Village Council - Regular Meeting

You ready? Okay. Once again, it's Thursday, June 11th at 6 p.m. I'd like to call the meeting to order and have the clerk call roll the members, please.

Council Member Greenberg. Present. Council Member McDonald. Here. Council Member Meyer.

Here.

Vice Mayor Furman. Here. Mayor Corradino.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Let's do the Pledge of Allegiance. The flag is that way. Aye. I guess we have a popular agenda. We have unpopular agenda nights and unpopular agenda nights. We have cookies and pink lemonade that should soothe the savage beast. All right, let's do the consent agenda.

Mayor, if I may, on the consent agenda for tap three and tap five, there is a revised resolutions on the dais. It's a correction on the spelling of the vendor on the bottom line on section one for the solid waste one and on field turf. There's a misspell on the section one as well as this. I'm sorry on the last whereas clause where it says filed turf instead of field turf. So you would be voting on the revised ones that are on the dais mayor.

Mr. Chair, before you vote, with respect to the item awarding contract waste connections, I've advised you and the other council members that our firm represents waste connections on matters in other cities and offered if you want to have outside council review any contracts if you have any concerns with that.

Okay, thank you. Does anybody want, before we hit the consent agenda, does anybody want to pull anything from the consent agenda?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull four and five. Okay.

FABs four and five will be pulled and they'll be addressed individually. Anybody else? Okay, would anybody like to speak on anything on the consent agenda that's not been pulled? So these things will all be voted on. If you want to have a comment about any of them, you're welcome to get up right now and give a comment. If not, we'll move on.

I'm sorry, I actually wanted to pull, I do want to pull number three.

Okay, three, four, three, four, and five.

Perfect. All right. Three is tab four, so that was already one of the items that had been pulled.

Insofar as I can't count or follow the numbers, I withdraw that. You don't have to pull tab three. Council Member Fairman already pulled the correct thing I was thinking. Which one did you pull?

Four and five.

Also known as items three and four. It's only been a year and a half. Sorry. Still money.

Okay.

All right. This is going to be a long one.

All right.

Seeing none, we will open and close the public hearing on the consent agenda. And we will have a motion on the unpulled items on the consent agenda. I'll move. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Most of the consent agenda passes without a unanimous vote. Okay. So let's go to, Mr. Fairman, you said tabs four and five. Let's go to tab four.

It's a resolution of the Village of Pinecrest, Florida authorizing the village manager to enter into an agreement with Walsall Tile and Fabrication and Installation of a custom bench structure for the Southwest 120th Street beautification project, providing for an effective date.

The bench. All right, Mr. Fairman, do you want to say something or we should hand it over to somebody that wants to say? Mr. Manager, is that you?

I just think it's a lot of money to spend on a bench that could be, it's a bit dubious of how much that bench is going to be used and how well it's going to hold up. There's also, you know, we have a sort of a look that Pinecrest is sort of built on, which is sort of that, light coral rock look with nice natural landscape. And I think this, as I recall this art installation, I'm expecting it to be beautiful because I remember the drawings on it were very pretty. A lot of nice landscaping. I just don't see the need for spending $25,000 on a 20-foot bench. We could get a few blocks of nice oolite that can be used as a bench for passer buyers or bicyclists that want to stop for a moment. And that might cost us $3,000 to $5,000. So that's my issue with the bench.

Thank you. Mr. Greenberg?

All right, we switched microphones. I share some of the concern. I think one of the issues, and I've corresponded with a number of residents about it, and I think it is important. And if we are going to pass it, I would suggest we do it with a clarification in the wording here. And I'm not just saying this to be semantic. This isn't really just a bench. In fact, I wouldn't use the word bench at all. And I think the manager has come with some information. I would like to turn it over to her. But it really is part of the design feature. and so i think the concern the questions that councilman fairman raises are are fair ones and i think that if maybe that we should talk think about alternatives however um i don't want people thinking of this as a 25 000 bench it's it's a i believe a nice and significant part of what i consider to be an important design feature at the entry to the village we've already approved The primary part of the feature, I think it's public spaces and placemaking are critical to a village. 25,000 sounds like a lot for a bench. I don't think it's so much when we're talking about it in the context of a greater design. even with all the concerns we have both now and going forward in terms of money. And again, this is money that has been allocated. The reason this is here is just because it's the sole vendor, so the bidding process is different. But I think for the sake of conversation, so we're all fully informed, I would ask the manager to tell us what we're dealing with so that we're not all just picturing a little tiny bench that's costing $25,000 like when the Pentagon would spend $200,000 on a screwdriver. This isn't that.

So I'm going to ask the clerk just to pull up some pictures that I had sent to council to kind of give you some clarification of what we're talking about. So this area will be providing a new sculpture. And the landscape architect that designed the landscape and the streetscape where this new art piece is going had recommended a semicircular But as you can see, it's a function of, it looks more like a design element. If you can just scroll up a little bit more. So this is the same artist, this isn't the art piece that's going in, but this is the same artist that is going to be doing our piece. And you'll notice that in multiple pieces that he's done, it incorporates like a bench feature. If you could continue to scroll. You'll see another one here. And so in working with the artist, the landscape architect that we hired came up with the concept of doing this low-seat kind of semicircular design feature. And that's why we're talking about a 20-foot semicircle, not just a bench. that might be the size of a desk or something like that. So just wanted to put it into context, because yes, there was a lot of chatter and concern that we would spend $25,000 on a bench, but it's actually a design feature. The finish to address the comments that the vice mayor made is kind of like a, it's a poured concrete but it has an aggregate in it so it's in the color scheme of the like the beiges and it has thicker aggregate, so it kind of looks like a rough terrazzo, for lack of a better description. But it's not the typical oolite limestone that we have in some of the other areas around Pinecrest. But it is complementary in the sense that the coloring and everything matches with. Mr. McDonald?

Yeah, to the manager. So this is at the... at Red Road and 120 where Chapman Field, no, Moss Ranch comes in. Correct. And we used to have the Pinecrest, welcome to Pinecrest, sort of in the median. I mean, that's been taken down and it's been pushed back, I guess, toward what, that would be the south.

Yeah, there was an existing rock Like gateway feature there already that was kind of hidden and hadn't been pressure cleaned. We cleaned that up. We're going to be putting pinecrest on that. And then where the old welcome to pinecrest sign is, that whole little island is the location of this entry feature of this and the art piece.

Ah, okay. Okay. So what's, is there anything going in as you come around Moss Ranch? and you make that turn to go south on?

Landscaping.

Landscaping. So this goes in the island there?

Yeah, this goes in the island where that sign is, where you're talking about. There's going to be landscaping, and then there'll be a water station right behind that area there too. Okay, I got it.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Do you happen to have a, and you may not, a photo of the art piece around?

I'll get it. I can bring it.

I don't have it here, unfortunately. And have you, am I correct to understand that, I know this was a sole vendor, so it's not the standard thing with the three bids, but am I correct that you've explored other options, and if so, what have you found? We did.

The going rate, we contacted other fabricators that can do custom benches like this, and it's in the ballpark of between $25,000 and $30,000. The reason we had brought this, this was actually an after-the-fact approval because we were trying to keep it in the timing of building the footers that would also accept the artworks to do it all at the same time. And we just stopped the fabrication to have this conversation with council. But it is so sourced. It's a custom piece that will be built and then brought in and installed.

Was this bench on the original plans for the artwork?

Yes. Not of the artwork. It was a landscape architect. Design feature.

When we approved the artwork.

It was just the artwork.

OK.

I would say we're mischaracterizing it as a bench. It's a low wall. To me, that's not a bench.

It's a sitting wall, right? It's a wall. It's like a little wayside area where people can stop if they needed to. But a bench, it's not.

It's a rest area. Right. So I know it's concrete. It's liable to fail if it gets run into. I know insurance will cover it, but insurance costs money. It's a beautiful spot that we're using for this artwork. I think it is a spot that people may stop at occasionally. I still don't see spending $25,000 on a bench when the artwork is what we wanted. We wanted the artwork, and we wanted beautiful landscapes. To then spend that much money on a seating area, when there's some very natural stone seating areas that we could put in, I don't see why we would go there. It seems to me a bit of, if it was like these pictures that it was in an open park, but we're talking about right next to Red Road and 120th Street. I just don't see having concerts there or having a lot of people sitting there.

Mr. McDonald? Yeah, I would just say, Designing something if it's supposed to be if it's a work of art The last thing we should do as a community is design it by committee of the council if that's part of the if that's part of the that Structure you showed us it's not part of the artwork.

So our art piece is standalone You have the art piece at the front if you're looking at From 57th Avenue towards that little median, you'll have the art piece at the front and then circled in the back, a semi-circle that hugs it from behind. And then there's a coquina where you can walk up and you can actually walk among the different pieces of the art. So to the vice mayor's point, yes, you could do completely different seating out there. take out the seating and not have any seating and just have the artwork there. There is a lot of different things, but the collaborative effort or discussion between the landscape architect we hired and the artist came up with this concept, and that's what we had gone forward with.

I have my opinion, and I think it was totally a beautiful stonework that we get something very nicely made at a fraction of the cost. for an area that's going to be a place people stop at as they go running or walking or biking by. And that sort of, and I don't even think it really fits the Pinecrest motif that a concrete, poured concrete bench. But I would ask that we not approve it, but I'm only one.

Anybody else from the council before we open the public? Just one last thing on that.

I do want to say, I mean, I think it's a very fair point the vice mayor makes. I mean, to me, and later on we talk about some items, you know, and I've said it in other places, there are things we're going to have to do or we have to be concerned about. very concerned about costs going forward. I think in the scheme of things, this amount is, and I understand it could be a slippery slope, but I think in the scheme of things, this is a small enough amount for a project that we're already committed to, serving a valid purpose. That's why I'm comfortable with it. But again, I think there are fair points that are raised. I would want to suggest, if I can, now is the moment, I guess we have to hear from the public, but in terms of, I would suggest that we change the wording in here to make it clear. Because I do want people to know it isn't just a bench. And so I don't know if we can change the wording of the resolution to design feature. What would you like it to say? Giant bench? Giant bench. Really big bench. No, I think design feature. To me, that's what it is. A sitting wall was actually kind of a nice term, too.

I don't care. So I think it is. And I agree. I think it's a design feature. I've come around on this when I first read it. My first reaction was like, this is overboard. I wasn't happy with it. And after I saw some of the examples of what the design feature looks like and how it would fit within what we're building there, I felt very different. But I agree. It's because that word bench just misguides the intent. here in a way. So the optics of it are not necessarily positive. But when you look and you go deeper into it, you see that it fits well within what we're trying to build there. And I therefore feel much more supportive of it, especially if it's designed by people that know what they're doing. And I agree with Councilmember McDonald in that we shouldn't get into micromanaging some of the aspects of these projects and trust the people that bring good taste to our village.

I might add that it's not micromanaging. It was not part of the original design. It wasn't part of the original purchase of the artwork, which we're spending a lot of money on. And I'm cool with that. It's going to be very pretty. But to add this sort of thing, it's not going to get used. You're getting a 20-foot bench because somebody felt, in their professional opinion, they wanted to sell it to us. Pinecrest doesn't exist for the artist or the architect. We use them to get done what we want to do. This was not part of the original plan. It could be thought differently and fit beautifully in the landscape that is Pinecrest at a fraction of the cost. And I understand the argument about $20,000, $25,000 not being a lot of money, but it still could get some things done. So that's my last plea.

Thank you. We'll open the public hearing. Anybody want to speak on the? That's the sitting wall. The sitting wall, giant bench, whatever it is. Seeing none, Ms. Clark, how many people online want to talk about the bench? No one registered, ma'am. Perfect. OK, so we have a motion. We'll wait until later to talk about it. We'll hear about it in about three hours. We've got a motion. Do we have a second? Motion to approve, correct?

Yeah, but with the amendment, with the proposed amendment where it refers to a custom bench structure both in the title and in the wording to instead refer to it as a design feature.

I'm fine with that. Mr. McDonald, you made the motion. Is that okay with you? That's fine. All right, we have a motion and a second on the design feature. Ms. Clerk, would you... Oh, no, it's okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Aye. Okay, the motion passes almost unanimously, save for one. Okay, now we go to tab five.

That's a resolution of the Village of Pancras, Florida, authorizing the village manager to enter into an agreement with Field Turf USA Inc. for the renovation of the Pancras Community Center playground safety surface, providing for an effective date.

So Mr. Mayor, I want to pull it because I did go by the playground out there by the community center. It is kind of in shambles, so it's definitely money worth spending on redoing it. And plus, they're doing something interesting. Part of this playground area is turf. with like a jungle gym on it. And the other part is the rubberized surface with a lot other features to it. But they're going to cover the rubberized surface with the same turf because that rubberized surface is extremely expensive to repair and replace. So I think it's a great experiment as well to see how that turns out. So it should be very nice for everybody. It's definitely, this stuff is worn down to its roots. So it's good timing. Good deal.

Anybody has comments on that? Would anybody like to speak on tab 5? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. All in favor? We have a motion to approve.

I move.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. A motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? That one does pass unanimously. OK. Agenda and order of business. Nobody wants to change anything, do they?

No.

Good. Special presentations. Letter A, Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Miami. Council Member? Oh, perfect time.

I can cover a minute if you want me to. You got a tap dance.

Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. There is a note that deferral is requested on item 6B1, tab 8. Tab 8.

OK, that's great news. Tab 8, deferral. All right, what's the reason?

We just need to do a little bit more work on it to make sure that the proposed changes to land development regulations don't run awry of the SB 180. OK. We're still on target with comp plan and all that type of stuff?

Yes.

OK. We've already received some of the comments, and we're working on that. Perfect.

All right. So do we have a motion to defer? Anybody?

Do we have an expected time frame as to by when it is that we'll feel comfortable? Next July.

We're done going through the first review and we're just tweaking it.

The request is to defer to date certain July 14th.

All right. July 14th. Yeah. We have a motion? I'll move it. I'll second. I'll motion a second. Do we have to voice vote or can I just call? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, tab eight is deferred, making this meeting even better. All right, so back to Big Brothers Big Sisters of Miami, Councilmember Greenberg.

Okay, thank you. I'm real happy to have this tonight. One of the truly, and you'll hear in a moment, one of the truly great organizations in this community is Big Brothers and Big Sisters. I've had the privilege for, I was doing the math, and it's actually like 25 years being involved in some form or another as both a big brother, now sort of out of the program because my little brother is 30-something, and also about a foot and about 150 pounds bigger than me. Don't, don't.

So he's five feet tall.

He's five feet tall, exactly. He weighs 200 pounds. But Big Brother really has such a colossal impact in this community and nationwide, giving young people opportunities they otherwise would never have. And it's not just the traditional Big Brother, Big Sister program you think about with one-on-one matches, but they have a lot of programs that you're going to hear about working with organizations, including public entities, to try to spread mentorship and offer new opportunities. I was also on the board of Big Brothers Big Sisters for a number of years. And one of the absolute pleasures was working with the now CEO. Your title keeps changing. I keep forgetting your title. It doesn't change. But my friend and truly one of the most inspiring people in this community, Gail Nelson, who's here to talk about we've been having conversations, thanks to the manager and thanks to the staff, about a partnership between Pinecrest and Big Brothers and Big Sisters. And one of the hardest things to do is have Gail speak in anything and then anyone having to speak after him. So, we're all worn for the rest of the evening, but it's truly, truly, truly a pleasure to have Gail Nelson here. Mr. Nelson, welcome. Thanks for being here.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, members of the council. Thank you, Councilmember Greenberg. That's why I forget your name. Call me a friend.

We've never met.

Nice to meet you. In 1904, a court clerk started an organization based on a simple fact. Kids were going into the juvenile justice system, and The Lee Coulter, Ernest Coulter, said, if each of these children just had someone, a friend, a trusted friend and counsel, what we affectionately call a big, life could be different. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Miami has been serving the community for almost 70 years. And we started in 1958, so in 2028, we'll have served this community for 70 years. Our brand, our committed people like Jerry, who just take the time to Not change their life, but have their life changed by mentoring someone else. So I went into Jerry's, truly his little brother, but he towers over Jerry and he's taller than five feet for the record. But I will say this, our growth, we will serve, I have with me Aseem Plez, our vice president of programs, be remiss if I didn't acknowledge him. But in short order, let me just say this. Our growth, we will serve over 3,000 littles You've served in Miami-Dade County this fiscal year that ends on June 30th, within a couple weeks. Our growth, being the third largest school district in the United States, there's so many more kids we can serve. But not only is it just the kids who are in need, we want to engage. Our growth has been engaging with police departments. Good to see Chief with us tonight. Engaging with municipalities and villages. We had a great conversation with the village manager. We appreciate your leadership. So what I'm proposing to this council, Mr. Mayor and this council, is to enter into a formal partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters Miami, allowing the village to be a partner. So the employees of the village can serve as bigs to high school students that are in Pinecrest. The high school students can serve as bigs to the elementary students. Those empty nesters, those who have some spare time, can serve as bigs as well. So this is not a village takeover, it is a village partnership. And so on behalf of the littles that you're about to serve, and hopefully with this council's support and commitment, we do all the heavy lifting. School to Work is the program. And we call it Biggs and Blue with the police officers. All the major departments are part of this program. We work with the Attorney General of the state of Florida. But the most important thing is parents trust us. Winnetou's parents, his mom in particular, signed him up. And then we met Jerry. And the rest is history. So I just thank you in advance for all that you do for this community and all that we can do together. I would just mention one last thing. Hopefully my time is within your time frame.

You got all night.

Thank you. I don't. OK, you all have all night.

No, you can have as much time as you want.

OK, out of respect for this wonderful audience, I'll be respectful. School to work is once a month. The littles from local high school in Pinecrest will come to the village once a month, see their big brother or big sister. And in order to be part of this program, we interview you, likes, dislikes, hobbies, interests. We bring our fingerprint machines. We have to do that as part of our national standards. You never leave the job necessarily. parks and rec being involved or the police department. We want to just engage as many aspects of the village as possible. So at this time I'll pause and answer any questions.

Any questions?

Please ask me at least one.

It actually is a question. I mean, I sort of have to do the answer, but I want to, I think, so the way that you're describing it, obviously, you'll work with Big Brother, Big Sisters, or work with staff and the police as appropriate to do that, the school to work and do that pairing. But it seems like another useful component, and obviously with the schools, with the Palmetto's and what have you, to get that part going. But it also seems... that there's room for a third component, if you will, which is the village, through its own outreach and through all of ours, helping to recruit bigs for the other program, too, for the more traditional program. One of the things that council members have talked about is we have a lot of seniors in this community. Love that. And there's a great way to match seniors, empty nesters, And I'm going to be one soon enough that I don't know. Empty nesters aren't necessarily seniors, but right. But the point is, people in this community. You can get my baby. You can be six feet. But six-four. Right. So it would also be that component. And I know you guys have great outreach. So I would hope the village could work with Big Brothers Big Sisters to spread the word in this community, too, to recruit people.

I appreciate you to give me that softball. Village Manager Galeano has already designated a staff member, Santiago, if I'm not mistaken, to be our internal champion. We can certainly recruit. We'll work through the liaison that's already been designated. Our traditional program from 1904 to present day is called community-based mentoring, whether it's empty nester, somebody more seasoned. I don't want to use the word old, somebody more seasoned. But if they have the time. they could have their own Ludo. It's not limited to the workplace. Jerry is not even alumni, because he's still connected with his little brother, Winnetou. And so that's twice a month, spending that quality time together. Any Ludo in the program is also eligible to apply for scholarships. For the record, on Thursday, June 4, 2026, we gave away $2.5 million in scholarships. So you look at it for a couple, I got some wows behind me, so that's excellent. So I'll just take another 30 seconds, sir. Mr. Mayor and council members, think about the high schoolers who are mentoring the Lodos. The Lodos are eligible for scholarships. The high schoolers who are mentoring, what a great reference to have, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, national organization. For those employees, And I will say this to you, JPMorgan Chase is a partner, Miami Heat's a partner, many of the police departments are partners. They are now hiring the Littles. We're not asking you to hire them, but when you mentor them and they come into the workplace culture, who better to be summer interns or future employees? So I will say in advance, you're welcome for you all finding future employees to work in the village of Pinecrest as well. The manager got that.

Excellent.

Any other questions?

Any other questions? Yes, Vice Mayor. How do the Littles come to you or are you to them?

Let's say for the school to work program, the workplace mentoring program, we interview the littles in their high school, get all the proper consents. We interview the bigs, the village staff and various departments likes, dislikes, hobbies, interests, and those littles are transported to the workplace once a month on preset dates. Now, for the community-based program that Jerry was a part of for over 25 years, the big picks up the little, and they spend that quality time. Big calls the parent or guardian, checks on availability, gets the permission, and they spend that quality time together. That is the most flexible program for an individual. The workplace mentoring program is literally preset dates, and the kids come together once a month. And for the high school program with the littles, they go to the high school, I mean, excuse me, the high schoolers go to the elementary school one hour a week. Those are the three. Did I miss anything, Jerry?

I think you nailed it.

Thank you. Done this before. With a little help.

Practice, practice, practice. Anybody else? All right, what do we got to do, Ms. Manager? I mean, is this something we need a consensus on, or what do you?

No, I mean, we were already working to facilitate it. It's a volunteer program. Employees can participate, but it's not a mandatory participation. And we're happy to help facilitate that. And then we had some conversations about hosting workshops for the community to educate the community about their offerings and try to recruit individual residents.

To also become big so we'll be working on both those initiatives simultaneously great And I would just ask this manager if you could for all these fine people behind me whenever I have an opportunity to recruit bigs It's something we can share with residents as well. Yeah, so that they can sign up individually or collectively Absolutely, yeah, I've fully done my job. Yeah Thank You mr. Mayor

All right, on we go. Reports and recommendations, Village Council number one. What's that?

I'm not going to address that one.

Not going to address that one. I have one to address as reports and recommendations. I was thinking today about the floating islands and the lake. And I've changed my opinion on this. And I agree 100% with Mr. Panov in that this, I want to explore turning over the lake if we can, to the neighbors in the area? We get a lot of resistance on these floating islands and whatnot. Even if somebody canoes out on the lake, it's really something that the public doesn't see very often. The neighbors don't like the public back there very much at all. Is there a way that we can explore the impacts of forming a homeowners association, forming some type of funding that the neighbors would pay for, and they can just have the lake back. Or not a lake, it's a canal. And just they can operate and maintain it if they want it private. I mean, I think it's something that we should probably explore. Mitch, is that something you guys can look into, the possibility of doing that? Sure. That would be great.

I mean, there are a couple of other options. Joe, I have a question. I've seen these emails, but that's all I've seen. I'm not aware. What is the issue? I see these floating islands.

We did a project, I guess last year at this time, where we put some environmental stuff in the lake, floating islands, to kind of test the cleaning water quality, this, that, and the other thing. It's met with an extraordinary amount of resistance, much like any sidewalk we would ever do meets with resistance. And sometimes... you know, I mean, universally when we've done a sidewalk project or something like that, after it's built, people love it and they use it and all this stuff. But a lot of times I'm sure that if we sat on the council long enough, you feel like, why don't we just, you know, if I could do it in the right way, I would. In this sense, we can because we don't use it. They don't want anybody using it. It's effectively their backyard. In fact, if we were to use it correctly, one of the second options were, I mean, if we can't just peacefully coexist with it the way it exists now, another option is, wait a minute. Somebody said to me today, well, how would you like to do this in your backyard? My answer is, well, we would hate it in my backyard. Fact of the matter, it's not in your backyard. It's a public right-of-way, and we're doing a public project. It's not fair that the village operate, maintain its public rights-of-way, and then have neighbors have veto power over maintenance projects, like a pocket park or landscapes. And so the other thought that I had was that if we Effectively, people have built to the lake shore well into public property. If we were to handle this like the water management district was a couple of years ago, the thing that I would hate to do is go back there and clear the public right of way of the encroachments. I think that would be devastating. And so I think the best thing to do is contemplate not doing that, perhaps dedicating the lake to the natives.

think the managers got some so I'll just put this out there so for consideration from council the issue that I would caution you with is that that waterway is part of our larger drainage system when you have lack of maintenance, which could happen if something is privatized. It's all connecting.

Well, my point would be that they would have to maintain it. If they want it, they would have to maintain it to the standards that the village does. I mean, if it's that important, I think there would be a funding mechanism. They would form a special taxing district, like the HOA, just like or whatever, Pinecrest by the Sea, or any of those things to pay for the privatization of it. And they would maintain it like we do.

Because if it's not well maintained, they could actually create a problem when there's a storm event.

I think that would be part of the deal. If they wanted it, they could have it.

The other thing that I just wanted to clarify, the experiment, it's a scientific experiment. It was done through the Florida International University. It's a two-year pilot where we just finished having the first year, and we're in the second year that we received grants in order to do this, and it's an experiment, we have found, Some things that have worked, some things that haven't. Some plants that were used out there when we had the cold snaps, they all died off. And so we've been, it's like a trial and error because it is a pilot. And so, yes, we have had some pushback from some residents. Others feel less strongly about it. So it's a little mix of... how people look at this project.

Maybe we should ask them if they want it or not. Because every email I get, it's like, get out of my backyard. We can give them. Make it part of their backyard.

I can tell you that I fully anticipated that the pilot would be finished, and then we could reassess whether or not we even wanted to continue it or not. But, I mean, it's up to council.

I'd like the attorneys to research the ability to do that, what it would take and what it would cost. Again, I've changed my opinion. I agree 100% with Mr. Panov. This should be part of their backyard. They can have it. They can encroach on it. They can operate and maintain it. It's not something that necessarily anybody uses.

Yeah. My only comment would be, maybe this is, has this been an ongoing issue before the council until tonight? I mean, I'm getting emails every week about this. Well, I've seen the emails as well, and I wasn't aware of what the background story is. I would just say, and again, I've learned a little bit more because of what the manager just said, and I get it. We have Mr. Panoff, who's upset with the view that he's getting from his... Mr. Panoff is right here.

Oh, there you go. Well, good to meet you, sir. And I didn't say anything. Mr. Panov, we've got to get up to the microphone and speak, but we're not speaking on this. No, we're not.

It's not on the agenda in my life.

No. That's why we communicate with you offline.

My comment is that something like this, turning over a lake to a private HOA type thing, I think it makes a little bit of more consideration than just some emails coming in. And if we're doing a scientific study with FIU about water quality and how to maintain the water quality, is that what it is?

Yeah, it's meant to be a pilot to assess whether doing these types of floating flower beds or wetlands help reduce the nutrient load which later on gets flushed out into Biscayne Bay and actually has an impact further down river, down canal.

Does this particular water, does it in the summertime get blue-green algae or anything like that in there?

That's part of what they're actually studying right now. What was happening is the village was maintaining the canals with a lot of... herbicides and spraying and then the county all these systems all connect the county does their own type of maintenance which causes a lot of They spray and then the hydrilla which is what you see floating all come, you know gets killed and then it Floats first and then it drops down but that just adds to the nutrient levels of the the waterways over time We've had less and less, you know, fish in the waterways, things that you used to see, you know, 30, 40 years ago. So they, FIU approached us because unlike other areas where South Florida Water Management is the owner of the waterway, because we own this, They specifically reached out to the village to see if we would be interested in doing the pilot. And we pitched it to the elected officials. We've actually won national awards over these floating flower beds. But like I said, they're not without some learning curve. And it's been trial and error. And we're still working on it. I don't know that there's a solution, a perfect solution to this.

And this particular, what are we calling it, a pond or a lake? It's a canal. It's part of, so it's connected.

Mr. Panoff, we've got to keep order in the building. You can't speak about that. Mr. Panoff, I'm not going to tell you again. If you speak up again out of turn, we'll let you watch the meeting in a more comfortable place.

Okay, Yossi, so my question is, it's connected to other bodies of water? Correct, yes. It's part of the drainage systems. It used to be county-owned, and they transferred it to us when we incorporated, took over maintenance.

My only observation is just what I'm hearing here. I think it would be, I don't want to know more, but I think turning it over to a private group, if it's connected to other waterways, and it definitely has an environmental impact, I can't see allowing some homeowners take responsibility even if they're having a special taxing district because it impacts both the water coming in and water going out. I just... I'm not saying we do it. I'm saying we explore the possibilities of doing it.

If there's a fatal flaw, we should figure that out. Before we put any more thought into it, I'd like to know that it's possible or not possible to do. If it's impossible to do, then maybe we take option two. If we can't get along like we've been getting along for 40 years, 30 years, then... You know, I mean, we take options.

So, Mr. Mayor, alternatively, we just wait until the two years are over, and then we'll reassess. We're not too far from the two years, right? When are they due? In two years?

I think it's at the end of this calendar year, if I'm not mistaken.

Right, so within a few months, we can reconvene. We'll have the findings. We'll understand, hopefully, better the opinion of the neighbors, et cetera, and we'll decide What's the proper path? What do you think?

No, I have no problem with that. But in the interim, I'd like to explore the possibility so when we get there and if we decide we want to turn the thing over to them, let them operate and maintain it at their cost and build all the way. I mean, they've encroached on it right away already. If that's the way we want to continue, that we have a mechanism. We know if we can or we can't do it. So if you don't mind, I'd like to ask the village attorney to explore that for us. Sure. Wonderful. Thank you all very much. All right, village manager report.

Okay. There's communicate to counsel. Let me just look through. Somebody had asked me to talk about something.

Let me see.

What was it? Was it the one that you had said? Oh, the peacocks, yeah. So on the peacocks, something that didn't make the update that we just got notified from the trapper that they're adding cameras to the cages so that they can monitor when there are actually birds there to try to improve on the capture rate. One of the issues that we've been having conversations you know, offline with different council members is how can we increase the number of trappings? Um, we have tried unsuccessfully to find additional trappers so that we can, you know, increase the quantity out there. We've purchased more cages. We're paying them to be in the village constantly, um, putting these out and collecting. But, um, It depends on the weather, it depends on the flock, whether we get success. Sometimes we get 20 birds at one time, and sometimes we get one or two. The good thing is that Dr. Harris experimented with not just the vasectomy, which we've been doing for about a year and a half now, but now he's doing tubal ligation for the females. So we're also addressing that because when they're really small, you can't tell the difference. So he's having to operate on them anyway to determine if it's a female or a male. And he's developed a very good procedure that will also render the females infertile. So that should help keep the numbers. Again, this is a population mitigation program. It doesn't eradicate the birds. We're not relocating the birds. The county has very specific laws that we had to adhere to. We had to get special permission for us to even do what we're doing. And the birds get re-released into the community. Just because you see eggs doesn't mean the eggs are gonna hatch. But yes, we still see babies around, so clearly there are peafowl out there that have not been captured yet. We're beyond the 300. mark and still counting. So definitely we've slowed down the population growth because of these efforts. I would... You're sure about that? I'm positive because each... My neighborhood would... It would be even worse. Think about it. We sterilized over 300 birds. If they were not sterilized, each one, each... We'd have even more. We'd have even more. It would be a bigger problem than we have right now.

So we've reduced the rate of growth, perhaps. We have.

And in a perfect world, if we could get more sterilized, then over time, we would have population decrease because the birds do die. There are coyotes that will, you know, there are predators out there that will, you know, cars, things that happen, you know? So we need more coyotes in town. We need more coyotes. We've got to bring in coyotes.

Or more veterinarians. Or we should perhaps think about going to the county commission to revise the code. I know you've got people that love them, and you've got a lot of people that hate them. They are not a native species.

At the very least, it would be great if all the neighboring cities that have issues with peacocks would also do the same program. Because the joke around town is that Cutler Bay collects theirs and dumps them here. Sure. But there are no boundaries for them. They'll walk.

No, I get that. But why were they given this status in the first place? Because they were pretty? They were pretty. OK. And that was how many years ago?

20. Actually, Katie Sorenson was on the commission. I remember she sent Anna Hokemer an email just a few years ago saying, It was a big mistake. We never should have done it.

OK. Well, if it was a mistake and one of the proponents is admitting it, why are we not collectively with the League of Cities or cities that are involved in this, go back to the county commission and say, what you thought was a good idea 20 years ago is now we're now overrun with species that don't have a natural predator. And our neighbors, they're a nuisance. And why not try that? Get the League of Cities to, or other cities.

This came up probably about three years ago. Mr. Regalado pushed for a change, and it It failed pretty strongly, which then led to the compromise that she proposed, which was to allow cities to come to the county for approval of a peacock eradication program, which we did, and which led to the sterilization campaign that we adopted. It might change. The result might change if we approach them again. But the one that was proposed was to allow cities to have them euthanized, and that was the one that did not pass.

And what was the opposition, though, at the time? I assume people that like Peacocks.

As I recall. The strongest voice was Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, who's still on the commission, who just didn't feel like we should have any further programs of euthanizing beautiful animals. That was where the opposition came from.

I believe also there's an issue that a lot of districts don't have the peacock problem. Right. So they're not.

Sure.

The only one they see is on NBC.

Now, did you, Jim, did you see the resolution that Coral Gables sent to us? Did you see the red, because they're, Coral Gables is all on board trying to do something more as well.

Yeah, Coral Gables has found a local, they relocate them. They trap them and relocate them. And we had explored that also.

Yeah, here.

We had explored that also. And it was interesting because back when we did, the state actually said that we couldn't transport the birds from one jurisdiction to another. So we have all kinds of jurisdictional roadblocks on trying to deal with these.

I would propose that we, Mr. Mayor, as a municipality, we consider going back to the county commission, working with other municipalities, Coral Gables is one, to talk about going back to the county commission. I think all this talk about euthanizing or not euthanizing, The tuba ligations and all this stuff, it's not doing it. I mean, for the people that have them in their neighborhood, as the vice mayor is saying, they're all over the place, right? Yeah. So I think it's their nuisance, and we have to do something about it.

No question about that.

And don't feed the peacocks, because we have people that do feed the peacocks. It keeps them in the neighborhood.

But we have an ordinance that says don't feed the peacocks. Correct, but unfortunately. By the way, but this is, we tried for, years to figure this problem out. Until Commissioner Regalado came up with this idea that they would certify our program, we were at a dead end with this type of thing. And so I think Shannon Del Prado came up with the idea that let's do this. And anecdotally, I think they sent us an email. Somebody sent an email the other day that said there was a nest in their yard or something like that. And ultimately, nothing hatched out of the nest. At least there's a little bit of proof that this works.

But I struggle with this. And I think it's the right intent. What we're doing is we're doing something about this versus not doing anything. And I think that's, in itself, a plus. I just think that all of us have questions about how effective this is. What's the population? What percentage of the population are we treating? Are they nomads? In other words, they live here today and then a month later they move to some other neighborhood? Or when they settle down, they stay in an area? I mean, I'd like to understand better what the behavior of these birds is so that we understand if this has legs or not, because if they are here today and a month later they moved on to co-gables, then probably our program will be less effective. So there's a lot of questions. What I do know is last year we were spending $700 per bird, treated bird, and this year so far we spent $400 per treated bird because we started treating the females too. So our economics on this are improving. It's just that I don't know how effective it is in terms of the overall population. Until we have more clarity over that, it's just like there's a lot of more questions than answers other than being able to say we're doing something about it, but just I don't know how effective it is.

I think we've got to remember is that we don't have, the county's got the animal control office or department, and we don't. So the village doesn't go out. What animals does the village go deal with on a regular basis?

Dead animals, and only because it takes a while to get the county to come and pick them up.

That's about it. So the fact of the matter is that we We don't deal with any animals. So whether there's a rule on peacocks or there's not a rule on peacocks, we don't go get a raccoon out of your yard. We don't get a bee out of your yard. We don't get a possum out of your yard. That's typically the responsibility of the homeowner. The homeowner in this arena is stuck because you can't do with a peacock what you would do with an iguana. Or a raccoon or a possum. So we need to change the law.

That makes sense.

Which would only make the homeowner able to deal with the peacock and we can get out of the deal altogether because it's not our job.

Well, okay. I don't have a solution other than I do think the first step is to go back to the county and say you did something 20 years ago that you thought was a smart move. Now we've known 20 years later we are invaded by peacocks or peafowls. They're all over the place. They're a nuisance and people want them out. And we've got to deal with it. We can't have a protected species which is invasive, just like we have pythons and we have what else? Iguanas. Iguanas, all of them. So we've got to deal with it. And the only thing, if they're being protected by law, then we've got to change the law. Right. But remember, we haven't picked up a python.

We don't go trap pythons.

We don't trap them. I understand. It'll let all the county. It'll let the neighbor.

The neighbors will then have free reign to do whatever they want.

And Mr. Mayor, I'll say with the program that we have going on right now, It's a beautiful way to do another program because we can offer this sterilization and keep peacocks and tag them. And we can also allow people. So we can allow people to do that. And we can allow people to perhaps trap them from their yard as well. So you could co-exist to some degree and let the people put their money where their mouth is.

People could trap them, or they could hire a trapper. I think the root of it is that the law says they can't be touched. I agree with you 100%. So that's where we start.

Just one clarification. Dr. Harris, who's the veterinarian, it's a flat rate, right? And I appreciate that. I'm saying it's not that we'll charge that. Just so it's clear, we're not charged that per step. No, the charge is the flat rate you're saying.

He's a flat rate, and he provides it. He's our retainer. He's our veterinarian, not just for this, but also for all the animals at the zoo and whatnot. But the trappers charge us for every bird they trap.

Is there a significant change in trapper fee with the? camera feature, or they're just going to still charge us?

No, they just put that because it was one of the things that we were seeing, that sometimes the birds would be in the cage, but if the homeowner wasn't there to close it, and so now they can monitor. And when they see the birds there, they can come arrive and take care of them right there.

Because I think everyone's right that we have to have a conversation about this and what works. But I do think this has potential, much like the change from just doing the peacocks to the peahens. this change with the camera could be really substantial. Because a lot of the time, you see it. There's a bird in there, and there's nobody home. And you don't want to leave a bird standing there because they can't come that often. So this could really make a significant difference. And I think we should explore it. I, for one, am not and wouldn't support anything that allows the euthanizing or the killing of them, beautiful or not. I don't think we need to go that far. But I think there are things we can do that we can urge the county to do to allow us to relocate them. There are places that, believe it or not, want these things. So I think I'm all in favor of exploring these options. Just I, for one, don't want to go quite so far as to use those.

I have a question. If the bird walks into a trap, which is basically an enclosed chain-link fence, right? How do they track? Is there a trigger, or does somebody have to go shut the gate? Somebody has to go shut the gate. You have to be home. May I explain? You've got to go out yourself.

Could you comment on having caught 13 of these things? Huh?

That's dangerous.

The old way is they set up this cage, gate would be open, coin would be in there, and they tell the homeowner, call us, we'll come close the gate. Well, the peacock's usually gone by then. Or when they walk up to the gate, the peacock leaves. Attacks it. So... I'm going to pat myself on the back for this one. I instituted the rope trick, where you tie a rope to the door, run it into your garage, and when you see it through the window, it funds money, exactly. That paid off. You pull the rope, the door closes, and you catch them. So it's never been very, it's never been extremely efficient.

It's about trying to find... Efficiencies. Right. Again, it's a pilot program. It was meant to be a pilot program. It's been going on. So we keep making improvements here and there, but it's not.

We need to improve efficiencies, definitely. I'm very proud that we do what we do.

We're going to come out in National Geographic over this. They're going to do a story about this. This is affecting not just here, but other places even in Europe. And they're looking to what we're doing here. to deal with this issue in other places around the world.

And just as a side note, based on Council Member Meyer's numbers, you could fix 62 peacocks for the cost of the bench.

Well, remember, Mr. McDonnell. Yeah, I would propose that we explore with the County Commission a revision for them to take a look at the current statute, the ordinance, and to see whether it can be amended. And I'm not sure where we're going with it. I recognized Councilmember Greenberg's reluctance to go so far as to Euthanized. Euthanized. But I don't think that should be off the table. They're an invasive species that are a nuisance. But I think the county should revisit it, the ordinance that they passed 20 years ago. What former council member Del Prado did was outstanding. It was a novel way of thinking about it, but has been pointed out tonight. The P file in Pinecrest don't recognize 136th Street. They don't stay there. It's not that they just stay here. So we don't know where they're coming from, where they're going. And if they're nuisances, then we have to change the law to deal with it more effectively, whether it's capturing them and taking them out of town and somebody euthanizing them or whatever. But I think it needs to be explored at the commission level. That's all. So I would say I would propose a motion that we at least, with the manager and our attorney, Or we as collectively speak with is starting with Raquel Regalado our Commissioner to see what her the temperature is whether she would be interested in maybe talking with Coral Gables who has the similar type problem and getting the conversation started about Mending the ordinance.

I just said that the path that you would want to take or should we may be first reach out to our neighboring municipalities. And if we notice that there's interest from them, then three, four municipalities go to .

I would accept that, yeah. Go to Coral Gables, Palmetto Bay. City of Miami, whoever it might be. I wouldn't limit it to that.

I would support that. Because that's the core of the issue is that it's a protected species and it shouldn't be really because it's not native from here.

So that would be my motion. To start out, we contact the municipalities in our area, find out who else has a peacock problem, have that conversation. We can either do it as council members or attorney or the manager and then see what kind of response we get and then bring it back to council to move forward. That's the motion.

Mitch, do you have something? I was just going to point out that humane removal is already an option that is allowed under the ordinance. The problem with it when we first studied it many years ago was the cost. And the sterilization was determined to be a more cost effective solution at the time. But humane removal has always been on the table and permissible. So I think that the only additional thing that we would ask for is humane euthanasia. That would be the only other solution.

MR. Mitch, I remember that. I think that was on council then. And what I remember is, yes, we could gather them up, but nobody wanted them. MR. Right.

MR. There was no place to put them that was cost effective. There were people that would take them, but it was quite costly.

MR. Yeah. All right. Since we're going to vote on that, is there anybody who wants to comment on the peacock issue?

that we have an approach by- Name and address, please. I'm so sorry, forgive me. My name is Shannon Del Prado and I live at 7000 Southwest 133rd Street. I wanna comment that at the last South Dade Mayor's Coalition meeting, other municipalities have expressed an interest in participating in the program. So we are going to invite Dr. Harris to come and talk to other municipalities and see if they wanna participate as well.

Right, and that's a good point. Maybe it makes an impact when everybody does it, the regional approach.

Thank you.

Good idea. Ms. Britt, do you want to talk about peacocks?

Good evening. My name is Patricia Britt and my address is 6280 Southwest 88th Street, North Kendall Drive. I have here, good evening everybody. Long time no see. I have here a pen. Remember one time I gave you all each a pen? that I get from Pinecrest, Parrot Jungle or Pinecrest.

You gave us our pen back?

Remember?

No, thanks.

No, I'm paying for it with my taxes.

Really high taxes. No, no, no, Pinecrest Gardens is funded by that more.

Bottom line, the logo on this green pen that we all are allowed to pick up there at Public Works or the library is a peacock. I don't believe in this term that you all are using, eradicate. That's a really, really strong term. I love peacocks, but they are a nuisance. I agree. They come on top of my roof. I don't feed them. I don't want strange people coming on my property and intruding to put a cage, and so on and so on. Bottom line, why don't we just poison them all? That's easy. No, seriously. We save, cost effective, save $5,000 a month.

Peacocks are the people.

Both. No, seriously. I'm being sarcastic, okay? This term about eradicating, they're beautiful creatures. I don't think we should go to that extreme. I think there's got to be a balance. And as far as being invasive, then I'm invasive. I'm from Panama, but yet I've been here in Pinecrest for the past 70 years, so I'm still considered... non-native, I don't agree with this, oh it's non-native, they're a nuisance. Eventually we all become native, whether we're from another country or a different plant and so on and so on. So yeah, poison them, free and you know, They're beautiful creatures. And by the way, NBC, my favorite TV station, that's their logo. Peacock Park and Coconut Grove. Yeah, they are nuisance. Muchas gracias. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Ms. Steinman? Reva Steinman. How are you going to follow that up?

Easy. Please. 6420 Southwest 135 Drive. I think a bigger point, yes, they're evasive and they're a nuisance. They're detrimental to dogs, and all of you know what my dog means to me. They're waste, and I've got two baby hole groups, and now when my dog chases them, I have a Labrador that runs back to me because they come after him now. It's a nuisance, and it's detrimental to the dogs. I mean, if you're a dog lover, you don't want poop in your yard, on your driveway, all over the wall, et cetera.

Understood.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Mr. Panoff. Sure.

John Panoff, 11800 Southwest 69th Court. The ordinance at the county level caused the problem. I've lived where I've lived for 42 years almost. And we didn't have the peacock problem not that long ago. That ordinance evidently allowed the spread south to us. Mr. McDonald said when you approach the county, perhaps you could somehow lobby for them to pay for part of the mitigation of the problem that they caused. Now, being sarcastic, one way is if you can use Pavlovian condition to condition the P-files to recognize the blue tag they put on the leg of the neutered males, then perhaps that solves the problem because then they won't find them interesting anymore. That's a joke. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We needed a little leaven. Anybody else on the peacocks? Seeing none, Mr. McDonald, a second for Mr. McDonald's motion?

I'll second.

All right, all in favor?

Aye. So the motion, just actually be clear what the motion is. The motion is to...

to approach the county commission. No, excuse me, withdraw. We're gonna start speaking with fellow municipalities. Anyone to see if there's a consensus to get together to then approach our county commissioners and go to the county to see to amend or revise the ordinance that's dealing with peacocks.

So that's where we are. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. You're welcome. Excellent. All right, all in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? OK. We are not done the village manager's report. Do you guys want to put a pin? Do we have anything else to talk about? It is 7 o'clock, and we have a time-certain hearing for Gulliver. Can we move to that? Is anybody opposed to that? We should move to that, right? Okay. Let's put a pin in the manager's report, and we will move to the Gulliver hearing. Mr. Clerk, will you introduce that for us, please?

Mr. Mayor, before we go there, I'll have to recuse myself from this item, so I'm going to...

Okay, thank you.

I think, Mitch, what is he going to do?

He's going to go to the back room.

We can eat all the fries.

Yeah, don't eat all the fries. Council Member Meyer has children in the Gulliver School, one of whom is on scholarship. And when we had this issue come up on a previous Gulliver application, the Ethics Commission director advised that the council member should refuse to solve it. So we are following that precedent. All right.

Okay. And I would just like to say, I don't have to recuse myself, I'm just saying it's deja vu again with Gulliver. The last time we had Gulliver, we went until three in the morning. If we go to three o'clock in the morning on this puppy, we are in deep, deep trouble.

We're in trouble. Although I did see, somebody passed me an Instagram post that looked pretty threatening, but we'll find out. All right, Ms. Clark.

Okay, this is for hearing number 2026-0611-1 for Gulliver Preparatory School Inc. The owner and Melissa Tapanis are requesting the Village Council's review and consideration of a conditional use permit to allow placement of 10 portable classroom trailers on the north side of the Gulliver campus, located at 6491, 6575, 6605, and 6675 Southwest 88th Street, Kendall Drive, for a period not to exceed two years. The purpose of the proposed temporary classrooms is to accommodate classes that would normally take place inside existing campus facilities for students who will be temporarily displaced. During the final phase of constructions, no increase in student enrollment is proposed. These proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings. At this time, all persons addressing the Village Council shall be sworn in prior to giving testimony and may be subject to cross-examination. All persons addressing the Village Council Please stand if you're able to and raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

Yes.

Thank you. And for the record, just state your name and address when you're addressing the council. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Chair, council members. My name is Rob Alvarez with the law firm Burke Howard L. Fernandez, Larkin & Tappan. This office is at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'll make sure we're here. Not as late as 3 a.m., hopefully. I'm very pleased to be here on behalf of Gulliver Preparatory School. I am joined by two members of Gulliver here, the Chief Operating Officer, Andy Martinez, Director of Construction Management, Gary Tarvey, and also members of the design team over here, Ms. Connie Erling-Tau from Ziscovich, and my esteemed colleague, Grant Penn, to my left. We are here requesting conditional use approval for 10 temporary classrooms on the property for a period not to exceed two years. Here on the screen you can see the subject property, which I'm sure you're all very familiar with, is on the north side of Southwest 88th Street and to the east of Ludlam Road. The land use and zoning are public service. According to the Public Service District, educational facilities require a conditional use permit. As I mentioned, the applicant is respectfully requesting conditional use approval to allow 10 temporary classrooms for a period not to exceed two years. I really want to emphasize that there is no proposed increase in student enrollment, no proposed increase in intensity. This is merely a stop gap to allow the Gulliver School to proceed with planned master plan improvements and proceed to the final phases of construction. A little bit of background because most of this council was not here for these approvals. These are the most recent two approvals that we've gone before you. In 2019, the council approved the conditional use permit for a master unified site plan and that involved a land swap with the Crossbridge Church. In 2022, Gulliver obtained a variance from the floodplain regulations as well as a conditional use permit to allow eight temporary classrooms, similarly for a period of two years. Here on the screen, you can see the original site, which I'm sure you all remember. You see the Crossbridge Church there towards the center in its previous location. And then you also see the 2019 configuration of . Here is a render of the approved master plan. You can see the church in its current location and its parking lot, as well as The buildings that were proposed with the master plan labeled on the screen and here very exciting slide for us. Gulliver has been tremendous progress over the last six and a half years on the campus, you could see a state of the art new athletic complex their new athletic fields new state of the art classroom building. And in yellow, you could see two of the future projects that we have on deck, the pending STEM and dining center and the performing arts complex. You can also see in red, um, it's one of our classroom buildings that we're going to be making renovations. So part of the reason for the temporary classrooms is to accommodate those displaced students. something that was very important to the council, to village residents and to Gulliver has been the traffic and circulation improvements that the school has made. We made improvements internal to the site and to North Kendall Drive. We have a new entrance adjacent to Southwest 64 Court and a new exit along Ludlam. So as I mentioned in 2022, this board approved a conditional use permit for eight temporary classrooms. And that was for the initial phases of the master plan. And they were subsequently removed in the, you know, after the prescribed two year period. these are the 2026 temporary classrooms as you will see they're in a substantially similar you know located in a substantially similar position there on the campus it's on the north central portion of the site so it is shielded by the existing buildings to the to the south and to the east and also a thick landscape buffer to the north for example the these temporary classrooms are going to use existing electrical infrastructure that was used for the 2022 approved temporary classrooms. Now, I really want to emphasize that Gulliver is committed to providing top class permanent facilities for its students. Gulliver is committed to its students, its faculty, and to the community to have beautiful facilities. And these temporary modulars are meant just to facilitate completion of that approved master plan, as I mentioned. Here you could see an aerial render Completed master plan there. You see the new stem and dining center and the new arts complex Similar to the 2022 approved CUP our 2026 request our request today complies with the villages conditional use criteria We will have no adverse impacts to the surrounding community. We have the existing buildings that buffer these modulars as well as dense landscaping. We have adequate site design access and circulation. The 2022 modulars work just fine and they were removed, um, you know, as were required after their two year period. This request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning district and the approved master plan from 2019. And with that, we respectfully request this board's favorable action. and approval of the conditional use permit. I want to stress that this is a narrow request. We are merely seeking to have these modular classrooms approved for a designated period for two years in order to complete our planned improvements as part of that 2019 CUP. So again, we thank you for your time. And me and the team are here for. Any questions and respectfully request time for rebuttal if needed. Excellent. Thank you.

One question. Is there any increase in student population? Zero increase in student population. Any other questions by the council?

I just have a question generally on the portables. Are they, in the event of a hurricane type thing, are these Substantial, what are these? I'm thinking of the old portables we used to go in that if you sneezed would fall. Are they? We have building permits now.

Can I get some info on the structural?

Could you come to the microphone, please, so that everybody at home, all the people at home watching can hear?

Were you sworn in? Cornelia Tapp-Earling, representing Stratus Architects.

Ma'am, were you sworn in? Okay. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth? Yes. Thank you.

Cornelia Tapp-Earling with Siscoge Architects, formerly known as, now we're Stratus Architects, and we have been the architect for Gulliver Properties since 2017. It's the original master plan. These portables are designed to meet all the code requirements, so they have the necessary tie-downs and agreement with fire to make sure they comply with all the fire codes, so yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the council?

One question. Will at any time the portables and the existing classrooms be in use at the same time?

Our thinking is just for these to be used during the dependency of the construction. We believe that after the two year period that will be satisfactory in terms of the use of these. Don't have an exact answer. There will be some crossover, but the intent is just to use them for the displaced students, not for them to be used in conjunction. Okay. Anything else?

All right. Ms. Janice, you're on.

very active in the Village of Pinecrest since 1996. They've been coming forward with site plan approvals, and as he was saying, the last one was in 2019 for our master permit plan. They have actively been renovating their property, building new structures, the parking, the new facility for classrooms and the gym. And now it's time to take down some old classrooms, and they need this space for these portable classrooms.

The last time they were here in 2022,

For the eight portable classrooms, we didn't have any calls and concerns from the neighboring residents. So it is our recommendation that we approve this temporary situation for two years and allow them to have the ten portable classrooms. And the conditions of approval and declaration of restrictions that are in place will continue and no increase in student population. Thank you.

Are there any aspects of the code that this does not comply with?

No.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, thank you very much. We'll open the public hearing if anybody wants to comment on this one. Pat, welcome back. Thank you. You're welcome.

Good evening, Patricia Britt. I live across the street from Gulliver, 6280 Southwest 88th Street, actually 6491 North Kendall Drive, the property there by the pool. The far east two acres used to belong to my grandfather and so on and so on. We sold to Cthulhu's. But bottom line, fast forward 2026, I have noticed that over the years, and you all know, that I have been very opposed to all this expansion and now once again deja vu. If you think the peacocks are invasive, that's what I consider Gulliver, invasive. Okay, for the following reasons. The plans so far, I know it's probably already pre-approved and all that stuff but A, are you all going to demolish the architects or whatever, demolish buildings that are planned? No. Are you all going vertical two or three stories more in front of the pool and so on and so on. So far, all the presentations that I hear, it's always about what's best for Gulliver and Gulliver and Gulliver. I get it. It's a money-making machine. I get it. But in the meantime, the residents, what is the progress for the residents?

for the residents.

I find that there's no mention of progress for us residents and so on and so on. The plans for construction are very vague. We just finished going, I just finished going through the SUP construction in front of my house and it took six months and it was a pain sometimes being out there. So now I almost got run over by a cement truck. Remember? By a cement truck? Too bad I didn't get run over, right? Because of all the construction there. So I'm just thinking in the next two years, how is this going to impact us? The residents, not just me, myself, but all the surrounding neighbors. I really would like to have more specific, um, architectural plans on exactly how can I get ahold of, um, you know, prepared for, for this negative impact.

Thank you, Ms. Manager. The plans are already approved, correct? They're building what was approved years ago, correct? Correct. So there is no change to those plans. And those plans have been publicly vetted through a month's long process. Correct.

That's right. And Ms. Fritt can come into the office, and we can go through and look at them at any time.

The previously approved plans that were vetted and approved by the council and through public hearing. OK. Is there any, there's no student increase here?

No, that is correct.

So there's no additional traffic?

No. Well, no. They only believe traffic with the construction. It's going to be demolish the buildings and then they're going to build up the new structures. So there will be construction traffic coming to and from the site. Yes.

But all pre-approved years ago?

Yes, that's correct.

Got it. Thank you. I find it interesting that Ms. Britt's family sold the land to Gulliver so they could build the school.

Yeah, but not to that expansion, not to that.

Does anybody else want to speak on this one? All right, we'll close the public hearing. With that, do we have a motion? Motion to move it. We have a motion. Second. And we have a second. Ms. Clark?

Council Member Greenberg?

Yes.

Council Member McDonald? Yes. Council Member Meyer? Yes.

Oh, he can't.

Oh. Vice Mayor Fuhrman?

Yes.

Mayor Cordino?

Yes. Motion is approved. Motion passes unanimously. Perfect. Thank you. Back. You're welcome. Thank you. Better than 3 a.m., would you say? Much better. Much better. I won't say so myself. Okay, back to the manager's report. Is there anything, Ms. Manager, you want to walk through there? Is anybody here for a specific thing on the manager's report or a crowded room and nobody's spoken yet? So...

Okay, so first thing up outside of the communicate to council is setting the budget meeting date. And more importantly, the budget workshops, which we usually do in August. Priscilla, you have availabilities?

August 26th or August 27th seem to be the primary dates, but I need confirmation from everyone.

You polled us on this, correct?

Yes, but there were several that did not respond, so hopefully everybody is available, one of those two.

What are the dates?

Wednesday, August 26th, Thursday, August 27th.

I vote for 26, if that's possible. I'm fine with that.

Anybody else? That's fine. I mean, as I told Kirk, I'm in a trial not getting somewhere else, I think in the west coast of Florida. So there's some chance I'm going to have an issue, but I got a plan. It would be either date, so yeah, that's fine.

When do we have to advertise that?

It's a workshop, so we just have to, like, normal meeting.

What's that, two weeks?

No, usually at minimum three days, but we usually do a week in advance.

So if Mr. Greenberg has a problem as we near that, we can rearrange? Of course.

I'll know in the next couple weeks.

Okay, so we'll put a pin in the 26th, and then we'll rearrange as necessary. Is that okay with everybody? Yeah.

Meanwhile, I'll be presenting the recommended proposed budget to council at the July meeting. And then we can have independent meetings with each of you to just go over the information in the budget, answer questions in preparation of the workshop so you all are

informed before you sit as a body relative to the budget you know obviously we're facing the proposal from the state on the property tax issue and you're at this point in time we're doing our due diligence on that and measuring it against the budget and i'm assuming you're you'll present a budget that is with that in mind

Yes, well, the budget for next year is not impacted by any of this. If it were to pass, it would be impacting the fiscal year 2028 budget. The way that this law has been drafted, if the measure passes, will have an incremental effect with the fiscal year 2028 effect being the implementation of $150,000 homestead exemption, in addition to those other exemptions that people might have, like a veterans or disability type or widow type exemption, the monetary effect, we're still running estimates on everything based on the tax rule as they are today, but the monetary effect of that first phase impact is a $1.5 million cut in revenues. The second year, when it would go up to $250,000, the revenue shortfall would be 2.955. So we will be, as part of the budget, even though this doesn't impact this coming year's budget, we typically do five and 10 year forecasting for our budgets. So we will already be modeling worst case scenario in those forecasts, so council gets an idea. Ultimately, the impacts of these revenue shortfalls may be attenuated by tax deductions. growth, the property growth could be, could be that gas keeps getting more and more expensive and we end up getting more gas taxes out of it, who knows? So there's a lot of moving parts and variables on how our revenues get impacted, but just the same, we may have to put off certain projects, it all depends, but we'll see how the numbers pan out as we get obviously closer to the actual dates of approving budget. Mr. McDonald?

Yeah. I would suggest it would be, I think, good for us to have, if we can put it on our next month's schedule for the meeting, to have our state senator and state representative come and explain, give us sort of their input from Tallahassee on this. I understand that both of them voted against this. No, they both voted for it. Oh, that's even better to get them in here then. Because I'd like to know why our legislature can do something like this in one day without any committee meetings, while at the same time, year after year, they cannot deal with property insurance, which also is a burden on people. This kind of increase in the exemption is not in and of itself bad, because we haven't had an exemption change for almost, what, 40 years, 30 years? Whatever it is, it hasn't moved in decades.

The change to 50 was more recent than that. Maybe decades, but I think it was closer to 20. Oh, OK. OK, no.

But my point being, Okay, there's if there's a reason to to increase the exemption I get that because property values have gone up etc etc, but I have grave concerns over the how this Legislature did it, you know, the governor's office handed them something and they all raised their hand and said yes Just like the Politburo and I think we need to hear from our representatives Okay, why did you guys go along with this because it's going to have a negative impact on cities statewide. It may not pass I mean We'll see. But I just think they owe it to us and to our constituents on why they did something without any consideration other than doing what the governor told them to do. That's all. I'd like to invite him here. Do you think...

To play devil's advocate, I don't know if it's a good idea to bring them in here and grill them. We have to work with them every year on funding and those types of things. They did what they did. I mean, I'd hate to. I wouldn't grill them. No, no? Sounds like I would. But no, I just want to hear. Oh, you might be a tough. Oh, that wasn't it.

OK, I'm sorry. I didn't mean. You mean they were voting like that, just like they did?

I've had some conversation with our representative about it. And I think. while we're obviously not going to change their vote from before, I think there could be some benefit in having that conversation. Because there also are features of this that require, and by the way, there's a very useful discussion of this actually that White Sirota put out in a podcast. There's other places too that lay this out. I mean, there are other concerns and things that are going to be in the legislature's discretion potentially going forward in terms of the measure. which is, by the way, so plainly unconstitutional, right or wrong in terms of the merits, in terms of how it's written. But it includes and violating the single subject and how misleading it is and political. But even that aside, it has features that would include sort of arguably automatic increases in future years. So it's not just the 250. It will go higher. It also has features that call for the eventual phase out of the property tax. And it doesn't explain how that's going to happen. But I think that to the extent, it's not exactly the most nuanced legislative body in the history of democracy up in Tallahassee. But to the extent there is any room for discussion up there, and you're absolutely right, to do it in 24 hours is absolutely preposterous. Less than 24 really is preposterous. But I think there is something to be said for that. And I think there are concerns long term. I mean, including the fact that these will continue to increase, by the way, right around the time our next police contract comes out. So there are going to be impacts on this community. And some people maybe don't like when I say it, but there are going to be impacts on this community, right or wrong in the merits, that we're going to have to deal with. And I think engaging with the legislators is potentially useful. Potentially not. But I'm in favor of Trump.

I think it's important that we hear from them because we want responsible government. And as I said, I get it that maybe the exemption has to increase. But without any consideration, they were told what to do. And then as we all know, our property insurance. That's a major cause of stress for our people down here. And they don't deal with it. They don't deal with it. We all know why. Anybody who knows the legislative process knows why. So I think, yeah, having them here to explain their vote, and I think it would be instructive for all of us. And I won't call them the Politburo. OK, that's good.

I mean, my only concern is that it wasn't too long ago when this body would call out the legislators that were above us at the county and state level, ask for their jobs, and that did us no favors. It wasn't constructive. It wasn't. So I just want to make sure that it's constructive and civil, and we don't get into things we shouldn't. We work with these people on a day-in, day-out basis, and they are integral to Our funding and without them, we are lost like we were lost years ago when there was no money from Tallahassee or the federal government to do the things we wanted to do. So I just want to keep everybody focused on that.

Totally get. We got to work with them. But on the other hand, they've done something that has a direct impact on us and every other municipality. And the county. And the county. So they've got to – okay, I want to – yeah, we – I get what you're saying. We've got to work with them, assuming – well, somebody's up for re-election and somebody's not. Or both are. I don't even know. But okay. All right. Anybody hate that idea?

Nope. They'll love it. I think they'll enjoy coming, actually. Oh, I can have a ball.

However, related to the topic, and I know this has been something that we've discussed before, the conversation about diversifying our revenue sources, because today we have high dependency only on property taxes basically to fund the operations of this village. is one that probably affords no more delays, especially if anything that we do around that will take time to materialize. So I'm hoping, I don't know if it's part of the budget process or if it's some different kind of process, but that we come together and we start thinking about revenue diversification for our village. These things will take a long time to materialize, so probably sooner rather than later we should get going. And what's the right framework to do that? How do we initiate that conversation? What does it fall within?

I think we'll have some of it during budget workshops and then ongoing to strategic planning. Part of the budget stuff that we're going to be bringing to council, we'll have some recommendations where we'll start working on you know, out of the box potentially solutions that could diversify the revenue. I mean, these have been recurring themes with the legislature over the years. This is just the latest, but over time they have been working to change our revenue structures and control our revenue structures. I think when they come, it would behoove us to really try to hone in on how they're defining the core services. There's a lot of gray area. They're going to have to address all those issues in the next legislative session. So it would be good to speak to each of you offline so that you get a sense of exactly how gray they've left things. And hopefully, we can try to guide them be more helpful in their definitions of what core services are eligible and whatnot.

So specifically, with regards to the conversation about diversification of revenue, that's when it's the right timing?

I think we should start it at the budget workshops, and then it'll continue through strategic planning. Because it is something that has to happen. It takes time to implement any of the stuff that we might consider. So yeah.

And I agree completely with what Council Member Meyer is suggesting. I understand there'll be some after we finish budget. I understand. maybe colorful way to say it, but separating out the budget from the educational town hall and whatnot. But I do think there's definitely an interest in, I've gotten a lot of feedback on the issue in the last week. If you ever, by the way, feel like your inboxes are empty, send out an email about the tax issue. Yeah, you'll get friends. I don't know if I made any friends. I did. I did, right? Right, I made some friends. or reinforce some friendships, let's put it that way. But no, there is definitely an interest in people learning about it. And of course, the village is able to educate, if not advocate. And I know we'll do that. I think that'll be great. But I think these conversations are critical.

It is critical. Just for the folks that are here, Pinecrest's revenue, the primary revenue source is the Appalachian taxes. It represents approximately 50% of our revenue source. And close to 70% of those properties are homesteaded. So we're actually in a good place because we happen to be a wealthier community, and there's a lot of construction happening. But across the state, there's areas that are stagnant, that don't have growth, and they're not going to be able to rebound as well. And this does have an impact on counties and on cities. There'll be a lot of discussion I'm sure in the next several months when we start rolling out the educational stuff for the election. Okay. Good deal.

So you'll invite the group?

We'll invite the group, yes. And we picked the budget date. Not yet.

The budget date. We'll lay out the red carpet.

So we have August 26 as the workshop. And in July, I will be bringing the resolution that is required for setting the dates and the proposed millage rate for the public hearings. Right now, The second Tuesday of September is September 8th, and we'll have to be looking for a second budget hearing date. So if there's.

Can I, September 8th, I know I will be unavailable and in a place where I can't, won't be able to call in.

Neither will I. Oh.

I'm with you.

I'm glad I was.

Can we do that September 8th, a different day?

No, I already have it on.

15 and 22nd? I don't know. Let's play it by ear. What are you thinking, Mr. Greenberg?

Anything but the 8th. I have to be flying back from...

If I want to make myself more controversial, I'll come back from Israel then.

The 9th?

September? I'm not weighing in on that.

What are they talking about?

Budget hearings for September. Oh, September. You already have the dates for everybody else? Oh, wow, okay.

So September 9th is everyone? Oh, no, I'm sorry. We can't do it on the 9th. That's the school. The 10th?

What's the 9th?

Well, the school has their budget hearings, and we can't hold it on the same day as the county or the school board.

You never know with the air travel. Especially coming from there.

Yeah, but any time you see the 10th would be the best option that week.

10th looks good to me.

The 10th.

I thought maybe. Mayor? Yeah, I mean, we got to do it that week. I guess so. When's the second hearing?

Well, we don't have to do it that week. You could do it the week of the 15th and 22nd, but. Might as well do it the 10th. So the first hearing was the 10th and the second hearing. Is everybody okay with that? Move it right now.

would be what, two weeks later?

And then we cannot do it the 17th. We could do it the 16th or the 15th.

When you want to, or two weeks between? Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter? Okay.

A week, actually a week may not be enough for us to process. So we're looking maybe the 22nd or 23rd. How about the 22nd? How about the 23rd? That's a good day.

23rd?

Sure. That's fine.

Okay, so first hearing on the 10th, second on the 23rd, and then the budget workshop on the... August 26th.

August 26th.

And the 10th will also be our regular September meeting?

Correct. That'll be the regular and first budget hearing, and then the 23rd will be the final second budget hearing. That works?

All the other ones for the year haven't been sent, right?

No, that's in September. No, no, no.

I cannot do the 23rd. I just saw something. I can do the 24th. Or the 22nd, I'm good. Either way, but the 23rd. I was doing the 22nd. Okay.

22nd? Yeah.

Yeah. That's fine.

Okay, second hearing on the 22nd.

Perfect.

Okay, the next item on...

Hold on, let me take a step back. When's the... Then we're doing the what, the 20, what's the date of the budget workshop?

The 26th of August.

26th. And then the 10th.

10th, first hearing.

And then the 22nd.

22nd, second hearing.

Since we're on scheduling, and I had asked and it didn't work out for anyone to move the date for the next July meeting, but could we at least have it start a little bit earlier than 6 p.m.? Since I'm going to be six hours plus.

Yeah, what's the date of that?

From here. 14th. On the 14th. Like if we started a little bit earlier, you'd be doing me a favor. Otherwise, I need to start at midnight. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm in support. Because I'm joining remotely.

The 14th. The 14th of July. July. I would agree with earlier. For us, it's fine. What time do you want to do? 4 o'clock?

If everyone's OK with it. It's 10 o'clock at night for him. That's 10 o'clock for me. It sounds better than midnight. Is that good? It's better than midnight.

Do you want to do 9 o'clock in the morning? Do we have a hearing?

You guys can do that.

Anybody care about a morning meeting?

I will verify. We may have a hearing. I'm not sure. I can't recall at the moment. but it would be as far as not being heard prior to 7 p.m. So I would have to confirm with the applicant. Do we have a, I have to. Do we have any hearings coming up for the July meeting? For July, do we have?

I don't recall. It says not later.

Not later, right. But if we start on the applicant, it's, we'll have to wait regardless until 6 p.m.

He prefers 4 p.m.

So how about 4 p.m. on the 14th? No, I don't think that will happen. Pat, do we have – we don't have anything scheduled for July. I don't think so. No. Okay.

But Council Member Myers, I think, is saying 4 p.m. is the right time.

We'll do 4 – if everybody has consensus, we'll do 4 p.m. on the 14th. 14. 14.

Can I just make one request in regard to that, especially because it is the meeting, I believe, where the millage rate is set. Can we just do an extra level of educating the public, of information that the meeting is starting earlier that day? Because the last thing I want is people saying that we're playing games by starting late, by changing the time, and then somebody, you know, it becomes a whole thing. So can we just, whatever is normally done in terms of public education, just do some extra stuff?

We will put it out in our e-blast. now following this meeting and we'll make sure, and we always do, I always do town halls with folks, actually not before.

Maybe just some emails that just say, you know, just a reminder the meeting's starting early so people don't feel games are played. Thank you.

Where are you going to be, Mary? Where are you going to be calling in from? Where?

On that day, I'm gonna be in Salzburg, Austria.

That's a great place, I love it.

I get to go to Israel, you get to go to Salzburg.

Okay, Water League of Cities conference voting delegate. Usually council picks one of you all that plan to attend the conference to be a voting delegate.

When's the conference?

August 13th through the 15th at the Diplomat.

What is it? Water League of Cities.

I think Ken, did Ken go last year? Sometimes we don't have anybody go. Sometimes it just, people don't make it. But if somebody wants to go. It's one in August. August 13th through the 15th at the Diplomat in Hollywood.

I've gone that weekend. Yeah, maybe.

I would go to something. I'm not spending. I don't want to spend overnight. I'd go to a meeting or two just to say hello to people. You're it then. Okay, you're it if you're going to go. I nominate Jim McDonald.

Well, I didn't mean.

Oh, you don't want to go? No, no, no. I will go to some meetings if it's like the transfer or something like that, but I'm not going to spend the night there. Don't worry. Where are you going to spend the night?

At home.

Okay, not there. It doesn't matter. You're not going to spend the night there. Thank you.

of what you want to attend.

I understand.

I understand. And if somebody else decides to go, just let us know.

Chicken or fish?

Nice mayor doesn't seem to be that eager to do it again after what we're hearing.

Well, I was active when I was here before, so it's good to meet old friends and stuff like that. It's like the other night at the Miami-Dade. I think it's great. I loved it. I walked in and practically everybody there. See, it's perfect. It's great fun. All right. It's a win-win for you to get.

OK, next item is the Aleda-Mas project discussion. I've been updating all of the council on the happenings with the construction project. We, if you recall, two months ago had a vote of the council where we phased the project and went ahead and approved the allocation of the original bond to pay for about $7.5 million worth of the project. The balance of the amount to complete the project as the bid prices came in would be $6.5 million. At the time, we wanted to kind of wait and get a handle on what the budgetary numbers look like and whether or not we'd be able to absorb the issuance of another bond or a loan, bank loan, to straddle the project and pay for the full amount. We did meet with the contractor. The contractor has not wanted to sign the contract because we didn't bid it as a phased project. We have a deadline of the 15th of this month to either sign the contract or we would have to go out to bid again. Our recommendation, I did go through the numbers. I've spoken to council today. We refined the preliminary numbers. We're still waiting on some numbers from the state. Usually my preliminary numbers are more conservative than what we get from the state. And right now we're looking at almost a quarter million dollar surplus with the issuance of a bond. so we can absorb that debt service without any issues. My recommendation would be that we go forward with the project and award the full contract, understanding that in this coming budget we would have a bond issuance in the amount of 6.5 to cover the balance of that project.

Questions, comments?

Construction would start right away. They're basically waiting on this to start construction.

My recommendation on this is that we press the pause button. For all the reasons we just talked about, there is a lot of uncertainty. And one, I appreciate that we're talking about that the impact of what the state has done or is potentially doing to us won't be felt for a couple of years. But I think it's going to be a potentially very significant long-term impact. by any means doubting, Ms. Manager, what you said in terms of the numbers. But I think it's the beginning of a trend. I think that this behemoth piece of legislation has a lot of unknowns to it. We don't even know if it's going to pass. But I mean, listen, I think when the governor puts something on that says, It's tax relief for everybody, and lollipops and unicorns, it's going to pass. And I think we have to be prepared for that. And I think the impact, as I have said in other forums, is potentially maybe devastating is too strong a word, but certainly significant. And I think this is a beautiful, I'm not in the camp saying we'll let you sell the property and give up and go home. But I just think there's enough uncertainty here that I would suggest we push pause. We see where we stand after budget. We see where we stand after November. We see where we stand with some different faces up here. Not that these faces here are, but I think we have to make this consideration because it is such a significant outlay both now and going forward. I would recommend we hold off. I take very well the manager's concern it's only going to get more expensive because things only do get more expensive. I get that. And that's a really important, valuable point. But to me, in this atmosphere where we're talking about having to look at other revenue sources, we're talking about having to look at change, maybe I'm wrong and maybe we don't have to do anything and it's all great. But to me, I would wait on this. and not go forward with the contract at this point so we can have a little more clarity. They dropped a bomb on us a few days ago. And maybe the bomb is not, the fallout isn't as bad as I think it is. But until we know that, I would prefer we hold off.

I have a question on the manager. So if we were to hold off, how much would we already spend?

this project we purchased the land and how much have we spent on design and we've spent i want to say i think the design was close to a million dollars we've already spent that we've already spent that okay we spent another 850 putting a new roof on the property um the bigger concern and what we would have to sort out with um the financing institution that authorized the original bond because We had a deadline to commit those funds, which we did, and we met that deadline. But if we were to abandon the project altogether now, then that will kick off issues with arbitrage, and we'd have to figure out how to maneuver through that with our financial advisors.

That's really the only issue. Did I understand you correctly? Based on your analysis, if we were to go forward with this project now, under the numbers that we currently have the revenue and what's anticipated that we can do this?

Yeah, I feel comfortable with it only because this year, based on the numbers that I'm going to be presenting to you, this was a big issue. year for us because we had the collective bargaining agreement and the first year the collective bargaining agreement provides for 22% increases for the police officers. So it was a huge hit. But the next two years will not be. There's also things coming up when you look at the forecast over five years, obviously, you have two bond issuances that are gonna be finishing in fiscal year 29 and 30. Collectively, that debt service will free up $750,000. And I'm also looking at just the trends of how we usually grow. our revenue year over year. And I have no doubt that we can absorb these amounts. Barring a Category 5 storm that decimates our tax base, I think we will be fine.

In El Nino year, we're in good shape.

Yeah, I wouldn't be recommending it if I didn't think we would be OK financially. But I respect council members.

I respect what Jerry said. But I also think that we spent money. This council and this government operates in a deliberative fashion. We just don't do things by the seat of our pants. There's a lot of study. So we've taken, we, you guys have taken, I wasn't here, but you did a lot of work. on deciding to purchase the property. You've spent money on design. We now are at a point where we've got to sign the contract and move forward with the contractor, which if we don't, we know if a year goes by and we go back to it, the amount is going to go up. I just think we have to act responsibly and do what we've done and how we've thought it out in the past and move forward in a rational manner. as opposed to what the legislature just did. I don't want to go into that again. But the fact is, they throw something at us, which, as we were discussing earlier, there are some serious legal issues with the amendment itself. It's got too many subject matters in it. And lawyers know that that may not pass legal muster. So I think we... based on what the manager is saying, based on what we've done in the past. And I wasn't here when you did it all, but I've been to the property. I think it's, I was quite impressed with it. I think we should move forward. That's my view. I agree with you.

Anybody else? Go right ahead. So there's a few considerations with regards to this decision, right? One is we haven't had our budget conversations, but yet we are deciding on probably what would be the most important item in our budget. ahead of time, and that would set, basically anchor our future conversations, our future workshop discussions around the budget for next year in a fairly considerable way. That's number one. Number two, As I think of this project, I don't just think the cost of the land and the cost to build, but the cost to run the park once it's operating. And unless we, you know, just going by last year's budget report, and maybe the numbers this year look better or worse, I don't know. It would cost us approximately 2.5 million to run the park. We could make back about 1.2 million from revenue, from activations, activities on the park. So in essence, we would have a 1.2 million call it a subsidy or whatever it is, that comes from our budget to run the park for the foreseeable future. So it's an annual cash, negative cash flow of 1.2 million once the park goes live. And in light of the uncertainties that we're facing with regards to potential impact to our revenue, the fact that we haven't really discussed revenue diversification, but there's no easy solution, and whatever solution likely comes from those conversations will take many years to materialize, Committing to this right now, to me, is an act of irresponsibility because it is true. The decision to buy the land was made three years ago under certain conditions. A year and a half later, we voted to pursue the design of the park under different conditions, and now the context has changed dramatically. And the cost to build the park has changed from the original estimates. We thought it was going to be 10, and it's 14 million. So there's a lot of new things happening that I think warrant a deeper conversation about the merits whether it's the right thing to do or not, but the timing of it. And so I believe this is something that we should table until we feel better about the prospects in revenue generation for our village and what the opportunity cost is of committing to this now at a higher level of investment. what it is that we won't be able to do as a result. Because this is going to take up a large chunk of our ability to pursue large-scale capital projects in our village, at least for the next few years, if I understand correctly. So there's a lot going on. But most importantly, what worries me is we're anchoring the budget conversation before the budget conversation has started by saying, yes, let's go ahead and commit to the additional

year budget conversation, or is this a last year budget conversation? I think that we've invested a ton of money into this project, and it comes before the capital projects of the future, in my opinion. I mean, I think we need to take care of this and then worry about the capital project of the future. I'd hate to kill this after such an investment in light of future capital projects. I mean, everything's got its place and its time, and time for this is This has been going on for a long time. Ms. Manager, you had something?

I wanted to mention a couple things just so that you're aware. The bids we did get, we had, I believe, two to three additional bids. All of them came in $3 million more than the low bid that we're talking about. So without a doubt, this will go up, the price will go up. I doubt very much that they're gonna lower from the next high bidder. Now that even the low bidder has seen that number, I'm sure that they'll try to recover. I just got a text, obviously, the Parks and Recreation Director is listening in, although he's not here, and he wanted me to remind Council that the Pinecrest Community Center pays for itself, and we would look at the same for this location. When it comes to staffing, the plans for staffing of this facility do not call for more than what we would spend at the Gary Matzner Park. Why? Because we're relocating staff from the community center to Aleda Moss Park. We already have staff for the landscape that we've already hired, and they've been working with us for two years. So we would literally be looking at the cost of the park services. And typically, the cost that we put out in programming is we always make 30% cut from that. So where there might be expenditures, you wouldn't have the expenditure if you didn't have the revenue. And that does have an impact. So for what it's worth, I mean, again, we'll reiterate, I really am not concerned. We are looking right now without even starting, and I've spoken to all of you, so I'm not saying anything that I haven't shared with you, but we have room to add additional projects if we wanted to in a larger bond issuance than what I'm talking about right now. We have a quarter million dollar surplus with a 14 million dollar possible bond issuance scheduled. And like I said, we would be retiring two bonds in 29 and 30. So I'm not foreseeing any issue whatsoever when it comes to getting this up and running. And remember, this construction will take a year and a half to two years to complete. So we will not be opening to the public for any, you know, in the short term.

We're going to say something. I'll just wait my turn. Then I won't jump in front of you. as much as I want to.

OK. I'd really like to move this forward. But I really want to move it forward with a sincere look at reducing the scope and saving, trying to shave at least a couple million dollars off this project. I think it's blown out of proportion. So right now, I'd have to go with the idea of putting on hold. we're letting it force our hand on this and I think we need to take control of it. And if we don't want to take control of it by reducing the scope and bringing the cost down some, then we have to look at it from another route. So that's where I'm at.

Just to respond to a couple of things, because I think it is important to the extent anyone's listening to our conversation, because I think both the points from the manager and from the parts director, Mr. Mattis, who are both the experts, are really well taken. And I'm not suggesting that this whole thing should be walked away from, that it's not going to, I mean, I think it's beautiful, that it's going to be great. I think just to me, This was, and I'll keep using it. I mean, in the realm in which we operate, and I don't use the term loosely, because there's places where there's real bombs being dropped on real people. But this was, in this context, metaphorically, a bomb that was dropped on us by the legislature. And I very much don't want to be like the legislature and do things rashly. But to me, I'm just not comfortable on one hand, the potential and the unknowns here, and on the other hand, moving forward at this pace. So I think we can do it soon. I don't think this has to be indefinite that we just put it off forever and ever. Because I think it was last month, I said, I agree, the prior council has done this. We shouldn't just be going back and forth and constantly changing things. But for all the reasons we've said, I am just nervous in this immediate atmosphere right now. Also, just one other thing. It's a big enough issue that I would rather, if we notice it, and I would like to hear what the community has to say, at least to some degree, on this. But anyway, that's my thinking.

Is there a possibility that we can do this now and work to cut the scope with the goal of cutting the scope by a certain amount? Can we sign the paperwork and still work to cut scope, Ms. Manager?

We can value engineer on the project. But again, I'm not a fan of that.

No, it'll turn out like this building, which is made of paper and duct tape.

It's up to council. I will just, again, I know I'm telling you like a broken record, and I know I've had this conversation with all of you, but I really caution you. I lived through this with Coral Pine Park. A year from now, this project, a year or two from now, for that matter, this project will cost more than $3 million above what we're talking about doing right now. Yeah, I agree with you. And when you bond something out over 20 years, that half a million dollars or a million dollar carve out that you're looking to do doesn't really have a huge impact on a debt service payment. So I wouldn't do that either, quite frankly. It's just my thoughts on it. But I respect, obviously, council. I work for you all, so you tell me what you want to do, and that's what we'll do.

I kind of agree with you. I mean, I think if we delay this now, we're going to either kill it or we're going to spend a ton more money. Mr. Fairman, what... would you, how would you proceed? Would you go forward with this? How would you go forward with this at this point to assign this contract so you don't want to lose it and spend $3 million?

Well, it is a tough situation because even if we find things to take out of the project to save money, will we get the value of that as a discount off of the contract from the contractor? Don't really know. That could happen. It may not happen very well. Ms.

Manager, if we value engineers, would we get value back from the contractor?

Yeah, we get credits. So the question is, like...

Whether it be engineering, I've got a little issue with because it's not like I want to make something cheaper. I think we should look at decide, do we need a bridge over the pond? Do we need certain things that we can save money on that we can reduce future maintenance on? Whatever we do, we can have a beautiful park. It doesn't have to have. every fancy thing we can think of. And I know the public brought in a lot of ideas they'd like to have and they brought it together, but the public at that time didn't know it was gonna be $14 million. And with that knowledge, maybe you make changes about what you need. So that's what I'm hoping for, because you're right, I don't think it gets cheaper, but I look at things on the plans and I've just, I mean, the plans are this thick, there's a lot to look at. Um, but I gotta believe seeing what I've seen this potentially spend on paving projects and stuff that I know more about, that there's gotta be places that we can save money and bring this cost down a little bit. I have one question.

Ms. Manager, when do we have to sign this by before we screw it up? Tomorrow.

Okay.

So Mr. McDonald, then we'll start.

Well, I, I'm listening to what you're saying and as, The previous council has worked many years on this project. We're now down to the wire. We either sign the contract and move forward, or we don't. And then we spend more money on taking things out of the project. We're going to save x dollars, whatever. And then we're going to go back and bid it out again. And most likely, the cost coming in is going to be higher than what we just saved. I mean, we are at a point. Let's say it's value engineering. Whatever it is, take out x, y, and z. Let's say you save a half a million or a million. We get a new bid in. $3 million more. Yeah. What I'm saying is sometimes you've got to make decisions. Oh, I agree. But we're all operating, not we all, but we know what the legislature did. And now we, as a responsible government, we're reacting to how they did something in a day. and they've gutted property. They're trying to. As I said before, this amendment may get stricken by the court because it's got a whole bunch of stuff in the title which you can't do under the Florida law. So here we are. We're making a decision where the manager is saying, we can do this. We've spent a lot of time, we collectively spent a lot of time doing this. We've got the numbers. We can do it under the current budget that we have and projecting into the future with the bonds and all this stuff. And we're about to make a decision, oh, we can't do it because of what the legislature did. And then a year from now, some future council is going to come back and say, OK, but now it's a million dollars more. A million more than what we valued engineered, or two million. Who knows what it's going to be?

GARY GENSLER- Coral Pine Park's a beautiful example of that, yes.

And that was a total mess because we delayed and delayed and delayed. So the problem we're having right now is we've got to do this. If we don't do it tonight, we're it's going to cost us at least $3 million by the estimate of our expert. So pressure's on you.

But the notion that if we don't do it tonight, that when the clock strikes 12, it's going to suddenly be all this money more. I very much understand the lecture that everybody is saying. But we have a contractor who's not letting us break it up, who's not giving any extension, who's not whatever else. And I feel like we're being held hostage by a contractor here. There's not that many places building that many parks like this. And I think we have to have some leverage. And I think it's very significant. I'm not suggesting we just kick this can down the road indefinitely. I'm not. But to me, You know, even if this thing gets stricken down by the courts, which, by the way, is still something of a long shot, because guess who picks the courts? And guess who approves? There's not even a process for these judges, right? There is zero deliberative process in Tallahassee. They're going to find some way to do this again. And to me, this is just a harbinger of what's to come. We're looking at the legislature has spoken saying they want to this to become, this is a path to eliminating property taxes entirely. And when this thing passes with 60 plus percent of the votes, They're not going to say, well, that's great. That's all we need. We're going to have another governor and another round of legislature who's going to want to do more of this. And to me, it may be that this is fine, but it may be that this is the beginning of something really awful. And again, we're going to have police contracts. We're going to have other things coming up very soon. And to me, we have to use the opportunity we have to at least give this some more thought and more consideration. I'm telling you my view. I understand maybe others have been doing it longer, feel differently. And it's not saying the manager's wrong. It's not saying this or that. But I just think in light of the significant change in the last week, Some people say that wouldn't even happen, and it happened. I don't think that it's this or millions and millions and millions of dollars. I think that a deliberative process can, if we take some time and we view this in the context of what's happening, really crunch numbers, really analyze, maybe it works. Maybe we have to really significantly change it. But I am not comfortable with it right now. Again, because I don't want to be like the legislature and just do things. But again, listen, I respect, needless to say, I understand where you're all coming from.

At a bare minimum, what I would expect that we should be in a position to do because of what Council Member Greenberg has said, I mean, this is a large-scale project. Not many of these going on right now. is to ask the contractor that they grant us an extension for a month, and that we frame this conversation within the budget conversation, because again, because we're dealing with higher costs than anticipated. We don't know for sure what it's gonna cost us to run the park, with revenue. What are the implications of that? Is that more traffic, more parking, more people coming to the so that we make back the $2.4 million that it costs us to run it? There is a lot of other implications. And the largest one, in my opinion, is the opportunity cost. And we haven't had the larger scope discussion that should come from the budget. So is there a way that we can go back to the contractor and ask that they grant us a 30-day extension? Because by then we will have done our workshops or get closer to having done our workshops and we'll be in a better position understanding what the true implications are of moving forward with a larger level of investment than we had originally anticipated.

Binder done that. He said no. So do we know, by contract, by the bid, they have to guarantee the bid prices for 90 days. They already saw what the next bidder came in at. They're already looking like, oh my god, we could have made so much more money. They're putting pressure. In fact, I said, they wanted this signed already. And I said, I will let you know Friday morning whether this is a go or not. End of discussion. So it's either a go or it's not. And if it's not, a month from now, a year from now, two years from now, whenever we decide to build this, I'm telling you it's going to be a lot more money.

I'm hearing Ariel say, expressing a lot of issues that I would have thought would have been dealt with as this council has reviewed this project for how many years it's been before you. the numbers that cost 2.1 million to run the car. All the numbers, I mean, this is not a new project. This is a project that's been worked on for how many years now? I've been off six months. Lots of years. Lots of years. So we're now, this group collectively, we're at a point where we've got to sign a contract. And as the manager was saying, they're not going to negotiate. They're just going to say goodbye. So you're basically kissing goodbye. A lot of money we've already spent, this community has spent. And while I respect Council Member Greenberg and what he's saying, and I get it with who's appointed by the judges and who appoints the judges and all that, that they're going to just rubber stamp whatever any lawsuit says that this is an invalid amendment, Constitution amendment. Again, we are now responding to the crazies in Tallahassee, what they do. irresponsibly in one day, we're now saying, OK, we're just going to, because they're crazy. Not that we're crazy, but we're nervous about them. We're less crazy. We're less crazy. But we're throwing away a lot of time and effort, theoretically. And I'm just saying, OK. I mean, you've heard what I think. I think we should go forward with it, especially based on the manager's analysis of the numbers.

So let me just respond politely to what you've said. I mean, I just don't want it to be on the record that, There's nothing new about this. We've known for a long time that it's a $14 million project, and that now comes the moment where we need to commit to it, and then some people are getting cold feet about it. That's not the way it's played out in my understanding. So when we did the budget workshops last year, we had 9.5 million set aside, or roughly around that, for building the park. That was the last time we had, I think, a thorough conversation about the level of investment that was required to build a park. During the budget workshops, we decided to reallocate a portion of that funding to invest in other projects that the council at that time deemed were more urgent. So we lowered the scope from 9.5 to I think it was something roughly like 8. So we took like 1.5 million from the 9.5. The understanding was that we were going to go back to the project, at least that's the understanding I walked away with, to the scope of the project, and that we were going to do what it takes to meet the budget. The budget was $8 million, adjusted by the reallocation of $1.5 million to other items that we considered a higher priority. Now it's come back to be 14 million instead of 8 million. I don't question the process, the diligence. It's probably the best number we could have gotten. The alternative was 3 million more. So the diligence is being conducted, but it came back at 14, not at 8. That's the new part that we're, I think, having a conversation over because that carries additional implications over what other things is it that we won't be able to afford for the foreseeable future as a result of the additional six million. If indeed we want to run the park in the future with a net zero impact to our budget, what does it mean that we generate 2.4 million revenue, that we'll get a lot more traffic and cars coming through our village to be able to make up the cost to run the park? There's a lot of things that are new to this as a result, council member. It feels rushed to have to, and it feels like we're put against the wall before even the budget conversations have begun, to have to commit to something that is six million higher than the last time that we had talked about this was. That's the concern. That's maybe a little bit more of the context for how this has been playing out over the last year.

I don't think we're in any worse position with this park than we were with any other capital project or any other park. It comes with a lot of due diligence from the manager. The manager believes we can do this. She's not wrong with these things. She's never been wrong with these things. And I think that I understand the legislature's issue and all that stuff, but I think a change of pace now, we're at the end of this process, not the beginning, and a change of pace now is just going to cost us a lot more money. And I just don't think that that's worth it. I really think we go forward with this. And so we're at a crossroads. And so is there a way to value, use a better term, but cut this scope as this process goes on if we were to approve this tonight? I think we need a path. That's the only path forward on this that's going to go away.

Just in a general construction type project, there's always the potential for change orders to our credit. So are there opportunities where you can go back, look at the design, and let's- Take out a bridge, for instance. Is that- Take out a bridge. Don't do the entrance feature. Don't put the artwork that we were going to put in. There's always opportunities. Like I told you, when we came in, when the big prices came in, like they did, and I had done an independent review construction estimate that we didn't put out to the public before the bid went out, but it was comparable to what that independent, I forget the name of the word, the person that does the costs for construction. It was on point. We can always go back. I had looked at it with the architects, we could potentially shave off as much as a million dollars if we didn't do the second building, only did the shell, you know, left it like a shell and didn't do, you know, the arches in the park, didn't do the entrance feature. So, you know, are there, you know, light bulbs that we can pick a different fixture and it would still look just as nice, but maybe not cost the same. There's all kinds of things that we can do when we're working with a contractor and they would give us different pricing and we can get credit. But that, to me, is a secondary issue because that's a function of a two-year construction project that we can work those things out. There's some things that might come up that are unknown or things that council may wanna abandon altogether, like you said, the bridge or whatever. That's a given. That's very different than phasing the project or then saying, let's not build out the building, let's just focus on the land first. That approach would be just, you know, bifurcating the plans and bidding it out that way as a phased approach. My concern, I repeat, is that they've already seen what the next highest bidder is. And so, okay, you sit on the project, you sit on the property and don't build it for two or three years, which we can do as well. Wait and see how all this plays out with Tallahassee. You know, I would argue that, We have an obligation to our own residents. We have invested a lot of money on purchasing this property. People, we did engage, not just in the construction document side of things, but we did do master planning for this property. We did engage the community. The community did give input. on the things they wanted to see happen there. So it's been a year and a half, two year process to get us to where we are today. I understand the concerns, the financial concerns. I'm looking at it financially. of what I know I can deliver without having to raise taxes, which has always been my go-to. So I know that it's rushed. It wasn't ideal. It would have been perfect if they would have waited for us to do the budget workshops. We had to speed up the bid to begin with to meet the deadline on the first bond. And it's only good for 90 days. And they refused to extend it, because we already tried that.

I have no doubt that you're negotiating perfectly and extremely effectively. To me, the fact that the contractor would sooner take his ball and go home and risk losing the whole thing, but risk losing the whole thing rather than giving 60 days in light of the changed landscape, I don't know what to say.

But anyway.

I think we're, interestingly enough, I think we're all right to some degree up here. This whole conversation, we're all making points that are correct.

All right, who's more right then?

Yeah, I don't know if it's who's more right, because it would be a bad gamble to bet that we're going to get the same prices or better prices in the future.

I can almost guarantee you we're going to get worse prices in the future.

That's a bad gamble. And there's issues with the bonds and everything else. And we bought the land because the public said we want parks when they begin we bought the land, we're gonna make it a park. I just have a big problem about us not willing to make things not quite the perfect and try to save some money, especially when we know the cost, the anticipated costs went up much higher than we thought they would. For me, I just feel that we need to watch the people's money a little bit and make some sound decisions. We have a beautiful park and if we can save, $1.5 to $2 million, something like that, I think that shows good judgment on our part. And we move forward with the part. But we've got to be willing. I didn't mean to bring this up, but we've got to be willing to say no to a $25,000 bench. And we need to get to the point where not a bench. Right. But we've got to be willing to say, OK, it's not what everybody wanted. Maybe there's things at that park we don't need, and try and save that money and have a beautiful park with a lot of nice things, well-built. And just, because I do worry, things are going to, we still might get hit with change orders. I mean, how many jobs come in right at budget or even right at contract? There's going to be some reason. And I think it just gets, just escalates more and more.

Where do you do the least harm?

You know, maybe you do the least harm with approving this and instructing the manager to cut a million dollars of scope out of the darn thing right now instead of, I mean, can you do most harm by not going forward We're getting a net cutting scope. I mean, we might be at a net zero.

I am worried about that.

Correct. We've got to worry about it quick, because.

But see, I wasn't part of all this. But as you said, this council has spent a lot of time getting public input. People want the park. I notice whenever I go to the community center now, it's jam packed with people using it. And the reason why we want to do this is to bring more activity over to the new park to allow for expanded activity in the current community center. So when people have spent a lot of time with public input saying we want this park, and the manager is saying we can afford it, she's crunching the numbers. than for all of a sudden on the eve of signing the contract. And I get it. The contractor says he knows what the other bids were. And he says, boy, did I underbid this. So he's not going to give us an extension. It just seems like all the work that this council has done leading up to this, what, a couple of years?

Right, I agree with you. Like, Joseph, how many people came to the public forums that we had? Hundreds?

When they had the, I wouldn't, I don't know, because I didn't go to any of them, but I know that they had at least two big meetings.

My guess we had maybe, I'll be generous with you, 500 people come and give us input on things that they would like in the park.

Because they had surveys.

You know, they put little dots on stuff. It's a lot, 500 people. Right, it's pretty good, but it's not 18,000. And you've got, and then you take, All those ideas, and we give it to somebody who comes up with a design, and they're off doing what they're doing. And yeah, we gave them some blessing on input, the things that we like, not knowing the price of everything or what it's going to cost. And then it comes back. And to not be willing to say, maybe we could do with less when costs go up and there's uncertainty in the future.

I think what we're saying is we need to be able to do do with less, the smartest way to get there and actually save money is to sign the contract and cut the scope now instead of not signing the contract and then cutting the scope and you're not gonna- I think that's very possible.

I think that's absolutely possible. So what do you wanna do? That's what I wanna do.

But I'm hearing somebody make a motion. I'll make the motion that we approve the contract with the proviso that the manager and staff be instructed to immediately begin the We'll call it the value engineering to cut out where we can to reduce the ultimate cost of this project, to cut it down. That's a resolution of this council instructing staff to take the contract and now be looking for places to reduce the total cost of this project, whether it's, as the manager said, the building that's not attached to the main house, put that aside. Don't do anything with it. If it means eliminating a bridge, whatever it is.

Cut a bunch of money out. Cut a lot of money out, yes, exactly. You want to second that?

Can we add something to consulting with the council members on that? Because I think we do represent the people and the things that are going to be taken away or not done, I think we should have some say so.

If I may make a suggestion? Sure.

I can meet with the architects, come up with a list of, like a grocery list of things that we can consider and then come back and have a little discussion with council and then you guys can make decisions. We can, you know, come with that approach. You like that idea?

If that's where we can go, then if we can do that and be prudent about the money we're spending and the things we're doing, I'm okay with that.

Second the motion? Second my motion.

I'll second. Okay, hold on, hold on. We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion? I just want to say, I want to add something. We've talked to the public and I think we've had quite a bit of positive reception to the building of the park. That's not questionable. But our public and our residents also tell us about many other things they would want in the village. we have a strategic plan that has identified a very long list of things, of priorities that over the years we will pursue. That strategic plan doesn't have only one line, which is build a park. It has 100 different lines of things that have come as a result of feedback that we received from our residents. When we do the workshop with the residents and we talk to them about, would you like a park? And we receive their feedback. And therefore, we deliver a vision for a park that probably matches their expectations. And we think that we've done our job by having done that. I would argue we haven't, because just like they wanted that for a part, they want 99 other things that are documented in our strategic plan. My concern is because the cost has gone up from $8 million to $14 million, that the implications are larger in approving this today And it means that there will be some things or there might be likely some things on the strategic plan that will therefore have to be delayed. Those are also things that the residents wanted. When they told us they wanted a park and they started producing a laundry list, we didn't finish the session with them and told them, okay, would you pay $14 million for it? even if we can't afford it? And do we think that it is that we would have received the same sort of reception from the public if we had told them what the price tag is and what the implications of that is? OK, but then that means you're telling us you're concerned about traffic. You're telling us you're concerned about speeding. You're telling us you want more sidewalks. Or you're telling us you're concerned about stormwater. And that's going to have to be delayed. Right? Did we have that portion of the conversation with them at that time? No, we only had a conversation about the park. So I don't mind the park. What I mind is that I don't believe we're doing the public a favor or a service by committing to $14 million. It's budget creep, and it's going to eat up into other things that we had committed to our residents that will therefore have to be delayed. And that's what we're signing off on today if we were to move forward with it. I don't believe, by the way, in the value engineering, because the experience with that has been not maybe great for our village. This is a larger scope project conversation. This is not about cutting one million here or there, even though that's a substantial amount of money. This is a $24, $25 million project. making it at 24 or 23 million instead of 24 and therefore compromising on some aspects of quality, I just don't think that that would necessarily deliver on what our residents may need and the implications of approving this at this level of spend. under the current circumstances that we're facing on the revenue projections.

I think the professionals will hold them out.

I've said enough, but I know that's the minority's view.

No, yes. Mitch, you make a motion. Just don't tell me that we listen to the residents. You can debate the motion right after the motion is made. We're debating the merits.

You can debate. You can continue to debate on motion unless the majority calls to stop debate.

All right, so I'll call the question.

Can you do that?

I can do that.

You can make a motion to call the question.

Let's just finish the debate so everybody feels that they've been heard and then we'll vote, right? So I think that we're being advised by the manager that we can afford this and we can get through this. And I think that if we've been on the strategic plan for a very, very long time. And we've gotten to this point. It's this project's turn. But without regard to that, any more debate?

I just want to make one final point. I do think that combining this with a discussion about the bench is a little misleading. The bench is a $24,000 bench. Not a bench. Jesus, I'm just doing what I said I wouldn't do. It's a $24,000 item. Okay, we're talking about a whole lot more money. However people want to come down on it, and I respect both sides on that view, I respect both sides on this view, but it's apples and oranges or even beyond that, it's apples and cheese steaks. I mean, we're not talking about the same thing. It's different. But anyway, listen, I think everyone has expressed their views.

I hear you. Mr. McDonald, would you like to call a question? Call a question. All right, call a question, Mr. Clerk.

And this is on my motion.

On my motion to approve.

Your motion, okay. No, it's not my motion. It's your motion to approve with the provision that we're going to value engineering and that council will have input, including Mr. Fairman.

Okay. Council Member Greenberg?

No.

Council Member McDonald?

Yes.

Council Member Meyer?

No.

Vice Mayor Fuhrman?

Yes.

Mayor Cordino?

Yes.

OK, next, traffic flow study.

OK, traffic flow study. So a couple of things. We've started the process. We've hired the contractor to do the traffic flow study for the school district that we had identified from US 1 to 72nd. No, yeah, 72nd to 112th to 132nd Street. Wanted to make you all aware, Palmetto Bay just adopted a 20 mile per hour speed reduction across the entire... They have authorized...

They have not adopted it. That's not...

They passed a resolution to lower the speed limit to 20 miles per hour and present to the county to amend their interlocal agreement to allow them the ability to... That's what they passed to...

to request an amendment with the interlocal agreement.

So that they can lower it.

At some point in the future, they may decide to go to 20 miles per hour or whatever they decide.

So we've had discussions in the past about the speed limit pilot and just wanted to gather input from the council to just make sure that the direction of council is to do traffic flow study, or if you wish to do a speed limit pilot in this location, you know, I just wanted to give you guys...

Wait, not for nothing, but we did this already, right? It's just a true north area, basically?

It's the larger area that goes from 112th to 132nd.

But didn't we debate this, like, ad nauseum for... a nauseous amount of time and came to this?

We did, but I've been asked to approach the council to consider.

Is it the same traffic study that we promised everybody when True North came through that we're going to do in that area?

That's what we have in the budget and that's what we've hired these contractors to do.

And is that information also going to be used to help design whatever roadway modifications we're going to do or be suggested in that area?

The contractor is supposed to inform the design of safety features in front of the schools, some of the intersection improvements on 120th and 77th, but they're looking at the larger district area to see how the traffic flow is working in that area. Whether we had those residents who wanted speed bumps, they were complaining.

You're confusing everybody. I don't know why you're doing this. We spent forever in controversial times crafting a scope of services. Why would we go back and revisit the scope of services? I mean, it was a pain in the tail to get to the point. I mean, we were half willing to trash the whole thing because we couldn't come to an agreement. I don't think it's appropriate to go back and revisit blindly ask us to review something we proved, like, how many months ago was it?