, what we're collecting on these fees. Because it appears to me if we've got a tree bank that that's much and the purpose is to, you know, force the city, then we've got enough. We're collecting enough off the fees we already have. And I should say, Mayor, we will be drawing that down some – we did get the one forestry grant, and we've got some urban forestry projects coming. It won't draw it all the way down, but it will come down just a little bit. That would be my only concern is that we're collecting enough to adequately meet the city's needs. That's it for me. Mr. Menino? Thank you, Mayor. I'll let you finish that just to throw in on this. That is a good point, and if we're collecting it now. What exactly are we able to use the tree fund on? Is it just tree canopies in certain places? Are we allowed to landscape and beautify Coachman Park? Where are we limited to where this gets spent? Oh, good. I have to. I do have it. So we've been trying to prioritize it in some of our key areas along our right-of-ways that we're doing. And then we work with parks and recs if there's areas that they need to come in and do it. But we do talk about with, like, some of the upcoming Osceola, Fort Harrison, if we're doing some streetscape, those may be opportunities for us to contribute from the tree bank back into those. Maybe we have a discussion sometime later on identifying certain gateways or areas in the community that the council sees fit or need and be able to use some of that money. To answer your question, I think a feasibility study, Lauren, on finding out what our surrounding communities are charging isn't a bad idea. We get a baseline. We understand where we are compared to some of our other communities. But then you still have the ability to then come back and compare it to where the county is. And we can make a decision versus just running in one direction. I think we can kind of kill two birds with one stone on that. I think that something like this is possible that we could, you know, I'd like to just think about it and then talk internally a little bit. But it might be that it's something that we could do more at a staff level and pull it out of the actual study. It might be hearing the kind of the other pieces that have come through today as long as we leave it more localized. And I think that's generally what we try to do when we're looking at our comparator cities. You know, we're looking at kind of a few in the very immediate area and then kind of those that we strive to be, you know, our kind of our aspirational goals also. So we usually try to find the cities that are similar in size, similar in character, or, you know, also redevelopment communities, things like that. So we could take a look at, you know, just the fee piece. But you could see where a broader comparison across numerous cities, if we were trying to compare tree code to tree code, would have been a lengthy exercise. So narrowing it down to just county versus city was much more helpful. Thank you. I didn't know if you were done. I was just touching on her question. No, I'm done. Can I go? Thank you, Mayor. Okay, obviously this is important because we're trying to find balance. And it's important to balance environmental protection and community well-being, which we know what our tree canopy does for so many of our neighborhoods, but balancing that with homeowners' autonomy as well as trying to make sure we're not imposing restrictive barriers to those homeowners. So finding that balance in that sweet spot is important what we're trying to do. I think it does help to try to find some sort of alignment as we're doing with the county. I do as Clearwater Property abuts to county properties, and I've had neighbors all the time say, well, why can they remove that neighbor? And I can't, and I'm touching their fence. That does make it tough. Just some feedback for me that six foot versus ten foot, the flexibility of the homeowner, I'm comfortable with six or ten on the palms. I don't, whether we go ten or six, I'm good. The tree rating system, I'm comfortable in aligning that with the county, kind of simplifying that. I don't necessarily know if we need a poor and a below average as well as a above average and outstanding. I think we can kind of simplify that language. Help me better understand on the replacement trees and credits when you say we're currently inch for inch, and the county is currently a grade versus size of a DBH. Let me find that. There we go. Ted, I'm going to ask for Ted's assistance, too, because, well, I might be able to talk through it, because I tried to, when I spoke with their planning staff who had written the amendments, we used their 5,000-foot parcel as an example. So, in that one, you'll remember it was a 5,500-square-foot lot, and it was a removal of 40 inches. When they spoke through it, they assumed a grade level of two. So, in that instance, if they were removing, you know, that would be eight replants required. So, if any of those were nuisance, it would be reduced by the number of nuisance trees. So, if one of those trees had been a nuisance tree, it would have been removed from that. They would get credit for up to four nuisance trees. Like I said, it took us a little while to read through it, and I'm still not abundantly clear. I knew what they were trying to get at, but, you know, again, it was to require more replants for higher-quality trees, as opposed to ours, where if you were removing 40 inches, you had to replant 40 inches or pay the deficit into them. So, you know, you would have to know, to be able to calculate what your replant was to be, you would not just be able to rely on the number of inches if you have that number. So, you would have to have the grade. You would have to do this kind of calculator. To the math. Yeah. I mean, I think once you get used to any system, you know, you get used to it. But, you know, inch for inch is you have to know one number to kind of know that mitigation or do the math of your dollars to replace. And, again, they didn't have that ability to do some of that that we already do. So, I could see where this was a great leap forward. Tree count, I'm comfortable aligning with the county in that category. And then the exemptions, you said there's some opportunities for clarity, guidance and codified for continuity. I'm supportive of that. I think any time we can kind of go through some of these codes and clean them up and make them a little bit easier and bring clarity to them, I'm all for it. So, I talked about the feasibility. And then enforcements and fines. We're a little bit off on that one with the county. All right, I'm just going to keep pulling it up. No, you're okay. Is that something that you see would probably deserve some sort of feasibility and see where we are compared to surrounding municipalities? Or has that been done recently? I think that that would be something when you're pulling up someone's fee schedule or fines, it would all be part of that. So, I think we would look at the inch for inch versus agree kind of setting that. And I think I appreciated, I don't know if my team would agree with me, but I thought there was some value to setting a cap per tree. Like, they have the $300 per tree. It just kind of gave a flat rate. So, in that regard, it was more predictable. So, but I didn't do a lot of math to kind of compare. You know, I thought their exercises were really valuable in, you know, I chose just the one that was the residential lot because their other one was a scenario, like I said, that you don't necessarily have here. But that's something that I would expect us to pull together for you so you would have a couple more illustrations with final recommendations as an ordinance, if that would be helpful to you, of course. Absolutely. Well, I appreciate you and all staff's time that went into this. It definitely wasn't a snipping tool, cut and paste. And let's throw it on the website and move forward. So, there's a lot of time. And I appreciate the Vice Mayor bringing this discussion forward. So, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Just wanted to go into something and correct me if I'm wrong, Lauren. To get to the fee, you know, the county is doing something that's flat structured. I like that. I think that that's just a nice way of doing it. You know, you get through your rubric of whatever we end up going to. And here it is. This is what you're going to charge the resident, right? With that, and even the Mayor alluding to that, you know, or you, that the county might have been higher. We're obviously really low. There's a sweet spot in the middle. Well, we're already taking your time, right, to try and make your staff's time to try and get into this more beneficial, streamlined structure. So, then you're less burdened. I think it would just be worth a phone call to call the local people that deal with this and see what the fee structure is and find a happy medium instead of spending money. This is where you can correct me if I'm wrong. In a feasibility study to see what we should be at. So, if we're able to just – She was talking internally. That's what I said. Internally? Yes. All right. I just wanted to clarify that. So, thank you very much. That's what – that's my favorite thing to do is to call my peers. Perfect. I love it. Say hi. Because – Right. Perfect. Because that's where, you know, I think it's just that easy, right, or an email, and then they can just fire one back when you're ready. Actually, yes. When it's focused on something like one topic, that is a great way to do it, and that's why I think that it's simple enough for us to pull out of our broader fee schedule. I feel like I've got good direction from the city council regarding the fees and stuff that we can bring forward, a recommendation, with some data behind it as to how we got there. Fantastic. And I appreciate everybody else's comments. I know the mayor's going to end up with what he's going on. I thank the staff again for everybody going through this, seeing where we can get to. Hopefully, you guys have direction from us. It seems like we're kind of all on the same page of what we're looking for going forward. So, I am excited to see where we end at down the road. But thank you for putting the due diligence into this and getting us all this information. So, what's the next step? I guess at the step level, you're all going to get all the local comparators, right? And then you're going to come back and put all that information for us. Or is there something else you're doing before we bring it back to us? I mean, if there's a desire for another work session item with just recommendations before putting it in an ordinance form, that's a possibility. Or we could work just towards a full ordinance and bring that forward when it's ready. I can't speak off the cuff like how fast that could be done because there's other things to potentially move around. From a process standpoint, it's an amendment to the Community Development Code. So, fully local, because nothing came from here, that would require changes to our bigger policy. So, that would ultimately result in a presentation to the Community Development Board for their review and recommendation. And then some council. We do try to engage the public where appropriate. So, as we dig in, that would be something that we would discuss internally to determine if some sort of, you know, what we've done in the past has varied. Sometimes we've just done a quick open house or been available to answer questions. Sometimes we've done an online session for people who want to hear what about an ordinance prior to it being brought forward. So, we don't, you know, we don't have a one-size-fits-all approach for that. I would like that. I think this is an important topic, and it's complicated. And so, before you present an ordinance, I would like to have a conversation before that happens, at least an agenda item. So, I mean, what I would do is work with Assistant City Manager Battle and the rest of the city administration for all together for project timeline, and then we would be able to... Robert, do you have anything? No, I'm just, I'm listening to everything, and I think that we've made some good points. It's important to have a balance, and, you know, I've seen some of these discretions on the CDB, on people coming in wanting to remove trees, and also, when I was on the CDB, we had some people coming in that I thought we could be probably a little more, I don't know, I think we can meet a different level there, which I'm glad we're talking about doing that now. Yeah, I mean, of course, I'm biased. I think my team does a phenomenal job trying to get all of the tree protection in place and really work to find, you know, how to replace trees and helping our customers, whether it be the single-family homeowner or even the larger sites, you know, picking the right trees. It does not always feel that way to the people, you know, five years later. It's difficult to say what's going to happen in 15 or 20 years. We deal with it at the city also, right? Will the tree damage something, you know, in a long time from now? But, you know, I think our team is very skilled at that. There's a reason why we invest in them as staff as certified arborists. So, and they always appreciate that you all do that, too. Okay, I'll weigh in last. On the timing, I was impressed with the county. They just did it, knocked it out very quickly. And so I would like to work as quickly as possible to getting something done on it. Vice mayor beat me to putting it on the agenda, but it's something that I wanted to get on as well because I noticed how quickly the county addressed the rules, got it, and enacted something differently. So I'd like to see us, you know, wherever the timeline is, I'd like to see us work quickly towards it because we brought this up. You put it on the agenda two months ago or so? It was supposed to be on the last one. Our meeting was going pretty long, so I asked to have it moved to here to save us some time because I figured it would be lengthy discussion as well. So I'd just like to see us work as quickly as possible. I understand the time demands. You've got other things going on. We've got a lot been thrown at your department here recently. So I'm sensitive to that, but I would like to see us work with some sense of urgency on it because I think it is important to the citizens because we have – and that's what my hope is here is that we can – and you pointed out some areas where we are more citizen-friendly than the county. I'd like to keep those, but also maybe incorporate into our code some things that they adopted that would make ours more citizen-friendly. And I appreciate those folks who are expert in trees, arborists, who are the tree nerds as we've referred to. I'm not. And I know we have residents who are in addition to our staff, but the average person is not. And Council Member Albritton referred to a gentleman, you know, who I think represents a lot of the community, that they're often elderly or often don't have a lot of resources. They can't hire the highest-priced tree removal company to come in or landscaper to do their work. They're just trying to make their property look better, take care of their property. In some cases, they've had the property for years. And they get frustrated because they're just trying to make the property look nice. And to the extent we can simplify some of these and explain better, I think that helps quite a bit too. But I think just making it more citizen-friendly and, you know, there's a fine line between we're trying to protect our tree canopy to benefit all the citizens of the entire city. It's good for our community to have a strong, vibrant, healthy tree canopy. It's good for everybody. So there's a community need in doing that. At the same time, we need to respect that folks have property rights and we're not micromanaging someone's private real property to the extent where, aside from trees, I'll show you examples of statutes and all kinds of other things where we have some of the most atrocious-looking properties where folks do all kinds of weird stuff, aside from trees, you know, and we can't get in. I'd love to go in and redecorate some yards, which are pretty obnoxious and not just, you know, all over the city. But we can't because that's their property and they're allowed to do what they want to do with it to a certain extent. So I do want to make sure we're balancing that and make sure we're respecting the rights of the homeowner to, you know, do with their property what they want within reason and balance that against the community's interest in having a strong tree canopy. So thank you for this report. It's very informative where you showed the differences between the county. I learned some things. I learned what DBH was, and I can tell you that you're 95% to 98% of our community doesn't know what DBH is and all that. So I learned a lot from it, and it looks like we're already better as far as being more citizen-friendly than the county, and that's good to see. I'd like to see if there's some ways we can make our code with regard to trees even more citizen-friendly to sometimes, in some cases, mirror what the county has done. There are some great 24-inch and aboves in Crest Lake Park. Yeah. So thank you. Very good. Thank you for your report. Mayor, can I summarize just to make sure that we're clear? So my understanding is staff's going to work on a timeline that we'll share with you on how we could potentially develop some revisions. From the feedback today, we'll take a look at the existing ordinance in the county and figure some suggestions on how ours could improve taking the county language but retaining the ones that are in the best interest of our citizens. And then we'll present that to you through one-on-ones and maybe just ask. In the meantime, you continue to think about that and anything else you want to see in it. We can incorporate it when you see it in one-on-ones, and then by then we'll bring it back. Does that sound good? Yes. All right. Thank you for your report. Thank you. There you go. That's a palm out on the tree. I would have lost that one. I would have lost that one. I would have lost that one. Okay. I've moved to item 6.1. I would have. Except for the Department of Transportation grant agreement for the parking lot expansion rehabilitation project. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Mike McDonald, Marine and Aviation Director. This item accepts Amendment No. 2 to the FDOT grant for the airport parking lot project, providing an additional $693,992 in state funding. This brings the total project cost to approximately $2.77 million with FDOT funding 80%. The amendment aligns the grant with the current construction costs associated with the terminal and parking improvements. FlyUSA will be reimbursed in the city for the local match portion. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions on this agenda item? Seeing none, do we have consent? Yep. We have consent on 6.1. Thank you. Agenda item 6.2. Except for the Department of Transportation grant agreement in the amount of $790,000, $369, for the construction and terminal building at the Clearwater Executive Airport. Good afternoon, everybody again. Mike McDonald, Marine and Aviation Director. This item accepts Amendment No. 2 to the FDOT grant for the airport terminal construction, providing an additional $790,369 in state funding. This brings the total project cost to approximately $9.38 million. The FDOT funding, 50%. The amendment aligns the grant with the awarded construction costs and ensures the project is fully funded and consistent with the bid award. Consistent with the operating agreement, and FlyUSA will reimburse the city for the applicable local match portion of the grant. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any questions on this agenda item? Not do we have consent. We have consent on 6.2. Thank you. Agenda item 6.3. Accept for our Department of Transportation grant agreement. Yes, we do. For the remill and overlay project. This item accepts Amendment No. 2 to the FDOT grant for the taxiway mill and overlay project, providing an additional $374,785 in funding. This brings the total project cost to approximately $2.85 million, with FDOT funding 80%. The amendment aligns the grant with current construction costs and ensures the project is fully funded, consistent with the bid award. Consistent with the operating agreement, FlyUSA will reimburse the city for a portion of the local match, not to exceed $94,447, with the remaining local match funded through air park reserves. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions on this agenda? If not, do we have consent? Yes. We have consent on 6.3. Thank you. Thank you. General Item 7.1. Appoint Jasmine Cruz to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to fill an unexpired term through October 1, 2026. Council Members, Mr. Brown was serving in this capacity for some time, and unfortunately, because of work, he needs to step away. And so the applicant we have on file, she actually files for another board, CDB, but I thought she'd be a really good fit for this board, and she is willing to serve. She is a paycheck supervisor, and I think based on her human resources background, I think would be a good fit for the board. Discussion. Do we have consent? Yes. Do we have consent on 7.1? Gen item 8.1. Approve a legal services agreement with Day's law firm. Council, this is my item. It's a legal services agreement. From, I would say, mid-October until beginning of April, we didn't have a litigation attorney. We hired one on April the 6th. She's been here for about four weeks. Since then, we have taken back, I think, three cases from outside counsel. We've also been served with three additional ones. And when she came on board, she had some also active cases that she's managing. Just to be able to manage the caseload, we're requesting that this particular matter go to outside counsel. Today's law firm, we've used him for several years. He specializes in 1983 actions in federal court. He also represents the city of Tampa. So I'm open for questions. I ask that this be placed on consent. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Robert, did you have a question on 7.1? Yeah. It was regarding, I saw a lady yesterday that came up and asked me. She says she applied for one of the boards, and we picked somebody else for it. And she was just wondering why we didn't send, like, a notice to her saying thank you for applying, you know, just something nice saying, you know, stay, maybe next time we will. It could even be in a text form or something. It should have been. And I'll double check with the system. So the system does when, granted, I guess everything is automated. So when it is categorized as being appointed, you receive a letter with all the information for that board, and those who are not should have received. So I'll go in, and if not, then I'll go back and send it manually. Yeah. I think it just would be nice. It should have been. But it's the same letter, except now it's just automated. Okay. Okay. Agenda item 8.2. 8.2 through 8.6 are second readings, and there's no additional. To agenda item 9, assistant city manager, do you have any, or either one of you have any reports? I do not, Mr. Battle. No, sir. Okay. Agenda item 10, city attorney verbal reports? No, sir. Agenda item 11.1. Schedule a special work session to discuss a proposed entertainment complex. Mayor, this is me. First of all, I apologize for this agenda item strictly saying a proposed entertainment complex. I think our original discussion several weeks ago was in the hopes that we could have a special session, a work session that went a little deeper than just the Eva Dolby discussion, but I know the agenda item just says that. I appreciate council's support and willingness in having this discussion and the opportunity to schedule a special session workshop. As we've discussed multiple times, Clearwater, we're undoubtedly in an exciting period, in a hopeful period, for that matter, of redevelopment. Our marina and our beautiful pier to our entire U.S. 19 corridor and our downtown district that we're in is going through a downtown reboot or has been famously coined by our assistant city manager as the urban renaissance, and he's still waiting for his check for that. That should be in the mail. But recently, as we all have been aware, there's been a vast amount of coverage in press releases, social media threads regarding the coordinated efforts of the Church of Scientology, Cleveland Street Alliance, and their development partners as they've released their Cleveland Street redevelopment plans. The COS has been requested over the years by citizens, as well as this dais, to develop and activate their properties for the benefit of the entire community. And I think we've all had those discussions before. I think it would only be fair to acknowledge that at this moment today, it is the first time in over 50 years that an entire commercial block of our downtown is advancing in redevelopment. And I do appreciate that all of their plans that have been publicly made are accessible to the public. I think that that's important, and we have asked for that, and I appreciate that. Why we, as a city and as a leadership team, welcome and celebrate the development and redevelopment that's going on before us downtown and the activation. We also think it's vitally important for us as a city and for a leadership team to have discussions here in the sunshine or a special work session workshop on what is transpiring downtown and do that from a position of neutrality and not necessarily from a position of advocacy or opposition. Our community deserves this level of transparency. I think we've all recognized that it reduces confusion, prevents misinformation, and overcomes misinformation that's so often out there, and it helps build trust in our community, not just with our citizens but our community partners, which is vitally important to all of us. My goal in this discussion today is kind of threefold. First, if we allow the city clerk to kind of help us coordinate and identify and find a date that works in our hectic schedules. I know we're all extremely busy, including travel. Some travel quite a bit, coming and going, so staff has worked hard in looking at our calendars, and I'll let the clerk help us manage that. Second goal for a body is decide how this special session workshop is facilitated, whether, as this is my discussion item, whether I kind of facilitate that, again, from a position of neutrality and facilitate it, or if the diocese prefers staff to lead that discussion, mayor, or any other option that the diocese fit. So that's number two. And then the third, I think it's important. It's great that we pick a date and schedule it, but to identify what the heck we want to talk about and identify what are those certain projects that we want to have on it. And I know the agenda item, and again, I apologize, just said the Family Fund Center, but that was not my intent. I believe there's a handful of things out there that we should discuss in that. The Welcome Showroom downtown, all of the Cleveland Street projects, the Evo and Dolby Entertainment Facility Center, as well as the LRH Hall, as we're hearing there have been applications submitted. So I think that's important to be a part of the discussion. So I think those are my three goals for this. I thank you for the opportunity. I think first and foremost, I'd give anybody an opportunity. If you had a question or discussion, and before I move in to the three items of the date. First of all, I appreciate you bringing this forward. There has been a lot of confusion. I thought today we were just, I thought your focus was going to be on the Family Center, but you did mention a lot of other things that you're right. There's a lot of confusion and misinformation. And so the way these projects have been presented across all the media outlets has created such confusion. But regardless of the intent, the volume and persistent messaging suggests a level of certainty that just isn't there, especially with the theater. None of the required reviews, land acquisitions, vacations, and approvals, they haven't been done. So despite all that robust conversations out there and all the public messaging, it should not, and I hope it won't, influence our process or responsibility to review it. So I am in support of having a work session to reset, and not just the theater. But there's a lot of confusion between Cleveland Street Alliance. Who is that? Is that a partnership? If it is, what kind of partnership? And we need transparency. You're right. We need to talk about it because when the information is being conveyed in such a robust, in some ways, invasive way, like I cannot watch a YouTube video without having a commercial. And hearing it and knowing that it is not the complete picture, I know that. But when I speak to others who are not as informed, there's a lot of confusion. And that's how fear gets in. That's how conflict gets in. It's from that confusion. So I really would appreciate an opportunity for us to discuss in the sunshine all the topics that would clarify everything and reset us. I'm not against having a special work session. I don't know why we need a special work session. I don't know why we just couldn't add it as an agenda item to an upcoming work session. And I share the council member Teixeira's sense of, I wouldn't say, confusion. But I certainly don't want to dampen any enthusiasm for an exciting project that, when it hit the media, everybody's, I hear a lot of people, wow, that's impressive. And it was impressive. But we, I think the five of us, learned about it from staff after the first Dolby press release came out. So I don't think any of us had any heads up that they were going to announce that. And then the Evo Entertainment. So with that, I just want to make sure I understand what's being proposed and what's going on. And I've had, unfortunately, tell the media that I don't know. So I know that the Cleveland Street Alliance LLC is a for-profit limited liability company registered with the state floor. I know that the FLAG organization is, Scientology, is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization and separate from Cleveland Street Alliance. And I know Evo Entertainment, which I tried to reach out to their CEO. He called me back originally and haven't had a chance to connect with him since. But they're a Texas organization that does movie theaters, these family entertainments. There's that for-profit. So how all, you know, what, and I think the property that's being proposed for this center is owned by a different LLC. And I don't know who the owners are of that, but that's a for-profit floor-to-limit liability company. So I would very much like to get to the bottom of who's playing what role here. I don't know what, you know, the non-profit's role would be with for-profit LLCs and developers and movie business. I don't know. But I would like to get to the bottom of who's involved in this, what are the roles. And I'm really able to talk to the Evo Entertainment CEO because it sounds like he's had success. He's very well-connected in the movie and family entertainment business and look forward to hopefully having a conversation with him. But I agree with you. It's put the five of us in a difficult spot because we're certainly, because of all the publicity, getting a lot of questions from the community about it. And we just don't know. And no one's explained to me how all these entities are involved together, who's primarily responsible, getting mixed signals on who's leading this, who's not leading this. And I would like to know because the community wants to know. And certainly we want to support businesses and activities and public accessible activities in downtown Clearwater. And hopefully this is what this will be. But I need to know more about it. But I don't know that we need a special work session because at this point I don't know who's playing what role in this. I don't know what the proposal is and how they're going to move forward. I would like to see us just add it as an agenda item to an upcoming council meeting, workshop, and then invite maybe all these entities to come in and share with us what their plans are. Do you mind if I address those couple questions before I? Oh, go for it. Vice Mayor, thank you. First of all, thank you for feedback from both of you. Again, I think it's important that we try, especially in a fact-finding and discovery discussion, that we try to remain from a neutral standpoint. And then we fact-find and discover and we can create a better understanding and clarity. Good question. Why a special work session? I thought about that before I threw that discussion up. But I think today was a perfect example. We just talked about a tree ordinance for 54 minutes almost. And that was just trees in our community. That's not talking about over $350 million of proposed downtown development that covered entire street blocks and corners. So I think being as though it is a downtown, being as though the lack of clarity that's been discussed from my two friends here earlier, and understandably so, as well as the dollar amount, I think it is deserving, especially being as a sensitive topic of downtown and the Church of Scientology it is. I think it's important that we have that discussion and do it solely focused on it because it's not something that will be done in 30 minutes, especially when we're trying to know why now, what changed, who's behind certain organizations or nonprofits, what are the entity relationships, what are the projects, what are the permits, what are the timeframes, what are the costs. These are a lot of questions that we will have hopefully answered. And whether some of our downtown partners join us or not, that's a different question. And hopefully we can get to the bottom of that. And however we facilitate that discussion, whether it's myself, staff, or you, Mr. Mayor, I think those are all very valid questions that a special work session would allow us to cover. But thank you, Vice Mayor, for letting me jump in real quick. Vice Mayor. Yeah, thank you. I'm all for this. If we do need to be in a special work session, you know, talking about what's happening, and I invite it, you know. I will say this. This is brought to our attention in an infancy stage. We don't know a whole lot about the project and everything like that. But when you have a large theater group and Dolby Digital Atmos, I think everybody knows Dolby Digital, championing something that's going to be put into downtown Clearwater, you have to champion it. And I think the answer is we don't know, but we're going to find out more facts. I mean, that's why it's following the process that it is. And we'll get more facts when staff is done going through and finding the details and hammering it out and getting it to us. But we need to remember that as elected officials, our words matter. They carry weight. And if we're going to be hawkish towards a project that seems fantastic for families to enjoy and bring to our downtown, what type of tone as elected officials is that setting? We should be. We constantly talk about the ghost town that is downtown Clearwater. Mike, how long have we grown up here? And nobody – we don't even come down here, right? Things are starting to change. Urban Renaissance. We have a hotel. We have another new building coming up with commercial on the bottom floor. BayCare Sound is doing great. Now we have a potential for Evo Entertainment and Dolby Digital to build an amazing family center. I don't know why we would try and deter that or be negative towards it in any way, even if we don't have all of the information. You simply say that. We're doing our due diligence. Staff is working through it, and we'll get there in the end. And be transparent as we can along the way. That's our job, right? That's why I'm all for this work session as well. I think that, you know, maybe when this does get scheduled, who knows, maybe more data from staff will be available and we'll be able to present even more and welcome the Cleveland Street Alliance to come and present their things. I think that – I know that Scientology somehow does partake in the Cleveland Street Alliance. I'm not exactly sure how, but I've heard that multiple times up here, so I would assume it's probably true. I mean, we had Sarah come, what, almost a year ago to present how Cleveland Street was going, and things have been happening, right? We see the People's Bank that is nearing completion. We see just across the hall from where City Hall meets, that entire south section of Cleveland Street is now under construction. So it's a very different landscape than it was 20 years ago. It's a very different landscape than May 12, 2025, agenda item 4.1, when Sarah stood here and showed us her plan to have this Clearwater robust. Like, I mean, things are happening, and I think that we have to give credit where credit's due. I always welcome the communication and transparency. So I'm all for this. I think that it will be great, and I think that as we continue down this, staff will even have more information for us as we continue. You know, I see the heads shaking yes, so I welcome this no-hold bar. I think it will be great. Well, nobody's being hawkish just by asking questions. I mean, there's no need for secrecy here on what their plans are. And to the fact that we weren't communicating with, I would just like to know more. I mean, I would love to know more before this was announced to the media, you know, who's involved, whatever. Most of our folks developing things in downtown do that. They let us know ahead of time what their plans are. But I don't think there's anything, any questions that have been asked here being hawkish. We just want to make sure we have the information before we get all excited about it. You know, we all know, and I mean the public knows, that there has been plans and talk about a family entertainment center for a decade. This isn't anything new, so this isn't something that came out of nowhere. But it hasn't happened for a long period of time. So for the community to naturally have questions about it, I think it's just, you know, it's natural. And, but I don't think it's being negative just for us to want to know more information and to have that shared. Well, I would say that even that comment there is hawkish because of this is a private property following the rules, coming to us with a potential program. Staff is reviewing it, and it's just what I said. Hey, Dolby Digital and Evo Entertainment released an awesome excerpt saying that they're going to build something here in Clearwater, and it's fantastic news. Obviously, we don't have that information. So when the news is coming to you, sir, when the news is coming to any of us, we say what I say. I'm excited about it. We'll see what happens when it comes here. Staff's working through the details, and the more we know, the second we know it, you'll know it. You know, when it comes to the projects that are happening downtown, the only reason we had more insight is because we controlled the properties. I mean, this is a personal property rights issue with the development on their thing, and they're coming to us for different zoning, for different vacancies, for those types of things. So, I mean, when that information does come through, I don't even know what all that entails. That's when we'll know more information, and that's when you disseminate it. But to say that they're doing something in secret, it's a private entity, whoever the LLC is, that owns that exact property to do what they want and then present us with the information that staff goes through and then lets us know. I mean, that is the process. It's the process for anything. The only reason we had more insight to anything else is because we own the property. We were able to hold those contingencies. So, I think that you do get a little hawkish in those types of things. We just need to understand that this is great for Clearwater. I hope the CEO of Evo Entertainment will call me back today. I've made repeated attempts to – he did call me back to his knowledge first. I would like to hear – I would assume he's a busy person then, too, if he's the head of an entertainment corporation. He called me back, and all of a sudden he didn't. So, hopefully, he'll go. Hawkins. So, you described it in a word that none of the media outlets ever used, which is potential or proposed. It is presented as fact. So, my neighbors, who will be impacting their accessibility and maneuverability, come to me and to add to the many questions that Council Member Menino has asked, which have been asked of me, too, was the question, when did this happen, Lena? Did you guys do it in back – like, was this a backdoor deal? Because they're saying, like, it's happening. So, did you give away that road that I use every day? What about that other road? What about the parcel? The perception is it is a done deal, which then affects the community's perception of when did this happen? How did this happen? And that perception of backdoor deals, which did not occur at all. So, I wish that they were a little bit more responsible when they're promoting and marketing a project that is proposed, that is potentially, because it is not a done deal. They own some of the property, not all. And so, all I'm asking is for clarity and responsible verbiage, because it is not a done deal. It is a potential or proposed. Just the manner in which it was released causes conflict, and it was unnecessary. It could have just been presented as, we are proposing to come. There is a potential project. We're working on coming. But stating it as a done deal just adds fuel to the fire. Mayor, if I may, real quick, I want to make sure that we hear from Council Member Albrighton. First of all, thank you for having courage all of us to have these discussions, because for a long, long time, these discussions were not happening on the dais. So, whether we're agreeing on things or there's layers of emotions, that's all natural. But the courage and the willingness to have these discussions is what's going to make Clearwater better. So, whether we're agreeing on things or not, thank you. It's appreciated. Secondly, we're going to have plenty of opportunities to continue these discussions. This isn't a one and done, so I hope we can limit our back and forth and our banter, because I promise as we move forward, whether it's in a special work session or we move forward individually with these, with what projects may or may not come before us, we will have those opportunities to have those discussions. So, I just hope that today we can kind of keep this agenda item a little more simplified. Let's let Council Member Albrighton throw his two words in and let's get back. If there's three of us that are in support of scheduling a special work session, let's get the clerk involved. Let's find a date. Let's find how we want to facilitate it and then move forward with what exactly projects and questions we have that we want answered. I am taking notes from each of us as we have discussions on what your questions are. We'll make sure those are included. But I do greatly, greatly appreciate us having this discussion that is not easy and it's challenging. At the end of the day, it's better for Clearwater, so thank you. I would support the special work session. Thank you. That's my role. Okay, so I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room again because here, you know, the question is not whether people are skeptical. Most are, as am I. And, you know, because Scientology's decades of secrecy, their history of acquiring property without any clear public intent, you know, goes on and on. Essential culture all earn that skepticism. But the question is whether we allow progress to be tested. So what we're seeing now is, after years, and you've all touched on it, of talk. We're doing this. We're coming out with this. It's finally coming. We're seeing it. It's actually being constructed right now. And, you know, a year ago, we all heard that they were going to do this. Over a year ago. It was January of last year. And my comment to them was, I am blown away by this plan. This is great. They have all the property. It's not like they're taking over. They got 100 acres of it downtown already. If they will develop it, that is a plus. So my only comment was, why don't you bring it all out to the public so the public understands what you're doing? It's taken them over a year to do that. They told us it was going to take 30 to 40 days from last December for last year. Finally, it's coming out. Now they've got this thing over here on Osceola that lays out everything they're doing. They say it's open to the public. Come see it. Well, a lot of public isn't coming downtown. But I like your idea, Councilman Menino. Bring it out on the dais here. Talk about it so everybody can see what's going on. And we get a little more idea of what they're doing. I mean, I've got the same thing as all of us. You've got people asking us, what's going on down there? Well, about all we can tell you is the same thing in the paper. We read the paper, too. You can read it, you know. But let's go ahead and have them. We've got to understand a little more about it. I am excited that finally things are happening. Let's have them come in and tell us what's happening and be more public-facing about it because it needs to be. Or, you know, our necks are all on the chopping block for this. I'm really excited that it's happening. Let's have a – I don't care if it's a special meeting or we take a work session and spend two hours talking about it. But I think it's something we owe the public to do. So that's all I'm going to say. Well, it sounds like we've got consensus to a special work session. Howdy, clerk. So staff has identified the following three dates. The first one, there is a conflict. May 28th, Councilmember Albritton is traveling. So he's – yes, sir. Okay, May 28th, I come back in like 2.30. Okay. Give me like 3.30. If we can do like a 5 o'clock or a 6, I'm in. So that's one day. The other two dates are Tuesday, June 2nd, 1 or 3 p.m. or Wednesday, June 3rd, 3 p.m.? Second, 1 or 3 p.m. And June 3rd, 1 or 3 p.m.? Just 3 p.m. On June 3rd. On the June 3rd. Well, when you guys look at your calendar, I've looked at mine. I'm supportive of the 28th, given Councilmember Albritton time, whether it's 4.30 or 5 o'clock, to give them time to get from the airport. The other dates are flexible for me as well. My preference is the 28th. We get this on the books and we move forward. But we have to respect everyone's schedule. So whatever works for everyone else. It looks like I can do the 28th or the 3rd, the second doctor's appointment. Like 28th. The 28th is good, like I told you. And the 3rd, I have a PSD legislative meeting in the morning, but the afternoon is free for me. But 5 o'clock work for everyone. Okay. 28th? 28th? Mm-hmm. Okay. Good. How about, Mayor? 28th, what time? 5 p.m. We can't do it during the day or what's the problem? We can, but to give Councilmember Albritton time. He doesn't get back until 2.30. No, 3.30. Well, you know, hoping that it's going to be out of time, but I could probably be back here at 4, 4.30. That's the thing. I don't know my schedule. Okay. The thing with June 1st is that we already have a DDP and City Council session, so it might be a long day. Second and 3rd. Second and 3rd. Isn't that June 1st? Second and 3rd. Second and 3rd. I can move. The 3rd is good in the afternoon. I think I can move something that evening, so I can do it at 5 o'clock. 28th, 5 p.m.? On the 28th, 5? Okay. Okay. Are you good, Madam Clerk? Yes. Perfect. Okay, Mayor, if you don't mind, second. Lena, are you good? Sorry, I apologize for talking about calendars. Are you good? Okay. You guys are good with the 28th, 5 p.m.? Okay, the second thing I discussed earlier, I think it's important that we decide how we're going to facilitate this. Again, I'm willing to sit in a position of neutrality and kind of facilitate our discussion with staff and all questions that we have, or we can have staff direct it and facilitate it for us, or, Mayor, any other option, yourself or that this board feels fit. I don't want to just run like a regular workshop. I can run like whatever the... Do you have any thoughts? Do you think there's a way that would be more productive? Well, I think the mayor's staying true to the process we know is fine, but I think once we set an agenda, you know, as far as the actual items that would be on the agenda, there's certainly no problem with maybe some staff being able to gather some data and present some brief overview, very short, and be able to discuss that to facilitate the conversation, much like our special budget workshop type process. It's very simple, so it probably depends on the actual agenda items and how you structure it. Do you want to invite speakers? I mean, my thought was we invite everybody. Why not? It's an open work session. We're trying to do a fact finding and bring clarity to ourselves and to the entire community to invite. I don't know who Cleveland Street Alliance is as far as a person, so invite anybody from the organization. We've heard Scott's name all over development downtown, or Randy, or... He's listed as the manager. We'd love to have them all. The invite's there. I'm hope-filled and optimistic that this can happen for the city, and the more they want to come in in the sunshine and have discussions with us to bring clarity to the community, I'm all for. So I think we invite them all, as well as staff, our economic and development team will have the answers, hopefully, to our questions as we get closer. Let's leave it, see how it comes together, to your point. Okay. I'm comfortable with that. As we get closer to it, if somebody else is together. I'm seeing it as kind of like our strategic financial meetings, yeah. The mayor opens it up, staff presents the rubric or the agenda, and we just don't follow that. We have that open discussion, yeah. I think we're good. I think the manager can follow up the one once to really kind of clarify. I mean, you mentioned earlier, though, if having one item with regard to the Cleveland Street properties, one with Elrheim-Ebert Hall, and then one with the E&O. Next on the list. Yeah. Yeah. Perfect. I'll jump right in. The third thing, and again, thank you. Thank you for your time and for helping us with the discussion. It's important for us to identify what we want to cover in this workshop, and I know my agenda item was my fault. Again, I'm sorry it only said Evo Family Center, but by no means did I show up here, hoping that that was the limit of what we discussed. I think if we're truly having an open workshop and we're discussing clarity and transparency, everything needs to be involved. I think we have to talk about the showroom, talk about the Cleveland Street projects, 600 block and beyond, talk about the Evo and Dolby Family Entertainment Center. Staff will have a better update on where we are because these aren't even discussions we've had, really, in our one-on-ones to know where we are at in that process, as well as the LRH hall and where we are in that development application, as well as the vacation requests. I don't see why we don't touch on all of them. Well, the only thing I would say on that is that's a separate agenda item that will be coming before us because they've got an application to Vacate Garden Avenue coming up, right? Correct. Yeah. They've submitted an application to Vacate Garden Avenue. It hasn't been set for a council date. But I think that's the fact-finding clarity we're looking for. That's all staff would have to say is, here we are in the process. These are the meetings that have taken place. This is what is taking place in the future. Here is where we are in the process as a community, and here's what's next. I don't think we need to have, if it's not able to have a robust conversation, then we don't. But if we are, at least we do our fact-finding side of it in the process, and let's let everyone know where we are in that process. Have discussions where we can, and don't discuss where we can. Sir, if you can correct me, Owen, I mean, we'll be in the sunshine, so we can still have an open discussion with whatever facts or data are presented? You could have a discussion, yes. Okay. Even though it's on a future agenda item whenever you all are done going through it, correct? I mean, I think you could discuss where it is in the process. Perfect. Thank you. So is that what we want to cover, all those that I just discussed as far as topics? Can I have a couple of days to ponder and organize my thoughts and then share that information with staff? I mean, it looks like you have everything, but let me just give me a couple of days to figure it out, if there's anything else I would like to add, or at least a day. Give me something. No, I don't have a problem with that. I mean, as long as we're not adding things, and then all of a sudden, Dias doesn't know what's being added, and they have an objection to, well, why is that being brought into this discussion that's not part of it? We need to make sure we have an opportunity for that. I could probably go, well, I could inform the city manager, and then she can inform me guys with one-on-ones. Or share the request on email, as I usually do when I want to add an agenda item. That would be my preference, that we have just a general framework today, and that through one-on-ones, we can refine the agenda. All I want to say on that is, I mean, we addressed Garden Avenue before and thought the direction from the Attorney General was to keep our consideration of that issue to Garden Avenue and not to, you know, expand, you know, and talk about Cleveland Street and other things that the Attorney General was going to do is to focus on Garden Avenue. So that's why I'm wondering, is it better for us to separate the discussion of what happens there from, in light of what guidance we already had on the, but I felt like part of the guidance was we shouldn't be considering how these other properties relate to their request to close Garden Avenue. So I think, according to the Attorney General's opinion, I think what he said was you can't place conditions, let's say, outside the parameters of the Garden Avenue vacation involving Garden Avenue, is what he had said. And I think in terms of garden, you just talk about where it is in the process, knowing that you would have to come back and have another discussion on it. But they would have to be separately as well. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think just strictly an update, here's where we are. But you're 100% correct, Mayor. We cannot say, hmm, tell me what you're doing on Cleveland and this Family Entertainment Center and not a way into my decision-making process. I agree 100%. Yeah, no, totally agree and appreciate the protection. That's all I had, if anyone else wanted to add to it. Again, these are great discussions for us to continue to have. They're challenging, yes. They're sensitive topics, yes. I think it's better for the citizens of Clearwater, better for our entire community, and makes us stronger as a group. So we're going to disagree on things. We're going to agree on things. I think one of the things that we all respect and enjoy the most about working together is we accept that. And we're okay with not agreeing on everything. We know nothing's personal, but we are just handling the business of the people, and we're going to continue to. So I thank all of you for your robust conversation. And I think we all agree, transparency. Let's get it all out. Let the public see any conversations we're having, you know, collectively or individually with Scientology. So thank you for putting this on, and hopefully we've got this scheduled now, and we'll move forward with that. So with that, we'll move to item 12, new business. I've got something, sir. Yes, sir. So we have public comment that's set to expire with the way that we've been doing it. I think that it's been going well so far. I'd like to just maybe do another extension for another few months, maybe three months, see how it continues to go. If it continues well with the way that we've set it and established it, then put it back as another voting opportunity in the future to set it back into just the normal agendas without having to keep setting another extension and another extension and another extension. So this item wasn't added to the agenda, but I think if there's consensus, you can talk about it now. Oh, I was just doing it for a new business. For the next, because it expires after this Thursday. So my question is, do you want to discuss it for the next work session? Correct. That's why I was bringing it up, because then we can make the window, though, because if it expires, don't we have to make this decision before it expires? Well, I believe they'll be able to speak on Thursday. Well, you can make it on the Monday and then have the motion on the following Thursday. And when does it expire? It expires this Friday. This Friday, yeah. We can take, you can take, council can take it out of order to institute it that same meeting, so that, all right, that's one way of handling it. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Now we'll move to item 13, council comments. Anybody got anything you want to add? I learned a palm tree is not a tree. Okay. Item 14, closing comments by mayor. I don't have anything to add in particular today. So with that, we will adjourn the work session of the Clearwater City Council for May 4, 2026.