City Commission - Regular Meeting

and welcome to the City Commission meeting this September 2nd, 2026. What do we got there? Oh, all those medals are clacking away. So my name is Dean Trantalis. I'm proud to serve as your mayor and I'm here with our members of the city commission. You'll please notice that Commissioner Herbst is not able to attend this meeting. I just want everyone to be aware of that. So there's just just the four of us. So for those of you who are here for the first time. Welcome. We appreciate your attending tonight's meeting and we have a lot of exciting things happening tonight. Um, we start out with our pledge of allegiance and we go through various agenda announcements and then there are going to be some presentations tonight. Presentations are normally what we recognize individuals, organizations or events that take place in our city. And tonight we're very excited that there'll be four such opportunities to invite those who are going to participate in these presentations to be here. So may I all ask you first to please rise so we can do the pledge. And I'd like to invite Benjamin and Thomas Lopez from... Benjamin Thomas Lopez from Croissant Park Elementary to please join me by the podium. Okay. So please join these gentlemen as they recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Put your right hand on your heart. That's it. Okay. Go ahead.

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

Very good. Very, very good.

I've got some things for you.

Here's one for you and one for you. Okay, please be seated, everybody. Thank you.

We're going to do a picture, right? Where's Dragtime? Benjamin? Gentlemen, come over here. Over here. Your family's over here. Come on. Come over here.

Well, we've got plants here.

All right, ready? We're going to look here.

One, two, three. Perfect.

Thank you.

So at this point, I would like to invite you all to join the Commission in sharing a moment of silence. And in doing so, we'd like to recognize two individuals that passed away. First, we have Juanita Gray and Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. This afternoon gave an eloquent eulogy as to who Juanita has served our community in so many great ways. So we appreciate your bringing that to our attention. And also, our former city manager, Floyd Johnson, passed away recently. And I served with Floyd when I was first a commissioner a number of years ago. A great individual, and we give our best to his family. So if you could please share in this moment of silence, we would thank you.

Thank you so much.

So at this point, we take a moment of personal privilege here to recognize individuals who have retired, who have served more than 20 years here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. Tonight, we have just one individual, Maria Casanova. She is a police supply specialist in our police department, and she has served us for 23 years. So congratulations, Maria, and thank you for your service. So having said that, Mr.

Clerk, would you please call the roll? Commissioner Herbst is not present. Commissioner Glassman? Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Here. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Here. Mayor Trentals?

Here. We have one agenda announcement. We have a walk-on, a motion accepting grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration for the procurement of vehicle movement area transponders at our executive airport. The amount of $54,596. We'll take that up at the end. We have an agenda revision R2. The CAM was revised to correct the date of the commission meeting in the header and the footer. Having now addressed those agenda items, would someone like to move to approve the agenda as amended and the minutes? So moved. Second. Move to second it. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. Now, our first presentation, I'd like to invite our fabulous State Representative Chip LaMarca. Where is Mr. LaMarca? There, over there. If you could please join me at the podium. He is about to present the City of Fort Lauderdale with some big bucks.

So, Mayor, it's a privilege to come here to the new police station. I won't be here for the opening. I have another event to go to, but I'm glad to be able to see it myself and to the commissioners, and specifically to Commissioner Herbst, who's not here because part of this is in his district. This is a check for a total of $1.85 million and some change for the remaining dollars of the Galt Drive safety project, infrastructure project, and a fire reserve boat. So our firefighters have an additional boat to... get out in the water with. And I see a lot of people with medals on here. I see fire plaques and fire badges. So this will hopefully go a long way to help with the boat. And I'm privileged to bring this back.

Very well. Thank you, sir. Congratulations. This is $1.850 million. Wow. A lot of money. So thank you so much.

Don't forget the $79 at the end.

One, two, three.

So thank you again, Representative LaMarca. We appreciate your efforts at the state legislature for providing such a significant amount of money to our city, in addition to the other significant amounts which you have brought to our city, especially with regard to the Galt Miles Street Safety Improvement Project. I'd now like to invite our Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor Ben Sorensen, to present a proclamation regarding Hunger Action Month here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. And we'd like to invite Davika Ramkasun from Feeding South Florida as the Director of Development to join him at the podium. Did I pronounce that name correctly?

Yes.

Yeah, that was pretty good.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Devika, for being here. Thank you for your work. I want to read a proclamation and then love to have you share some words. So this is in recognition of Hunger Action Month, whereas in 1981, Feeding South Florida has been a leading force in the fight against hunger, providing food, resources, and support to individuals and families. And whereas nearly 1 million individuals across South Florida face hunger, including nearly 500,000 children and seniors, making access to quality food and groceries an ongoing need for our neighbors throughout the region. Whereas Feeding South Florida's vision of a hunger-free South Florida guides its mission to provide immediate access to healthy foods while helping individuals and families achieve greater stability and self-sufficiency, through education, advocacy, and innovative programming. Whereas feeding South Florida helps reduce food waste by recovering fresh, quality food that might otherwise go unused and redirecting it to communities throughout its service area while maintaining high standards for food safety, quality, and responsible stewardship. And whereas Hunger Action Month, the city of Fort Lauderdale recognizes feeding South Florida its partners, volunteers, and supporters for their continued commitment to addressing food insecurity and encourages our community to help ensure that every neighbor has access to the nourishment and resources needed to thrive. Now, therefore, we as City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale proclaim September 2026 as Hunger Action Month, signed this day by your Mayor, Dean Jay Trantellis.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Davika. I am the Director of Development for Feed in South Florida. I cover the Broward County area, so I'm very honored to be here today. Thank you all very much. I want to say a special thank you to the City of Fort Lauderdale for providing this proclamation, recognizing September as Hunger Action Month. We encourage everyone to take lead and do something in honor of Hunger Action Month. You can come through our facility in Pembroke Park or Boyden Beach, have a volunteer day. You can donate. That's where we always need the funds to help us do the work that we do. In the city of Fort Lauderdale, I have some statistics that I'd like to share. In the city of Fort Lauderdale, we provided nutritious food and critical resources to more than 118,000 individuals with over 5.7 million pounds of food distributed right here in the community. So I just wanted to leave you guys with that. The need is continuously growing with circumstances in our society today, so we really do need all of the help, and we would be honored to have you guys serve with us. Thank you.

So I'd now like to invite Commissioner Beasley-Pittman to present a proclamation.

regarding National Sickle Cell Awareness Month. And I'd like to invite Kyla Thorpe Brissett, Vice President and COO of the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research.

You see the female touch. I have a bag. Oh, good evening, everyone. Good evening, good evening. I have the pleasure this afternoon read the proclamation that will be presented to the National Sickle Cell Association in regards to recognition for National Sickle Cell Wellness Month. From the Office of the Mayor of the City of Fort Lauderdale, proclamation, again, in recognition of National Sickle Cell Awareness Month, requested by Commissioner Pam Beasley-Pittman. Whereas sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder affecting approximately 100,000 Americans that alters the shape and the function of red blood cells, restricting healthy blood flow throughout the body. And whereas sickle cell disease affects more of a diverse background, and particularly common among those with ancestry from Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Middle East, and India, and the Mediterranean countries, underscoring the importance of education, screening, and awareness. Whereas individuals living with sickle cell disease may experience severe and recurring pain, frequent hospitalization, other serious complications that can be affected by their daily lives, and overall quality of life. Whereas the Foundation for the Sickle Cell Disease Research was founded in 2012 as a national first outpatient center dedicated solely to sickle cell disease, provides specialized care, advanced research and support to individuals and families throughout its networks of 15 sickle cell disease centers of excellence across Florida. Whereas the National Sickle Cell Awareness Month provides an opportunity to increase public understanding, recognizing the strength and the resilience of individuals and families affected by sickle cell disease, and supports ongoing efforts towards better treatment, equality care, and also ultimately a cure. Now, therefore, we, the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim September 2026 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Month. Dated this the second day of September, and it is signed by our Mayor, Dean Trent Ellis. We would be honored if you would grace us with some words, please.

Good evening, everyone. I am here this evening on behalf of our President and CEO, Dr. Lynetta Bronte. My name is Kyla Thorpe-Rissett, and I serve as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, Thank you so much for presenting this proclamation and recognition of National Sickle Cell Awareness Month. It is truly an honor to accept it on behalf of Dr. Bronte, our organization, and most importantly, the individuals and the families affected by sickle cell disease. At the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research, we operate 15 medical centers throughout the state of Florida, providing specialized care and support to people living with sickle cell disease, whom we proudly call warriors. Every day, we have the privilege of serving an extraordinary community of individuals who demonstrate tremendous strength, courage, and resilience. National Sickle Cell Awareness Month is an important opportunity to educate the public, bring greater visibility to this disease, and remind our warriors that they are seen, supported, and not alone. Recognition from our community leaders helps amplify that message and encourages continued community support, research, access to quality care, and meaningful action. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, we sincerely appreciate your leadership. and your commitment to recognizing the sickle cell disease community. This proclamation is a powerful acknowledgement of the lives, experience, and needs of the individuals and families we serve. Again, on behalf of Dr. Bronte and the entire Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research, thank you for this incredible honor and for standing with our sickle cell warriors. Thank you.

Great, thank you so much. Our final presentation tonight, I'd like to invite our fire chief, Stephen Golan, and invite the 2026 USLA National Lifeguard and Junior Lifeguard Championship winners to please join us here at the podium. Come on, guys. That's all of you. Come on up.

Let's go.

All the sound of metal right there, huh?

Heavy metal.

No, everyone together.

You're blocking my view.

OK, Chief, it's all yours. All righty. So good afternoon, everyone. Standing before you this evening is our junior lifeguards and our lifeguards protecting our beaches on a daily basis. Our junior lifeguards are our group that over the summer learn what it takes to be a lifeguard. Then at the end of the summer, they have the opportunity to compete. And normally it's a different location. Last year, the Ocean Rescue Lifeguard Chief Alex Bagwell came to me. and spoke about hosting the competition for USLA here this year. I don't think she realized what she was getting herself into when she made that commitment to us. But 12 months later, over 1,200 competitors from all over the United States, as far away as Hawaii, joined us here in Fort Lauderdale Beach. USLA said that it was one of the largest competitions they've ever had in the history of the organization. It's important to point out that it's not only just 1,200 competitors, but it's also the family members of those competitors contributing to hundreds of hotel stays and all the other parts that take place by them being on our beach. The other side of that is this is also the 100-year anniversary of our Ocean Rescue Program. So this is a program that is truly the ambassadors to our beach. The individuals that anyone visiting Fort Lauderdale comes in contact with on a daily basis, whether it's from the safety of when to go in the ocean to what restaurants or hotels they should see, this is the group standing before you that provides all of that as our ambassadors. So today, this evening, we just want to take a second and recognize all that they did. Not only did most of the ones that are in uniform compete, but they also were putting the entire program together simultaneously. So literally coming off of the water and immediately helping the other teams from all over the country and putting it together. This all took place during, of course, our summer storms here in Fort Lauderdale and the lightning. It was rather interesting while I was out there to hear Some of the teams from California who aren't used to lightning, seeing the lightning strikes that were way offshore, and they'd go, and we'd be like, no, no, get in the water. You're fine, you know? So it was really interesting to see all the different teams from all over the country. Alex and all of the lifeguards, I couldn't be prouder of all that you all do on a daily basis. However, this truly took it to the next level. So this evening, we have our first, second, and third place winners. And if you would please join me in just giving them a congratulations.

One, two, three.

Thank you. All right, juniors, next summer, right? You guys ready for another summer, I hope.

We lost our audience. What happened? You know, I know this was a happy moment for us all to share, but let us not forget the importance of why lifeguards are a significant part in our community here in Fort Lauderdale. You know, those who drown, who die from drowning, the numbers are too high. And water safety is so important here in our community. So if you have an opportunity, if you're a child, try to join a class or a community that teaches you how to swim. It's so very, very important that you know how to swim. But even if you know how to swim, Sometimes wave action, undercurrents and so forth can be so dangerous. Always pay attention to what the flags say, the lifeguards say, whether you should go into the water or not go into the water. It's really, really important. And we are a yachting community, we're a boating community, and we're a swimming community. And to be mindful of the risks that these types of recreational activities provide to us We'd be ignorant if we didn't pay attention to the rules and to make sure that water safety is very much a part of your life. So I want to congratulate again all the youngsters who were able to achieve the level of success in the competition. And I want to thank the coaches and the teachers that provide the talent and the direction to these individuals, these young adults. And I think it's so important that we continue to recognize them as future leaders of our community and that You know, they're the ones that are going to be saving us as we try to take part in the beautiful environment in which we live. So, again, congratulations to all of them. And, Chief, thank you so much for helping us recognize these individuals. So, okay, having said that, okay, so now we get into our agenda, and we have the consent agenda. I'm going to ask any member of the Commission if they have any consent agenda items they'd like to pull. If they do, then we'll discuss and vote on them separately. Otherwise, all the consent agenda items will be voted on together. Mr. City Manager, were there one or two that you wanted me to remove? Yes, Mayor. CR1 and CR2, please. CR1 and CR2. Okay, so those will be pulled and will not be voted upon tonight. And...

Mayor, I think we're going to vote on them. Just pull them for individual recognition. Oh, I see. For discussion.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood that. Okay. So we'll pull CR1 and CR2. And also, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, are there any that you wish to pull tonight? CM3. CM3. Okay. And Commissioner Glassman? None. Thank you. And Vice Mayor?

None.

Okay. So... Except for CR1, CR2, and CM3, do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda items? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And those consent agenda items are now approved. If you are here on any one of those, congratulations. Your item has been approved. And we invite you to remain for the rest of the meeting.

I GUESS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO REMAIN FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING.

FINE. OKAY. CITY MANAGERS, CR1.

YES, SIR. I THINK WE HAD A I THINK REPRESENTATIVE LAMARCA WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THESE TWO ITEMS. OKAY. CR1 AND CR2, CORRECT?

VERY GOOD. YOU'RE BACK AGAIN. DID YOU BRING A CHECK? Just the one, sorry. Just one tonight.

So I'm not sure which one is CR1, which one is CR2?

You can speak to both of them.

All right, so I have the privilege of being here with some folks, and I want to give you a little bit of background. In Tallahassee, we get to work on legislation, policy, We get to try to ask for money for resources, as we just did earlier today. And then one of the committees that I was privileged to chair the last couple of years, Economic Infrastructure Handles, something you've probably seen before, road designations. And I was talking to my wife. One of my last few weeks going to Tallahassee, I wanted to get something into a bill. And she said, you know, why don't you recognize people who were significant in your life? And there's some in other cities, but one of the gentlemen that we decided to put in the transportation package, which included road designations, was Phil Smith, a late auto dealer. I'll read just something real quick because I think it's important to understand what some of these giants of our community did, and the other one has quite a representation here tonight. But Phil Smith, the late auto dealer and philanthropist who passed away at the age of 70 after suffering from ALS, known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Phil Smith owned automobile dealerships in Lighthouse Point, Lauder Hill, Pompano Beach, Vero Beach, and Tallahassee. as well as dealerships in North Carolina. He and his wife Susan spent recent years giving away millions of dollars to Holy Cross Hospital, Florida Atlantic University, and other institutions such as Cardinal Gibbons High School. He donated a $5 million gift with his wife to Florida Atlantic University's College of Business in Boca Raton where he is an alum, and a $7 million gift in September to Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale to create the Phil Smith Neuroscience Institute at Holy Cross Hospital. Smith wanted to pass on to his alma mater what he learned about being an entrepreneur. He believed that treating customers and employees well came first. Under the Phil Smith Management Company, he led an automobile dealership and property management company with 780 employees, and some $500 million in annual revenue. Smith once owned as many as 17 auto dealerships in Florida and North Carolina. He also owned the Coral Ridge Country Club in Fort Lauderdale. Smith bought into a small Toyota store in Homestead. Southeast Toyota distributor's chief, Jim Moran, needed to approve the purchase, and Smith recalled Moran as a legend and inspiration. Just as Moran had helped him once, Smith worked with promising employees to help them become part owners in each of his ventures. Smith served on boards for FAU as well as the Orange Bowl Committee and other nonprofits, mainly in health and education. He was honored with the Nova Southeastern University's Entrepreneur of the Year, Northwood University's Outstanding Business Leader, Leadership Broward's Leader of the Year, and Junior Achievement's Business Leader Award. The road designation will be identified as Phil Smith Memorial Highway, located on North Federal Highway. U.S.-run State Road 5 in Fort Lauderdale from Northeast 38th Street at the south end to East Commercial Boulevard, State Road 870 at the north end. Phil was a good friend. He was a giant in our community. But he, as well as the other gentleman I want to talk about, were very significant in my success in public service. And we're very supportive. The other gentleman, and you'll see by the full left side of the room here, is a gentleman we lost too young by the name of Terry Stiles, late builder developer from Fort Lauderdale. Terry built the Stiles Corporation from a small contracting business to develop building and managing 24 million square feet of office buildings, retail centers, industrial buildings, parks, corporate parks, associations, and public facilities. Mr. Stiles helped shape the Fort Lauderdale skyline, developing more than 4 million square feet of development in the Las Olas Boulevard corridor. Working in conjunction with the late H. Wayne Huizenga, Mr. Stiles was larger than life and loved his employees as if they were one big family. The company is being led now by Terry's son, Kenny Stiles, who is here. Former Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Siler said, quote, he helped our town mature into a city. When Terry Stiles proposed a project, I knew it would be well received by the community. A lot of people have learned that when you do something right in Fort Lauderdale, you do it the Stiles way. Mr. Stiles was sincere, genuine, and self-deprecating. He was also an alumnus of Northeast High School. Where our commissioner, Easley Pittman, also went, as did I. Go Canes. We say that in the Northeast High School form, not the college form. In 1985, Stiles won the Sun Sentinel Excalibur Award, annually presented to the top business leaders who also demonstrate outstanding community service. The Terry W. Stiles School of Real Estate Development was also formed at Nova Southeastern University's H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship to honor the memory and legacy of Terry Stiles as a visionary real estate developer and as a Broward County business leader. This designation will be identified as, quote, And it will be located on East Las Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale from South Andrews Avenue at the west to Southeast 6th Avenue at the east. And worthy of saying, we had the opportunity to work together. Terry and I, along with some other Northeast High School graduates, and I think it was when your city attorney was a commissioner in the great city of Oakland Park, your next-door neighbor, and we were able to finally shine a light on some investment that needed to be made at that Northeast High School facility. And there's now a two-story building standing there. And it's really in part thanks to Terry's initiative to get some community leaders together, as well as Keith Koenig and Alice Jackson. So, Mayor, Commissioners, I appreciate your time and indulgence on these two items. I hope you'll support them and hope we'll all get together once the Florida Department of Transportation puts the sign on the road.

All right.

Very good. Thank you so much.

It's really an honor for the city, members of this community, and members of this commission to be able to participate in this recognition, and we're very happy to do so. Kenny, do you want to say anything? Where are you? Where did he go?

You're hiding back there. Now, I just want to say thank you for taking this as a resolution here. I really want to thank Chip. This was a surprise to me. I had no clue he was doing this. And when I got the call, I think Mayor Seiler back in the day. We've talked about this for years and nothing's really come of it. So for you to take this to the state level, I really appreciate you. I know everybody here is as excited as I am. It's an amazing honor and it's something my family is very proud of. So thank you.

Thank you. So with civil law introduced, CR1, this is with regard to the Phil Smith Memorial Highway. Introduced. It's been introduced. Please call the roll.

Resolution City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida supporting honorary designation at that portion of State Road 5 US 1 between Northeast 38th Street and East commercial Boulevard in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida as Phil Smith Memorial Highway and providing for an effective date Commissioner herbs mr. Glassman. Yes, mr. Beasley Pittman. Yes vice mayor Sorensen.

Yes Yes, and Sierra one is now approved CR to the resolution supporting the Florida legislature's honorary designation and of State Road 842 between South Andrews Avenue and Southeast 6th Avenue as the Terry Stiles Memorial Boulevard. Someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Resolution's been introduced. Please call the roll.

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, supporting the honorary designation of that portion of State Road 842 East Los Angeles Boulevard between South Andrews Avenue and South East 6th Avenue in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as Terry Stiles Memorial Boulevard and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glassman?

Yes.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And congratulations. It is now recognized as the Terry Stiles Boulevard. You too are invited to remain for the rest of the meeting.

I guess not.

I don't take it personally. No, worry about it.

Never did. Congratulations. Thank you. Yes. Congratulations.

Okay, CM3, Commissioner Beasley-Fittman.

Yes, thank you. I ask that we pull this. I am in support of approving this funding from Florida Department of Transportation. I just wanted to bring some light to it. It is in regards to awareness campaign for bicyclists and pedestrians. And in the six-month quarter, we were blessed to receive funding to add the pedestrian crosswalks to the boulevard. And I'm really excited and why I asked for this to be pulled. I also wanted to bring attention from a conversation I had during our agenda briefing and wanting to make sure with our campaign of advising or educating everyone about the safety, I want to make sure that we are going to take it to the next level with explaining to the community where the crosswalks are and what they are, and also to the drivers that are coming through the community. I had talked about the opportunity of having those intersections raised, but understanding what a conversation we had, including fire rescue, how sometime that does cause a delay with our first responders coming through with the the elevated roadways. So we did talk about the opportunity for having visual cues on the actual asphalt. So individuals will know that they are coming up to a crosswalk. So I wanted to make that a part of the record, saying that this is what we would like to see on that corridor. Because there are individuals who are attempting to utilize the crosswalks. But being that drivers are not familiar with why these lights are flashing to the right or to the left of them, we want to make sure that we give a great campaign. And I know with STRATCOM we will accomplish that. But I wanted to take the opportunity. to share that, have it part of the public record. And with that being said, Mayor, I would like to move this forward for the vote.

Okay, so there's a motion to approve CM1. Do I hear a second? Second. Move the seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Glassman. Before I vote, Mayor, I just want to ask the City Manager, with regards to this item, On August 23rd, on NBC National News, there was a very enlightening piece done about safety as it pertains to e-bikes. The startling number of accidents, the startling number of injuries across the nation is really something to pay attention to. Will this grant program enable us to in any way talk about that kind of safety, or is it just... your typical bicycles and pedestrian safety, or will there be any opportunity to educate about safety with regards to e-bikes?

Yeah, Chief Schultz will come up and speak to that.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commission, Chief Schultz. Yes, this grant is primarily meant for pedestrian crossing, but it's certainly also meant for our traffic unit to do enforcement. So with that, and we've had discussions about this before with the developments in our own city ordinances, I too agree that e-bike safety is a true concern. in our safety and in our city and well beyond. So this grant specifically is meant for pedestrians, but bicycles, as you know, are being ridden in pedestrian areas, so it certainly will have a crossover.

Okay. Thank you. And if anyone has not seen it, I would just recommend it. It's a very enlightening piece that, again, was on NBC National News on August 23rd. Thank you, Chief. You're welcome. Thank you, City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. All right. So since you brought up e-bikes, where do we leave things off with regard to e-bikes entering public parks? Remember we had a discussion regarding that. We were saying that because of the potential for – interaction with pedestrians and people who are not on bikes in these parks, especially the way some of these bicyclists are you know, kind of rampaging through the parks. Where have we left off on that?

Good evening, Milos Mestorovic, Transportation and Mobility Department Director. Thank you for the question. First of all, we have been working on the ordinance to bring for, before City Commission, for consideration. Over the last couple of months, we have created a working group. We started actually in early 2026 with the Police Department, Parks, City Attorney's Office, and Transportation and Mobility. We have a solid draft of the ordinance. We plan on bringing A DRAFT TO CITY COMMISSION DURING CONFERENCE PRESENTATION ON OCTOBER 6TH, FOLLOWED BY HOPEFULLY FIRST READING ON OCTOBER 20TH AND THE SECOND READING IN FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER.

OKAY, GREAT.

AND THAT WOULD COVER THE PARKS AND ALSO SIDEWALK AREAS, SHARED USE PATHS AND SO FORTH. OKAY, EXCELLENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY PLEASURE. I APPRECIATE THAT.

We already voted on CM3, correct?

No, we were in the middle of it.

Okay, so let's vote on that.

Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes, and that item is now approved. Moving on to motions. M1, motion authorizing the purchase of excess workers' compensation insurance, Safety National Casualty Corporation, known as Sign Up to Speak. Does anyone have any questions with regard to this? If not, Some would like to move the item moved do I hear a second? Second second did please call the roll Commissioner Glassman yes, Commissioner Beasley Pittman.

Yes vice mayor Sorensen. Yes, mayor Trent else.

Yes, and I'm ones now approved M2 motion approving a service agreement with court Cortada foundation related to the execution of a sculpture in Esplanade Park in the amount of $75,000 And no one is signed up to speak. Does anyone have any questions with regard to this? There being none So I like to move the item moved second move the second did please call the roll Commissioner Glassman.

Yes, mr. Beasley Pittman. Yes, vice mayor Sorenson.

Yes, Mary Trent all yes, and m2 is now approved Our one appointment of board and committee members. Mr. Clerk. Would you please read the names into the record?

Thank you, Mayor. For the September 15th resolution, Board of Adjustment, Danella Williams, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen. Nuisance Abatement Board, Avigdor Pemper, nominated by Commissioner Glassman. And for tonight's resolution, Beach Business Improvement District Advisory Board, Ina Lee, that's the Greater Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce representative. Lori Johnson, primary member, representing the Westin Fort Lauderdale. Lisa Namor, Neymar, Neymar, primary member, and Priscilla Guardo, alternate member for the Bahia Mar. Cody Bertone, primary member, and Alex Caceres, alternate member for the W-Fort Lauderdale. Michael Berry, primary member, Alvaro Hernandez, alternate member for the B Ocean. Jose Torres, primary member, and Samuel Fierston, alternate member, representing the Ritz-Carlton. Malik Caro, primary member, and Jenna Borregin, alternate member, representing the Four Seasons. Sharon Howell, primary member, and Carlos Young, alternate member, representing the Courtyard Oceanside. Stuart Levy, primary member, and Jeanette Alvarez, alternate member, representing Hotel Marin. Robert Lackley, primary member, representing the Conrad. and Jeffrey Peterson, primary member, and Daniel McDermott, alternate member, representing Sonesta Fort Lauderdale. For Board of Adjustment, Deborah Peters, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen, James Brenner, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen, Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board, Olga Zamora, nominated by Commissioner Glassman, Education Advisory Board, Martha Gutierrez-Steinkamp, nominated by Commissioner Herbst, Public Art and Placement Advisory Board, Carly Sumner, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen, Tara Rose, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen, Tyena Daraville, that's consensus designee of the chair of the Broward County's Public Art and Design Committee, and that rounds it out.

Okay, are there any additions or modifications to those recommendations, those nominations? Okay, they're being done. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll.

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or nominating, if applicable, Board and Committee members as set forth in the exhibit attached here to may depart hereof. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Chantel?

Yes. And those appointments are now approved, and I want to thank those individuals for volunteering their time in the betterment of our beautiful city. R2, a resolution authorizing the issuance of a water and sewer revenue subordinate bond in the principal amount of $121,250,000, and a water and sewer revenue subordinate note in the principal amount of $1,179,649,650. Give or take a few. For the Prospect Lake Water Treatment Plan. Oh, so that's why they gave the presentation. See where our money went. Butter us up. Okay. Would someone like to introduce the resolution?

Introduce.

Okay. The resolution has been introduced. No one has signed up to speak. Any questions or comments? I think we're all pretty much assured of what's going on here. So, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

A resolution of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, authorizing the issuance of a water and sewer system SUBORDINATE REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2026 IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $121,250,000 AND A NON-INTEREST-BEARING WATER AND SEWER SUBORDINATE REVENUE NOTE SERIES 2026 IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,179,649,650 AS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN DETERMINING THE DETAILS OF SUB-SUBORDINATE BOND AND SUBORDINATE NOTE AND DELEGATING TO THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES THEREIN WITH THE PARAMETERS SET FORTH HEREIN AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION AUTHENTICATION Delivery of said subordinate bond and subordinate note appointing the city as paying agent and bond register Authorizing other required actions and providing an effective date. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Swartzen. Yes.

Mayor Trentals Yes, and R2 is now approved. Thank you very much for your good work in this regard and Spend it wisely. Okay. R3, this is a quasi-judicial appeal, a final order of the Board of Adjustment regarding case number PLNBOA 2602001-1017 regarding Southwest 19th Street. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in, and the commissioner will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received that make them a part of the record. I have a couple people sign up to speak. Staff want to? Yes, okay. I was getting to that. So this is an appeal filed in accordance with Sections 47-24.1 and 47-24.12 and 47-26B.1 of the ULDR as a result of the Board of Adjustment entering a final order denying a variance application for the case number that I just described, which is PLNBOA2402001. A single family residence located at 1017 Southwest 19th Street in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33315, seeking variances to allow an accessory dwelling to remain as built encroaching on the rear yard setback. The petitioner is Sharon Duncan. So Section 47-26B.1 of the ULDR provides as follows. If an appeal is filed from a Board of Adjustment decision, the City Commission shall hold a public meeting on the record and shall determine if a there was a departure from the essential requirements of law in the proceedings appealed or b competent substantial evidence does not exist to support the decision. I'll repeat that. We have to determine whether there was a departure from the essential requirements of law in the proceedings appealed or whether there was competent substantial evidence that does not exist to support the decision. If the City Commission determines that there is not a departure from the essential requirements of the law or that competent substantial evidence exists to support the decision, then the decision will be upheld through the adoption of a resolution upholding the Board of Adjustments' final order of denial. If the City Commission finds either there was a departure from the essential requirements of law in the proceedings or that competent substantial evidence does not exist to support the decision, then the City Commission shall adopt a resolution setting a de novo hearing. In accordance with Section 47-26B.1 of the ULDR, The de novo hearing shall be set for hearing no later than 60 days from today. At the de novo hearing, the City Commissioner will either reject the decision of the Board of Adjustment, approve or amend the decision of the Board of Adjustment. Now, the City Commissioner will first hear from the applicants, followed by Deputy City Attorney Dwayne Spence, representing the Board of Adjustment, and then we'll hear public comments. The applicant may come forward to present its appeal at this time. Good evening.

Evening, Commission. My name is Miles Jolly. I represent Sharon Duncan, the applicant in this variance. This appeal, as you read through, all stems back to an accessory structure that was built in my client's backyard. Unfortunately, she trusted somebody who claimed to be a licensed contractor who turned out not to be. He told Ms. Duncan that all the work would be permitted, would be properly approved according to the city requirements, including the ULDR, and that turned out not to be the case. Now, Ms. Duncan was told that a permit was applied for, but that was with respect to an addition and a renovation that was done to her existing property. All that was permitted, properly approved, closed out, no issues. This structure that we're talking about tonight was not included on those plans by this unlicensed contractor, unfortunately. My client was not aware until the city came knocking and she had several violations for unpermanent work. Is this, we're talking about the whole building? No, we're just talking about an accessory use structure in the back. It's like a 10 by 12 with a frame roof. And that's, that's what we're talking about today.

I understand that, but I'm looking at the exhibit, exhibit, exhibit seven. It's the shed, right? Correct. It's the whole shed?

Correct.

And it encroaches how?

So there were three variances that we requested. The one that was denied was encroaching on the rear setback of 15 feet for a structure of this type. We were asking for a variance to cover that distance. It's approximately five feet from the rear property line. Right now it's five feet? Correct. And the requirement is 15 feet? That's correct.

Okay.

And so when we filed the appeal, you know, in more detail, we explained all the facts that I just went through. And the board approved two of the three variances that we requested, but they denied the one for the rear setback that you just asked about.

What were the two that they approved?

So the two that they approved, there's one, a setback for mechanical equipment that's attached to the same structure. And then there was another variance that we requested for the lot size, because the lot size is slightly small for the minimum size required to have an accessory structure like this. So the board approved those. And the board approved those all in the same set of facts that we presented in support of all three of the variances.

Miles, did the board, and it's not clear from the minutes, what rationale or basis did the board provide for approving the two but denying the third?

So for the two, the rationale that they provided was that there had been a unique hardship that had been shown based on the fact that Ms. Duncan relied on a contract. Unlicensed contract. did not bring this upon herself. She thought she was doing everything right until she found out after the fact that she had been lied to and been taken advantage of, unfortunately. But that rationale, it's sort of inconsistent between approving two of the variances and denying the third because they're all based on the same facts and the criteria is the same for each one of the variances. They all have to be decided based on the same criteria and the same set of facts. our belief is that there was no confident substantial evidence to have denied that one while they also approved two of them based on the same circumstances.

Right. And the one that they approved was mechanical, right?

Yes.

And the other was another setback for... It was a minimum lot size requirement.

Correct.

Right. So they viewed the hardship that she experienced being that she hired a unlicensed contractor without being aware of it, and that was the hardship that they supported to allow for the passage of the two.

In addition to the other criteria, which talks about impact to the community, there are a couple of other adjacent properties that have similar structures like this that are close to the setbacks. None of her neighbors voiced any sort of concern In fact, the president of the Neighborhood Association said that everybody had no problem with it, period, in the neighborhood. And at the end of the day, this... What neighborhood is this in? River Oaks. Correct. Oh, okay. And then in addition to that, this is an RSA zone property. It's an approved use as long as you meet all the technical requirements to have one of these structures there. So it's not necessarily... a use that's not in line with the ULDR. It's just these technical requirements that weren't met. And to Ms. Duncan's credit, the second she found out about it, she immediately went to work trying to get this permitted and approved the right way. So in addition to the lack of competent substantial evidence to deny the one variance that was denied, we think it also departed from the essential requirements of the law because the criteria are the same. for each variance no matter which one the Board was considering. So if they applied those criteria to the variances that they approved, they necessarily must have applied the criteria in an incorrect way to the third one that they denied because they're all the same and all the facts supported the two that they approved. So for those reasons, we would ask that the Commission adopt a resolution finding that there was a lack of competent substantial evidence to deny the third variance that denial departed from the essential requirements of the law and setting a de novo hearing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Just one quick question. I apologize. So maybe if you could just expound upon the fact, so there were three motions, right? At a board of adjustment.

Correct.

And they did grant the request on two out of the three.

Correct.

So the main issue again was what was the problem with the third one that they denied five to one? Fifteen feet setback. Just that? It's only five feet, right?

Correct. That's the only one that was denied. But it was all, the presentation and the variance application for all three of the requested variances, it was all one package, were all based on the same set of facts, considering the unlicensed contracting issues, the fact that she was taken advantage of, and everything else. So if those facts were sufficient to approve two of the requested variants, it would necessarily follow that that third one should have been approved as well. Understood. Thank you.

So wait, before you sit down. So when this person, this person get, did your client get title insurance?

I believe she does. So this, this all happened after she had owned the property. I mean, this, she had owned the property for, I think, roughly 10 years. And then she decided to do an addition. and build the structure in the back that she said was fine, according to her contractor.

Okay, so she didn't buy this with the addition already there. She built it herself. Correct. Okay. That's correct. I understand. And so she engaged a contractor that did get permits or did not get permits? He got permits for part of the work that he performed. Did he get permits for the main structure? The main structure, yes.

And the city approved it based on the site plan that was presented to us? So the site plan that's in the packet, that's the site plan with the structure on it. The permit that this unlicensed contractor applied for did not have that in there. Unbeknownst to my client, she relied on this contractor. She thought everything was included, but it was not.

Mayor, if I can add, so I've been to the property and met with her. Oh, wait a minute.

Before you say anything, I forgot to ask about disclosures.

Yep.

What are your disclosures?

Disclose site visit with the applicant.

Any communications with the applicants?

Yeah, when I visited, I was communicating with her and with Ted, the neighborhood president.

Okay. Commissioner Gassman? None. I have none. Do you have any? None. Okay.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to... No, no. Yeah, I forgot. Glad you caught that. Glad you caught that. So she... And Miles, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. She was doing two things at once with this unlicensed contractor. One, she was doing some renovation to her main house. Okay. He provided... permit approval for that part of the project. She was also having this accessory unit built. He did not provide permit for that and didn't indicate that. Furthermore, because he's unlicensed and she engaged the state of Florida, he's now being investigated by the state of Florida and his lack of licensure is being addressed. So I just want to add, did I say that right?

Just to clarify that last point, it's actually been addressed. The DBPR found him guilty of that, including the licensed individual that pulled the permits and applied for them. They both have been found guilty of the various allegations and That's all. At least a year ago, that's already been decided.

Got it. Thank you. And one other question, Miles, for the two that passed, for the mechanical, is it... a mechanical setback of 15 feet that they approved a variance for that mechanical setback? Is that language correct?

So not exactly. I don't remember the exact dimensions. It's not exactly 15 feet. I think mechanical equipment's got to be five feet from any... any property line, at least the rear. But this one was, I think, within a foot of that. Okay. But that was approved.

Okay. So it sounds like there was maybe a smaller variance was maybe part of their thinking. Okay. Great. And probably for the second one as well, a smaller...

The distance and for the third that was denied. It was about, so the other one that was approved was a minimum lot size. I think there was about 1,200 square feet that it was undersized, that the property was undersized to have an accessory structure on it. The minimum is about 10,000 and change and the property is about 9,200. Got it. Okay. Thanks.

So is the mechanical what we're seeing on page two here, which looks like an air handler or something?

That's right. It's a small individual unit air compressor. Yeah.

Okay. All right.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. City Attorney, so isn't there a new law on accessory dwellings that precludes cities from denying the right to build an accessory dwelling? Do you know what I'm talking about? Didn't the state legislature recently pass something about accessory dwellings in their attempt to try to create more affordable housing? You know what I'm talking about?

No, I don't know specifically what you're referring to, Mayor. But I would like Mr. Spence to address this matter because he's here on behalf of the Board of Adjustment, and I believe he could answer those questions and, of course, address Mr. Jolly's.

So, Duane, do you know what I'm talking about?

Oh, yes. So that law allows for the use of accessory dwellings without a need for rezoning, but it doesn't preclude the requirements to obtain permits and get the right zoning for that accessory structure.

So even though it's on a smaller lot, the statute doesn't, preempt us from denying them the right to build there?

Correct.

Okay.

Correct. They can build the structure if it complies with our zoning code. I see. Okay.

But could you classify this structure as an accessory dwelling unit? I don't think it has everything that you would need to define an accessory. Well, it doesn't matter.

It's moot anyway.

I know, but I just would like to know the answer to that. Would this structure qualify even as an accessory dwelling unit? I don't think so.

So, under our code, we had We define accessory units as being habitable and in terms of this unit, it's not, it doesn't fit the definition of a single family dwelling unit, but it does meet our code definition of an accessory dwelling unit.

Does it have a bathroom bathroom in the kitchen?

It doesn't.

So how could that be an accessory dwelling unit?

It's a habitable space.

Okay. Interesting. Okay.

That was going to be my question as well, because I'm hearing accessory dwelling as well as a shed. So I was going to ask, could we define what are we talking about, accessory dwelling or a shed?

Right. So a shed is non-habitable and it has different setbacks. If this were a shed, I believe, and Anthony can correct me, I believe it would have met the setbacks if it were a shed. But the size of the structure is larger than the square footage allowed for sheds in the city of Fort Lauderdale.

So they're sort of caught between a rock and a hard place here.

All right. So good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Commissioners. My name is Dwayne Spence, Deputy City Attorney on behalf of the Board of Adjustment. Before you today is the first part of a quasi-judicial appeal. At this first part, your decision is whether or not the... review of the variance request whether or not to review this variance request de novo your determination today is limited to the two things which are whether or not the board of adjustment departed from the essential requirements of law or whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the board of adjustments decision in this case let's begin with the essential requirements of law With this analysis, this standard requires a showing that the Board of Adjustment applied the incorrect legal standard or misapplied the correct legal standard to the facts before it. The record shows that the Board of Adjustment followed the review process exactly as set forth in the ULDR. The application was properly noticed and heard at a public hearing on April 8, 2026. The speakers were sworn, allowed to present evidence, and allowed to argue their case. The boards deliberated based on the applied criteria within section 47, 24, 12, A4, and they voted. The applicant in their notice of appeal suggests that the inconsistent conclusion in the approval of two variances and the denial of one variance is somehow a departure from the essential requirements of law because the decision is based on the same facts and argument. However, he fails to indicate the law or principle that supports the incorrect application of law in that instance. In terms of competent substantial evidence, the second prong is whether or not competent substantial evidence exists to support the Board of Adjustments decision. Relevant and material evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the board's factual finding. Substantial evidence does not mean overwhelming evidence, it does not mean uncontested evidence, it means that the evidence needs to be sufficient to support a particular conclusion. And so that is what you are weighing here. It's not a re-weighing of the, evidence itself. You're looking at the record, and what you have before you is the minutes of the Board meeting. You have the submission from the applicant, which is the evidence that the Board considered. Will a reasonable person consider this substantial to support the decision to deny this particular variance request? EARLIER YOU HAD QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE VARIANCE REQUESTS WERE. I'LL BRIEFLY GO OVER THOSE REQUESTS. THE FIRST REQUEST WAS IN A RS8 DISTRICT. THE LOT HAS TO BE 10,000 890 gross square feet in order to allow an accessory dwelling. This lot is smaller than that. And so it was that variance request that was granted. So based on that variance request, they can now have an accessory dwelling on that lot. The other request... Do you want to start for that first one?

So for the lot size, what was the essential requirements of the law that they based that on?

The essential requirements of the law goes to the proceeding itself. As I've mentioned, that notice was had. It was a public hearing. Individuals were sworn. I think your analysis tonight should be based upon the competent substantial evidence question and whether or not the evidence that was presented, whether or not there was competent substantial evidence to support it. In this particular case, the applicant is not challenging the approval of that particular variance request. Sure.

But what was the substantial evidence that they based their decision on for that variance approval?

It was the information on the record as stated by the applicant's attorney.

You're not going to get an answer.

No, the applicant's attorney answered that question earlier.

Okay. Why don't you restate it, please, just to refresh your memory.

He stated that, as the record shows, that they had indicated the issue with the contractor.

Okay, so having an unlicensed contractor provides substantial evidence to grant the variance.

The record that the Board of Adjustment based their decision upon, apparently that was the record.

And you support that?

You agree? It's not whether or not I support that or not.

Do you agree with that?

It's not my place to say whether or not I agree with that.

Okay. Okay.

So an unlicensed contractor... So what the Board of Adjustment, and you'll probably get there if you want to go to a de novo hearing, they have... They have criteria in the code, five criteria that they have to find that a variance meets in order to grant that variance. That analysis, the record doesn't show that that analysis has been done. If that is a clear enough indication for you.

So the Board of Adjustment did not do a thorough analysis of the five step, five indications. Is that what you're saying?

So, Commissioner, what I'm saying is the record speaks for itself, and I think that the line of questioning may result in a challenge to the actual variances that were granted in this particular case. Okay. In other words, you won't have any of the variances if we continue down this line of questioning.

Okay. Great. Why don't you go to the second variance then? What's the substantial evidence for that?

Same thing? Again, if I can refocus you a bit. So your task here is to determine, you all are to determine whether or not the record shows that there is evidence to base that decision upon. They are challenging the denial of this particular case. It's very, you can look at the record and you can look You have that prerogative as the four of you sit here to look at the record and say, as I read the minutes, as I review the packet, do I think that this is competent evidence to support the decision of the Board of Adjustment? That's completely a threshold issue for you all to decide.

Can you define hardships?

But our code says these are the five things that they would have need to prove in order to be awarded a variance, and it requires meeting all five of these criteria. It says that a variance from the terms of the ULDR shall be granted only upon the demonstration of a unique hardship attributed to land by proving, by preponderance of evidence, all of the following criteria. A, that a special condition and circumstance affecting the property at issue would prevent reasonable use of such property. So that's the first hardship standard, that the use of the property would be prevented, the reasonable use of the property would be prevented by a special condition that they mention in their application. The second, the circumstances which cause a special condition are peculiar to the property at issue or at a small number of properties that they clearly constitute marked exceptions to other properties in the same zoning district. Three, that the literal application of the provisions of the ULDR would deprive the applicant of a substantial property right that is enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. It shall be of no importance to this criteria that a denial of the variance sought might deny the owner of a more profitable use of the property, provided that the provisions of the ULDR still allow a reasonable use of the property. D, that the unique hardship is not self-created by the applicant or his predecessor, nor is the result of mere disregard or ignorance of the provisions of the ULDR or antecedent zoning regulations. And the last, that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property and that the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ULDR. Great, thank you, that helps.

Duane, I'm sorry, would you read C again for me?

that the literal application of the provisions of the ULDR would deprive the applicant of substantial property right that is enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. It shall be of no importance to this criterion that a denial of the variance sought might deny the owner of a more profitable use of the property, provided that the provisions of the ULDR still allow a reasonable use of the property.

Thank you. Do you mind? I have a question. Sure. And I have very mixed feelings about this because it's an interesting case. You have to understand what's happening on all sides. But when I listen to what you're saying, so let me ask you this question. If you wanted to get these variances in the future or anyone else, are we basically saying just hire an unlicensed contractor and then use that as a reason for you to get the variances?

I don't think the decision of the Board of Adjustment or your decision tonight creates any precedence in that sense, but I do think that in terms of the integrity of the code, that they should evaluate each variance request based on that criteria of the code and determining whether or not they meet that criteria.

I understand what you're saying. I'm hearing other things, though. I'm hearing that we should take into consideration other factors. But again, I'm nervous about that because once you do that and you say to someone, we feel bad that you hired an unlicensed contractor, maybe that should have been vetted before you hired the contractor, then we're saying to anybody else, hey, just go hire an unlicensed contractor and tell us you got taken. I mean, am I making any sense at all or am I looking at this the wrong way? Never mind. It's a rhetorical question. Thank you.

Following up, though, on the Vice Mayor's questions, what was the substantial competent evidence to allow for the compressor?

But that's not being challenged.

No, no, I understand that. It's not being challenged. That's the whole point. Could that same substantial competent evidence be applied to the one that was denied? is the same set of facts on all three applications. And why couldn't the same substantial competent evidence be applied to the actual dwelling itself? The bottom line here is if we agree with the Board of Adjustment, they've got to tear down the building and there's going to be a compressor sitting out there five feet within the property line, which makes no sense to me whatsoever. And the fact that they allowed for the accessory dwelling to be built there but just said it can't be built there it has to be built somewhere else on the lot within 15 feet away from the property line now i don't know how narrow the property line is i mean i guess if they moved it over 15 moved it over 10 more feet you know that would bring it into compliance but getting back to the vice mayor's question you know the same substantial competent evidence that was found for the compressor might also be found for the building itself.

That is the argument that the applicant's making, yes.

Yes, I know. Okay. Another rhetorical point. Okay. Is that complete? It does. Okay. I have a couple people sign up to speak. So Ted and Sarah, followed by Miles Jolly. Yeah, but that's you. Yeah, okay.

Hello, my name is Ted and Sarah. I'm the president of the River Oak Civic Association, and I live about just a few houses down from Sharon Duncan. The proper person that should have been punished was punished, the contractor. We can't then punish her also for something that she really was out of her hands. I mean, to make her tear this thing down, it would be the worst crime than anything. She's a great, the River Oak Civic Association supports her unanimously. The neighbors support this thing unanimously. This has been hard on her, on her well-being, on her mind. And while this was going on, she still, two weeks ago, like she always does, volunteered at our Green New Routine, Starlight Musical, when River Oaks had that. She's at all of our Green New Routine, Clean the Streets Day, and all those things. Her special needs son actually is a greeter at our River Oaks meetings. and sells our 50-50 raffle tickets at the front desk. I mean, this is a lady that is involved in all parts of the neighborhood, and this is just an unfortunate situation. And to do two out of three, I just don't understand that from the beginning. And we can't go ahead and punish her, you know, also. And we speak in favor of Sharon. I speak in favor of her.

So let me ask you this. Okay. Apparently this was just part of a job that this lady hired this contractor for, right? Yes. So are we to assume that she was unaware that he was unlicensed for the rest of the project as well? Like other work was done. So all done by an unlicensed contractor. Was she unaware of that?

I don't believe. Do we know that? You're right. We don't know that, right? But this was never, there was no plumbing in this. This was never supposed to be an inhabitable dwelling in the back of her house.

No, I'm talking about the main house, I understand, had work done.

Right. Mayor, she was unaware he was not licensed for the totality.

For the totality. Yes.

Thank you, Ben.

Okay. Yeah, so I'm saying that we stand behind her, the neighborhood stands behind her, the Civic Association stands behind her, and we would like you to also, you know, stand behind a good contributor to our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak on this item? There being none, do I hear a motion to close public hearing? Moved. Second. The move is seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Tullis? Yes.

Yes. So I'll now open the floor for discussion amongst the commissioners. Anyone else want to make any comments or continue the discussion?

I'll reiterate my view is that the I think that the reliance upon competent and substantial evidence, if it's applicable to two of the variances, it begs the question, why was it not applied to the third? And so for those reasons, I think it was competent and substantial evidence does not exist to support the decision of the Board of Adjustment. approve all three, deny all three, but I'm not understanding the difference in my read of the evidence that indicates a different evidentiary basis for denial and support.

So you feel there was a departure from the essential requirements of law then?

I feel there was a... No, I feel there was a... that competent and substantial evidence does not support the decision of the Board of Adjustment. That the evidence that I'm understanding they base their decision on is not competent and substantial. And thus, we need to have a de novo hearing to evaluate it as a commission.

Okay. Anyone else have any comments or questions?

Just that, does the motion also have to include setting that de novo hearing with a date, or is that a separate motion?

It needs to be within 60 days, and we will make sure that that happens within 60 days.

Okay. All right, so if the commissioner finds that there was either a departure from the essential requirements of law in the proceedings appealed, or that competent substantial evidence does not exist to support the decision, that commissioner may introduce a resolution to set a de novo hearing. And please state as follows. And this is what you want to say, Commissioner, Vice Mayor. I introduce a resolution to set a de novo hearing within 60 days to review the Board of Adjustments final order as there was not competent substantial evidence to support the Board of Adjustments decision. Is that your statement, Vice Mayor? Yes. Okay. Okay.

And we'll include a date. David, do you have an idea of when a good date would be within the next 60 days?

Agenda-wise? I mean, I guess anywhere from next meeting to... Within the next 60 days.

How about October 6th?

October 6th. Okay. Can I add that to the resolution? Is that amenable? Okay. So, Mayor, I'd like to introduce that. Okay.

So the resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll.

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, regarding the appeal of final order of the Board of Adjustment regarding case number PLN-BOA-2610. 0-2-0-0-0-1, denying one of the three variance requests of the applicant, Sharon Duncan, making certain findings and setting a de novo hearing to consider the appeal before the City Commission at 6 p.m. on October 6, 2026, and providing an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And so that resolution is approved, and... There will be a de novo hearing on October 6th.

Thank you.

Okay, moving right along. We are now on public hearings, looking at PH1, public hearing. This is a second reading, an ordinance amending the city. of Fort Lauderdale Unified Land Development Regulations to amend the list of permitted and conditional uses of the community business and boulevard business zoning districts to add... I don't know. Why are we doing this?

We know how it's going to work out.

TO ADD FORTUNE TELLERS, PSYCHIC READERS AS ACCESSORY USES TO RETAIL SALES. I DIDN'T REALIZE. OKAY. SO HERE WE ARE. NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. SOMEONE MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOVED. SOMEONE MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOVED. SECONDED. COMMISSIONER GLASMAN. Yes.

You're not carnet. Yes. Vice Vice Horton.

Yes.

Mayor Trent Thomas.

Yes. So public hearing is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduce. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll.

In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Unified Land Development Regulations, Article 2, Zoning District Requirements, more specifically Section 47-6.10, List of Permitted and Conditional Uses, Community Business District, and Section 47-6.11, List of Permitted and Conditional Uses, Boulevard Business District, to include fortune teller psychic readers to the list of permitted and conditional use tables for the Community Business District and Boulevard Business District, Providing for correction of scrivener's errors several ability repeal conflicting towards proficients and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman Yes, mr. Beasley Pittman. Yes vice mayor. Sorensen.

Yes, Mary Trent halls Yes, and pH was now approved pH to public hearing second reading an ordinance amending the city of Fort Lauderdale unified land development regulations Regarding fences walls and hedges and to revise the method for measuring height of fences and walls No one is sign up to speak. I do have a question though Who on city staff can help me here? Okay. So, Anthony, so if the measurement begins on the neighbor's property, which is probably lower, so if a person's going to build a seven-foot fence, It may end up being only three or four feet on the property owner's side.

Understood. Anthony Fajardo, Director of Development Services. So the way we handle it, the grading of the property now has to go down to no more than one foot adjacent to the neighboring property. No more than one foot. No more than one foot. So the grading helps resolve that. So what we did was we... said you have to measure it from the grade of the neighboring property, so that accounts for the one foot, so you get to six feet of solid fence. And then we announced for another foot of architectural features that would allow some light and air to come through, but allow some additional privacy to kind of get some parity between the two properties next door to each other.

Right, but you're saying it can't go down more than one foot?

Exactly. So what you would end up with is an overall fence height if you measure from the ground of seven and a half feet versus six and a half feet.

Okay, all right. I just want to make sure of that because... Because the reality is if it went all the way down to the neighbor's property, it could be possibly only three or four feet.

Right. Okay. And that was the problem before we changed the requirements for the grading at the edge of the property.

Okay. Got it. All right. Very good. Okay. So no one assigned to speak. Would someone like to move to close public hearing?

Move.

Second. Seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Bittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And public hearing is now closed on PH2. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance?

Mayor, I'd like to introduce it, but I just want to take a moment. So, this is something Anthony's been working on a long time. We had, I've been just involved with it for a while, too. We've had, Mayor, we had some high fences and walls as a result of this grading challenge. So this correction, I know it may sound a little nuanced, but it really is going to make a difference to have uniformity in neighborhoods, and it's going to be a great outcome. And I just want to recognize, Anthony, you were doing, who else, remind me who else was involved in just from a staff side.

Yeah, Carl Ann Devenish and Orlando Orem.

Okay.

And we had a couple of people, Ella Parker was involved in the process, Jim Hetzel. But, yeah, it was definitely a team effort, and we did a lot of outreach and discussion with the neighborhoods to make sure that we weren't going to get sideways with anybody. So we're pretty happy with the result. We hope it's going to resolve the problem. We're pretty confident that it will.

Yeah, I think it's great. I don't know, city attorney, how involved your office was. They were very involved. As well, right?

Work in progress.

That's what I thought. So thank you. I just want to thank this. D. Wayne Spence. D. Wayne, thank you. This took a lot of hours of nuance. So thank you, Mayor. I just want to support it and move it forward. Thank you.

Okay. The ordinance is introduced. Please call the roll.

In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the Unified Land Development Regulations, Article 1, General Requirements, more specifically Section 47-2.2, Measurements in Article 3, Development Requirements, more specifically Section 47-19.5, Fences, Walls, and Hedges, to revise the method for the measurements of the heights of fences and walls, and providing for correction of Scrivener's errors, severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, and in fact, date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Gentiles? Yes.

Yes, and PH2 is now approved on second reading. PH3, public hearing, second reading, an ordinance amending the City of Fort Lauderdale Unified Land Development Regulations regarding Historic Preservation District, including an update to the list of permitted uses and limitations on permitted uses. One person is signed up to speak, Ted and Sarah.

Ted and Sarah, President of River Oaks. I'm sorry, I generally don't like to speak on two different items in one night, but I couldn't help it tonight. But I just want to speak on this area, Second Street downtown. I've worked on Second Street for over 30 years. I started at Bonton Square with the Lang Yap Cajun House. Then I worked at the first restaurant people's, the restaurant down there, the Himishi Bar and Grill. tarpon bend the river house and then i spent uh i worked from the day it opened to the day it closed for 13 years at the ob house so i know second street and i know back in the day it was a it was a great street and it's had some of its problems you know now with with the problems of underage people and you know all the problems that we have but i i just i just want to say how great you know Fat Cat's has the best Philly cheesesteak in Fort Lauderdale. And that we have to, you know, having a late night live music area of town is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. As long as it's policed properly. And I have all the faith in the world and Police Chief Schultz that he can figure out a way to make this a better area for the people. But I just don't, you know, I read the list of all these new permitted, you know, things that can be used. Man, talk about psychic readers and all that stuff. There was candle shops and shoeshine shops. There was all kinds of things. There's actually a grocery store that was listed as a permitted possibility there when I just like to bring up that River Oaks and Edgewood. doesn't have a grocery store for a long time. We really need one bad. But one of the things that caught my eye on this possible list of uses is the mixed use development. That to me, I don't want to see Second Street turn into Northeast Third Avenue and have it look like I've seen all these reimagines of these neighborhoods, all these renderings. They all look exactly the same. Flagler Village, lower the South Rack of Andrews Avenue, the North Andrews Avenue. Sister, they all look, the big square buildings, your gym at the bottom floor with a bagel shop, and then residence right above it, all square. You got a couple of the Simpson Stoppers trees along the sidewalk with a cutout, you know, eight feet tall. And they all look the same. The city is all looking the same too much all over the place. You know, it does need help. It does need work. But please, let's keep the integrity of Second Street with what, you know, I work in the restaurant business. You know, when you guys get off at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, you don't go home and go to bed. You know, you go to happy hour and do this. When you're in the restaurant business, you get off at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock. So, I mean, we just don't run home and go to bed. I mean, that's our time. It's nice to have a late night area of town as long as it's policed properly and done properly. But we don't need to change it really into just to look like Flagler Village and the rest of what the city of Fort Lauderdale is becoming. Thank you.

Boy, I was right on time.

I happen to like Flagler Village. I think it's a wonderful component of our city, and I'm sorry it doesn't look like River Oaks, but not everybody likes all the same thing. So there's no one else who signed up to speak. Would someone please move to close public hearing? So moved. Do I hear a second?

Second. Second.

There's pulling teeth here. Please call the roll. I'm closing public hearing.

Commissioner Glassman?

Yes.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis?

Yes. Public hearing on PH3 is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced.

In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Section 47-16, Historic Preservation District of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Unified Land Development Regulations to update the list and limitations of permitted uses Providing for codification and correction of scrivener's errors and for an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen?

Yes.

Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And PH3 is now approved on second reading. This is OFR1. This is the first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances to increase water fixed cost recovery. Establish multifamily fixed charges based on dwell units behind the meter. revise irrigation volumetric tiers, update water capital expansion and miscellaneous fees, and revise leak and unusual consumption credit provisions. That's a mouthful. No one has signed up to speak.

Mary, if I could. So who's speaking? Right down here. Hi. In the draft ordinance that was presented with this item for tonight, we failed to include the credit for the wastewater side of things. So we have the 12-month average credit for the water credit. So we're asking it to be approved as amended so that we can include that sewer credit on second reading. Okay. So, as amended, would someone like to introduce the ordinance?

Mayor, if I could just say this. We've all been working on this. We've all been talking about this. This is a pain point for so many of our residents in Fort Lauderdale when they're getting bills that are not accurate or they're having leaks. And so this, I'm just... Pat, the commission on the back for now expanding the degree to which city staff can credit neighbors for leaks and errors and so forth. So just thank you. It's needed. Really appreciate the work we're doing as a commission. It's just I'm just grateful for that. And thank you, staff, Yvette and Linda and Al and everyone else who's been part of this. Thanks, Merrill. Happy to, what do you want me to do, introduce it? Introduce it as amended. As amended.

Okay.

For approval.

For approval. Okay. Any other comments or questions? There being none, please call the roll.

So this is as amended? As amended. As amended. Okay. In Ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to increase water fixed cost recovery, establish multifamily fixed charges based on dwelling units behind the meter, revise irrigation volumetric tiers, update water capital expansion and miscellaneous fees, and revise leak and unusual consumption credit provisions. Provide for severability, provide for repeal of conflicting ordinances provision, or all for repeal of all ordinances in conflict and provide for an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman?

Are you sure, David?

Yes. Vice Mayor Swartz? Yes. Mayor Trintos?

Yes, and OFR 1 is now approved on first reading. OFR 2? Yes. First reading of an ordinance amending the non-bargaining unit compensation table of Schedule 6 of the pay plan of the City of Fort Lauderdale, providing for a 3.5% general wage increase effective October 11, 2026. No one has signed up to speak. Anyone have any questions or comments? There being none, would someone like to introduce the ordinance? The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll.

Ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida vetting the pay plan of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida by replacing the non-bargaining unit compensation table with a revised non-bargaining unit compensation table replacing schedule six special employees with revised Schedule six special employees thereby providing a three and a half percent general wage increase to all non-bargaining unit employees and all schedule six Special employees and providing for severability where people conflicting orders provisions and an effective date. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Mr. Beasley Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorenson. Yes. Mayor Trent Tullis.

Yes, and OFR 2 is now approved on first reading. Now we're going to have a number of ordinances on second reading, which I'll go through and start with OSR 1. This is an ordinance amending Chapter 15, Article 10 on vacation rentals to clarify enforcement authority and so forth. No one has signed up to speak. Someone like to introduce the ordinance?

Mayor, this one is for defer to September 15th. Oh, I see that at the end. Yes. Okay.

Never mind.

Moving on. Just a motion.

Oh, do I have a motion to defer to September 15th? Second. 2026. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Glassman? Yes.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trenton?

Yes. And OSR 1 is now being deferred until September 15th. OSR 2. This is a second reading of an ordinance repealing the ordinance number C-84-88 to facilitate the renaming of Southwest First Avenue and Northwest First Avenue from West Lussells Boulevard West to Sistrunk Boulevard to Mary Brickle Avenue. No one decided to speak. Anyone have any comments? There being none, please call the roll. Oh, someone would like to introduce your ordinance. Introduced. Your ordinance has been introduced.

In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, repealing ordinance number C-84-88 in order to facilitate the renaming of Southwest 1st Avenue and Northwest 1st Avenue from West Los Angeles Boulevard to Cistern Boulevard of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Mary Brookle Avenue and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, and effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

I'm going to say yes, but I really think we could have been more creative instead of calling it Mary Brookle Avenue, like Mary Brookle Way, or something more charming than avenue. But anyway, I... I vote yes. But I just think we could have been a little bit more creative. Because I know what we're trying to do here. We're trying to create a neighborhood street that is defined by the spine of Northwest and Southwest First Avenue. Because it goes right into Fat Village. But anyway, it is what it is.

So Mayor, actually, we're bringing that item. I'm over here again. We're bringing that item. We're planning to bring an item. This voice of God is here. A ventriloquist. We plan on bringing an item to the next meeting to apply the name to this street again. So Milos could maybe tell us if there's options. Do you have a more interesting or creative? It's okay.

I mean, I'm just thinking aloud right now. Mary Brickle Way would have been a little bit more, you know, charming than, you know, Avenue. No.

What's the definition for like avenue, place, street they have? Do they not fit specifically?

Yeah, I think you're right. I think there's certain, I think certain streets go north, south versus east, west, yeah. But I think way goes north, south also.

Yeah, way goes north, south.

But in Miami, what is their Mary Brickle, Is it Mary Brickle Boulevard? I think it's Mary Brickle Boulevard.

I believe it's Brickle Avenue as well.

It's Brickle Avenue.

It's Brickle Avenue.

It's Brickle Avenue, but they have Mary Brickle Village. That's what it is. It's Mary Brickle Village. So maybe we shouldn't have Avenue if they also have Avenue. No, it's Brickle Avenue. Right now we have Brickle Avenue.

Yeah.

But calling it Mary Brickle Avenue... That'd be confusing. Call it Mary Brickle Way...

I just think it's nice. It's nice. I agree. It might be confusing if we have a Brickell Avenue and a Mary Brickell Avenue. People might get a little confused. I don't know. All right, we'll bring it back. Yeah, all right.

Wait.

Blame it, Andy, blame it.

All right, OSR 3. This is a second reading in Ordinance Amending the City of Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Buildings and Construction, including Article 2, Permits and Inspections to Revise the Private Provider Permit Fees and Fee Reductions in Compliance with State Legislation. Yeah, I know, I heard that they passed something. Okay, so we've had one person assigned to speak, Mr. Ian Cohen. Mr. Cohen, good evening.

Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. As CEO of Inspected, a private provider operating in 400-plus municipalities throughout Florida, I worked with state legislators on updating Florida Statute 553791 as part of House Bill 803. Hospital 803 was adopted to bring a higher level of uniformity from a process standpoint so contractors could get permits issued faster and more efficiently. This also required building departments to update outdated processes, which I'm happy to say Fort Lauderdale has actually done. The problem here is the implementation of a fee schedule that is grossly out of compliance with state requirements and is based on a methodology that is severely flawed. Let me first start with the compliance aspect of this issue. The plain language of the statute states, if a fee owner or fee owner's contractor retains a private provider for purposes of plan review or building inspections, the local jurisdiction must reduce the permit fee by the amount of savings realized by the local enforcement agency for not having to perform those services. Your building department has led you all to believe that adding a private provider to to a permit requires a whole lot more work, and that is blatantly false. See, one of the key changes that we made during the updating of the statute was that we added a registration process. So you didn't have to submit reams of paper with every single permit application. All of that stuff was housed with the billing department. And that registration process allows the private providers to be approved well in advance of permit applications. The only difference now... is that this document accompanies a permit application, and your building department has led you to believe that it takes an hour to read a three-page document. The actual name of the fee on the permit invoice is called a fixed permit provider fee.

I'll give you a little bit more time. I mean, we're probably going to approve this. Yeah, I know.

Yeah.

All right. Is that what you're asking us to do?

I'm asking you not to because – You're asking us not to approve it. It is – when I tell you it's grossly out of compliance with statute – You're saying this is not consistent with the statute? Permit – so contractors right now are being charged $400 to hire a private provider, $400 more than they would have paid working with the city directly.

But isn't that a benefit to the applicant to be able to expedite the permit process?

No, no, no. So as I was saying, if you're an HVAC contractor and you decide to work with a private provider, a typical permit fee would call $150. To hire a private provider, they're paying $550 for that permit fee. Total. Total. And why are we charging another $400? because the billing department has led this group, or the commission, to believe that there's a whole lot more work being added to the process. Well, why don't we ask our staff?

Good evening again, Mayor Anthony Fajardo, Director of Development Services. So we are in a weird situation here because of the way the state wrote the legislation. There's two pieces of legislation we're dealing with. One is the private provider reductions of fees, which says 25% or 50%, depending on what you're doing, inspections or inspections plus player review. The other is the methodology by which we determine our fees. Our previous methodology was to do it as a percentage of construction costs. The state has now said that we have to do a methodology for cost recovery. They also said that we can have reasonable indirect costs as part of that. What we're doing to deal with that is we've got two components. One that went into effect July 1st, which was the private variety fee. The methodology has to be effective by January 1st. So what we did was we went to cost recovery for private provider. We had two that we did. We did one immediately so that we could come into compliance by the July 1st date. So we used the methodology that the state put in the second legislative amendment to do cost recovery. We got pushback, and we talked to our city attorney's office. I've also subsequently spoken to the auditor about the methodology. But what we did was we took out the indirect fees so that we could have a lower rate and let our consultant who we're bringing on, which is Stantec, do a proper study about all of our fees so that we could come into compliance January 1st for everything. It's kind of a weird situation that we're finding ourselves in. So larger projects that had a private provider They've seen a substantial reduction in their fees. Smaller projects, like the ones that he does, have seen an increase in fees. And it's just an outcome of the methodology. This isn't a situation that the city caused, and we're doing our best to come into compliance. If you want more details, I have Assistant Director Juan Rodriguez here. He helped put all this together and can give you a lot more detail or answer any questions. But the result is, by January 1st, all the fees are going to change again anyway. Stantec is probably going to say that we have to increase it again because we're artificially low.

Well, I mean, in terms of actual cost recovery, other than using the methodology that we were assigned to use, can we put our own limits on how much we charge?

So there is a provision in the legislation for private provider. You do have the ability to do a deeper discount. to go beyond the cost recovery, if you so choose. We were functioning under the previous direction, which we've heard from the commission on multiple occasions, to at least do cost recovery. So that's why we did it that way. But you do have that option.

But I mean, like in this particular situation, if someone is applying to replace their air conditioning system, does it cost another $400 to...

So what was happening was, as a percentage of the fee, basically... We weren't doing cost recovery before. For these smaller projects, we weren't even covering our costs. But the larger projects kind of made up the balance for that when you average it all out. That's why it's resulted in these smaller projects going up. But I would say that we did do an analysis. We got it just today. Some of the fees did go up. Some of the fees went down. It just depends on what you're doing on these smaller projects. So we don't have the ability to divide and conquer. We can't say larger projects are one methodology and smaller projects are another methodology. We have to be consistent across the board. And in the current situation that we're in, and in speaking with the city attorney's office and the auditor, I'm just not sure what other options we have at this point.

Well, can you use the same methodology but then put a cap on how much you can raise? For example, if I were replacing my air conditioning system and I was told my permit fees went from $150 to $550, I mean, it's a big jump. Can you say it's a minimum of $150 and no more than like $300? What I'm saying is you can put a cap on things.

Would we still be shortchanging our development department? Well, any situation we're in, we are shortchanging the development department. The paperwork that was held up a little bit ago by Mr. Cohen, that's not just the paperwork. So everything that is included in that fee is every time someone touches it when it first comes in the door, and then every time someone touches it going out the door. So the assistant building official, the building official are involved in the COs for those things. So that paperwork was designed to cover it all so we could keep it to a minimum. I think the problem or the challenge we would have is determining what types of permits and what methodology would fit into this type of situation versus the larger projects. We are using a base fee for everything and then cutting that fee down. The base fee originally was $131 or 1.75%, whichever was more. So... Okay. Yeah, and we did have a reduction on private provider before, but it didn't meet the threshold. It was 5% and 10%, I believe, so this takes us to 25% and 50%.

Okay. Mr. Rodriguez, you want to add to this?

No, everything that Anthony said is correct. It depends on the specific case example, depending on the construction value of the project, of whether they're under this new permit fee schedule, if they're actually going to be paying more or less. So because we cannot use that old methodology anymore, then we have to go to a straight cost recovery fee with the applicable reductions according to the state statute.

And is it our position that we want a 100% cost recovery on big and small projects?

So typically that's what the minimum we would do, but the state is now mandated because of private provider, they would get a 25% discount for inspections and a 50% discount for inspections and plan review. So we are automatically not going to make ourselves whole because of legislation, but it's okay. I mean, that's what the law says.

So for smaller projects, even though we're charging more than we had, based on the cost recovery model, we are still not operating from a full cost recovery standpoint?

We are not.

Okay.

$137 sounds really cheap, to be honest with you. I know the inspection process. I've been through it a few times, and I can't imagine we're recovering our costs at that level.

So the other part of this equation is to remember that when we go through this overall study of all of our permit fees, because right now we're focused on private provider because we had to do that by July 1st, but we have to do all of our fees. When that comes back to you, probably... in December, because we have to have it adopted before January 1st, you're probably going to see, A, all the regular fees that he's concerned about. And I understand the differential, because you do look on the website and it says, if you're a private provider, it's going to be this. If you do it yourself, it's going to be a different fee. Right.

Right.

But... When we clean this all up later on, it will have parity, and then you'll see that whatever that base fee was for the regular permit will then be cut for the private provider per the statute for the 25% and the 50%. So it should all even itself out in a couple months. We're just not there yet. because our fees are very complicated. It takes a lot of work to go through that, which is why we hired a consultant. The last time we did it in-house, it took us many, many months. I think it was well over a year, city manager, that that took. So we know we have these deadlines, so we felt it was necessary to have a professional come in and do it for us.

Does the revenue from the permitting, does that go into the general fund?

No, that goes to the building fund.

That's what I thought. It goes to the building fund. What's the balance of the building fund approximately right now? And then my next question, Anthony, is could we set an artificial cap on cost recovery? For example, for these next several months, could we say 25% cost recovery for everything?

I'd probably want to defer to the city attorney to see if that's something that would be palatable. I'm not sure.

We'd have to carefully calculate that. And they have done the analysis and determined that these fees are. APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT, AND I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS THAT WHEN THEY APPLY THE FINAL ANALYSIS OF IT, IT'LL ALL FLUSH OUT. SURE. BUT IT MIGHT BE PREMATURE TO TRY TO DO THAT AT THIS POINT.

SO, VICE MAYOR, WE DO RUN MODELS WITH STANTEC EVERY YEAR, SO JUST LIKE WE DO FOR THE GENERAL FUND, WE DO MODELING WITH THEM FOR OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS LIKE THE BUILDING FUND. You know, we'd have to look, and we have looked in the past at what it would look like to run into a deficit year to year based on our fund balance and drawing that fund balance down because there's also a statutory requirement to maintain a certain fund balance. We can't go above a certain threshold for a statute. So, you know, certainly we can look at what that looks like, but, you know, I'd want to model it and make sure we're on the right track. And I do want to mention, too, I just don't want it to be lost with the fees for these private providers right now. We are really looking for cost recovery on the administrative process to do the paperwork attached to the private provider application and finalizing the project. The private provider is the one doing the work with the plan review and the inspection. they're charging their customers whatever it is for that for their cost recovery. We're focused on this, just on our cost recovery for the administrative process to manage the program.

And is there a way to make, because I want to incentivize private providers doing their work, because in my mind that should then lessen the burden on city staff. But it's sounding like there's still a significant administrative burden on us, even when a private provider is doing it.

So there's an administrative burden. And I want to be clear that when you're looking at a typical private provider project, what I call typical is... a very large project so a pier 66 something like that was a private provider project when we looked at our prior fee structure and we were doing the same permit multiplier that we do for every other building permit plus a little bit of a discount those permit fees would be in the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF, YOU KNOW, MILLION DOLLAR RANGE. WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW GOING TO A VERY, VERY SMALL AMOUNT FOR THOSE PROJECTS BECAUSE IT'S JUST ADMINISTRATIVE PAPERWORK, WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE STATE'S TOLD US TO DO. WHERE MR. COHEN AND FOLKS THAT OPERATE IN THE KIND OF TYPES OF PROJECTS THEY WORK ON, when you look at a $10,000 job and you look at our 1.7% multiplier now, that would have been 187 bucks just to come get a permit as a contractor through your city process. So yes, the new fee of 400 some odd dollars for that permit, is an increase, but I think as Anthony had said, when we go back and we look at recalibrating our building permit fees under the statute, which we can't use the percentage of job costs anymore, we have to look more at that cost recovery model for all those building permits, this may level out and we may be able to go back and revisit it. But it will take us until that time unless there's an interest in kind of artificially, almost arbitrarily, but artificially reducing this private provider fee at this point.

Yeah, I mean, because it would only be for a short duration while we're in this limbo until we hit January and then adjust. Yeah. Sorry. Fund balance. Thanks.

So, Yvette Matthews, Assistant City Manager. So, our fund balance in the building fund is about $26 million. Their operating budget each year is about $30 million. So, we are below that statutory requirement, which is a four-year average of their operating expenses. So, this is a very healthy fund.

Yep. Okay. Thank you. Okay, yeah, I mean, Mayor, I'd just be interested in is there a way we can figure out how to lower the cost recovery percent? And again, my view is it's only for a short period of time, so even if we are running a little bit of a deficit while we get to December, January, we'll survive. Sure. Sure.

Go through the calculation as is required, but also just put a cap on it. Because for mom and pops like us who just want to put a new AC in to spend so much money for a permit, I just think it's a little egregious. Right.

And I just think also with these small projects, Mayor, I just think of... you know, difficult financial times for so many people right now. And so if we can provide a little bit of a, you know, a break that we're able to sustain for a few months.

And also keep in mind, it's a disincentive for some people who say, oh, I don't want to spend the money for a permit, so I'm not going to get one. Right. Yeah. So, so why don't we, would it be okay if we amended this ordinance?

Yes, the only thing I would like to make sure is clarified. Are we talking all private providers, so large project and small project? Because we don't have a differentiation between a threshold range. They increase with the type of project.

Can we differentiate between large and small?

I don't know. Here right now, I don't know where to draw that line, so I'd have to.

Well, we can draw the line based on a dollar figure. So if a project is under $20,000, then we can. We can differentiate that between – I'm just picking a number out of the hat, but $20,000 is usually – people's air conditioning systems – you brought it up, so I'm just using it as an example. But the air conditioning systems are usually under $20,000. Right. Any projects below $20,000, the maximum should be like $300. Anything more than that, there's no max cap.

Mayor, here's a suggestion. Could we defer this and just let staff do a little bit of work on this and bring it back next commission meeting?

Can we defer this? Yes.

We can do that.

Why don't we defer this to the next meeting, give you a chance to.

Yes, sir.

I'm sorry.

Come to the mic.

Yes, sir.

So right now, there's a $400 fee applied to permits right now. So what do we do about that $400 fee? Well, we're going to wait two weeks so that we can – Oh, okay.

It remains until we get a better recommendation and work and then come back. Got it. See if we can find a better fit. Thank you. Fair? Thank you. Anthony, is that all right? Yes. I think that's fine. All right, great. Thank you, guys. Thanks, man. I appreciate that. Do I need to? No, we're just going to.

Yeah, we need to defer to the next meeting. Yeah, we don't need to. Motion.

Do I need to make a motion? Yeah.

Do we need a motion for that? Yeah, it'll carry the advertising.

Someone want to move? So is it to the next meeting or the meeting after?

I'd say the next. Is that?

No, in terms of advertising and so forth.

Oh, yeah, sure.

Do we have the ability to just move it to the next meeting or does it have to be two meetings from now?

If you defer it to a date that's already been advertised, so the 15th will be fine. I think, yeah, we can work this out by then.

Okay, so the 15th of September?

Yes, I'll make that motion to move. Okay, so would you like to second that?

Second. Move to second it. Please call the roll on deferring. OSR 3 to September 15th.

Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorenson? Yes. Mayor Chantalis?

Yes. And OSR 3 is now deferred to September 15th. OSR 4, second reading of the ordinance, amending number C-95-41, which established a defined contribution money purchase plan for certain city employees by changing the plan administrator to one designated by resolution.

No one to sign up to speak someone like to introduce the ordinance introduced yours have been introduced In the ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida amending ordinance number C dash 95-41 by providing for the administrator of the city's 401 a defined contribution money purchase plan to be designated by resolution amending the definition of city sponsored defined contribution plan in section 20-107 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida and providing for codification, severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scriveners errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glassman?

Yes.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And OSR 4 is now approved. OSR 5? Second, reading an ordinance amending ordinance number C-80-67, which established deferred compensation plans for city employees by changing the plan administrator to one designated by resolution and changing the public official designated to make certain determinations. We have two people to sign up to speak, Greg Miller and Jeff Francis. Is this just to answer questions? Who are you? Would you like to speak? Come on up. Greg Miller. You're from Corbridge Financial?

Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and city staff. I'm here, Greg Miller, on behalf of CoreBridge, to respectfully support the retirement committee's decision to select CoreBridge as your retirement services provider. At the last meeting, we were really disappointed at some comments made by one of our competitors and one of the current deferred compensation providers as being displaced. Their comments, which included several inaccuracies, attempted to create uncertainty and fear around the merger agreement between Corbridge and Equitable. During the meeting, they indicated multiple times that Corbridge is being acquired. They questioned our ability to comply with the commitments that we've made. They also made comments indicating that we don't know who our leadership will be, that we don't know where we're going to be headquartered, and that insinuated that we might not be in this business in the future. I want to be very clear here. CoreBridge is not being acquired. In fact, this is going to be a merger between two leading financial services companies where CoreBridge shareholders are going to be the majority stakeholders in the new company. The new organization will be led by the Corbridge current CEO. It'll be headquartered in the current Corbridge headquarters in Houston, Texas. And this merger is not going to diminish our commitment to the city. It's not going to diminish our ability to provide the services that we've agreed to provide to the city. On the contrary, we remain fully prepared and committed to the city to meet the city's expectations, supporting its employees and honoring the terms of the contract. And moreover, we really expect that this is going to unlock more resources to further invest in our business. I know I'm running short on time, and I didn't bring one of those fancy checks, but this change is expected to make some... Sorry, you're out of order. And never come back. You guys won't be voting on this tonight, but since there were comments made... Thank you so much. We appreciate you coming tonight.

Mr. Francis? Is Mr. Francis here? There you are.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Pleasure to see you again on this conversation we're having this evening. And I'm just here to one follow up on the letter that was sent to you after the last meeting and essentially ask for a follow up discussion on a thoughtful pause. I hear the comments made by Mr. Miller. I respect the comments made by Mr. Miller. But I think there's still things that we don't know. And to paraphrase a thought around, you know, trust but verify. And it's an opportunity as commissioners, as a board, to do just that, to take a thoughtful pause, trust but verify, wait and see what occurs with the merger, and then reevaluate. And in that time period, it gives the city the opportunity to make sure that the choice that they made, which we respect, we understand the process, the RFP, the decisions that were made by the committee and staff, but it gives you an opportunity then to make sure that that choice is still the best choice for the city. And more importantly for your employees as you think about their retirement futures. It's such a key benefit item. It's voluntary dollars that your employees are saving on their behalf. for them and their families. And this is an opportunity to make sure that that decision that was made is still the right decision for them. And so they're not sitting there wondering, what are you doing to me? But can say, what did you do for me? And as fiduciaries, that thoughtful pause gives you just that opportunity to sit back, reflect, watch what occurs with this merger, and make sure that decision is right for your employees. And that's the thoughtful pause. And in doing that, As it stated in our letter, we're willing to reduce our administrative service charge down to zero. So therefore, your employees are going to benefit immediately from a cost reduction while you go through the process of evaluating this merger and acquisition. And at that time, make the decision if that choice was the best choice. So with that, again, I appreciate the opportunity for the last 40 years to serve the city of Fort Lauderdale. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you this evening and look forward to continuing this dialogue and this conversation and ask for that thoughtful pause. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Zero, huh? Come back, can you beat that? You pay us, but he has to use you. So City Staff has recommended your company and Linda, you want to come up here and give us the final word on this?

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. So this ordinance is not to change the plan administrator at this point in time. This is just to correct an ordinance change that we had from back in 1995 and 1980 that named vendors as administrators for the plan. What we're trying to do is make it generic and by resolution approve who the vendors are. At the next Commission meeting, we're anticipating bringing the actual award of the RFP that everybody's talking about. But this action is just to be able to allow us to be able to change plan providers without having to do an ordinance change every time we do it.

Got it. Okay. Anyone else have any comments or questions? There being none, would someone like to introduce the resolution? Excuse me, the ordinance, I'm sorry. Introduce. Thank you. Please call the roll.

In order to the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending ordinance number C-80-67 by providing for the administrator of the city's deferred compensation plan to be designated by resolution for the director of finance to be designated individual to ensure certain statutory requirements and providing for codification, severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorenson? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And OSR 5 is now approved on second reading. We have two more items left on the agenda. Now we're talking about resolutions. This is continuing our resolutions agenda. This is R4, Resolution Designating International City Management Association Retirement Corporation. now known, excuse me, doing business as Mission Square Retirement as the planned administrator for the city's Internal Revenue Code Section 401A Defying Contribution Money Purchase Plan and providing for an effective date. Okay, anyone have any questions? There being none, would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution's been introduced. Introduced.

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, designating International City Management Association Retirement Corporation as the plan administrator of the city's defined contribution money purchase plan and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Swartzen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes, and R4 is now approved. R5, a resolution designating International City Management Association Retirement Corporation and Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. Planned administrators of the city's deferred compensation plan and providing for an effective date No one signed up to speak Someone like to introduce the resolution introduced resolutions been introduced Please call the roll a resolution City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida designated

International City Management Association Retirement Corporation Nationwide Retirement Solutions Inc. as planned administrators of the city's deferred compensation plan and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes, and R5 is now approved. Is there any further business of the commission? Yeah, we have the walk-on motion. We have the walk-on, which I have right here. I almost walked away. Oh, here it is. All right. This is an ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale amending the non-bargaining unit class. No. Nope. Nope. Not that one. Where's the walk-on? Where's the walk-on? Oh, just that? Okay. You just want me to sign this? Okay. Okay, this is a motion accepting the grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration for the procurement of vehicle movement area transponders at the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. $54,596. Would someone like to move the item?

Moved.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And the walk-on item is now approved. Now is there any further business?

No, Mayor.

City Attorney, do you have any announcements to make?

No, Mayor.

Okay. Any further business of the Commission? We're good.