Tampa City Council - Part 2 - 11/05/26

Miranda, Maniscalco, Hurtek, Young, Carlson, Glennon, here. We have physical crime. Thank you very much. Just for clarification of the record, can I get a motion to continue item 77 to November 19, 2026? I got a motion for Councilor Miranda, second from Councilor Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, I have it. Councilwoman Hurtek. Yes, I'd like to move items 93 and 94. They were both misnoticed. So I'd like to move them to February 8th. Do you want to do individually? I can do item number 93 needs to be moved to. Actually, if I can, sorry to interrupt. The correct term for a misnotice would be directed to be rescheduled for. Okay. So we're rescheduling it for February 18th, 2027 at 1.30 p.m., 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 3 through 602, third floor. Okay. Hold that thought, exactly what she just said. Can I get a notice to open all 1.30 public here? Motion to Councilman Hurtek, second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, ayes have it. Okay, I have a motion for Councilwoman Hurtek. Second. Should we schedule any three, second from Councilman Hurtek. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, ayes have it. And then I have a motion to move, or rather to reschedule item 94 for February 18th, 2027, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 3 through 602 at 1.30. I have a motion for Councilwoman Hurtek, a second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, ayes have it. Okay. If I have this correctly, we are time certain. 1.30 is now 1.54. I'd like to recognize Mr. Tinkler, attorney extraordinaire. Good afternoon, Council. For the record, Ken Tinkler with Carlton Fields. I'm here on items numbers 95 through 109. These are your proposed charter amendments. For the record, I wanted to clarify, you probably noticed there were three items on the addendum. Two of those were for an additional piece of underlining that didn't make it across, and the other had an extra word. So, purely from a typo standpoint and change the substance, we just wanted to make sure you had as perfect copies as you possibly could have. Okay. So, and nothing, basically Scribner kind of stuff, nothing substantive. Correct. Okay. Very good. Okay. So, how would you like to do this? Do you want to present them, or do you want to bring them up one at a time for us, or do you want to just have us go for it, these questions? I would leave that to Council. I think you've already heard a lot of these. So, if you wanted to dive right in with the first reading, that's fine with me. When we do each one, can we explain what it is, and then? Sure. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shelby. You could, there are different ways you can do this. This is first reading. It's not a public hearing. Right. So, today's discussion would be to decide whether you want to move this forward to second reading and a notice public hearing on November 19th. For the sake of cleanliness in the record, and for people's understanding, it probably does not hurt to do them individually, rather than just read them all by title. Do them individually, and that way you could have discussion. You could just read the title, and then, if that's a motion, then you could move it, then you could open up for discussion, and then you can actually act on all of them at the same time at the end, or individually, however you wish. Yeah, also, for information, because New Tampa's District 7th seat is empty, if we just move these forward to second one, then we could have public input, and we have a full council to discuss that, it might be advisable as well, so we'd have a full seven people sitting here, just as my 3 a.m. in the morning thoughts, that it might be worthy of that, at least thinking that you move this through first, and you go to second for that. Councilman Carlson? Yeah, there are two or three that I have concerns about. Let's do them individually. Yeah. Okay. It's not all of them, it's just three of them, so you can decide. Several of them, I suspect, will go very quickly. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Which ones would you like to pull for separate discussion? 95, 99, and 101. 95, 99, and 101. And can we also comment on your motion, or your comments earlier? When can we do that? We sure can, but I'll get right back to you. Let me, Councilman Hartick. I really think we should, we should read them each individually, because we're going to have different votes. Yeah. So I really think we should just do them individually, and let me talk about them at each time. Some of them will go fast, and some of them will have conversations. Let's just do it. Okay, that's good. And so I did say that we would, could have that conversation, so Councilman Carlson, you recognize. Yeah, I think this is back to the comments you made earlier, and I have some of the documents now on the mayor's intervention. The mayor also had the political staff go to the meetings, which is, they're right, but some of the members felt intimidated by that. And it's one thing to give input. It's another thing to try to push and bully to get things done. And I presented documents from public records over the years, and even though I've taken the documents and circulated, the mayor and her staff will go through and say that they're not real, that they don't exist, that I made it up. And this is a persistent issue with the political office for eight years and the communication office for at least four or five years. I filed numerous complaints with the legal department. The law says that city staff are not allowed to get involved in political activities. And I have all kinds of reports from insiders and staff that folks in the mayor's office have been involved in political activities, from recruiting people to knock on doors to raising money during office hours in the office. Um, but, uh, you know, when the communication director goes to a chamber of commerce meeting and sits down next to someone he doesn't know, and they say, how's everything going in the city and say, Oh, it's okay. Except that terrible city council, blah, blah. And trash talks me. The public is not tax money is not paying that person to trash talk city council. We're half the government, whether the mayor likes it or not. And it's not their job to get involved in politics. And when they're engaged in politics on city time for events being paid by the city, while they're representing the city, they should be fired. And I've told the mayor this directly. I've told the chief of staff this directly. I've got a bunch of evidence on this. And, and my, my point is that we need to bring back the, the charter amendment that allows us to, um, to fire staff. And at the very least we need to be able to fire the city attorney. I don't know if you all remember what happened to ding Felder and goods. And to some extent Guido and me back, um, six years ago, um, the mayor used the legal department as a weapon against us in the last administration, certainly use the legal department as a weapon against city council. And if city council has no power to fire people who are doing illegal and unethical things. Um, I don't, I don't, why are we doing this? And in addition to that, the complaints we get about, um, about the hostile workplace, about, um, the retaliation environment that, that employees are living in fear. I just had another employee approach me, um, just a few minutes ago. I mean, the employees in this organization are living in fear because of the hostile workplace that this, this administration creates, and then they try to blame it on us. And when somebody leaves, they blame it on us. Um, uh, I don't know if you all have seen, but the, the head of, um, um, contract administration quietly left right around the time that South Howard contract was to be approved. That guy was hired by the administration, but he seemed to be one of the most honest people I knew why did he suddenly leave and honest people, um, don't want to work in an administration of fear and, and we can't pass any charter amendments that will allow us to police what's going on and, and, and, and enforce the law with this administration, but we sure can put it in the future. And, um, and whether we get, uh, uh, a mayor and administration that wants to follow law or ones that don't, if we have the ability to fire staff that the mayor refused to fire because they're breaking the law, then at least we have a hammer we can hold over it. And I, and I think we need to bring that back. This example that you just gave us this morning is another horrific example, whether the mayor authorized this or not. If the mayor knows that we have the right to fire that person, um, then maybe the mayor will not order them to do things like that anymore. Thank you. Councilman Maniscalco. Um, no, I'll wait till we go through the item. Councilman Miranda. I'm not here to dispute anyone. Their feelings are personal like mine and like the rest of the six others, other than myself. If I got to tell somebody to go to hell, I'll go see them personally and tell them. Don't try to disrupt the city in any way. And the gentleman that would just mention, not by name, there's more to it than what was brought up. I'm not questioning Mr. Carlson at all, but, uh, it was not based on his ability from what I found out. It was based on something else. And that's all I'm going to say. I don't want to ruin anybody's reputation. Um, I'll speak to some of this because there's some, some of the backstory that's going on as well. Cause I had a lengthy conversation with the mayor yesterday cause I did exactly what you just described that we ended that conversation with, I wish this conversation had gone better because I would have, I would rather play this out one-on-one rather than go up and then publicly. That was the opportunity I tried to give. So they, they chose not to take that opportunity. I really wanted it to be a private conversation, but they chose not to. Um, and so, and that's, that's how we got here today. A couple of things that I want to make sure we're clear on. Um, I got a memo from, um, staff, the, one, the, one of the mayor staff saying that I had accused that person of violating sunshine in my talk this morning. I did not, I, I never said that. All I said was these, these ideas should be in the sunshine, not that somebody, the first place, there is no sunshine between us and staff. It's between us. It's not between us. I can talk to anybody on staff outside of sunshine as I choose to, as I see fit. So they're even accusing somebody of a law that doesn't exist. So I, what I said this morning was that we, all of these things, we should all be hearing the same thing at the same time. We should all be making our, our informed decision based on the same amount of information available to each person. We all should have equal opportunity at the same amount of information so that when we do this deliberation, we, we have that information. Secondly, one of the things that was said was basically I'm accusatory that I'm behind all these charter amendments. I said that absolutely is not true. I said, what I, what I did do was I gathered all the information and things that we had acquired through the period of time that I've sat on council and the concerns that have been expressed. And we gathered all of those. We, some of those were made through questions to the charter review commission. Some did not. Some may get through them. Some did not. But what I did is I was, I did do a lot of work on it so that we had a better product as we move forward rather than, you know, have the best product we could to deliberate on, uh, but not the issues themselves. So I want to go on the record and I know you're listening because I've been told you're listening. These were not Alan Clendenin charter amendments. These are city accounts, city council proposals, not Alan Clendenin proposals. So, and, and, and you know what? And then after we get done with it, it's going to be the voters of the city of Tampa. And, and I have no skin in this game. If this council wants to vote on all of them, yes, or all of them, no, it is what it is. I mean, I am not, I am not going to lose a minute of sleep tonight. I don't, uh, over any one of these charter amendment, uh, proposals. Um, and so let me, let me, let me channel my councilman, uh, Miranda and that's all I'm going to say councilman Carlson. Yeah. And I'm whatever happens in the future, I'm not going to be on council anymore. So none of this is going to impact me, but I think that, um, for good government, we need, we need more balances and they, they took about strong mayor form of government, which is not in the charter. The only reason that, um, uh, there's been a strong mayor is that, is that the last two mayors have been bullies over city council. And, and the reason why they went after Dingfelder and goods and me and Guido is because we had four votes against that to balance out this administration. And it was despicable what they did and it's all documented. It's in the media. It's documented. Um, uh, you know, I almost fought anyway, I'm not going to go to all the details, but when you, what, even after the election, when the mayor and the former mayor raised money to run a million dollars or whatever in negative ads against me, I went to this mayor and I congratulated her and I said, let's set that aside. Let's forget it. Let's meet once a month. And every month I was asking her to her face with this chief of staff sitting there next to me, can you call your people off? Can you tell them to stop, um, pitching negative stories? Can you tell them to stop doing opposition research? Can you tell them to stop leaking stuff? And, and they said, no. And, and so eventually I said, I told the mayor to her face, if you don't stop them from doing this unethical and illegal stuff, if you don't fire them or do something, I'm not going to meet with you anymore. And the, and the last time I met other than meeting about baseball was like two years ago. And, and it's just an administration that wants to play dirty politics instead of working to get what's done for the public. And it's, it's crazy. I mean, look at the struggle we're having over the CRA and, um, um, um, the mayor and also the mayor coming out with 10,000 homes, you know, which everybody knows is not real. And I mean, this, this, this craziness that is being done in the city, we just need to be honest with the public. We need to get real information out and we need to, we need to, the taxpayers need to not pay for dirty politics. Anybody who's engaged in dirty politics should be fired immediately. I see you standing there. Yes, chairman. But let's, let's move on. And then if you want to speak to each one of these items, as we move through, I'll let, I just wanted to make a general statement that I was going to make this morning. If I could address city council, it's up to the chair and the city. I will, I will, I'll recognize our city attorney, Scott study. Thank you chair members, city council, Scott study, the city attorney. I'm going to say something pretty narrow here, but I'm going to recognize Councilman Carlson's going to remind me that I represent both the mayor and the city council. So I intend to honor that relationship. I just really want to follow up with the chair just said and reiterate. So it's all on the records. We're on the same page. And it really, it relates to both your relationship to the administration, the executive branch and vice versa. And just to confirm that the mayor certainly has the authority and the ability to meet with you individually to, or have staff, her staff meet with you individually to discuss any issue, certainly any issue before city council and certainly the charter, that there's no limitation, there's no violation of a statute. There's no violation of an ordinance, rule, ethical requirement, or sunshine, as you acknowledge. Yeah. I'm glad you said that because I want to make sure you saw in my statement. I did not. I just acknowledge that you agreed. Thank you. So I just, for the record though, just, and I appreciate it, but to be clear that, and that relates to obviously the charter discussion as well. Right. And again, as I, I know, you know, as city council members, you certainly have the right and ability to meet with the administration, the executive branch to have communications and that too, obviously from your standpoint is not violation of sunshine or any other requirement. And you know, those relationships that go back, uh, decades where the mayor meets with each one of you. And I just, just want to make sure that that's clear and that's, that's all I wanted to make. Thank you, Mr. Steady. Thank you. And I'll have the last word on that. The, so I think the part of the conversation that I had with the mayor yesterday, what was part of my concern that arose was this process of charter, making charter amendments is very, um, specific in the, in the charter and our roles and responsibilities are very specific in the charter council's roles, mayor's roles, you know, we go through, we, we created the charter review commission because of the ordinance we passed. The administration had some bite into that as well. We went through that process. Then it comes back to council. Council makes the decision. It goes to the mayor, the mayor can veto or not, or, or, or sign it. If she vetoes it, it comes back to us. If we pass it, it goes to the voters. That's a very specific process. My concern and what I had expressed and part of what my, my frustration, what was expressed today was partially in that. Again, this was so specific to the, how the process in the charter is very, it's very clear in the charter, how this process works and disseminating different information to different people, only selecting certain people and, and really waiting and doing it before our deliberations and not exercising her ability to have that discussion. Again, absolutely. If, if the mayor or anybody else in the city wants to take advantage of their position and go and call a press conference or shout at the sidewalk about how they feel about this or do, you know, they absolutely are entitled to do that. I, part of it, and I'm just repeating something to the conversation I had yesterday. Part of the thing was, I was disappointed that I thought, I thought that they would do better. And so I was personally disappointed that because I felt that the relationship and where we were were, but that was better than this. And that was, that was my, so I, I, I, I made it a comparison where, how somebody on the street can call me a name or say something and it doesn't, it just blows right through me. But if my friend or my family member does it, it punches hard. And that's what I felt like yesterday. So councilman, did you want to say something else? Then we're going to stop. I just want to talk about 95. Okay. Yeah. So let's, let's move on. Anybody else? Anything else to say? We'll go to 95. The ordinance on all of these, like on the second page, it has the, the, the language that will go in the charter. And then below that, it has the language that would go on the ballot. And so my, and the three I'm going to give input on, it's to the language that will go in, into the charter. And this one starts by, this is about executive order overrides section 2.15. And it says to the extent permitted by state or federal law and notwithstanding any authority granted to the mayor by this charter and executive order promulgated by the mayor pursuant to section 4.01 of this charter may be rendered void. Um, I would like to take out the section starting in the first sentence that starts with, and notwithstanding any authority granted to the mayor by this charter. Um, I would just like to take out that line. I think it's redundant. Do we have, do we have this on PowerPoint or do we have it that we can put on the wall? Does anybody have problems? Let me, let me just say, I can put it up too, but I think it's redundant. But also there will be a question about which section of the charter supersedes what section. And I don't think we need it. So, and then with that, Mr. Tinkler, if you would weigh in on that proposed change. Absolutely. Let me explain why it's there. Uh, there are various authorities granted to the mayor by the charter. Uh, as I understood council's intent here, uh, you wanted the ability to override one of those particular powers that the mayor has. So to make sure there wasn't then a conflict between another section of the charter and this section of the charter, we included the notwithstanding any other authority, any authority granted by the charter to the mayor. So it is simply a clarification to ensure that a later argument isn't made that two sections of the charter cancel each other out in some way. That's a further conflict between the council and the mayor. I think it's redundant, but also the, um, when we go back to issues like who can name a building, um, the city attorney's office came in and said, well, the, the mayor, only the mayor, the mayor has the right to name that building. I said, well, that doesn't say that anywhere in the charter. And, um, and they said, well, the mayor has admin administrative authority over all administration. I said, okay, but it doesn't say the mayor has the authority to name a building. And, and they said, well, yes, it does, because that would be included under administrative authority. And I said, can the mayor buy a building without our authority? No. Can they, can she paint a building without our authority? Can she lease a building? The point is that, is that somebody could misconstrue that the administrator. I'm just using it as an example, can misconstrue that the administrative authority supersedes this. And because it's, because I'm in charge of administration, you can't, you can't cancel that executive order because that goes against some other section of the charter. And I think putting that in doesn't mean that there's not going to be a conflict, but, but putting it in really neutralize the whole thing because somebody is going to come back and argue. Again, it gets back to who controls the city attorney. This is why the city council needs the power to, um, uh, fire the city attorney if they don't, if they're only representing the mayor. But. So, Mr. May, Mr. Tinker. Mr. Shall we go ahead? If I can ask council, um, is that a, having the words, not withstanding any authority granted to the mayor by this charter, does that then ensure that this would take precedence over other sections in the charter? Correct. In the charter? That is the intent of the language. So this, so what? I think, I believe we're in agreement with the councilman as far as trying to ensure that this language supersedes any present authority that's otherwise in the charter. So then the absence of, and the corollary would be that the absence of that language to take it out then might open the charge that, that other provision would take precedence over this one. Well, why don't we say that this take, instead of not withstanding, say this takes precedent over other sections of the charter? That's what it says legally. Right. This is the typical legal term. I was saying legalese. Right. And forgive me for the legalese, but this is what is used typically in charters when you're trying to clarify that a particular item gives you the power that you're trying to do. So I think we were trying to do exactly what you outlined, Councilman. The key was trying to ensure that there wasn't a later conflict between the council and the mayor. I can see that. Councilman Miranda. Thank you very much. I was never too well coached in English, but I did pretty well in math. And in my opinion, notwithstanding any authority granted to the mayor in this charter, that means no matter who the mayor is, notwithstanding what they thought, it's no longer valid. This is the law. Correct. The intent of the two first phrases that there are going to be circumstances with state and federal law requires the mayor to give some kind of order. We didn't want, we wanted to avoid that. The second clause, though, was to ensure that there wasn't a conflict between charter sections, given what you're trying to do here in section 2.5 is affecting what is in section 4.1. Got it. Councilman Maniscalco, did you have something? Yeah. So executive order overrides. You had mentioned something about fire the city attorney. Councilman Carlson. Where does that fall into this? It doesn't. It doesn't. Oh, okay. When, in my time here since 2015, the only time that there was an issue that came up that I remember was when we wanted to create the Citizens Police Review Board back in 15 or 16, and it was a conflict between the mayor and who had authority of creating the board. Have we ever had other conflicts where we have to override or try to override executive orders? I mean, does anybody remember? I remember my years of service, and that was in 1970-something. Is that the Fireman 4 thing? Fireman 5. Fireman 5, okay. Fireman 5, okay. Well, I would like to add that, again, this is how the intent, like I said in my remarks, this isn't about this administration or this council. This is about future administrations councils. Well, let me ask you. How did the Charter Review Commission vote on this? This is not a charter review. This is a city council. This is a city council. Okay. All right. Councilman Carlson, you had something to add or not? Yeah. Just for what Guido said, there are a lot of examples where we didn't get that far where we had to hire an outside lawyer, but there are other instances that, at least in the last 20 years, I've been watching with that. That has come up. If your legal opinion, hopefully somebody will watch this in the future when there's a conflict, but if your legal opinion says that if somebody in the future says, well, I've got administrative authority, and so therefore you can't do this. If you're saying that this supersedes that, then fine. Okay. Well, I'm saying that that is the exact intent of that language. Okay. Does anybody – Which will live on YouTube forever. Is there any further discussion on moving item 95 to – Wait, wait. One last thing. By mayoral executive order, would that include the naming of a building? For example, a mayor traditionally named something for the previous mayor, that would be by executive order. That is beyond my expertise. Yes. The key was the ability – An override would be five votes, yeah. Right. But you can override a naming of a building or anything else? With five votes. Huh. Okay. The key is the – We can do that anyway with naming rules, right? Yes. That is true. With naming rules, we can do that anyway with the new rules. Okay. All right. Yeah. And I know there's a lot of consternation on this, and I don't understand why, because even the President of the United States can veto something, and then it goes back – You know, we have this – this is just a process thing. It's not a – It's like Congress. Yeah, exactly. It's just a process thing. It's the problem. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sheldon. The reason why it's important is that – and this is why I think we need to add back in the right to – not in this one, but we need to add back in the right to be able to find – Okay. The city attorney is that all the power in the city is with the city attorney. So if the city attorney says, oh, no, this is what it is, then just like we were told, oh, only the mayor has the right to name buildings. That was crazy. It's not in there at all. I'm going to start a drinking game every time you say the right to fire the city attorney. I want to take shots. But you didn't go through – No, I know. I know. I know. The fear that we went through six years ago. You know, he's sitting right there. He can hear you. Who? Stop. Stop. I'm not talking about him. And the former city attorneys, I've had cigars with them and hung out with them. It's not the city attorneys. It's what they're forced to do. And I think all of them regret the things that they were forced to do by these so-called strong mayors. Okay. Without any further discussion, Mr. Shelby. Yes. If you feel comfortable having it read at first reading and then a motion and a vote unless there's further discussion. Please. Okay. Can I get a motion reading the title on item number 95? Can someone hurt you? Oh, well, if he wants to do it, that's fine. Oh, do you want to read it? Are you going to go down the line or – Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah, that's fine. I was just – Okay. 95. I move item number 95, file number E-2026-8, CH2, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. Ordinance – You know, with our new rules, we just have to read the title, right? Yeah. By title only. Yeah. That's state law. You can either read it in full if you like, but you're welcome to read it. I don't have to. I'm not going to read it. Okay. I have a motion from Councilman Carlson. No, wait. No, you have to read the full title. Okay. As opposed to reading the whole ordinance. Yes. An ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa 1975 as amended to create section 2.15, providing the ability to city council to override and thus render void an executive order promulgated by the mayor under the charter providing effective date. Second. I have a motion from Councilman Carlson, a second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Passed unanimously. Can I say one thing? Please no. Sit. Before the conspiracy theory starts circulating similar to what you said earlier, this was not my idea. I just happened to be the one that read it. Charlene. I need to read the second hearing. Yeah. Please go. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in city council chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. Okay. Item number 96. Item 96 relates to amending section 2.04 regarding the city council staff positions. Okay. Very good. Is there any discussion? Well, that's true too. If there's no money, you can't hire anybody. Yep. Councilman Young. When you all hired Ms. Kapeski, what was that process? That had been a charter, that was in the charter that we had the ability. It went unfilled for, there was a, historically there was one that went unfilled for many years. Mm-hmm. And then we exercised the authority under charter to hire her. Okay. Okay. Councilman Young, would you like to move item 96? Oh, right. File number E2. That's a substitute order. It's on the addendum. Oh, okay. File number E2026-8, Chapter 2. Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. Ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa of 1975 as amended to amend section 2.04 to clarify the city council may create and fill additional staff positions to assist city council as long as the funds are allocated within city council's budget, removing the requirement for prior mayoral approval, providing an effective date. And if I can, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'm sorry. Just for the purposes of the record, you are moving the substitute. I'm sorry. This was the substitute. Oh. If the title is the same, I believe. Is the title the same? Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Okay. So I have a motion from Councilwoman Young, a second from Councilwoman Menescalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Second here. No adoption will be held on November 19, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. Item 97. 97 is proposing to amend section 2.03 of the charter regarding the city council's ability to acquire their members' attendance. Okay. Say that again. Require membership attendance. Would you like to explain it? The, the, this was a change coming from charter review board. The present language says compel and the charter review board recommended changing from compel to require. Got it. Okay. Is there any discussion? No. Council. Of each other. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I know hearing no discussion. Councilwoman Hurtick. Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city, a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa night of 1975 as amended to amend section 2.03, clarifying city council's ability to require their members attendance, providing an effective date. Although there's a scrivener's error, but that's okay. Where is it? Where's the script? Well, it's not one member. It's all members. Okay. So the apostrophe is in the wrong place. Apostrophe. Yeah. Okay. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtick, a second from Councilman Hurtick. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes having unanimously. Clerk. The election will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. And thank you, Kelly. Item number 98. Item 98 is proposing to amend section 2.08 of the charter regarding the reading of ordinances at your public hearings. Okay. And is there any questions from Council on that? No. Hearing none, do you have the substitute for Councilman Hurtick? There it is, for 98. I don't know if the titles are different, but there it is for you. Okay. I have a substitute ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance relating to the government of the City of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the City a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the City of Tampa of 1975 as amended to amend section 2.08, clarifying that the ordinance reading procedures must be following general law and clarifying that three City Council members must vote in the affirmative to require the whole text of a proposed ordinance be read at a final reading, as opposed to only the title of the ordinance. When general law requires two readings of the ordinance. When general law requires two readings of the ordinance, provide an effective date. Second. I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco. I have a second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously. Clerk. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19, 2026 at 11 a.m. and City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33607. Okay. Item 99, Councilman Carlson, you had something to say about that one. Or do you want to introduce it first? I can introduce it. Item 99 is to propose to amend section 4.01 of the charter and create section 4.03. These two provisions would strike the current mayoral term limit and replace it with a more restrictive provision that mandates that no person who has served for mayor for more than six years may serve as mayor again, providing that this provision only applies to mayoral times served after the adoption of this amendment. I want to recognize Councilman Carlson because he has to speak to this first. Councilman Carlson, do you want to speak to this one? Do you want me to go bypass you and come back to you? No. I'm trying to find the document, but that's the part that – can you read that language? That's the part that was added that I didn't agree with that what it says – and it's funny because the last two mayors ran ads against our term limits and said that it was an evil conspiracy to give us longer terms. But the – what this says is that it all restarts after this is approved. And I wish instead of saying it would restart, that it's just not applicable to the candidates in the 2027 election. How about – how about – find that specifically language you're talking to and let me go to the other two council persons and then we'll get back to you. Councilman, Scott, if I saw first, then Councilman. So let me ask you, six years, we had a mayor in 1987 finish up the term, Sandy Freeman, for Martinez and then ran for a full term and then got reelected to the second term. So would that prohibit her from having done that? Yeah. Because she was there from like 87 to 95, so it's not – Right. It would depend on when that time fell. If they've served two years and a day here, then they would only be able to run for one term beyond that. That's interesting. I mean, because, you know, you serve two, you can sit out one and then run again as it is now, like Dick Greco, for example. Correct. So a mayor at six years would already be prohibited to continue – Six years and a day. Six years and a day, but they wouldn't ever be able to get to that eight year. Correct. I mean, that is how looking at other charters, looking at other term limit provisions, when a person is in the acting position for a majority of the time. So we always look at the point in the middle. Yeah. Typically, that's considered to be a term of service, but that is up to council as far as direction. But it doesn't prohibit a mayor from serving two four-year terms. Correct. Right? If they've never served – a new mayor gets elected, you know, this spring, they can serve their full eight years and going forward. But if they have served previously, they cannot go past the six-year period. A year and 364 days, right? Okay. Just to clarify, this is a replacement of the current term limit. So everything that happened before the adoption of this provision doesn't count towards the new term limit. Okay. If someone serves for more than six years as mayor, they cannot then be elected as mayor in the future. That is the idea. Okay. But they can complete an eight-year term. They can complete an eight-year term and all. It's all about the election, and that's the provision that we have here in 4.03. Okay. Trying to make that clear. I just want to clarify that. So in this case, I say, so this mayor leaves. The chairman becomes mayor. So although he only serves now seven months, he can do eight years. Correct. But if he did two years, he can't. Correct. He could do an additional four-year term. I'm not going to follow that. I don't think that's right to whoever the chairman is or the chairperson or the government is. It doesn't happen in the federal government. It doesn't happen in the state government that I know of. Does it? There's multiple places where it's similar language that we used here. Yeah, but eight years they can serve. Over here now you can't serve eight years. You're going to serve six. So are you treating the public or the individual for an office? This is a completely discretionary. I understand. I understand. I understand. It is up to you. All right. That's fine. That's fine. Again, I think what you're saying, let's say two years ago and I was sitting, if I was acting chair and the layer mayor left and there was, and I served more than two years in that they would consider that a full term. Only one term. Then I would only run one more. So if I've served more than half of a term, it's considered a full term. But you can serve one day short of the two years and run for eight years. Yes. Correct. Yeah. Well, I guess because you have to draw the line somewhere. I understand. Yeah. Councilman Carlson. I just drew it. Yeah. Is it dotted or dash? I, I, I share, I share his confusion though. I think it's confusing the public, but the part that I object to, which we didn't talk about, I think it, and it ended up in the languages, the second sentence, which says any time served as mayor of Tampa before the adoption of this section shall not be considered in determining individuals total time served as mayor. So, um, let's, I think everybody loves Sandy Freeman. Um, you know, she gets frustrated enough. She could come back and run again. Um, and nothing against her, uh, because she probably would be great. But, um, uh, this says that, um, the, all the time she served does not count. And, and what that means is, you know, Bob Martinez can come back to Greco could come back all, all these folks. And so it's not punitive to, to anybody in particular, but I think instead of that sentence, we should say, um, that it does not apply to the, um, uh, that, that the penalty, the prohibition does not apply to the 2027 election. So let, let's say that if Sandy Freeman decides to run, which she could, um, hi, Sandy, she could, she could decide to run. Um, uh, if, so right now there's no prohibition. That's not in the charter. But if at the same time she's elected, uh, this goes in, it's not going to go backwards and say, you don't qualify, but she would not be able to serve a second term after that. She would, because she, no, um, it doesn't, it's not resetting the time. It's just not applying to that particular election. Yeah. Our, the, the reason, uh, the proposal ended up here, and this has been the same language at each of the workshops, uh, was to not treat this as attacking any particular individual, uh, their service, anything along those lines was to be a reset of the term limit provision as of the adoption by the voters. That's what I'm saying too. But, but what it's doing is it's saying, you know, any living mayor going back to Martinez, he could run again because it's, it's, if, um, whoever is the next one, um, would be, would have to follow this in the future. Everybody would have to follow the future, but somebody who's already served eight years, or I think Sandy served more than eight years, it would not apply to them. They would have a reset clock. So my point is not to reset the clock. Right. Um, our concern from an equal protection standpoint is then you are targeting individuals because you're allowing certain individuals to run for two terms going forward and other individuals to only run for one term. Yeah. And that was our concern from a, uh, trying to treat everyone fairly here in this particular provision. Yeah. I mean, I, I, I think that I get what they're doing because I mean, I, obviously it's, it's kind of semantics cause the reality is I don't think that Greco is coming back to run for mayor. You know, and you've got Sandy and Pam, but, uh, and Bob Martinez and governor Martinez, but, um, I get the reset of the clock. It's just a hard reset of the clock. And sometimes you just have to draw the line somewhere. And it without calling out this one specific election. I mean, I, I hear what you're saying a hundred percent, but I just don't, I think it's kind of de minimis and it's not. Well, my point image is Sandy is it's not about any one person that there are like five of them. They're still alive. They could run. Uh, but it's, it's saying anyway, uh, I'm going to vote against this as it is then. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none. What are they off? I don't know. I'm not going to read it cause I'm holding against it. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration and ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city, a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa of 1975 as amended to amend section 4.01 and create section 4.03 to strike the current mayoral term limit provision and replace it with a more restrictive provision that mandates no person who has served as mayor for more than six years may be elected as mayor again, providing that such provision applies only to time served as mayor after adoption of said amendment, providing an effective date. And just to remind that this is just moving it to second when we'll have a full council just FYI. So, okay. As long as I can run ads that say it's a devious plot, just like they did the last time. Okay. So I have a motion. I have a second council on Maniscalco. Um, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. All right. Oh, no, nay. Sorry. Clerk, would you call that please? Motion carries with Miranda and Carlson voting no. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 3602. Thank you. Item 100. Item 100 is a proposal to amend section 6.02 of the charter clarifying that the four-year term of office applies to the mayor and city council members and removing language referencing the 1979 adoption. Okay. I don't think there'll be any discussion on this, but is there any discussion on this? Hearing none. Uh, Councilman Maniscalco, did you read one or it's Councilman Miranda now? Councilman Miranda. 100. 100. I'll read it and see where it goes here. File number, E2060, excuse me, E20268 Chapter 6, an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to revise the charter of the city of Tampa of 1975, amended, amended to amend section 6.02 clarifying the four-year term of office under this section applies only to the mayor and council members removing language referencing the 1979 adoption. Well, this is a continuation of 99, isn't it? Yeah. In some way? Well, there, there are, the 99 dealt with the term limit for the mayor. Yeah. This is simply to clarify. The, the charter uses the word officers in multiple ways, uh, where individuals such as the city attorney or an officer, you are all officers. The charter review commission concern in this provision was that the four-year term was meant for the mayor and the city council. So it's just to clarify that your regular term of office is four years. Okay. It has nothing to do with the other prior. Okay. I want to make sure that I don't kick myself in a trap. I, I, I, it's more substantive than Scribner, but it's very, it's clarifying language. All right. I'm sorry. Providing an effective date. Providing an effective date. Okay. I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in city council chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Okay. Item 101 is a proposal to amend section 6.06 of the charter removing obsolete language, clarifying that a majority vote in this section requires at least four members of the council to increase or decrease salaries of officers of the city. Provide city council may act under this section pursuant to, to resolution or ordinance. Okay. Is there any discussion? Councilman Maniscalco. Does this apply to anybody in the city or is it city council salaries or what is it? This is officers. Officers. Right. The, the officer power that you have, it's, it's purely a cleaning up the language and adding in the provision that you can act by ordinance in addition to resolution. But just whose salary, like a department head or an elected individual, meaning the mayor and seven of us. Yeah. We, we would have to pull up section 6 to see which officers in that section because the charter does that in multiple places. Mr. Shelby, do you have access to that at your fingertips? Is it the 1975 coffee? We don't have any salary. You've got to turn your mic on. All right. What is it? What is the question then? Section 6.06. As it presently states. Right. The question, I believe, was regarding salaries as to which officers. The sal, well, I'm probably, I'm going to pull this up online. I guess I, it's better if I read this online because I don't know whether this is the most updated one. The salary or salaries of officers of the city may be increased or decreased at any time by the concurrence of the mayor and a majority of no fewer than four votes of the entire council, which concurrence shall be documented by resolution, comma, or ordinance of the council recommended or approved in writing by the mayor. That's the way it presently reads. But my question was, who are the officers? Whose salaries can we, can we adjust? It could be anybody. Is it a department head? Is it an elected position? What is it? I mean, we have the right to. We have the right to. Officer, well, there's section 6.01 officers. The government, the government of the city shall be conducted by the following named officers and boards. A mayor, a city council, a city clerk, a city attorney, a director of finance, also known as the chief financial officer, an internal auditor, a chief of police, a chief of the fire department, a civil service board, a board of trustees of the city employment, employees retirement fund. Okay, so it's a lot of people. Okay. It's the people that work under the mayor that runs part of the city. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any questions? No. Okay. Hearing none. Councilman Carlson. There's a substitute on this one as well. Do you have access to it? Here it is if you don't. For 101. 101. Okay. Move number 101. File number E2026. Is that right? Yes. Substitute or? CH6. Substitute ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. Ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa 1975 as amended to amend section 6.06 to remove obsolete language. Clarify that majority vote under said section requires no fewer than four members of city council to increase or decrease salaries of officers of the city provide that that city council may act under said section pursuant to resolution or ordinance. Second. Or ordinance providing effective date. Second. I have a motion from Councilman Carlson. Second. Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have unanimously. Clerk. Second here in adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in city council chambers 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida 33602. You need that on a recording. 102. Okay. Item number 102 is pros and amend section 6.05 to remove the obsolete residency requirement reference in the state of the city council. And we have a motion. We have a motion from Councilman Carlson. We have a motion from Councilman Carlson. We have a motion from Councilman Carlson. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have unanimously. Clerk. Second. Here in adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in city council chambers 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida 33602. You need that on a recording. 102. Okay. Item number 102 is pros and amend section 6.05 to remove the obsolete residency requirement reference in the oath of office for non-elected city officers. Okay. Is there any questions? Hearing none. Councilwoman Young. File number E2026-8 chapter 6. Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration and ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida submitting to the electors of the city, a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa of 1975 as amended to amend section 6.05 to remove the obsolete residency requirement reference in the oath of office for non-elected city officers providing an effective date. Second. I have a motion from Councilman Young. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have unanimously. Clerk. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. and City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor Tampa, Florida, 33602. Okay. 103. Item 103 is pros and amend section 7.05 of the charter to ensure accordance with state law. For your information section 7.05 is regarding the millage. Okay. Very good. Does any council have any questions? Hearing none. Councilwoman Hurtick. Item number 103, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa of 1975 as amended to amend section 7.05 to ensure accordance with state law providing an effective date. Second. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtick. A second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have unanimously. Clerk. It will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. Item 104. Item 104 is proposal to amend section 7.07 of the charter to allow the city council to initiate mid-year budget changes without the need for a mayoral recommendation and in a manner consistent with general law. Okay. Anybody have any questions on 104? Hearing none. Councilman Maniscalco 104. Again, we're not going to have any money with amendment three. Sorry. We have an ordinance being presented for the first reading consideration. An ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa of 1975 as amended to amend section 7.07 to allow city council to initiate mid-year budget changes without the need for mayoral recommendation and in a manner consistent with general law providing effective date. Second. I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have unanimously. Clerk. All done. November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. In city council chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida 32602. Thank you. 105. Item 105. Proposal to amend section 9.02 of the charter to remove the obsolete requirement that chief building inspector be the ex-official director of the zoning adjustment board. That does not exist. I just can't let the chief building inspector go. Okay. Any questions? Hearing none. Councilman Miranda. Thank you much. I'll read it, but I have to make a confession that I was here in 1975. And I knew that chief building inspector. And you were here. Anyway, file number 105, E-2026, chapter 8, excuse me, 8, chapter 9. Orders be presented for first reading consideration. Orders relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa of 1975 as amended to amend section 9.02 to remove the obsolete requirement that the chief building inspector shall be an ex-official director of the zoning adjustment board, providing an effective date. I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously. Clerk. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in city council chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. 106. Item 106 is proposal to amend section 10.07 of the charter, provide a procedure for citizens initiatives and referendums that's in accordance with general law. Okay. Council have any questions? Hearing none. Councilman Carlson would you like to read item 106. Move item 106 file number E2026-8CH10 ordinance being presented for first reading consideration ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa 1975 as amended to amend section 10.07 to provide a procedure for citizens initiatives and referendums that is in accordance with general law. In accordance with general law providing effective date. Thank you. Motion from Councilman Carlson. A second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously. Clerk. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. 107. Item 107. Section 10.06 of the charter to remove an obsolete reference to the year the provision took effect. Thank you. Council have any questions? Hearing none. Councilwoman Young, would you read 107? File number E2026-8 Chapter 10 ordinance being presented for first reading consideration an ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa 1975 as amended to amend section 10.06 to remove obsolete reference to the year the provision took effect. Providing an effective date. I have a motion from Councilwoman Young, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it unanimously. Clerk. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. 108. Item 108 is a proposal to amend section 11.03 of the charter to remove an obsolete reference to the term of officers elected in 1975. Thank you. Does Council have any questions? Do you remember what this was? Off the top of my head, I can't remember. Office terms elected in 1975, so. Right. Just taking out the old stuff. Right. There's a sentence in 11.03 that says all officers elected in 1975, regular election shall continue in office for the term to which they were elected. Are we okay with that? Yes. We go past the one of the removal of the department. I don't think that passed. Remember, we killed that before. All right. So that didn't make it to this point. Okay. So Councilwoman Hurtick. Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city, a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa of 1975 as amended to amend section 11.03 to remove obsolete reference to the terms of officers elected in 1975, providing an effective date. I have a motion of Councilwoman Hurtick, a second from Councilwoman Hurtick. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Unanimously. Clerk. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. I know this saddens you, but this is the last one. The last one. I think the last few proved that your Charter Review Commission read every word of the charter in bringing some of those to you. That's for sure. Item number 109 is amending the charter of the city of Tampa to create Article 12, Section 12.01, creating the appointed position and office of the Inspector General. I think you've heard all the details as far as that goes. Happy to provide you. Okay. So I know Mr. Creighton, I believe, was like the lead on this, and he worked, you know, he's amazing already, but he put a lot of work in this. And then I spoke to my appointee, Stephen Benson, who was also in support of the Inspector General. My only concern is I want to, I support it if it, if it's what Mr. Creighton proposed, what the Charter Review Commission proposed and their parameters. I know Council gave it more teeth, you know, made it broader. I just, you know, I suppose I want to support what the Charter Review Commission voted for. Well, and I'm going to say that the Charter Commission voted for what they voted for just to get it to us so we could strengthen it. They didn't have enough support to go as far as they wanted to. The two people you just mentioned didn't have the support to get it to where. Yeah. They wanted it to be the teeth that we gave it. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions, Councilman Carlson? Yeah. I just want, for the record, wanted to say the stated purpose in this first section of this ordinance is audit contracts, programs, projects, expenditures. That's what the existing audit department already does, exclamation mark. We already have an audit department with a budget of nearly one million and six full-time staffers who crank out audit reports. That was from the mayor's staff. And as I stated in my, as I stated in my statement this morning, there's a difference between an IG investigatory department and an internal audit department. I've never. Very distinctively, different types of roles. Yeah. Nothing disparaging about the audit department, but, um, I've met with them many times. The first time I met with them was at the recommendation of the chief of staff years ago and, and they serve a purpose, but mostly what they're doing is process analysis. They're not looking for fraud and an audit does not. When you do a CPA audit, it specifically does not look for fraud and we need, we need an inspector general, um, to look more deeply in everything. And, and it needs, if the audit department reports to the mayor, no matter how honest the person is, um, they report to the mayor. And so it needs to be an outside group. I was reading that to be facetious, but yeah, I kind of picked up that halfway through. So it didn't get enough votes to be recommended to us by the charter review. The charter review commission forwarded, and I, they wanted an IgE. The, uh, charter amendment that we have before us has more teeth to it than the one, which is what Bobby and Steven wanted. Okay. Um, and I, I, I'm sorry, Bobby, Steven, if I'm mischaracterizing your, your, your positions, please let me know. But I don't believe I am council Miranda. Let me ask this regarding this individual, whoever he or she is. Is this going to be an individual who only looks out or is he, he or she and the books of everything looking at for fraud. You have to have somebody here that understands. There's two things. One that understand budgeting and performance of a budget and so forth. And one that's got a nose like a Greyhound, not a Greyhound, Greyhound can only do speed, not run. But like a Greyhound, real Greyhound, that's a bloodhound that understands what, where to look at. And, and the cost of this, what, a million dollars a year? It hasn't been cost a doubt. I, I, I, I, I'm not against something like this, but we have an internal and external order to do things. You know, it's, it's funny councilman, I, I'm not to get back, I kind of violated my rules here. So, um, I, I'm kind of, I, I, I'll be honest with you. I'm kind of, I was kind of there too. Um, but I understand as, especially as I did the research, the number of municipalities in the state of Florida that have this, in fact, have very similar languages in front of us today. What have they filed? Uh, that, I, I can't tell you, but I, but I, I just, I just know, I, I just don't want to go, I don't want to be the guy that votes against an IG. So. Yeah. Councilman Young. Um, no, I, so I had an opportunity. Um, I met with our, um, art department and it just kind of walked me through what their processes are. Um, a lot of these, I'm, I'm very interested in, um, the second readings and hearing what the public has to say. So, um, as to Councilman, um, Maniscalco's point, if it is, you know, what our charter committee was, was recommending, um, and getting it to us. Um, but I still think there are some things that we can flush out with exactly like what, what, what is this going to look like? Um, but I am, I'm very interested in, in hearing and seeing what, what the public thinks for, for the second reading. But I don't think that it's, I don't think that there's a bad thing. Um, but I did just so I, you know, have a, you know, full, you know, brevity of knowledge may met with our art department just to know exactly what it is that they do, don't do what, you know, changes things that, you know, going forward. So just to put that there. And I really appreciate that. My, my concern is this. And I'm, I'm going for it in first reading, but I'm going to find out. Look, in order for somebody to find something, somebody else got to find it. You know, something else to consider this, this IG, you investigate us too. Yeah, that's fine. Listen, I get investigated every day. We all are. What you won't hear, you're getting investigated one way or the other. And that's why pulling a handle, yay or nay. Um, I just want to say that there's a vast difference between an auditor and investigator. Um, our internal auditing team, they have to do what they have to do. Um, and it's, and I, I read through each of those audits and I actually go back to them and ask for more information often. I'm sure they're tired of hearing from me, but, um, but that, but an audit is vastly different than what this is. So I, I support this mainly because yes, this is something that we have in other municipalities. And I think it's something the city of Tampa needs, but it's, it can, it can, it can research any of us. It's not just, it's, it's not just into your interior city departments making sure things are going the way they should. They're looking for stuff that isn't going well. Okay. Okay. If there's no further discussion, um, Councilwoman Hurtek, would you read 109? Sure. Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance relating to the government of the city of Tampa, Florida, submitting to the electors of the city, a proposed amendment to the revised charter of the city of Tampa of 1975, as amended to create article 12, section 12.01, creating the appointed position of, and an office of inspector general setting the office's purpose, providing for independent activity and non interference by city officials. Authorizing use of legal and human city resources, city services, requiring an implementation ordinance to be adopted on a certain schedule, specifying the roles of the office under the charter, granting certain powers, including subpoena authority, requiring cooperation by city officers, employees, and contractors setting appointment method, term removal method and process to fill vacancies by city council, providing for office budget request process, providing an effective. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtek. A second from Councilwoman Hurtek. A second from Councilwoman Hurtek. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it unanimously. Clerk. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19th, 2026 at 11 a.m. in city council chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. Councilwoman Hurtek. And I would say that if anybody has questions for how their person voted, I would ask them to reach out to that person and ask for more detail if they want to know like what they really thought. Councilwoman Hurtek. And Councilwoman Hurtek. Can we shake the gavle for a moment? Mr. Chair, may I just say, I need to, I apologize, we're going to be done by now, so I have a meeting I have to go to, so I have to excuse myself. I'll be watching on video. Thank you, Council. I'll see you in two weeks. Thank you. Madam Chair Pro Tem. Yes. I recognize you, Chair. Thank you. Dear Attorney Tinkler. On behalf of the Chair of Tampa City Council, I would like to extend our sincere appreciation for your legal guidance and service to the Charter Review Commission. Your role as the Commission's attorney was essential to providing members with the legal insight, counsel, and direction necessary to navigate the charter review process. Throughout the Commission's proceedings, your knowledge of municipal law and the City Charter helped inform discussions, clarify legal uncertainties, and ensure that members had the appropriate guidance as they examined potential changes to the City of Tampa governing framework. Your willingness to share your expertise and assist the Commission through the important process reflects a meaningful commitment to the integrity and effectiveness of local government. Thank you for your time, professionalism, and dedication you brought to this responsibility. Your contributions were invaluable to the Commission's efforts and will continue to serve as an important part of the City's ongoing commitment to strengthening government and better serving our beautiful city. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. I will see you in two weeks. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. We're moving on to items that were pulled from the Consent Agenda. If I have this correct, it's 8 and 9. If my memory serves me correctly. Councilwoman Hurtek. Correct. Yes. I believe we have folks here to chat about 8 and 9 maybe. Yes. Staff report. So I just wanted to let you all clarify for the public that this has nothing to do with current block or video. So for item 8, it's really a multi-agency cooperation. Yeah. So whatever you can do just to clarify for the public that 8 and 9 don't have anything to do with. Yes, ma'am. Speaking about item 8, that's just a... Can you just start with your name? Sorry. Oh, sorry. Lieutenant Demetrius German from the Temple Police Department. And so going back to item 8 on the Consent Agenda, the multi-agency voluntary task force is basically just a task force to work on drone detection. So basically Pasco County purchased a drone system, which the local agencies around kind of participate in. Not kind of. We all went into an interlocal agency agreement, which I think was signed back in 2025. So basically what this task force does is instead of tasking one agency to supply manpower, all partnering agencies supply manpower for it. So it has nothing to do with flock whatsoever. It's basically the agencies working on and working together to do drone detection. Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Young. All right. I guess you kind of answered my question. So for 8 and 9, it's for drone detection? No, ma'am. That was just for consent. Agenda 8. That was number 8. Okay. That's for drone detection. Okay. Anybody else have any other questions on item number 8? No. Can we talk about item number 9? Good afternoon, Council. I'll just back. Let's just let them do their thing first. Go ahead. Good afternoon, Council. Captain Benjamin Brown, Tampa Police Department. I'm here to address item 9, which is in reference to the Ops Intel Time Situational Awareness, also known as Street Smart. Again, it has nothing to do with flock. This is an internal intelligence type database that allows us to share information between squads, districts, units from day to day. For an example, it's set up to be able to use as a blogging device to put information for what your squad may have done over the span of your shift on a specific day so that the following squad or the next day or the next shift are able to find what you were able to do or to continue on the investigations that you had started. Okay. Councilman Young, do you have questions? Yes. How does this program, does it work with the Peregrine, Peregrine, or are they two separate programs, or do they work together? How does that work? No, ma'am. Completely two different companies. They do. But do they do the same thing? It's a separate standalone. Do they do the same thing? What's the difference between this one and then the? From my understanding, the Peregrine program pulls together data from other groups or other systems within the department and makes it easier to search information. In this program, you're able to put information into it. The way the Tampa Police Department uses it, I'm sure there may be other means that other departments use or other agencies, but the way we use it is just information sharing. So it's two completely different programs. I'm still confused. So is it the same information going in both programs or is it different information going in the program? No, ma'am. My understanding of it, with this program that we're talking about, Street Smart, that is a program that you put information into, not specific. For example, at the end of my squad shift, if I was a sergeant, I may put an end of shift in there that outlined everything that my squad or unit did during that shift. The other program that you're referring to is a search program. It allows you to search and pull information from multiple platforms into one. Hopefully that cleared it up for you. I'm sorry. Any further questions? Councilman Miranda, would you please move items eight and nine? I will move item eight and nine resolution. Okay. I have a motion of Councilman Miranda. Second Councilman Scott. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you for showing. Thank you, Councilman. Okay. So at the same time, let's talk about 111. Who's representing 111? I thought we agreed just to accept 111 and 113. So I move items 111 and 113. Wait a minute. I told the stats. Oh, never mind. That's right. There is a stat reading. Yeah. I thought we couldn't just go through it. Councilman Matascalko, tag. You're it. Okay. I'm going to read this whole thing. You want me to read the whole thing? Why don't we have a setup from staff just to talk about what you're talking about so when you'll know the statistics. Anybody want to set up the red light thing? Just read it. Just the box. Right. But this is the annual report. This is the annual report that's required by. I'll put it on it. Do you have a copy of that already? Oh, he has a copy already. There you go. And you still want me to read it? Yep. Because that's what it says in the second paragraph. I think we have to. Are you ready? Here we go. Number. Notices of violations issued. This is red light cameras. 91,911. Make sure you stop at that light before you take the right turn. Notices of violations contested, 483. Notices of violations up until 343. Notice of violations dismissed, 101. Very hard to get out of these. Number of uniformed traffic citations issued, 27,151. Number of notices of violations paid, 55,884. Revenue paid to the state, 5,150,871. Revenue paid to Vera Mobility, 2,098,103. Net revenue for the city, excluding operation costs, 4,780,991. Distributed to Intersection Safety Capital Project, 1,195,908. 1,195,248. And distributed to the general fund, 3,585,743. Okay. Thank you. That was just for the public. I understand this is an annual requirement of required reading of our red light, status of our red light camera information. Councilwoman Hertet. I have a question. So it says notice of violations issued and notice of uniformed traffic citations issued. That's over 100,000, but it looks like only half of them have been paid. What's up with that? There could be a couple of reasons for that number. One, they haven't gone through the system yet. Two, they're being contested. Or three, the people just haven't paid them. A lot of the times, and that's what, when you see the uniformed citations issued, if you don't pay the original fine, then it'll turn into a uniformed traffic citation. Ah. So if you add the 27,151 and the 55,884, that gives you a true number of what has been distributed back in. Okay. That's going to be less than the 91,000 because there are outliers that just haven't responded to it or are contesting it. So what happens with those outliers? How long do, do they go to collections? What's the, like, I mean, if you get, because it, it's really important that people pay their, their tickets because otherwise they're going to keep doing it. Yes, ma'am. Um, what will happen if you don't address that, you get your, your warnings for the civil, um, just infraction. And if you don't, it goes to uniformed traffic citation. If you don't address that, then your license will be suspended. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yes, ma'am. Yes. So the, the distributed to general fund. So since we've initiated these cameras, this is how much money has gone to, to the general fund. This 3,585,743. No, ma'am. That's just this year. That's just this year. Or this period, uh, captured by these numbers in the last 12 months. So is this funding here what we're going to be talking about for a one 12, the money going towards? No, different. This is different. This is different. This is, this is the red light, intersection red light cameras. The illegal turns on right or running red lights. Okay. So what happens with this many? The general fund. The general fund. So we, they have the part of it. Mm-hmm. Distributed to intersection safety capital, that, that allocation. Mm-hmm. And then this just went into our general fund. Mm-hmm. And that was allocated. This was already allocated to things. Paving. Paving. Something else. Mm-hmm. Hearing nothing else. If there's no other comment, can I get a motion to receive and file 111 and 113? I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco. I'm a second from Councilman Randall. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. 111 and 113. Okay. And so now we're at 112 and this is now, now this is the school zone. Good afternoon. Justin Vaskey, legal department. This is with regard to item 112 on the agenda. On August 6th, 2026, city council introduced a motion directing staff to amend section 1456J to designate all funds retained under Chapter 316 Florida statutes to administering speed detection systems in school zones and to infrastructure-focused safety initiatives within school attendance zones defined by Hillsborough County School District. Subsequent to the submittal of the ordinance, the draft ordinance, I had a meeting with Emily Hinsdale and Councilman Carlson, and they made some tweaks to the draft ordinance. So at this time I'd like to give city council or submit to city council the revised draft ordinance. Okay. Thank you. Could you hand that to Mr. Shelby, please? Yeah. I think we did. Yeah. I've got mine. I just wanted to make sure we are all literally on the same page. Okay. So I know we'll have some time to discussion. So what we need now is just scheduling this for first reading. Yes. And my request would be possibly the first meeting in December, we can have first reading. First reading. Let's look at December. December 3rd. December 3rd. Okay. So I guess it doesn't matter if we're in this first reading, so that's good. Okay. So 12-3. Okay. Is there any discussion over this? Okay. Hearing none, who would like to make the motion to schedule this? I'll make a motion to put item number 112 on the December 3rd. First reading. First reading. Okay. Agenda. Okay. So I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtick. I got it. Sorry. Councilwoman Young beat you to it. Councilman Ryan. I have a second from Councilwoman Young. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you very much. We don't need to read that. No. I don't think so. Okay. Very good. 114. Good afternoon, Councilwoman Abby Feeley, Administrator of Development Economic Opportunity. I am here to give you the bi-monthly update on the Land Development Code. And we have had a busy October. On October 1st, we released installment two of the Land Development Code. On the second, we had a meeting of our technical advisory group where Clarion Associates went over what is in the installment, how it's organized. The installment two is predominantly procedures and administration of the code. And I did bring a few little handouts just to share on the ELMO today. So it's mostly administrative procedures and processes that are spread throughout the code and now are being organized into one chapter of the code. An example that Clarion gave is like the variance review board. Variances are heard by the BLC, the ARC, and the VRB. And right now, inside the Land Development Code, that's touched on in three different places. So this will have one place that the variance review discussion takes place, and it's more organized that way. There are two key changes that are in installment two. One is the proposal of a hearing officer for a certain number of appeals that currently come to city council. And the other is a restructuring of the design exception process. So those were the two key changes that we talked about. We did have a public meeting on installment two on October 29th. That was at the Hannah City Center. We are grateful to have had Councilwoman Hertak with us that day, and also Carol Ann Bennett, who sits on our technical advisory group, was present with us that evening as well. We had about 50 people between our in-person and our online option for that. That has been uploaded onto the Tampa Forward website. So has the installment, so has the presentation. So everything is out there for everyone to go ahead and take a look at. We are taking comments on that. We don't currently have a deadline for when we're going to close that out. We are in the process of drafting installment three. That I know many people are interested is when that will be coming. We're working with the consultant to get a firm date on that. And when we do, I will share that with you, as well as we will post it on the website to be on the lookout for installment three. I want to make sure I touch on everything. All comments or any comments can be sent to TampaForward at tampagov.net. We do, there's several of us that monitor that. Everything that comes into that email address gets sent to Clarion, to Jeff Green. And he works to review those. And then we discuss them as well. So a little friendly reminder. We know this is quite a process. Rather take our time and get it right than just get it done. So we're in, we're still in drafting. After drafting does come testing. So we get this code together. Installment three, which has what I think everybody is really looking for. All the goodies. Tree and landscape. Parking. Nonconformities. Really the meat of what's that last section. We're going to probably break that into two installments because, or two pieces, an A and a B. Because it is going to be quite a lot of content. But once we get all that done and then we get a revised full version of the code, we would go into testing to see, okay, if we apply this now, how does it work? So in addition to staff proposing different test case scenarios, we're open to counsel. If you've had a case recently where you're like, oh, I wonder if we had the new code, what that would have, how that would have worked. We can do that too. So. And then after that, we would go into adoption. So I wanted to share that as well as just kind of like I mentioned. I know I'm the last person on the agenda. What's in installment two. Remember installment one had the zoning districts and it had the definition. It had some definitions. This also updates the definitions and it had, I believe, development standards. So that zoning districts and development standards in installment one. And then lastly, I wanted to share kind of what I just spoke about, which was a visual of that really restructuring of how we currently see things in the code. And now it really is all proposed in one more standardized table with everything in that table as far as who makes the decision. Like in this case, let me go back to one that we're very familiar with. Like for the Euclidean zoning, it says, you know, who comes in and where the staff review happens, where the decision is made, whom it's made by. It says if it's a public hearing or not. And then also where you can find other relative information to that section. So love for every take a look. And if you have any questions, I'm available. Yeah. So one of the things that was talked about a bit at that meeting, which was wonderful, by the way, again, appreciate that was the hearing officer. Could you talk a little bit to us about the types of things that the hearing officer would take off of our plates? Just because I know that's one of the concerns is from the public was what's going to be taken off. So you didn't really go into depth about that. Is there could you talk a little bit about that today? I could. I didn't bring that with me. Okay. Could you email to us? Yes, I can. I can definitely email that section to you. I think one of the examples we gave at the meeting the other night was like the enclosed garage appeal that came to you the other day. And so, and you only hear two review hearings each city council hearing. And I think we've actually had some of that go down. I think you had two that were supposed to be on today for vendors and allowing for more than one vendor to be on a property. But I could go through the application and let you know which ones they are considering that would not come to council but would go to a hearing master. Yeah, I think that's the kind of the thing that I want to know. Hearing officer. So that when I talk to the public, I know which exact ones you're thinking about moving. And I think all of us would be interested in that because you said you wanted to get our perspective too. So I want to know what what it is so I can give you my perspective. Awesome. And I can also prepare that for the next monthly update that I bring. That would be great. Thank you. Ms. Feely, if this was a private industry, there would be five people doing your job. I mean, I honestly, I can't even imagine what this, I mean, the spectrum of your job description has to look like what ours looks like. Because one day we're talking about poop water and the next day we're talking about land development. You know, you do, you have so many things. I mean, honestly, I would say almost everything that comes into my office, it falls under your purview. It's like everything. I mean, literally everything. I don't have to worry about anybody else in the city. I just have to have your number. So I really do appreciate how much effort and energy. And I know this, this project is so important to the city of Tampa and the amount of effort that you've put into it personally, how much you're vested into this. It has not gone unnoticed. So thank you very much. Thank you. I'm grateful for the opportunity to serve. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call my wife Wonder Woman, like when Linda Carter spins around and turns into Wonder Woman. My wife calls Abby Superwoman because of everything that you said. So, yeah, we certainly appreciate you and everybody notices. I mean, you know, I appreciate your support and involvement. And I really appreciate it. I know Councilwoman Hurtek the other night with everything you're going through. It was really great to have you there. So thank you so much. Thank you. Have a great day. On item number 115. I'd like to move. I'd like to move to continue this. I was going to actually say that because it was mine and I was going to say, yes, I think we should have a full council, including district sevens. I would suggest December 3rd. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's yeah. I was going to say, but no, I'll second. I'll second. No, you already said it that way. I have a motion from Councilman Hurtek and a second from Councilwoman Hurtek to continue item 115 to December 3rd. That'll give us an opportunity to have a full council for something. This is important. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Aye. Sorry, Justin. But I know you enjoyed sitting here with us. Hey, it's fun. No other place I'd rather be. You know, you looked at me right in the eye and lied to me just like that. Was I married to you once? Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, that concludes our regularly scheduled program. We are now at new business. Am I correct? We've checked off all the boxes, right? Yes. Okay. Good. Councilman Young, new business. I haven't done this in a while, but I went to the Equitable Table Community Dinner at Tampa Well last night, which was a really awesome opportunity. If you haven't been there yet, they have a beautiful garden right next to the TGH facility, so it's very nice. So we had an opportunity to go there. Different community leaders from all over came and had discussions about health and the importance of health in your community. Also, there's a new free clinic that's opening up in Sulphur Springs on 40th Street. It's called Mercy Med. So we went to tour there. They are just brand new. I think they're two weeks in, but a really beautiful facility. It's free. They have all of the doctors, even down to the front desk. It is all volunteer. People are coming in to volunteer. So it was really awesome. So if you have opportunity to go by there, please, and let people know. The Palmetto Beach Community Neighborhood Association had a community meeting a couple weeks ago, and I just wanted to thank HART, Code Enforcement, and our Sustainability Department that came to the meeting. It was really, really great, and the community was really happy to have them there, and they were able to provide a lot of information about pathways to Palmetto, about bus routes, even code enforcement. So it was a great meeting. So thank you all for coming. And then also, the Sulphur Springs Neighborhood Action Plan has won two awards. I actually happened to be at one of them, which is the Planning and Design Awards ceremony. Myself and Councilman Maniscalco were there. So Sulphur Springs Neighborhood Action Plan won an award. We were there for CRA because CRA got two awards as well. I'll talk about that at the CRA meeting. And Charlie Adams was with us. Yes, and Charlie Adams was there as well. He came on stage with us, which was well-deserved. And then also, I found out when I was at the FRA conference for CRA that Neighborhood Action Plan had won an award of merit at APA Florida. So I was not aware of that. I found out. I just so happened to meet the gentleman that I was working with on that project, and he told me. And he's like, no one told you. I was like, nobody told me. So Sulphur Springs Neighborhood Action Plan has won two awards. So I just wanted to put that out there. And so everybody that worked on their project, including myself, good job. Councilwoman Herzeg. So we had an issue. We had a good workshop session, but a couple of you were missing. And we found that the new provision to public comment at the end didn't really work. Those of us who were here agreed that having public comment following each workshop agenda was better, because by the time we had gotten to public comment, we had already approved and moved some things forward. I'm telling you. I mean, you agree. Well, the problem is work is, I think we've lost track of what a workshop is supposed to be. But having input from the public is important for each item. So I would, I'm going to make a motion to, and if it doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't go anywhere. I move to amend the rules or procedures to allow public comment following each workshop agenda item. I'll second it for Stephanie Poynter. Yeah. I mean, I'm not going to support it only because, again, this is my, and this is the reason why. It's not because of the public, but I think what's happened with our work with, there's a, there's a, I think we have to define what a workshop is and what the purpose of that workshop is and differentiate it between a business meeting where we're taking action and, you know, publicly noticed items. Because otherwise it's, it's like our dialogue. You know, in a workshop it's really free because we have some free discussion. It's an opportunity for us to talk in the sunshine about these things. The problem is, is that we did make motions to move things to an agenda. But we're, but, but we do at the end, we move things to an agenda or we come to an agreement. And then at the very end, we heard public comment and public comment had some good stuff that I would have liked to have put in my agreement, but I couldn't because we had already moved on. Let's see if, if, if let's play that out though. Let's say we all have a work. It's a workshop. It's an opportunity for all of us to have a free and open conversation in the sunshine. Well, which we can't do any at the time. Right. So if we have that workshop and then let's say the business you're talking about, you move it to a work, a city council agenda, and then that's the opportunity for the public comment. But what I'm saying is the public comment provided something that would have made it better. But they still get the public comment though, which is. But, but they only get three minutes to talk about, you know, five items on the agenda. So they don't get a chance to really talk about all the different things. I mean, if we could, if you want to reduce it to like two minutes each or something, that's fine. It's just, I mean, you can experience it, but we just, I just found, and we all agreed, all four of us who were here agreed that it wasn't very good, that we didn't like it. I just, I really, because it's, it's the only time as a city council and that we have this opportunity in a workshop to shush you. But. It's the only time in a city council that we, that we have this opportunity. And I, I hate to, I hate to skewer that or dilute that opportunity by turning it into a quasi city council meeting. But, but you're diluting the opportunity for the public to share ideas that also could be good. And I think that's the issue because then if, if we don't have, so say it's something that we could have wrapped in and then brought to, to council for an actual motion. But then when it comes to council, that person shares the idea. Then we have to re re change things and it comes back again. So it's just doubling the effort. So I just, I mean, again, I have a motion for councilwoman Hurtick. I have a second councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. You got one nay. I got one nay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then. By the way, the ayes have it with councilman in opposition. Um, so this is, uh, um, this is a request for, and I've actually worked with, I've been working with Scott steady on this. So this is something that he came up with. We worked on together requests for the administration to coordinate with staff to prepare an initial draft ordinance addressing the potential for large format digital displays on buildings within the central business district. The draft ordinance shall be presented within 30 days following the completion and presentation to city council of architecture plus international Inc API plus study inventory of potential central business district location for displays no later than may 1st, 2027. I have a motion from councilwoman Hurtick a second from I'll second it. Cause I have a question. Isn't does this regard to any pending litigation or no, this has nothing to do with. No, this has nothing to do with litigation. What happened was we, we, I think at a workshop came up with what we wanted to do next with large format digital signs, but then we didn't, then there was nothing that we, I asked for an ordinance and nothing happened. And what, and then I think what happened was the raise thing started. We all forgot about it. And so I went to Scott steady and councilwoman Henderson isn't here. And yeah, she's not here. So what I did is I went to Scott steady and talk to him about it. And, and he was like, yeah, we went ahead and forwarded and started the, the, so they've actually, they were able to hop onto an old, um, Abby said she wanted to hop onto another, um, uh, work order to allow the, um, uh, the study and the inventory of the potential CBD locations. And so they've already got somebody that's going to come back to us really soon for approval. So I just wanted to get this started. So this is an administrative. Yes. So basically what we're trying to do is while that is going on, they're going to be writing the ordinance at the same time so that they can be, so they can come to us at the same time. Okay. What about the settlement? Not me. I'm not second. No, I'm no. Councilman Maniscalco second it. Um, you want to discuss. So the settlement is completely different and that's going to be coming to us from what, what I understand. Um, uh, Scott steady and he's going to have to come and talk about this personally. Um, Scott is working. They're working on the settlement right now with the sign company. Yeah. With the sign companies and they're, they're in active negotiation. Okay. I thought there was a pending lawsuit or something. No, there's active. It's not, it's not a lawsuit. They're actually in negotiations to settle. Okay. So again, if I hear a council on her check, correct. This is placed in a hole to have this move forward. So we have a spot for it. Yeah. When it went, if it's right to be heard at that date. Yes. I know I said no later than May 1st. So we're just going to, that way we're going to keep, I'm going to keep my finger on it. Okay. So I have a motion and I have a second councilman. Miranda, you wish to discuss. I'm just saying this, I don't know where this is going, but if I smell it in the direction that it's going, it means that you're going to have digital billboards and all the buildings. And central businesses are only in downtown. And in various limited locations. That's the whole point of the study. But again, that's subject to negotiation. That's subject to what's happening behind this. Yeah. I'm just totally against that. When you change this downtown that has grown on itself by the people wanting to live here. And now you're having an enormous amount of residential property building downtown. And they're going to look out the window and see a sign like that. This, I don't want Tampa to be New York. I don't want Tampa to be Las Vegas. I want Tampa to be Tampa. How about Havana? Well, we can do that. But what we're saying is that we're changing something that has been, it's gone from nothing to really an enormous city, a wonderful downtown. And what we're trying to do is get more money, squeeze more money into what? Money doesn't solve the problem. You're going to create a difference to what made the city of Tampa, Tampa, and you're going to change it or something else. And I'm totally against that. Okay. I have a motion. I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay. A motion passes with Councilman Miranda in opposition. Okay. For Councilman Scott. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I have a few commendations from State Representative-Elect Vieira on his behalf. A few that said health snack? No. I would if he asked. I mean, why not? So I have here, we heard some public comment this morning. I'm just putting this out there, council members. I'm not making any motion. This is the Florida Affordable Energy Resolution. There's a bunch of whereases. I made copies for everyone so you can look at it. I don't see anything controversial. But again, I don't want to jump the gun and make a motion and it fails and blindside anybody. There is a section here that says hyperscale data centers. I would like to remove that because you have your motion regarding that and we can keep that separate. I don't want to affect that. But I made copies for everyone. If they'd like to look at this and we can bring it up at a future meeting, whether it's the 19th or December 3rd. And if council members, I'll revisit this then under new business. If council members are comfortable with this and we have a full council, we'll move forward with it. But at least, you know, we have that idea. Yeah. And I'll give you a copy and for the clerk. So you can look over it if it's, I'll bring it up in the 19th if we have time, if not December 3rd. If you're comfortable with it, you know, I'll make a motion there that we draft this. It's just a resolution. Yeah. I mean, as you know, I mean, I think we bring this up at this future meeting like that. And I appreciate giving us the time and the opportunity to look at it between now and then as well. I am in the public, by the way, I am fully personally and supportive. I mean, give me affordable. You see my old TECO bill. It's crazy. I'm fully supportive of your agenda. But we have a, we have an issue with Tampa City Council that we resolve. And that is that we try to stick to, and if this may actually fit that, I don't like to give me, I'll have time to look at it. It may fit within our parameters, but we have, we have a policy that this city council only adopts things that were within our purview. So that's, that's why if Gaza, abortion, or Council of Heroes here, you know, some of the foreign policies related to Cuba and things like that, that aren't within the, our purview. This council doesn't go, doesn't dive into because it's just, it's just a deep hole that you just can't get out of. So we, we adopted a policy a couple of years ago, restricting our ability to do that intentionally. So as long as, you know, if, as we read through this and as long as it, it is something that, that the city council has some control over. I mean, I would be, again, I would be supportive of, but if, if something that the city council doesn't control, like electrical bills would be the PSC, you know, those kinds of things. So I would probably defer to that, but that doesn't mean that any one of us can't, you know, sign petitions, make phone calls to it. If you have on a personal level, I think we, you know, we've talked about that before. We all have our personal politics versus council business. Yeah. Yeah. No, I'll revisit this. If we have time on the 19th, I know it's going to be a, it's a, it's a short day, but we'll have a full council, if not December 3rd. Okay. And it's okay to say no. Yeah. If anybody feels uncomfortable, no, no hurt feelings. Well, and we'll just have to evaluate it based on, on reading the document. Yeah. And I'll get Mr. Shelby's advice to his chair, if, if whether it is within order of our council rules. Well, the, the, the thing is I've already had an opportunity to talk with the legal department about this as well. And it's the kind of policy issue that whether it's me drafting and I'm happy to do it or, or the legal department, it really should be a motion of council to do it rather than on behalf of an individual council member. In other words, if council makes a decision to direct us to be able to do that, to direct me to be able to do that, I'm happy to do that. I don't know if I understand what you just said. What I just said to you is if, if, if, if, if this were, let's say to come to me by an individual council member. To draft a resolution. To draft a resolution. And I'd say, this is something that really requires. Legal. Legalese. It comes. No, no, no. Not legalese. That it be at the direction of the board, because it is, it is something that. Oh, now I understand. You understand what I'm saying? Yeah. Now I understand. So to put into other words, is that if council at this meeting, when councilman Maniscalco brings this up, what would be expected of you councilman Maniscalco would be to, at the next meeting. To, with the acceptance of council. Yeah. Your motion would be to direct legal staff to come back. Yeah. Or direct Mr. Shelby to come back with. Yeah. I just wanted to give everybody a heads up. No, I, that's very good. Honestly, that's really good that you did that. I appreciate that. This is the data. Just, you know, about electric rates and stuff. I've given you documents or some data, and then there's the actual resolution just to receive and follow. That's the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Okay. And then on January 8th, staff came back regarding manatee protection zones to establish an ordinance. So I have an ordinance, which I'm going to hand out. I have copies for everyone and the clerk. I'd like to make a motion to put this ordinance establishing a manatee protection zone on the Hillsboro River to come back for first reading and adoption on November 19, 2026. Second. And I believe my legislative aide checked with that. Yeah. She, I mean, we, we were, we had our briefing with the legal department. If there's an issue, we can push it back. My only concern with November 19th is we start at 11 o'clock. It's the half a day. And, and, and we also have, and we also have all the public hearings on the charter stuff, the second readings and the adoptions. It says, go ahead. Is there a reason why? As long as, as long as. Yeah. Kick it a little further down. As long as it could be done. Well, let's do it December 3rd considering. Yeah. We started 11. So it's that unusual because the great American teaching. All right. So I'd like to make a motion to put this ordinance and I'm going to hand it out establishing a manatee protection zone on the Hillsboro river to come back for first reading and adoption on November 19th. I'm sorry, December 3rd, 2026. I have a motion of Councilman Escalco second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Thank you. I fully support our manatees. Thanks. Okay. Councilman, is that it? Any birthdays? No, no. Councilman Miranda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have five items. One motion to have the revenue and finance staff present the 20 fiscal year, 26 year in budget revenue financial review of January to be reviewed on January 21 of 2027. Second. Thank you. I have a motion Councilman Miranda. Second for Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Second. Motion to have the revenue and finance staff present the 2027 first quarter general fund net revenue report review on February 18, 2027. I have a motion Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Aye. Number three. Motion to have the revenue and finance staff present the annual debt capacity report on February 25 of 2027. I have a motion Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Motion to have the revenue and finance staff present the 30 year CIT remaining fund balance on March 4, 2027. I have a motion Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Go on. You have something else? I have one more. This I thought of today when we were doing these hearings. Vacating right of ways and other city properties. I really believe we have to make an ordinance that the city of Tampa if it meets all regulations of the city and passes all city regulation at the time of presentation it shall be sold to whoever comes before us whoever the bidding at whatever the price of unit is per square foot within a circumference of that property. You know the thing is like that one was a vacation not a property ownership. Yeah I understand. Yeah. Okay. But in case. Right. You can't. We're doing this every day and somebody's making something up. So if I hear you right you're asking staff to come back at a certain date. Come back at a certain date. I say whatever we have a calendar. Initial with the report. Yeah. To find out if that's possible. What date? Tuesday. I don't have the thing in front of me I would imagine. December 17th. December. 17th they're going to try to. They're going to be pushing it. Okay. How about January. Okay. Yeah January. January 21st. Yeah. That'd be good. January 21st. To find out any excess property or any property that's vacating something. We're just giving it away. We should sell it. So I have a motion Councilman Randa to direct staff to come back to City Council on January 21st, 2027. And if you would coordinate with Councilman Randa to get the specifics of what his request is on how we dispense property and if there's any value associated with that. Okay. I have a motion Councilman Randa. Second from. Second. Councilwoman Hertek. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. And that's enough for me. Okay. Councilwoman Hertek. Kelly forgot to put one in my folder. So we've talked about it and sort of joked about it a little bit. But on Tuesday the voters agreed to pass amendment three. So we're going to have to cut our budget significantly going forward. So because I've been getting a ton of questions from constituents about it and I don't have enough information. I think we all need an update. And so I motioned to have a staff report on the budget plans in the wake of amendment three to be done during the administrative update on November 19th, 2026. Just a quick update. Nothing major. We can dive into it later. But that way just during the administrative update just for them to. No more than five minutes. Yeah. Five, ten minutes. Just to say hey this is what's going on. And from there we can set other times because we're going to have to start going through our budget. We're going to have to cut things. Some things have already been happening at the administrative level. But we really have to look and see. We can't leave this to the next council. Yeah. You know the impact is not going to hit until 28. I know. But still we need to put some money in reserves. We need to be planning. Because from my understanding the mayor's already done a moratorium on hiring. Which is smart. But cutting $80 million can't be done quickly. So we're going to. Just 30 of them. Yeah. But we need to. We need to start talking about it because. I support this. We cannot leave it for the next council to deal with. Okay. I have a motion for Councilwoman Hurtek. A second for Councilman Hurtek. Is that correct? Yeah. Second for Councilman Hurtek. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed the ayes have it. Is that it? Okay Councilwoman Hurtek. Chair. I just have one quick one and it's a part of our community that is really in contributing. I would like to allow for a presentation on December 26 December 17th 2026 on the Cewad Diwali to share its local impact and nationwide success and highlight how its values of service compassion unity and community participation can continue to benefit Tampa residents. Second. Okay. So I have a motion from Chair Clendenin. I have a second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor. Aye. Any opposed. Okay. Thank you. Hold on a second. I want to say thank. I want to say thank you Council. Today was a tough day. I was going on like no sleep and it was kind of it felt kind of complicated. I can tell. Yeah I know. But I appreciate you guys sticking with us and I think the meeting really well and thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. I appreciate it. Second. Oh wait. Councilman Young. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Till the 9th. If you haven't gone to see it yet. It's such a good production. Please go see it. It was it was awesome. It was awesome. And it was it was a packed house all ages which was amazing. And I even saw like some of those kids in front of me and they were really enjoying it. In the room where it happened. So it was a fantastic play. Fantastic. Don't forget the sound of music will be here in the spring. Yeah. And that is. And I've seen it. Who produced Hamilton? It's great. What's the damn guy who produced Hamilton? Who's the producer of Hamilton? Was it a guy named Miranda? Yes. Yes. You know what? I am going to be graceful and leave that alone. Okay. I have a motion to receive and fall. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. We're adjourned. We beat four o'clock didn't we? There we go. We beat four o'clock didn't we? There we go.