City Commission - Regular Meeting

Sorry for the little technical delay, but we should be streaming now. Hi, everyone. Thank you for being here, calling the meeting to order. Mauricio.

Commissioner Joseph. Present. Commissioner Lama. Here. Commissioner Stuyvesant. Here. Vice Mayor Vizcarra. Here. Mayor Svecin. Here. All members present.

Okay, great. If everyone could please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. David, if you could lead us, please.

Regents, to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. OK, we do not have an opening statement tonight.

We do not.

But I'm going to make a short statement, because this is an important hearing. So we have two items on our agenda. The first is the second and final reading of our millage rate, and then the budget for fiscal year 26-27. So by statute, the first matter we discuss is the millage rate in relation to the rollback rate. And then we adopt the millage before we adopt the budget. Members of the public that are here, you are welcome to speak on both items. So please go ahead and fill out a public speaking card if you intend to do so. Once public comment is closed, it will not reopen. We have agendas in the back? OK. Every member of the commission will be heard and every member may ask about any part of the budget. I will recognize each of you and we will speak one at a time with remarks addressed through the chair by simply saying through the chair. Questions to staff go through me and staff will answer the question asked. No member will speak a second time on the item until every member who wishes to speak has spoken. If a member wants to change something in this budget, the way to do it is to motion to amend stating the line and the amount, and the commission will vote on it. Debate will be limited to the merits of the budget before us. Statements about conduct, motives, or integrity of a member of this commission, a city employee, or a city vendor are not debatable. If any member believes something improper has occurred, the proper course is to state the specific facts on the record or bring the matter to the city manager, city attorney, or appropriate authority. Any statements made characterizing based on any of those will be ruled out of order, and we will move on. If order is not maintained, I will call a member to order. If it continues, I will recess the meeting for five minutes until we maintain order. So with that, Mauricio, first item, please.

3 A is resolution adopting the city of Sunny Isles Beach final ad valorem tax millage levy rate at 1.6514 mills for $1,000 of taxable assessed value, which is equal to the rollback rate of 1.6514 mills for fiscal year 2026-2027. Thank you. Mr. City Manager?

Mayor, this establishes our millage rate. As we spoke about at the last meeting, this is we have the lowest millage rate in all of Dade County. And it establishes it at 1.6514 mills per $1,000.

Thank you. Mr. City Clerk, do we have any public speakers?

No, ma'am.

All right. With that, I will recognize members of the commission with questions or comments. Commissioner Lama?

No, no questions.

Vice Mayor?

Only to reiterate my position on this item, I disagree with lowering the millage when we have Amendment 3 on the ballot, which for us represents potentially a hit of about 20%. And I don't see a plan for making up that shortfall, should it come to be. I don't necessarily share the optimism that Amendment 3 will fail. I just think that we don't know what we don't know. And I find that lowering the millage with that on the menu is extremely irresponsible. I'm not aware of any other city that has lowered the millage. It's possible that after I looked, I didn't see any other cities. So I just don't think that we're getting it right on this one.

Thank you. Noted. Commissioner Joseph?

I have no comments.

Commissioner Stuyvesant? All right, with that, I'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion.

I need a second.

Second.

Marisa, will you?

Roll call?

Roll call, yeah. Sure.

Commissioner Joseph? Yes. Commissioner Lama? Yes. Commissioner Stuyvesant? Yes. Vice Mayor Vizcarra?

No.

Mayor Svecin?

Yes.

The ordinance, excuse me, the resolution is adopted four to one.

Thank you. Next item, please.

3B is an ordinance adopting an operating and capital improvement budget for the fiscal year commencing October 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2027 pursuant to section 200.65 of the Florida statutes authorizing expenditures of funds established by the budget authorizing encumbrances, authorizing issuance of checks, providing for grants and gifts, providing for local and federal law enforcement trust funds, providing for post-audit, providing for survivability, and providing for an effective date.

Mr. City Manager?

Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Commission, this is a second reading for our budget ordinance adopting the operating and capital improvement budget for fiscal year October 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2027.

Thank you. Mr. City Clerk, do we have public speakers?

No speakers.

Okay. Public comment is closed. I'll recognize members of the Commission.

Commissioner Stuyvesant? So since...

Last meeting to this one, talking again about the building fund. Now one of the building fee utilization studies from 2024 suddenly appear. Also, we were telling that by the finance director in the last week that we were for four consecutive years in excess of the fund, of the cap. It was explained that it could be held for four years if it was designated for construction. However, the study required the designation to be made by local government. So I have a question for the city attorney or for the city manager's office. Does that designation exist? Did we pass any resolution to allow the excess of the money that we had in the fund to be used for construction?

Just a reminder, Commissioner, all questions go through the chair.

Okay, through you.

Through the chair.

The same question. Mr. City Attorney.

My only, I believe the requirement is that it be earmarked for construction, so that would be a resolution from the City Commission authorizing that construction. It's not necessarily the expenditure of, but I don't know off the top of my head what date or when that would have been. WELL, YEAH. THE CITY MANAGER DOES.

I'LL LET THE CITY MANAGER ANSWER THAT.

I THINK WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD TO YOU ALL AS A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE PUTTING THIS OUT TO BID FOR CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS FOR THE RESTAURANT. SO EVERYTHING REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE RESTAURANT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU FOR APPROVAL.

Commissioners, does that answer your question?

No, because what the statute says is that we have to be specific that we have an excess in the fund. And the excess can be used for construction. It was never told to us that we have an excess. And it was never asked to use that excess for construction. And the statute requires that it has to be passed by either a resolution or an ordinance. So my question is the same one. Do we have a resolution stating that we are aware of the excess and that we are going to be using that money to renovate a space, not even for construction, for renovation in this case, of an existing one-story building, and of course, also to construct a restaurant?

Okay, again, Commissioner, let me remind you that all questions are through the chair.

Through you.

Do you need a reminder of the rules? No, I understand them very well. So I'm asking you to maintain decorum. Mr. City Attorney, do you need time to review this?

I'm just looking at the statute because my understanding is that it needs to be designated. It doesn't necessarily say that. That the governing body has to formally designate that access for that purpose that it it can be the manager but Okay, while you're the statue All right while you're reviewing that commissioners do is and what are your other questions, please?

I?

Yes, so like I said, we had a draft of a study that was given to the staff back in 2024. The study, they didn't continue after the draft. The draft says, for example, about illegal fee use. And it says, accumulating fees without reinvestment or using funds for noncompliant purposes, surplus funds must be reinvested in eligible activities or refunded. We didn't do any of the above. Also, the study says that The study DCDP in 2024 recommends an adaptive fee structure that mirrors actual enforcement costs. And it warns against surplus accumulation. So back in 2024, we had a warning that we have a big surplus. And also stated that Sunnyhurst relies on the standard surcharges and lacks that structure for the fees. So we were warned in 2024. And it never came to the commission. And it was decided by the staff to maybe table or just not have that company continue doing the study. Same thing now about the fee. So we have that this year, now it came to half of what is administrative charge back that we are paying to the city from the building fund. And we were told that that's not an accurate number. That is an estimate. However, right now, the ordinance that we are going to adopt today is the appropriation itself. So I also want to ask that the record reflect that we are being asked to appropriate a figure knowing that it's not accurate. And I will ask for a commitment tonight that the completed fee study comes to this commission in an open session and not just as a line item in an amendment.

What else do I have here? Commissioner, can you clarify which line item that you're looking at?

At the administrative fee that the building fund pays to the city for the use of spaces and human resources, legal, et cetera. That fee is being going up and down according to how much money the fund has. kind of being used as a lever and as a cost. So we were told that we don't know how much money we should be charging. So apparently, we haven't been known for many years. And that's why from last year to this year, it went from $1.6 million to half of it.

No, I meant in the book, so we can look at what you're looking at.

I don't have it with me right now.

Can you look it up so that we can look at the same item?

Yeah, when somebody has talked, I will look for it for you.

Okay, it's important that we are very, very specific.

Okay, like I said, it's in the building fund. We spoke about that last week, so I had to look on my notes again. But like I said, it was very simple. It went from 1.6 to 800 from the last year to this year. And that's the administrative fee that we pay from the fund to the city. So moving on, I want to think about the contracts and all the contracts under $50,000. We were told last year in September meeting in 2025 THAT ALL CONTRACTS ENTERED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE MANAGER'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR FULL TRANSPARENCY. THAT WAS SEPTEMBER 18, 2025. I CHECKED ALL THE MONTHLY REPORTS, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WE JUST GOT ABOUT THE ONE OF JULY, AND WE NEVER GOT THAT. WHAT WE GOT IN THE JULY ONE, IT SAYS 122 REQUISITIONS REVIEWED FOR PROCUREMENT. Purchase orders, change orders. 40 contracts, review, execute, renew, or terminate it. And all the data. So no vendor was named. No amount was stated. No procurement method identified. All the exemptions that they are being done for contracts nothing has been produced just yet and i've been asking that for a month so that was a year ago that we were make that promise that this was going to be included in the city manager's report and it even says that for full transparency and that has not happened

For the purposes of the record, could you just clarify exactly what is missing from the manager's report?

Yes.

Which item?

I'm going to read it again. It says, all contracts entered under the authority of the city manager, meaning the contracts that don't come to us for a vote because it's under the $50,000 threshold, will be included in the manager's monthly report for full transparency.

OK. Again, I want to maintain the facts here because this is a very important hearing. So Mr. City Manager, regarding the comment about the contracts that fall within your remit under $50,000, are you aware of any contracts that were not provided to us or that we were advised of?

Well, I think in my monthly report, I give statistical data in terms of driving it down to how it was specifically procured. I didn't have that level of detail. OK. We can certainly give that to you.

Commissioner, is that what you were looking for?

Yes. Yeah. OK. Absolutely. And for one year, we had not received that. And I did make also requests for very specific ones, and I have not gotten those just yet. Can you please clarify which ones you made a request for? Yes, I ask all the countries with exemptions, any type of exemption, because they are not previewed to the 50,000 threshold. And who was that made to, that request? It's through the city clerk's office.

So Mr. City Clerk, was that request made of you?

Yes, the request was made. We're working on it.

OK, so how long do you think it will take you? When was the request made? Let's start with that, approximately.

One second, Mayor.

I would just request for that to be given to me at least two weeks before the October meeting, and then I will put this as a discussion item for October.

This is the PO request?

The exemption one was in the July request. I think July 12th or 17th.

July 10th.

Yes. But like I said, that is fine if I get it just a couple of weeks before the October meeting, and I will put it as a discussion item for October.

For the record, can you just please read what the request was so that we all know what we're talking about here? Because we don't have access to that request. There were several requests. I need a few minutes. Please take your time. I want to make sure that the record is correct. Bless you, we'll take a two minute recess.

Yes.

No.

Okay, we are back on. So the question was, when was the request made of the procurement documents? Is that correct? Commissioner Stevenson?

So the request was made July 10th. It was a part of a larger request, but specifically related to the exemptions. The request was, and I'll read it verbatim. The proposed budget funds substantial expenditures under 62-15, exemptions from competitive bidding, including creative or artistic and entertainment-related services, which are not currently broken out by exemption type. Please complete Schedule R, providing a complete list of all contracts and purchases awarded under these or any other exemptions during the last two fiscal years and proposed for fiscal year 2026-2027. The vendor, event, program, amount, specific exemption relied upon, whether competitive quotes were obtained, and disclosure of any common ownership or affiliation among the vendors. Staff's response to this request, this specific one, states that this request is voluminous and would require numerous and extensive staff hours to research. Even with hundreds of hours to attempt to gather this information, it still may not be feasible to answer definitively as affiliations may not be obviously available. This would require a forensic auditor to review the ownership of each and every vendor for every contract. This would be an unexpected expense that would require a budget amendment and direction from the city commission. However, if there is a specific contractor or consultant that there is a concern with, please let us know, and we will look into these specifically, which would be a better and more economical use of staff time.

OK. Thank you.

So is there a specific vendor that you have a question about, Commissioner?

Actually, then I responded with making a smaller request and being more specific when I did answer to the memo of the city manager. I got the response on August 10th, and I think I replied a couple of days later. If you can check, the one that had the blue highlight, and I put either by priority what was needed, and the one that, so I shrink the requests.

So you shrunk the requests to specific vendors? Yes.

No, not a specific vendor, not requesting. For example, they needed apparently the auditor to check the owners of the building, of the companies, and that was a strike from the request. Okay.

If you're looking at it, would you mind reading what the revised request was, please? Yeah, I'm looking for it right now.

What I thought that it was going to be...

I have it here.

So I said, setting aside the ownership affiliation, which was the part that apparently would need an independent forensic accountant. So setting aside the ownership affiliation element, I am now asking the city to trace vendor ownership or engage a forensic auditor. The reminder of this request is neither voluminous nor speculative. Each time the city awards a contract under 6215 exemption, it must have a basis for invoking that exemption. And that basis is an existing record. I am requesting a schedule of the contracts and purchase awarded under 6215. or any other exemption from competitive bidding during the last two fiscal years and proposed for the 2026-2027 fiscal year. Stating for each, the vendor, the event or program, the amount the specific exemption rely upon, and whether competitive quotes were obtained. This is information the city maintains in the ordinary course of invoking exemptions and can produce with our new analysis. Only in the absence of such a schedule do I request the underlying records, the exemption approvals, or resolution contracts or invoices.

OK. Mauricio? Based on that request? And again, the reason I am making this so specific is because I want to make sure that everything that is on the record is related to an actual fact and that we're all on the same page. And if something was requested and it was understood that it was going to be provided, that it is actually provided. And if it was not being able to be provided, that that was communicated.

So based on the response from Commissioner Syverson on August 14th, she separated and grouped the requests based on level of priority. Some were higher, obviously, some were lower. This one fell within the one that was lower priority. But nonetheless, this specific request is something that if it's just limited to those contracts that where the exemption was relied upon. That's something that would have came to the commission regardless. And it's something that we should be able to pull for next meeting or before October.

OK, perfect. Yeah, that's actually what I would like to request because, yeah, this request was made like a month ago, September, I think, August 10. So we are September 14. However, now that I opened it, the high priority, I had total charge to the building fund for the annex by component. And to disclose the one for the cafe construction, the construction status.

Commissioner, if you could just repeat it. Vice Mayor wasn't able to hear you. Yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Also, high priority was the total charge of the building fund for the annex. And that has not been produced just yet. Certain information was produced, but not by the request that I made. And I do have a very simple question. So we pay from the building fund around over $300,000 for the awning of the old Tony Roma's location. The owning is going to be exclusively used by the cafe, and it was paid by the building fund. Is that allocation or that appropriation and that payment according to the statute? Through the chair, a question for the city attorney. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

I don't know for a fact that it would only be used by patrons of the cafe. I would need a lot more details. I can't just render an opinion right off the bat.

All right, Commissioner, are you willing to ask all these questions in writing to the city attorney so that it could be answered appropriately?

Yeah, he has it in the memorandum that I did August 10th. I can go through it and let them know again what I have not received. Like I said, I'm going to make this a discussion item for October, but only by logic and common sense. If there is an owning that is going to be on top of the seating area of the cafe, I think it will be logic to believe that it's going to be used by the cafe. and it was paid with restricted building funds. And to your question about the page about the administrative chargeback, it is page 282 of the budget. And when you go to debt service and transfers, you see the administrative chargeback that the actual is $1.554088. The adopted was 1.599. The projected is that 1.599. However, the proposed for the following fiscal year is going to be more or less half of it at $818,381. The interesting part is that then on page 280, THIS FLUCTUATION, IT IS ACCORDING TO THE OPERATING EXPENSES, SO IT SAYS THE INCREASE IS PRIMARILY DUE TO THE ANTICIPATED COSTS RELATED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT MOVE TO THE GOVERNMENT CENTER. SO THAT APPARENTLY IS WHAT IS INCREASING THE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, UNDER THAT, IT SAYS THE DECREASE OF THE CAPITAL OUTLAY IS DUE TO ANTICIPATING NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMPLETION OF THE BILL OUT. So the same fund, it goes up and down for the same reason of moving to the annex. And then when it goes to transfers, which is specifically that half of the money is that the decrease is due to an estimated reduction in the administrative chargeback once the building department move to the government annex. So it's a little bit confusing that the same move is what is explaining up and down of the same amount of monies.

Commissioner, can you just please clarify your question so that the manager can answer it? Because you have a lot of questions, but they're not being addressed. So what is the specific question you have right now?

About the administrative chargeback. OK. Mr. City Manager?

The budget in these cases with Nextdoor is fluid in terms of things like the awning. So as we're going through and we're assessing what portion is going to be paid for out of the building fund versus what's going to be paid for out of capital because we own the building. So in terms of the administrative chargeback, we're doing estimations, which ultimately, though we give you specific figures, our budget needs to be in flux in some cases for things like, let's say, materials. So we don't know the exact cost of what that chargeback is going to be until we actually occupy the structure.

Thank you.

Does that satisfy your question, Commissioner? Well, I guess that's what we have for right now. I just am still waiting for the question about the use of the excess of the money, because for what the city, I mean, the director of finance let us know, we being in excess in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, for at least those four years. It is confirmed that we were in excess of the cap that we could have accumulated. The designation never came during those years for the use of the construction of the annex. So my question continues actually being the same. If we could have used the money without designation,

So I have an answer to that.

Please, go ahead.

It took a little time because the statute's been amended. So there's several versions we have to look at. If you go through 553.80, which deals with the building fund, actually, even if you look at 7a, so there's references to the governing. So certain things are for the governing body of the local government. And then there's references to just the local government. So for example, under 7 , which is the division we're talking about, it says the governing bodies of the local governments may provide a schedule of reasonable fees. However, if you go back to the language that was struck from the July 1 Forward Amendment, It says excess funds used to construct such a building or structure must be designated for such purpose by the local government. It doesn't say the local governing body. So it's used in two different ways in the statute. So certain things are for the governing body. Other things just referenced the local government. So I couldn't say from the express language of the statute that necessarily the commission would have had to designate that per resolution.

Okay. And it continue by saying it must be designated for such a purpose by the local government and may not be carried forward for more than four consecutive years. That's correct. Okay. So we had it. We didn't know that we had excess. We make no decision what to use the money. And it just says that the designation cannot become after the excess. And if there was an excess, it got to be corrected. That's not what it says in there is the interpretation of that.

Well, I can't speak to that because that's numbers.

Correct. So we did not approve that renovation in 21 or 22. I do believe it came to us for the first time in 2023. So we have that excess that, on the record, the finance director say we had in 21, 22. And the remedy for that excess, it is to reduce the fees or to give the money back. So that is why I'm asking about what is it that we're going to do about the reconciliation with the excess of the money that we have for many years and that we could not be used for anything else other than the remedies that the law gave us as well.

OK. I'm going to let the city manager answer that question if it's clear to you.

One of the remedies is to be able to be used for construction or training for the building department. So we brought that to you. You approved it. And that's what we have next door.

OK. Not all of us approved it.

Thank you.

All right. Are there any other questions, Commissioner? No. I think, like I said, this is something that we need to revisit in October, because that's not what the law says, and the dates also are not They don't make any sense. Like I said, the money was there 21, 22, 23, and 24. After that, we didn't disappear the money. We just spent the money in something that should not be spent for. And that is still the conversation that we have to go through with detail.

OK. Mr. City Attorney, for the record, did we follow the law?

Well, again, I don't know numbers. 2 plus 2 equals 4. That's about it for me. So I haven't seen the numbers and the years and how they parted out. So I wouldn't be able to render an opinion like that. I mean, certainly we've been advising on the law and what the law says. now the excess funds i mean back in the day before july 1st construction was involved or was included today it's rebate or reduced fees upgrade technology hardware and software systems that was in the previous version as well to enhance service delivery or for training programs for building officials inspectors or plan examiners associated with the enforcement of the florida building code but i don't have the information with regards to when what when dates were triggered and what the excess were around a particular date. That would have to all be looked at.

All right. And in order to, one second, Commissioner.

And the remedy to that. So if there's a discrepancy, typically the remedy is going to have to, so let's say, I want to use a whole number, $1,000, right? Just simply a whole number. You'd have to repay your building fund for that.

OK, so if there was any sort of mispayment rather than use for something that we were technically not allowed to pay for, we would have to pay back the building fund.

Right, you'd just have to make it whole and bring it back to a true up. So if there's a need of a true up, you need to do a true up. And at that point, whatever excess you have, you need to decide. what you're going to do with it, whether it's going to be a rebate, a reduction of fees. And that you have to kind of, that could be misleading too, especially in this city, because you get big chunks of money from big developments. So you've got to make sure you don't reduce fees artificially, because you may have an excess, not because you're charging too much, it's because you've got big projects. So a whole lot of analysis needs to go into that.

All right. I'm going to let the city manager just make a statement, and then let Commissioner Steveson finish her questions.

I was just going to say regarding the building next door and moving the building fund, we appropriated that money with all of you being aware. I do understand that some of you disagree with that spend. The budgetary part of it that is the true up that was referenced is ongoing. as we're doing construction. So we've not completed that yet, but we're getting very close. And so that will be trued up, and then you'll have an accounting, a full accounting of all those funds.

OK, thank you. Let Commissioner Stuyvesant finish, and then I will recognize you.

In the point of if to use that fund or to use that money, we can only use the money that we needed to designate it. First, we need to know that we have an excess. Back then, we didn't know, or at least it was not informed. Once that we know we have an excess of money in the fund, then it has to be decided how to designate that money. Because what the law says is that the undesignated money that we have in excess, it has to be either used to reduce or to rebate. So that's exactly the matter of the issue. First, we didn't know about the excess. Second, to use it, we needed to designate it. Approving to use city property for or to move the building department, that doesn't give designation. And the designation had to be from the excess of the money. The excess started, apparently, in 2021. So that is the whole reconciliation. And we can work together with these to get to what happened and what are the remedies that we can do to give that money back to the building fund. Because as an example, if we spend over $300,000 building an owning for a restaurant and building funds for it, there is no way in the law where that is appropriate use of that money.

OK, I'm going to recognize Commissioner Joseph, but I also want to clarify for the record that we do have our city attorney who is responsible for reviewing the law and advising us of what we should be doing. While we may have our individual opinions, even vice mayor is also an attorney. We defer to our city attorney for that information. Commissioner Joseph, you're recognized. Please remember through the chair.

Yes, I have a question for Commissioner Stuyvesant. You put out a opinion. Just say it through the chair, please. Yes. So Commissioner Stuyvesant put out an opinion in a local newspaper regarding the opinion that there was $8 million missing from the building fund. A lot of people who I spoke with over the weekend Right when they saw me, they said, oh, what are you doing about the $8 million that's missing from the city? So do you understand that you've created a misconception with a lot of residents that requires some type of correction?

Commissioner Joseph, I want to just remind you that we're sticking to the items on the agenda. And I know it's related. I know that it's related. But I specifically made a statement in the beginning that we're not going to break the decorum. So if you can have a question that's very specific.

It also creates the perception that every commissioner sitting on this dais has had things misappropriated before our eyes, and that's not the case.

I don't disagree with you, but that's not something that's up for debate. And I can appreciate that statement, but it's not something that's up for debate. Do you have any questions about the budget to the manager or the city attorney?

I only want to say that I'm glad that I was able to stop the solar panels at Gateway because currently and according to the installation at City Hall, Solar panels are not currently cost effective. And I believe that for any future city project, solar panels should not be considered.

Thank you. Commissioner Lama, do you have any questions?

No.

All right. Vice Mayor?

No, I don't have any questions. Comments or comments? I am not going to make any comments either.

No, he said or comments. Oh, OK.

I was going to say no comments. No, I don't have any questions. I do want to comment. I was aware that there was this building fund. I was aware that the decisions we were making were going to go, that those monies were going to be used for the new building department. I didn't have any. I understand that there can be little details, but I didn't have any real concerns about the decisions we were making as we were making them. And I don't share them now. There may be things that need to be ironed out and explained. I knew that we had these monies and that we were using those monies when we were voting on making a building department. So I just don't understand the confusion unless we're really digging into details, which I generally don't dig at that level. And it was raised in this newspaper. It was an opinion. And it has, I think, fabricated an outrage that I don't think is appropriate, whether Commissioner Stuyvesant has clarity and will then retract it or anything like that. That will be up to her. But I personally don't appreciate that, because I do share Commissioner Joseph's point of view, that it does paint everybody like we're running off with $8 million, which we are not. they're there. You can go touch the bricks. And there's also direct and indirect expenses, and there's a whole more complex thing that we're not going to get into now. And as I mentioned in the last meeting, my problem with this budget is really related to the military. It's not with how it's constructed.

That's all. OK, thank you. If there are no other comments or questions, Commissioner Stubeson, Do you want to retract what you wrote in the opinion piece? No, not at all.

Because why would I? Everything I had, I had the numbers. And it's going to get confirmed. Actually, part of it, it got already confirmed when the finance director came to us and present the amount and the excess of money that we had carried over the years. So that was the first time that it was that easily that we were over the four-year caps that we could have accumulated. So that is very clear of what we were doing, that we should not have had that amount of money. So we were very creative, of course. And I wasn't part of it because I voted against in how to spend the money. And it's very interesting that we have spent the money, over $8 million or so. renovating a one-story building. It has taken all this time, all these years. I mean, those high-rises had been built faster that we are renovating this building. And it's true that we pay from that fund. the owning of the restaurant, the grease trap, and many other things of the restaurant, that we've been paying salaries from that money as well, and that we've been charging an administrative fee that, again, that confirmed that we don't know how much we should be charging. And it goes up and down according to the amount of money on the phone. Actually, the three things that I pointed out in the article are completely verifiable with the numbers. So if anybody wants more information about it, you guys can share my phone number with those residents that they are complaining about. Because I got completely a different approach, and nobody's pointing finger at anybody. And the people, when they watch these meetings, they kind of see in... Clearly, who is the one that are doing or reading the things and the materials that we should be reading? Who are the people who understand numbers? OK, I'm going to stop you.

Commissioner, we said in the beginning, we're not going to categorize anybody's motives. We're not going to attack anybody in the commission. Nobody's being attacked. THIS IS A DIRECT ATTACK. THIS IS CLAIMING THAT THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, THAT THE COMMISSION MAKING AN IMPLICATION THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT READ THE NUMBERS OR DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS.

SO IT'S NOT.

THESE ARE THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU'RE MAKING AND I AM GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE CLEAR STATEMENTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH FACTS.

YEAH, EXACTLY. EVERYTHING THAT I WROTE, IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH FACTS.

So I want to say for the record that each one of us, just like each one of you or anyone watching, can choose to write an article. You have a right to write an article if a newspaper wants to publish it. Us, obviously, as members of the commission of Sunny Isles Beach, which is a very well-known city, what we say and what we write, it's heard and it's listened to. So it's very important. that we're very careful with our language. And so I appreciate the members of the commission that try very hard to be very clear and specific and attach everything to a fact. And thank you, Commissioner Joseph. I understand what you're trying to do. As you know, I try to maintain decorum as much as possible. So for the record, no money is missing. Nothing disappeared. Anything that anyone wants to ask about the budget or about the building department, you are free to make those requests. And if you ever feel that those questions are not being answered, or that something has been done that is against the rules or trying to hide something, there are mechanisms in place to report those sort of things. And certainly, you are always free to come in front of this commission and make any sort of questions of the commission as a whole. So if there are no other questions or comments, I will take a motion to the budget.

No, just a last comment. Go ahead. You're recognized. It's very specific. I never claim that the money disappeared. I actually just say a few minutes ago the money was spent, not disappeared. So that's a good clarification to make. Nobody's claiming that the money got It was spent. It's the way of how and where it was spent that issue, okay? So nowhere had I ever done that claim because I would never do that because for that, clearly, I have zero evidence. Otherwise, I would go to another venue and not to the newspapers. So it's not a claim of money disappeared. It's that the money was spent and how.

It was a spent. I have to disagree.

Commissioner Joseph, I'm going to recognize you for a last comment, but then I want to take a motion. So please, I appreciate your willingness to follow the rules. So please go ahead. You're recognized.

No, I have to disagree. You've created a perception, whether you meant to or not. And among many residents, there is a perception now that there has been money that's been misappropriated from the construction fund, and there is money missing that cannot be allocated, that cannot be that cannot be accounted for. And that's your perception that you created through your opinion, which, in my opinion, needs to be corrected for the residents that were misled.

All right, thank you. I will take a motion for this item. I have a question. And there is no comment by the mayor about the budget. You have no comments.

We've exhausted all our comments and all of our questions.

I'm asking about your comments, your question. I appreciate your concern. Thank you. I will take a motion. You don't have, yeah.

Commissioner Stewart said, I'm going to remind you that we have rules of decorum that are written into our charter.

And you continue to break those rules. You never answered the question. So you have or you don't have any comments?

Commissioner.

Yes.

If you have a question about the budget, you can ask that.

No, I have a question to the chair. Do you have any comments about the budget?

We've discussed this budget.

OK, so you don't. Thank you. OK.

I will remind you again that we try very hard here to set a good example for the audience.

Clearly.

So I would appreciate if you would maintain decorum. I'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion.

I need a second.

Second.

Mauricio.

Commissioner Lama. Yes. Commissioner Cephasan.

No.

Vice Mayor Vizcarra.

No.

Commissioner Joseph. Yes. Mayor Svecin. Yes. The budget is adopted 3 to 2.

All right. Thank you, everyone. Before we adjourn, I just want to remind everyone we have our regular commission meeting on Thursday at 6. No, we have our workshop at 1.30, and then we have our regular commission meeting at 6 o'clock.

6.30.

Well, we could get here a little early. 6.30. Thank you, everyone. Meeting adjourned.