This time I'll call to order the December 4 2025 meeting of the Clearwater City Council.

If you wish to address the council tonight, please complete a comment card.

Comment cards are located by the clerk seated to the right of the dais.

When called to speak, please hand your card to the clerk.

Well now moved to item two on the agenda, and that's our invocation.

I'd like to ask everyone to stand for the invitation tonight to be given by Pastor Bob Brubaker from the Christ Community Presbyterian Church.

And then remain standing afterwards for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Let us pray.

Well, God, our Father in heaven, we thank you for your sovereign rule over heaven and earth, and thank you that in your providence you have brought together this council to lead our fair city.

We pray as they meet tonight that you would grant them wisdom and unity and grace.

Indeed, you have blessed in the past, but tonight's a new night.

And so we ask you for your mercy and help in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States.

Before we go further in tonight's agenda, I'd like to introduce our dayist.

To my far left is our deputy city clerk, Nicole Sprague.

To her right is our city clerk, Rose Marie Cole.

Good evening.

To her right is our city attorney David Margolis.

Good evening.

To his right is City Council Member Michael Manino.

Good evening.

Hello.

To his right is our Vice Mayor Lena Techiro.

Good evening.

To her right is City Manager Jennifer Poirier.

Good evening.

Her right is Assistant City Manager Dan Slaughter.

And to his right is Assistant City Manager Al Battle.

With that move to item four point one on the agenda.

Regarding stormwater updates, we're continuing with the designs for the pump stations and we're getting closer to completion.

We're uh currently anticipating bringing the CMAR before you in the first quarter of next year.

We're continuing to clear a bunch of the ditches across the city to ensure flow is uh maintained.

And we're also continuing to pursue uh and apply for grant opportunities.

And in fact, we've recently been getting questions from the Florida Department of Emergency Management regarding the uh hazard HMGP grants, those are the hazard mitigation grant program, and that's a positive sign that things are moving forward with those grants.

Council members, I've received a request to remove item six point nine.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, all right.

Opposed unanimous.

Move to agenda item six point nine.

Approve a professional service agreement with Ardura Group Inc.

of Tampa, Florida as a water reclamation facilities maintenance and repair program consultants in the not to exceed amounts of 11 million dollars for five-year term pursuance of request for qualification 25.05-25 and authorized appropriate officials tax Q.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Mike Flanning Public Utilities Interim Director.

The item before you is for the WRF maintenance and repair program with our DR Incorporated.

I'm Mr.

Haluba.

And there are uh many touted supposed benefits to reclaimed water.

There are, however, many health drawbacks as well.

Some would even hold that reclaimed water is just a nice word for liquid toxic sludge.

Now while pathogens can be reduced, exposure risk is not eliminated.

That's why we don't drink it.

There are such things as bacteria, viruses, synthetic hormones, uh protozoa.

It's lovely.

Even the disinfection process creates byproducts, some of which are carcinogenic.

Everything reclaimed water sludge is used on alters and changes the chemical composition of what it's put on.

Perhaps that's why the dog gets sick after visiting a clear water public park.

Now I looked, but I did not find any economic feasibility statement to go along with this.

And I'm guessing that's because there is no economic feasibility associated with this.

But if there is one, um Miss Cole, would you please email it to me?

This 11 million is only for consultants' fees.

Now there's no allowance for that in enterprise funding.

Can't just come up with a non-use fee and tack it on.

But slaughter does it.

There'd be minimum use charges.

Your bill would go up for no apparent reason.

So I'm gonna ask everyone to vote against this funding and do not take over the electric grid.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here tonight desire to speak to agenda item 6.9?

Hearing saying none.

Is there any further council discussion?

Yep.

If not, is there a motion?

Move to approve agenda item 6.9.

Second.

Those in favor?

Posed unanimous.

Thank you, sir.

Move to agenda item 7.1.

Up to provide in the 80% to 120 AMI missing middle property tax exemption to developments that would otherwise qualify pursuant to the Live Local Act for calendar year 2026 and adopt resolution 25-14.

Good evening, Council.

Mayor Del Mayu Economic Development and Housing.

On Monday, I presented the resolution for the city to opt out of the Live Local Act's missing middle as warm tax exemption.

Uh if approved, this resolution will formally opt the city out of providing the 80 to 120 percent uh adorum tax exemption for qualifying properties with more than 71 units.

During the presentation, Councilmember Manino asked uh whether the opt-out would impact any of our uh current projects or anything in our portfolio.

I just want to make sure with uh with our current projects that are coming in and our pipeline, but no, it will not affect any of our uh our current projects.

Uh this resolution will opt the city out of the exemption through 2026.

Happy to address any questions.

Okay.

So you want to hear from the public that I desire to speak to this agenda item.

Hearing seeing none, is there any council discussion?

If not, can we have a reading?

Mayor, we have resolution 25-14, a resolution of the city of Thirdwater opting out of providing the 80% to 120% AMI, missing middle property tax exemption to developments that would otherwise qualify, pursuant to the LIB Local Act for calendar year 2026, providing an effective date.

Motion approve agenda item 7.1.

Second.

Those in favor, opposed, unanimous.

Thank you.

Agenda item 7.2.

Accept the 2025 local housing incentive strategies report developed by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.

Does anyone here tonight from the public desire to speak to agenda item 7.2?

Hearing saying none, is there any council discussion?

If not, is there a motion?

Motion to approve agenda item 7.2.

Second.

All those in favor?

All right.

Opposed, unanimous.

Agenda item 7.3.

Approve.

Approved the city of Claire Waters Festival Year 2024-25 consolidated annual performance and evaluation report.

Dillon Mayu Housing on Monday I presented the results of the 2025 caper to city council.

It was the this is the second of two public hearings.

The public comment period uh ended on December 3rd, 2025.

No comments were received.

The caper is scheduled for submission to HUD by December 29, 2025.

With that, I'm happy to address any questions.

Hearing seeing none, is there any council discussion?

If not, is there a motion?

Yeah, I'd like to say something.

On Monday, I said thank you very much.

You're doing a great job, but I forgot to mention the staff that works with you on that.

You guys did a great job, all the staff.

I'm very proud of you this year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other council discussion?

If not, is there a motion?

Move to approve agenda item 7.3.

Second.

All those in favor?

Opposed unanimous.

Agenda item 7.4.

Amend clear water code aborts to section 2.063, 2.411, 2.412, 2.413, and 2.425 relating to the clearwater plays pension plan and pass ordinance 9858-26 on first reading.

Council members, uh, due to the changes that were implemented last year, remove moving the disability hearings to the city manager.

The PAC has now become ministerial, and so this just removes that um redundancy and moves all those items that have recommended to count to the pension trustees.

All those items will just go directly to the pension trustees.

So you want to hear from the public tonight, desire to speak to agenda item 7.4.

Hearing saying none, may we have a reading?

Mayor, we have ordinance number 9858-26 on first reading.

An ordinance of the city of Clearwater, Florida, amending chapter 2, Article 5, Division 3, Employees Pension Plan.

Amending section 2.063, qualifications and appointment of members.

Amending section 2.411, purpose of the plan and the trust, amending section 2.412 definitions, amending section 2.413, plan administration, amending section 2.425 pension fund records, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for severality, providing for repealer, and providing for an effective date.

Thanks.

If not, is there a motion?

Move to approve agenda item 7.4.

Second.

All those in favor?

Opposed, unanimous.

Agenda item 7.5.

Amend clearwater code of warrants to section 2.561 relating to public private partnerships.

Repeal sections 2.581 through 2.587 relating to public private partnerships and pass coordinates 9859-26 on first reading.

So you want to hear from the public that I desire to speak to agenda item 7.5.

Hearing seeing none, uh, may we get a reading on this agenda item.

We have ordinance number 9859-26 on first reading and ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, amending the code of ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 3 purchasing, amending section 2.561 methods of source selection, repealing subdivision 5, public-private partnerships, repealing sections 2.581 through 2.587, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for severability, providing for repealer, and providing for an effective date.

If not, is there a motion?

Motion to approve agenda item 7.5.

Second.

All those in favor?

Opposed, unanimous.

Agenda item 8.1.

Mayor 8.1 is a second reading.

I'll go ahead and proceed to hold that up.

Ordinance number 9856-25 on second reading.

An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida making amendments to the community development code by amending Article 4, development review, and other procedures.

Division 7, subdivisions and plats, Section 4-701, purpose and applicability, Section 4-702 required approvals.

Section 4-704, staff review and report and decision, Section 4-706, final plat review and staff, and section 4-709 standards for review.

Adding new section 4-704, submittal of plating application, deleting section 4-705, community development board decision, and section 4-707, city commission review decision, final plat and renumbering remaining sections accordingly.

Certifying consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and proper advertisement, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Hearing saying none, is there any council discussion?

If not, is there a motion?

Motion to approve agenda item 8.1.

Second.

All those in favor?

Opposed, unanimous.

8.2 is ordinance number 9857-25 on second reading and ordinance of the city of Clearwater, Florida, making amendments to the community development code by amending Article 3, Development Standards, Section 3-914, general standards for level 1 and level 2 approvals by amending Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, Division 1, Required Permits and Approvals, Division 2, General Procedures, Division 3, Permitted Uses, Level 1, Division 4, Permitted Uses, Level 2, Division 5 Appeals, and Division 6, Level 3 Approvals by Amending Article 5, Decision Making and Administrative Bodies, Division 7, Community Development Coordinator, certifying consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and proper advertisement, providing for severality, and providing an effective date.

Anyone here from the public that I desire to speak to this agenda item?

Hearing seeing none, is there any council discussion?

If there's none, is there a motion?

Move to approve agenda item 8.2 second.

Those in favor?

Opposed, unanimous.

Move to agenda item nine, city manager reports.

Nothing, sir.

Item 10, city attorney reports.

Nothing there.

Move to agenda item 11.1.

And that is an item that I asked to be put on the attorney general letter of November 14, 2025.

Um that was the request letter, and then we've since gotten a letter.

So I just want to I really want to do two things tonight.

Um, I don't want to uh go further in the debate on the writing of the request.

I think we've already done that.

I do want to get closure on if anybody else wants to add anything on that.

But I I really don't want um, I don't want a debate on it tonight.

I think we've debated it enough.

Um I I do want us to share whatever we want to share, any of the five of us on it, but I really don't want it to be adversarial.

I don't want it to be about any one of the five of us and what we did.

I think we've already discussed that enough.

I agree with the conversation we had on Monday.

And then the second thing is I think we need to kind of talk about uh and the letter was to council member Albert and whatnot to the five of us, or the city council or city as a whole.

So I think uh I think we just need to talk about how we handle that.

Uh how each of us, the five of us, since it wasn't written to us, it was written to council member Albert and how we consider it.

But I I think it I thought it was important for it to be on tonight because it's a sensitive public issue.

Uh we all know that.

The we're not there there's no application to vacate the street pending right now.

I made that point on Monday.

Um so we're not here tonight to talk about that.

Uh we're talking talk, we're here to talk about the the attorney general letter, the request and then the letter that the council member received.

Um I do want to I do encourage us all just to be transparent about how all the request and how it all came together.

And uh and I I just want to share that that the letter is something that uh the nonprofit property owner has wanted for months now.

They've been um trying to get someone to request this opinion letter.

Uh it isn't something that just happened here in recent weeks, they've been trying to get this letter uh requested for months.

Um so they uh have warned it so badly that they came to City Hall looking for a copy of it days before a couple days before it was actually even set.

So they were really wanting this letter, this request written.

And I think you'll see how quickly we got one back.

Um, and it was favorable to them and their position.

Why why they wanted it so badly?

Uh they believed that it would be helpful to them in this legal dispute we have over who owns the real property.

Um so the energy that they brought with this certainly raises some concern with the city and the citizens of the city.

Um then they've gotten it so quickly, so I mean their public has questions about it, has questions about this issue.

So I just want us to kind of put this to closure tonight to uh to make sure the public knows we're handling this transparently, and if there's anything anybody wants to share on their involvement, you know, if they got a request for a letter, then you can do that tonight.

If you don't want to, that's fine, but it's it's up to each of us to do what we want to do.

And then the second thing is you know, we have, and I made this point, but they have Mr.

Potter, who's who's a really good attorney advocating for them, and we have our city attorney pointing out for the citizens what our position is on this.

And so I I think it's important that we rely on the city attorney's advice on this issue.

And um I I don't think that we consulted past the last time we had a joint conversation on it, but uh, if any one of us would have asked you for guidance on doing this request letter, what what advice would you have given us, or what would you have shared with us about doing a request for this opinion letter?

Make sure my mic's on.

Uh well, I think it depends on what the letter says, but uh I think I could say it this way.

If any council member came to me or comes to me with a letter similar to the one that was sent, uh I would probably uh encourage that to come to the dais for review.

Now there's no law that requires that.

I think we talked about that previously in public.

Um I don't think that's necessary legally to be clear.

I've said previously, I don't think any laws were broken, it's not that dramatic.

But as a best practice, I definitely think that a G opinions in general, and this one in particular would be best served coming to the dais.

And that's probably the advice I give.

So I think the reasons for that, if we kind of break that down, part of it is our own past practice as a city.

Again, we don't have anything codified that says this.

Again, I don't think any laws are broken, don't think any rules are broken, etc.

I've said that several times.

Um we may want to consider it on a go-forward basis.

That's up to the council.

Um, I think they're free to make their own rules in this regard uh if you choose to do so, and if not, that's okay as well.

But we have established our own precedent as a city, and just like any city, we have kind of our cultural norms.

I think part of our cultural norm in Clearwater has been the AG letters come to the dais.

As far as I know, that's how it was when Miss Akin was here.

Certainly has been true in my years as city attorney.

So I think part of it is that, like we've set that expectation uh with the public and with external stakeholders, and that has nothing to do with Garden Avenue, has nothing to do with the church, has nothing to do uh with anyone except for us.

Um so I think part of it is that.

As far as this particular letter, I think the question that was asked, in my humble opinion, is one that is well served by discussing it on the dais.

If a question was, and that's why I say it depends on what question I was asked by a council member, because I can imagine a circumstance where someone comes to me and says, Well, David, meaning Margolis, uh, what do you think about a letter that I'm gonna write that uh has to do with how I might vote individually?

So, for example, um anyone can send a letter to the Florida Ethics Commission to ask how they can vote or how they should vote or how they should handle a particular issue ethically.

It's also appropriate, as happened here, to send an individual letter to the attorney general.

Again, nothing wrong with that, but the content of the question can affect uh others.

And I think that's something that I would generally encourage all of you, or you know, would encourage all of you to consider.

To give an example, I think in this context.

Let's say um, if we kind of wind back the clock and think about how this played out the first time.

As we all know, the manager and I brought forward a proposed deal uh to sell the parcel to the church for 1.4 million dollars, along with the other conditions that were previously discussed.

Of course, what I'm saying now is not privileged because it all came forward in public.

We all know there was very robust discussion over that.

And I I'll give the vice mayor as an example.

Vice mayor indicated that she was opposed to what was brought forward.

No secret about that.

She's already articulated her views on that.

Let's say the vice mayor had sent a letter or came to me and said, Hey, I want to send a letter to the attorney general, because I've read this letter that the attorney general sent to the mayor, and the attorney general has expressed concerns about discrimination.

And now I, as the vice mayor, am worried that if I vote against that proposal, if it comes back to me that I may be accused of discrimination, or that the attorney general may want to threaten enforcement action against me.

And therefore, I, as the vice mayor, am considering asking for the attorney general's guidance to say if I vote against this deal, or if I vote against the vacation, will you, as the attorney general, view that as a discriminatory act?

And is that something that I should be mindful of because enforcement action may in fact be taken against me as a result of that?

I think that type of question is one that is well suited to individual action because it affects you personally, it affects how you vote, how you choose to conduct yourself, and I know that all of us uh want to make sure we don't discriminate, right?

I think that's probably like a common denominator among everyone here on the dais.

So that question I think could be very different, perhaps, than something uh that asks about the city's corporate rights.

Because if we start asking questions on an individual basis that affect the entire city's corporate rights, that's the type of question that could affect, in this case, the public treasury, because we're talking about one and a half million dollars of public funds potentially that would be received from the sale.

We're talking about public assets because as we know, we've maintained public parking there for decades.

We have utilities there.

We're talking about public access to a road, etc.

And I'm not saying that to favor or disfavor vacation or the deal we brought forward, only to say that certain types of questions I think are more likely to implicate the city's uh corporate action and more likely to implicate uh public rights than say certain other types of questions.

So I think in this particular case, with that with that type of question, I would have recommended uh that it come forward to the dais.

And then finally, as the mayor said, there's definitely a public transparency component to this.

There is no law that requires it to be done in public.

However, it is no secret that I am a big proponent of doing things on the dais, particularly when it comes to controversial topics.

Keep in mind that I think, and this is this is surely my opinion, so now I'm now I am now stepping um slightly beyond what the law says in this conversation, and I'm answering because the mayor has asked me what advice I would give to any of you.

What advice I would give to any of you would be that when we have sensitive topics, and especially those that we've talked about in public, uh, I think it creates a public expectation that we will handle it in the public going forward.

For this particular topic, both Councilmember Cotton and the mayor had spoken with the Florida Attorney General's office, had publicly shared the results of those conversations, had explained to the public that the attorney general was focused on discrimination, was not focused necessarily on the street vacation, and in fact did not necessarily want to get involved in the street vacation.

And that's fine, and appreciate you guys sharing that with the public and commend both of you for doing that.

But since we've shared that now with the public, if you're a resident looking at this, um that was the last public discourse that you heard.

And so to the mayor's point, it can be very hard, I think, for a member of the public to process how we got from there to something like this.

And so, again, no rules broken.

I don't think it needs to be overdramatized.

Um, we've never really had this come up before.

But what I would encourage the council to think about is just what processes do you want going forward?

Are there practices that you might like to adopt as far as number one, how we request attorney general opinions, um, how we share that information with the public.

Uh, and I don't know that any of those decisions have to be made tonight, but uh, I think it's a good time to probably just uh think about that.

So that's probably the advice I would have given.

Sorry for the long story, but um, it's obviously been on my mind given the recent events.

And and I don't want to debate tonight on that.

I really don't.

Um, but you know, I I you know the letter I got the letter when it on actually during our work session, you know, where I could be and when I get see we got a letter now that changed, you know, where I want to look at it, see what it said.

Uh wasn't written to me, it uh was written to another council member, but uh it impacted my ability to really talk about this and talk it through, so that's largely why I put it on tonight.

Plus, it you know, it it I want to say too, you know, we can't uh I I hope we get closure on that part of it tonight because we can't go back and withdraw the request.

The letters it's been requested, it's been written, the opinion.

So it's it's really a moot point to go back and rehash all that.

Um but I I do think I I do want to say this too.

Um I I know the attorney general.

Every time I see the general, we have a conversation.

He came to my office on September 4th, uh, and we talked about a number of things.

Uh but we we talked a little bit about this, and uh you might as you might expect the attorney general has a lot going on.

He's out there putting bad people in jail and all these things going on.

So for him to know the history of Clearwater, downtown Clearwater, and and uh I mean it's understandably hard for him to get into the he's got a large staff, and and I'm assuming he relied on the staff to do all this, but uh I don't want this to come out where it feels like the attorney general I uh odds were not.

Uh and I know Councilmember Cotton, you've talked with him too.

He you have relationship with him too, but I don't really think that I'm adversarial with the attorney general.

I support him, I know uh the great work he's doing, and I don't want it to come out looking like that.

Uh I I I mean I do know, and we all know they've ordered this letter for months, and um and I'm assuming they you know they gave their information to the attorney general's office.

Um, and a lot of the information they gave them is reflected in the letter that I got and the letter that council member Albright got.

Uh I disagree with the facts as that are contained in that letter.

I disagreed in the one that was sent to me.

Uh I don't think they're accurate in some cases, and I don't think they're accurate in this letter, but I I just want us to you know be transparent about what happened to extent each one of us feels comfortable in doing that, and then uh and then let's get closure on that part of it and move on.

As I said, there's no pending mate uh uh request to vacate right now, so really tonight we're just discussing this letter, and I think um what I would encourage the five of us to do is we each have weekly meetings with the city attorney.

He's our attorney, he's the cities and the citizens attorney on this issue that each one of us discuss um how that letter to one council member should be considered by each of the five of us, and and for each of the five of us to do that in our one-on-one meetings with the city attorney.

So with that, uh I'll take whatever other comments or questions that uh other council members have.

Well, thank thank you, Mayor.

And I think we you've said it, I think five times use the word closure.

I think that's um that's important, especially there's no application in front of us, there's no decisions as a a city or staff to make.

Um, we understand the process of of how it happened.

We've all gave our feelings on multiple occasions on whether we agreed or disagreed with the process of how it was handled and how the aG's uh opinion was requested.

Uh, I think it's I said on Monday, I think it's in the best interest of this dias in this city to move forward.

I think the more we continue to talk about the AG in his office, the more we seem to find ourselves receiving letters and communications that are not in our best interest.

Uh so I think it's probably in our best interest to find ways to move forward, and when those decision times come or applications come before us, then we have decisions as a collective to make.

And um, I appreciate the way the discussion was handled on Monday.

That's how I hope we continue to have those debates, those challenging discussions.

They are important to our city, they're important to this diet and our team to move forward.

We should not be afraid of having those difficult conversations.

We should have them more often in the sunlight.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mayor.

Well, I acknowledge that this issue has now attracted significant public interest, media attention.

And I'm hearing it constantly.

I have heard from many residents who genuinely are confused by the various written legal opinions, and I understand that.

A lot of their questions have given me pause.

One in particular is if we don't own the road, why are the taxpayers maintaining it?

And questions like that.

So it has generated a robust conversation in the community.

But after everything has been said, written and debated, I'm left with two clear points.

First, we do not have an application or a formal request before us.

So we don't have anything to consider at this point.

No decision for the council to make at this time.

Second, my position remains unchanged.

Privatizing this road is not in the public interest.

It would reduce access and maneuverability in the very downtown.

We are working so hard to revitalize, not only for today's downtown, but for the downtown of tomorrow in the near future.

And that future is coming quickly.

Within the next two to five years, we will see a new city hall, a new PSDA center, a fully renovated and occupied municipal services building, over 400 new residential units, a hotel, structured parking, an activated library, and potential redevelopment of 14 to 17 parcels.

Access and connectivity will be essential to that growth and to the success of this downtown.

For all these reasons, maintaining this roadway as a public asset remains, in my view, the responsible path forward.

Okay, um I'm I'm assuming that we've got a lot of people here who um are not waiting for the closing comments by the mayor or a council members.

Um so uh is there anyone here that wants to speak to this agenda item here tonight?

If you could raise your hand if you like to speak, okay.

Uh uh all I would ask is that we stick to the agenda.

The the the vacation of the street is not we're not debating that tonight.

There's no there's no motion to do that.

Uh so it's strictly on the attorney general's uh letter to Councilmember Albright.

So uh if you could just try you know, it's it's I would say it's we'll if if believe me, if an application comes in again, it'll be back on the agenda, and we'll take input from every community member that wants to come in and weigh in on it.

Uh a lot going on in this, but if uh folks will help us stick to the agenda and we'd be glad to have folks come up and uh speak for you.

Everybody gets three minutes, and gentlemen raising his hand now.

I think we had a back and forth at a prior meeting where you didn't understand the three-minute rule.

That's the same rule for everybody, sir.

So uh yeah, so so just if I cut you off, that's I'm not trying to pick on you.

That's all it is.

So at this time, is there anyone from the public that was desired to speak to this agenda?

Yeah, for the line.

And it's just a it's just a question and a request.

I may be confused.

Are there was there one?

I'm sorry.

Your name, your name, please.

Steve Harris.

Thank you.

Was there only one letter that has come from the attorney general?

Or are there two letters that have come from the attorney general?

And if it's two, uh I don't I don't recall ever see you know hearing what was in it and whether if there was a second one, is that content that is public or will be made public.

Um again, I to it it's really this is a chance for the.

I'm not over three minutes yet, I don't know to make your remarks.

It's not we we really don't have a conversation with the folks.

I'd be glad to answer a question.

Yes, there were two letters.

One was written to me way back, and then another one was to Councilmember Albright.

But uh be glad to talk to you after this about that.

Okay.

But I'm gonna ask a question, you guys can just ponder it because I'm gonna ask for meetings with each one of these individually, and hopefully you'll give them to me.

And that information I will make public as far as the answers that I'll be looking for.

We want to be open and honest about everything.

Mayor, you talked about last week about the lobbying that went on with you thought went on with Councilman Old Britton.

I just want to bring up a guy's name.

His name is Greg Mitchell.

He's a lobbyist, has been a lobbyist, a member of Scientology.

Greg Mitchell just had a fundraiser for Anna Paulina Luna to raise money for her.

Ryan Cotton knows very well what's going on with behind the scenes.

And I just want to make sure that there's clarity.

And I care less if that's what you want.

I want you to come forward and say that I believe in Scientology.

I'm for Scientology.

I will take their money and I will adhere to them.

But there is Patricia Dugan gave lots of money to Trump, to DeSantis, to uh Paulina and Utmar.

And so when you talk about being biased, Dave says to me, he says, because we're this was my best friend, and he talks about losing friends.

Hopefully we'll be able to fix that problem.

Last week was his birthday.

I said, Happy birthday, and I love you.

At the same time, the um the opportunity to reach out, he never asked, he says, Mike, I don't have to ask you because I know your opinion.

He knew Upmar's opinion before he ever asked that question.

So I think you have to understand the lobbying that's you can you mention being lobbied.

I think we have to let the Republicans and the Democratic voters of this city of this county understand what's going on behind closed doors.

So if we as Republicans want to take money from Scientology, and I guarantee you, anytime you take money from any organization, there's always a you know, make sure I get something out of it.

Just like President Trump just uh gave uh Teresa Dugan some kind of award or appointment.

Everybody wants something.

So when you take Scientology's money, I hope that you can be unbiased, and you can say with truth and look at yourself and say that had nothing to do with my decision.

So I hope and pray, because that's the only thing we've got is our good Lord and Savior that's gonna make everything work.

So with that, I just wanted to bring that the clear attention, so hopefully the news picks it up.

Thank you.

Thanks, speaker.

When we wrap it up, yeah.

We'll come back to you.

There's um oh discussion items.

Whatever.

I don't mind if it's fine, it's on the agenda.

So um Jessica.

Okay, four minutes.

Oh, thank you.

Well, I like to say them, Sony from the Nash Keys 500 block.

I'm uh known now, I guess, as the rubble maker, troublemaker of the 500 block.

Uh I come here just to speak uh, I know all you guys pretty well.

I I uh I eat with you guys, I drink with you guys, hang out with you guys, you guys are good people.

But I just wanted to remind you guys that you guys, some you guys serve the citizens, and even though nothing was done illegally, like you eloquently expressed, and you sound like a man of conviction at good resolution.

So I appreciate your comments.

Uh it just you have to see how it looks.

It looks like we don't serve the people.

It looks like we've had 6,000 signatures from Save the Garden Project that we all know about.

How popular this opinion was for the people and not wanting the city to be to be vacated to be part of our community.

6,000 citizens, registered voters that my wife got accused of fraud for, that the fair, the fair, what is it called?

Fair market, not fair market, but fair game tactics have been very prevalent to me in my community, my community as well as my wife.

Clearly.

Anonymous phone calls, harassment, and stuff like that.

I want to remind you guys who you guys serve.

Nothing was done illegally, I said, but it looks very negative.

It looks like the whispers of one small group holds greater value than the signatures of registered voters.

Six thousand.

Six thousand registered voters, not five, not ten, six thousand.

Those are the people that could vote.

Those are the people that you guys did not veto and say was not valid, which we know we're more, and there was constant aggression put on discrediting these signatures.

So six thousand are valid.

That should be a demonstration that the people do not want it.

You s you guys serve us, and we're happy to have you guys.

You guys have all been kind and generous people, but it looks disheartening.

It looks like you're not on our side.

The people don't want it.

It shouldn't be a debate.

It shouldn't be something that's done in secretly, like I've said time and time again, that's there's an elephant in the room that we don't speak about, but emails are passed back and forth in secret, not made public, not known.

And I commend you, Mayor, for making this a topic to discuss to the people.

Because it should be in that, it should be in the sunlight.

It should be shown to the people to see what's going on because we do not want it.

You guys all know we don't want it.

We all know it's not to the benefit.

We all know this is an organization that has deteriorated our town.

Yes, they're trying to improve it and renovate it, but we've heard this time and time again.

All I'm asking you guys is to serve the people.

Because unfortunately, you guys are elected official.

You guys do not have the people on your side with this topic.

You guys do not have the mass on your side.

And what happens in situations is the public will no longer have trust in you.

And once that happens, it's over politically.

Serve the people.

Serve that your constituents, serve us for what we want.

And I'm telling you, no one wants them to have any more control over city.

And this action looks deceitful and horrific.

Thank you, guys.

So keep it in order.

All right.

Mark Bunker.

It's two people now.

Yeah, we have had a council memory.

You know, I could kind of I I get criticized for trying to get people hold on their pause all the time.

Different groups come in, but it really does slow us up here.

And we're really interested in what the speakers say.

So if we could keep the applause down, that would help us move the meeting along.

Because we got a number of folks who want to speak.

So please, Mr.

Bunker.

Very good.

I'm glad that Mike Master Sario was talking about the lobbying.

Mary Reper was hired by Scientology by Mike Rinder, who was the uh head of the Office of Special Affairs, and Mike died about a year or so ago.

Um but the purposefully they they brought in this woman who is so well connected to the Republican Party here that she worked to enable the Republicans to come back into the Fort Harrison Hotel and accept Scientology's money and safe point Scientology.

Um I mentioned this only because you had said something about Scientology lobbying uh David.

And um, and that led to a bunch of people online saying, oh, he's taking money in Scientology's pocket, and that's not true at all.

Uh he's a good guy, he's a decent guy.

Um so I'm glad we can settle the the letter issue.

But um there was lobbying going on, but it was at the state level.

I mean, even now tonight hearing that uh the state attorney general was coming into your office to discuss this and and other things.

I mean, Scientology has put a lot of pressure on the state level to try to turn that potentially negative vote around, and that's where the lobbying happens.

I mean, to go to the state attorney, uh, attorney general, and and have them write a letter uh that essentially says, hey, you know, you could be sued.

Uh, you know, that's a scare tactic.

And lobbying doesn't even have to be uh involving money.

Uh Tom Cruise knocked at uh uh the door of a mayor uh in Tampa at one point uh and said, hey, I've heard about your delicious coconut pie.

I'd like some of that.

Out of the blue, Tom Cruise is knocking at your door.

That is the type of influence that that is very easy for Scientology to wield.

Um I have to say that uh I read Mr.

Mark Ollis's 30-page uh opinion on this to you folks after that first letter, and I've read all the other material that have been sent back on this, and and I think I agree with David that he's uh the the city's stance that he's recommending, I think is a good one.

Um and as he mentioned before, if it goes to court, then you'll have an answer.

One way or the other.

And by the way, Ms.

Gavage doesn't need the street, he wants it.

Uh we need the street.

So they can get a permit to use it four times a year.

Thank you, sir.

You have your applause.

If you get all of your applause, it's gonna help us move along.

So next speaker, please.

My perspective is probably going to be a little bit different.

Coming from a little bit more of a neutral perspective.

Specific in interrogation, search and seizure case law, Constitution, use of force case law, U.S.

Army disabled veteran, former firefighter, EMT, mergency dispatcher and contractor, strained police officers all over the country.

I also founded a nonprofit that assists veterans first responders and their families with post-traumatic stress and suicide prevention.

Bring up my resume for just a few reasons.

Coming at this from Constitution Audit.

Okay.

So I stand here tonight.

To say that I've seen witnessed the incredible humanitarian activities that the Church of Scientology supports.

Not only promotes, but financially supports as well.

I can't list them all because I'm limited on time.

But I also stand here as someone who's bled gallons of blood, almost died several times defending the Constitution, that you have sworn an oath to protect and defend, as I have several times in my life.

To me, this document is not just a piece of paper.

It's the lives of so many of my brothers and sisters who have sacrificed everything for others to enjoy the rights this document guarantees.

As I watched last meeting, I was appalled at the behavior of you, Mr.

Mayor, putting your personal gentle agenda above your constitutional and elected duties as the mayor.

Your council is the voting body of the city you represent.

As the mayor, you're not the king, yet only the tiebreaker.

You have a responsibility to be the example of objectivity in the room, not to own your own bully opinion.

In the meeting I witnessed, you stepped on the First Amendment numerous times by calling into question the freedom of a council member to exercise his rightful independent voice to resolve an obvious question of law.

It is important to me, because in my mind the law is being used to impede the religious freedom of the church in Scientology and the First Amendment rights of this gentleman right here, trying to make sure he didn't impede on someone's religious liberties.

Some may argue that you also impede on the Fourth Amendment by demanding that that council member explain to you his motivation for doing what you did.

You appear to be insisting that nobody should have any other opinion than yours as the city attorney.

Your insistence that you represent the citizens of Clearbar, thereby denying the citizenship of any of the many Scientologists in Clearwater is deeply troubling and violates the First Amendment rights of Scientology.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your guys.

Yeah.

Maybe we have the next speaker.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I'm Rochelle Roach.

I'm a resident of about a decade in Clearwater.

I've done a lot of deep research on the Church of Scientology, and I'm very troubled.

I'm extremely troubled.

I'm having to just make sure we're speaking to the agenda and that's the level.

Well, and this goes back to are you aware that what the end goal is with Scientology with every city is to convert every city in the world into Scientology.

Are you aware of that?

But it's the agenda item we're asking people to speak to tonight.

Well, I think just saved by others that want to speak to that.

Okay, I think that's something that we need to definitely look at.

And I talked to former Scientologists, current Scientologists.

They total world domination, and where the world and what they do is about the law.

I think we really really need to look deeply into this.

Thank you, ma'am.

You're welcome.

Next speaker.

My name is Joe Corvino, Bill Wood of Florida.

Before I begin a few comments, I just like to say it's a hard act to follow what's in the room.

I remind you to 6,000 names.

There are 125,000 voters in the city of Clearwood.

I'd also like to remind you, and I'm sorry, Mr.

Rector, I have to tell you this.

Lobbying is an ingrained part of our system.

It is not evil.

It is people expressing and trying to support their own view.

That's just a comment on the outside.

My actual comment is based on the past few months regarding this issue.

A local religious organization, the Church of Scientology, made a request regarding the Garden Avenue property.

This request was not unusual, as Mr.

Walburden had pointed out, and many other similar requests would have concluded without any controversy.

Why is this one different?

Two council members, Mr.

Cotton and Mr.

Manino, have, in accordance with their oath of duty, judged this request based on merit.

They felt the project had merit.

Two council members, yourself and Mr.

Sheriff, decided to use your bias, your personal bias.

Some people call it prejudice.

I call it bigotry.

You decided to use that to cloud your judgment.

On the legal issue, we have a city attorney that has an opinion.

We have outside counsel that has an opinion.

And when I say we, I'm not talking about me.

I'm a Roman Catholic kid from Brooklyn, New York.

I am not a Scientologist.

I'm ashamed to have to say that in front of this council.

That is not the issue.

You have made it the issue.

Considering uh the stalmate, uh stalemate, Mr.

Alburn, used his authority and asked for legal advice.

Who should he go to for legal advice?

Well, I would go to the highest legal authority in the state.

He went to the attorney general.

The attorney general rendered an opinion.

Basically, the attorney general scolded this commission.

It told you that you're crossing a line.

You're crossing a line of bias.

My my appointment, my uh whole point is that I'm trying to say to you that it's not a matter of bright, wrong which issue which side.

You've created a war zone.

You have a war zone.

You have citizens standing here, just hating, no money, no judgment by merit.

Is the project good?

Is the project bad?

It's a matter of hate.

And that is what's giving this city a black eye.

Thank you, Joe.

Yeah.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Catherine Finlay.

I'm new to this.

Um, this is just a point of um verbalogy.

When you are making your opening statements, you said the nonprofit, could you give that nonprofit a name, please?

No.

Okay, you can't.

We can't ask questions.

I'm sorry, I don't know the exact informant.

This is your chance to make presentation.

Okay, um, but in the effort to have transparency, why not just use the the name rather than the benevolent misnomer of nonprofit when we want everybody to be aware of what's going on?

It seems a little duplicitous to me.

That's why thank you.

Let's keep your change to you.

Good evening.

Uh I was just specifically going to ask.

Your name is Alburn.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh, Jill.

For the clerk, yeah.

Clearwater resident.

Um, I was hoping that perhaps in the discussion time or at some point you could help us to understand something that's not seeming to add up.

Earlier this year, after one of Scientology's attorneys wrote with his perspective of the legal ownership of South Garden Avenue, uh, this council commissioned our city attorney to determine title deed ownership of the street.

Our tax dollars went to work.

Our city attorney was more than diligent and thorough and reported back with a 30-page legal opinion.

For some reason, that was not sufficient for you.

Instead, unbeknownst to any of your colleagues, you decided to reach out to Florida's attorney general, who is lobbied and generously financially supported by an elite Scientologist, whose ex-husband also donated quote, DECA millions of dollars, those are his own words, to the building of the El Ron Hubbard Hall, the project that's attached to this vacation request for South Garden Avenue.

So you questioned the competency of our own city attorney and his conclusion, but instead valued the opinion of an attorney general who is clearly lobbied by an elite Scientologist, married to a gentleman who's all but funding the project that's attached to this street.

I'm just wondering if you can help it make sense in a way that doesn't leave us with the only option but to believe that Scientology orchestrated this entire thing.

We the people want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you.

If you can, just tell the applause.

So good evening.

I'm Kelly Meyer from Clearwater.

I come before you tonight.

First of all, to just thank you for discussing reinstating public comment.

I hope that's something that comes to fruition in 2026.

And so tonight, um, using my public comment time, I just wanted to fill in a few gaps, uh, maybe for the public here, um, regarding the letter from the attorney general and the other letter that came in this summer time, which indicated that myself, that our mayor and um the pastor of my church here locally was somehow colluding together to um take down their um desire for building the hall and using our public street, and I just want to publicly say that is nonsense, and um I think the public needs to hear that as well because it wasn't brought out into the sunshine that letter, but we do have it, it's in freedom of information.

Um regarding that also, um, Councilman Cotton, you had um indicated that uh this type of uh issue that the attorney general's letter is addressing was similar to property that was vacated to my church here in the city, and I just wanted to fill in the gaps for you on that as well.

Um I have some pictures of the location just to show that the current softball field on my church's property, for instance, there are there was one portion of the little street already on our property, and then this other street here, just a portion of it that was a dead end, and did not have two-way through traffic into a main artery of our downtown.

And so I just wanted to make that clear that in no way is that the same type of a street vacation regard uh that we are discussing here in our city right now.

And so I just want to say also that just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it's right, right?

And so we as citizens, you know, I've talked to so many people from all sorts of backgrounds during this initiative process, and um, all we want is transparency, we want honesty, we just want to be involved because it's our city, and you all work for us.

So I thank you for your time, and with that, I'll turn it over to the next speaker.

Jan Boggs.

Can you raise your hand, Jan?

Okay, and Susan Sims.

Okay.

All right, so five.

Thank you so much for your service.

Uh, I know it must not be easy, but I hope you find it rewarding sometimes.

Uh you are admired by a lot of people.

We appreciate it.

Brooks Gibbs is my name.

Uh I'd like to quote uh attorney general Uthmeyer from the uh like small citations at the bottom of the letter that you receive.

Um interesting.

I I thought it'd be important for everyone to know.

Um he said this, and it kind of shows the power, kind of the weight that he that he carries as the attorney general.

Uthmeyer said, first, the attorney general is the chief legal officer of the state and presides over the largest law firm in Florida.

It specializes in everything.

Can you imagine writing such a thing?

It specializes in everything.

That's phenomenal to me.

Uh second, attorney general opinions, he continues, carry great weight in Florida.

So he is throwing his weight around here.

Indeed, they constitute the final word on matters of state law unless or until a court of law disagrees.

Finally, the mayor's suggestion that external pressures, he's talking about the Church of Scientology lobbying Uthmeyer, that external pressures would somehow alter or influence a legal opinion rendered by this office would be offensive if it wasn't laughable.

So it's really uh I mean, we understand how politics works.

Uh someone told me politics is like two words poly, which means many, and then ticks, which is uh blood sucking parasites, you know.

And uh please, please just talk about running, so let's let him speak.

So I think there's an elegant solution, and it's called the people.

The people are the solution.

Please don't clap.

Yeah, you're interrupting him.

I have here 6,000 signatures to help solve this Uthmeyer problem.

6,000.

6,000 signatures right here.

And growing, of course, we're out every day collecting signatures.

And uh it's basically signatures on a petition to protect streets like South Garden Avenue.

Hopefully, you've studied our ballot initiative.

Uh for those who don't know, uh, our ballot initiative will essentially take the responsibility to vacate streets.

Maybe you could keep it to the letter.

Away from this.

This is a solution to his threat to sue you.

So it's very, very important.

It's to take away the power of vacating streets away from the city council and into the people.

That keeps you away from being sued by the state, which Uthmeyer is clearly threatening to do because of discrimination.

The citizens are trying to protect the city council from litigation.

So this is absolutely uh relevant.

Voter approval required for the vacation of downtown streets.

That's what it is.

That's what we're trying to change the law.

And these 6,000 signatures say, yeah, man.

If Scientology wants to take over South Garden Avenue, they need voter approval for the vacation of right away.

So on behalf of 6,000 people, I submit these to you as a visual aid.

These are notarized, they're beautiful signatures, and they actually represent over 6,000 conversations.

You know, and I'm asking that some courageous council member actually takes this ballot measure from us and adopts it as a council initiative.

You put it on the ballot in August of 2026.

You know what that does?

It bypasses litigation from this from the state attorney.

It keeps us, the citizens, out of litigation because once we submit these to the clerk, once we're done, we'll get sued by the Church of Scientology.

That's very clear.

They're going to try to pick apart and find any fault in our in our initiative.

So it keeps us out of court.

Adopting this measure keeps you guys out of court.

And the amazing thing is when the council puts a referendum on the ballot, it actually freezes all street vacations.

So no one can actually apply for a street vacation until it's voted on in 2026.

But it needs a courageous, a courageous person.

If I could bring 6,000 people here into this room, I would.

You know I would.

I would bring all 6,000 of them.

But they gave us their signatures.

And this is like no joke.

This has never been done in the history of Clearwater.

This is the largest citizen initiative that the city has ever seen.

This is the most unifying cause.

They are tired of seeing the loss of their downtown.

And you can understand how thrilled the citizens were when there's finally a chance for them to have some control.

You're saying we could have control over the development of downtown.

You're telling me that developers have to actually ask us for permission.

That means that they have to please us, which is my final point.

The greatest way to put pressure on the Church of Scientology to activate their downtown properties and make downtown Clearwater beautiful and vibrant for the citizens, is to make them know that they have to win the approval of the citizens.

They have to go to us for the street.

They have to change their reputation.

And once they do that, they just might get a street.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, thanks for letting me speak tonight.

My name's Angie Drnowski, I'm a Clearwater resident.

And I have to say, Mr.

Rector, just you saying that we have to stick to the uh agenda topic really messed, screwed up my speech, so I might as well just throw it out.

This is going to be short and sweet, but I did want to address the letter at least.

Um when Mr.

Albreton met with Scientology and then sent that letter without informing the council or the public.

Uh, it did feel like to many of us citizens that we were um stabbed in our backs.

Um, and I understand, Mr.

Alberton, that you had the legal right to do so, but that's not really the issue that we have with it.

The issue is um transparency and trust when major steps like that are taken quietly, especially after this letter has been you know discussed publicly and passionately, I might add, um, it just naturally weakens the trust that we have in you, and unfortunately, the council as a whole.

Um, so I do want to thank you, Mr.

Rector, for um asking the questions you've asked and for speaking up for many of us people.

Um, many of us had the same concerns and questions, and your efforts are truly appreciated.

Um, and I also want to be clear, um, Mr.

Alberton, that while I do say that, um, I do believe that I I've been following along, watch a lot of the council meetings, and I do believe that you're a good guy and that you truly um care about Clearwater and developing Clearwater, you know, to make it so that more people will want to come.

So I'm not questioning those intentions.

I just hope that going forward, you all will consider discussing those things publicly and bringing those to the public.

And then I'm gonna piggyback off of what he said, which again is not fully in my speech, but I just think that would be a great idea to um put that on the ballot for the Clearwater voters to vote on.

So thank you.

Hi.

My name is Becca Kay.

I have been a resident of Clearwater for a very long time.

Um I live in a neighborhood I've lived in for 47 years.

And 47 years ago, there were hardly any Scientologists in my neighborhood.

And now it is be considered a theta neighborhood.

Several years ago, I helped one of my neighbors clean out her garage.

She was moving.

She asked me if I could help her.

So I did.

In so doing, I found some interesting literature.

Yeah.

This one is called brainwater.

To the letter for us, then before stick to the letter if you could for us.

Oh, the letter?

Yeah, yeah.

The Attorney General's letter.

Well, I'm gonna stick to the people throughout the community have different feelings about it.

But we're gonna understand the letter tonight.

Okay, you have to take this to the federal level.

I'm sorry.

Scientology is not a religion.

I had these books, they proved that.

Um, but I will say, because of all this that I have to uh live with on a daily basis in my neighborhood.

This is very concerning to me, Mayor Rector, and we have spoken about this on um, I put up a Facebook post that said I'm selling my house if anybody knows somebody who wants to come live in Scientology world, and I got something very ugly from a neighbor, and we need to take this to another level.

Y'all, we need to take this to another level.

There should be no reason that this organization ever got tax exempt status.

Yeah, we're gonna be able to do that.

And you are the city is being robbed of property taxes that we could have, but you want to take it all out of our pockets.

Thank you.

I'm trying to be kind here, but we need to.

I know, I know you are, and I just came here because I wasn't even gonna get up and speak, but I am livid.

I really am.

You guys have gotten some strongly worded emails from me just recently.

Yeah, and I want y'all to pay attention to what we are saying, okay, and just not brush it off.

And what I said, I mean, and I I will fight for this.

I'm not planning on moving.

I put that out there because I was extremely frustrated.

I'm staying here.

You're gonna carry, they're gonna carry me out in the, you know, whatever.

But please pay attention to the residents that are not Scientologists and stop taking these uh donations from these multi-mega donors, please.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts tonight.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm Mr.

Haluba.

And I believe the letter of November 14th uh was not appropriate.

Any of that sort of advice should have been sought and approved or not from the members of the dais.

Any of that discussion should have been done and vetted in public, especially since as we stand here today, it's a non-issue.

There appears to be so many shady back room goings on with the city of Clearwater.

I would suggest any of you know talk to Slaughter about that.

But the gentleman, as Mr.

Manino calls him, certainly appears to have been compromised somehow or another.

It's okay to ask for advice, but if you're a member of a ruling body, it should not be done out at left field on your own.

And because that did happen, and because it does appear to be very, very odd, I believe that the gentleman should resign.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Anybody else here tonight sorry to speak to this agenda item?

Yeah.

Okay, hearing saying none.

Um, you know, I I just want to say, you know, we we sit up here and you know, we we really do welcome everybody's input.

Um some of it I I don't agree with some of the things that were said.

Um like to clarify when I'm when I'm at the attorney general, we probably met for 30 35 minutes.

We talked very little bit about Garden Avenue.

We talked about Clearwater, we talked about our anticipated growth of downtown clear water, we talked about all kinds of things.

But we we talked very little.

He did not lobby me.

And uh that wasn't the first purpose of the meeting.

It was uh friendly call to the mayor, just talk about future clear water and future of the state of Florida.

So I just want to correct that part, and then um, and then I think Councilmember Cotton, did you have something you want to add?

Or not anybody else sitting in the way.

And uh, you know, but but again, you know, there I I felt like we needed you all came tonight to uh speak, so I appreciate you trying to stick with the agenda item because really uh that's all that was on our agenda tonight.

So thank you, whether I agreed with you or not.

Um and the other thing too is some of you here tonight.

I've uh you know, you've written to us and um I've invited you to reach out to me to talk about this issue outside of a meeting and encourage those who uh want to do that to do that after tonight.

Glad to talk with anybody at any time about any issue concerning the city, not just this agenda item.

So with that, we'll move to item 12 on the agenda club closing comments by council members.

Uh Councilmember Cotton.

Yeah, thank you.

Um appreciate everybody's input and coming out tonight to to speak to us.

Um I will be talking to staff probably this week to see if there's any way or anything that we can do legally to get um all of our attorney general opinions right on a dashboard or something on our website, so you don't have to freedom of information request it.

You can just click right on it, have access to all of them.

It's ridiculous, you should have to go through a timed period to try and just get access to a document.

Um so we'll see what we can't do with that.

I think it'd probably be a good idea.

Um with something else, and I just learned this four years ago, five years ago, um, through the fire department, actually, down where I work, um, because I was always under the impression that religious organizations did not pay taxes.

I just thought that was the way of it.

Um, and I was corrected in regards to a church in my area.

The only, and correct me if I'm wrong, um portions that aren't taxable are the rooms in which worship services are held, or the parishioner lives in.

I think there's one other.

I can't remember it right off the top of my head, I'll be honest with you.

All to say, if you go to the tax rolls and you look at the downtown development tax rolls, Scientology's the highest taxpayer downtown.

So I just thought that that was interesting uh information.

You can go and go to the public uh property appraiser's website, go to those tax rolls.

It is on the 2024 tax roles, it'll be on the 2025 tax rolls.

I don't remember what numbers they are, they're split between like number two and number four, something like that, but added together, they make the highest tax roll.

So to think that they're not paying taxes, I just want to let you know that they pay taxes just as any other religious organization in our city is, as long as it's not the two areas I I said and um the one I can't I can't forget.

Uh I'm sorry, I apologize for that.

But you can just look it up, it's literally accessible.

You could Google it from your phone right now.

So thank you.

I appreciate it.

I hope you all have a good night.

Councilmember Manino.

No, sir.

Councilmember Albridge.

Uh I think I've said everything I want to say, but uh I want to wish everybody uh happy holidays, merry Christmas, and uh we'll see you in January.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you all for coming.

I always um I'm very encouraged when I see um the community be engaged, and I look forward should I start over again?

Thank you for all for coming, and I look forward to seeing you all throughout the next two weeks in all the holiday events that we will probably see each other say.

Looking forward to that.

That moved to item 13, closing comments by mayor.

Um it's uh it's a great time uh as always to be living here in Clearwater in Tampa Bay, and I I enjoy many of the holiday activities that go on in Clearwater.

Um we today, today.

Uh I don't know how many of you have seen this, but um the Steinbrenner family, the New York Yankees put on a Christmas concert every year.

They this was the 36th year that they've done it.

They do one in Tampa at the Stras, which was yesterday.

Uh they uh, and then they did one today at the Ruth Eckert Hall.

They have almost 2,000 kids from Pinellas County, elementary school kids.

And uh they not only put on a great show for them, the Florida Orchestra performs, it's very engaging.

Mark Wilson from Fox 13 is the MC.

Uh, but uh the Yankees really get behind it in the Steinberger family, it's just been fantastic to Pinellas County Clearwater over the years.

And today, uh yesterday, uh the special guest was Aaron Judge over in Tampa.

Today it was uh the manager Aaron Boone was here in Clearwater, and he was the guest conductor for the final song that they did for the kids.

But afterwards, all the kids got a duffel bag, a Yankees duffel bag full of Christmas gifts for their kids.

And and they and these were 2,000 kids from Pinales County from schools that uh come from families that really need some help and some extra special of it uh Christmas time.

So I can tell you there are all kinds of activities like that.

Our police department is a shopping experience for kids every year, and they're gonna do that this Saturday at uh Target.

Um we've got the Jingle Bell family fest on December 20th.

There'll be 150 vendors in Coachman Park.

We've got the Ferris Food Will down there now.

Uh there'll be lots of activities for kids, contests and things for the whole family to do.

We've got the island of states boat parade, which is long running, will be coming up here.

Uh I think it's not this weekend, but the following weekend, there's an annual event.

Uh the Relaya Quest Bowl before we meet the next time is happening again.

We don't know what teams will be in it last year.

It was Alabama and Michigan, brought big crowds to Clearwater for the Bowl event, and that beach day will be out on Clearwater Beach December 29th.

And then uh lighted up Clearwater on New Year's Eve, uh, amplify Clearwater puts on one of the biggest New Year's Eve fireworks displays in all of Tampa Bay.

So, and I'm I'm only like nibbling on all the things going on, but you know, we all know how blessed we are to live in this community for all the many things due, plus the natural environment.

Today we opened or they um they opened to the public uh to to invite some of us over to see the new Manatee Rehabilitation Center, Clearwater Marine Aquarium.

They have three manatees over there now at CMA that they started with a year ago through something called a hurricane that came in, and uh they had to relocate those manatees, but they've got the manatees back.

They've had them for about a week or so, and the goal is to rehabilitate those manatees to put them back in the wild, and we're glad to see CMA prospering in that way too.

To again how blessed we are to have all these wonderful activities, but also be preserving the natural environment of Clearwater in Tampa Bay.

So as Councilmember Albritten said, uh, we wish everyone in Clearwater, everyone here tonight, a Merry Christmas and happy holidays to celebrate whatever you you and your family celebrate.

But it's a great time for family fun, families to gather together, and we wish everyone uh happy holidays and a happy new year in the coming days.

So with that, we will adjourn the December 4th, 2025 meeting of the Clearwater City Council.