City Commission - Regular Meeting

Test 1-2.

Welcome, everyone. This is a special meeting of the Pembroke Pines City Commission of May 26, 2026. Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Commissioner Good?

Here.

Vice Mayor Hernandez? Present. Commissioner Rodriguez? Here. Commissioner Schwartz?

Present.

Mayor Castillo?

Here.

City Manager Dodge?

Here.

City Attorney Gorin?

I'm here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. I invite you all to stand, please, for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by the national anthem.

Mr. Attorney, will you lead us, please? 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,

We'll be right back. Thank you.

Thank you. Be seated, please. Thank you very, very much. If I could, allow me to set the tone for what it is that we're here to do today. And I think everyone on the dais knows this, For those that are listening or who are in the audience today, we are not here today to place any item on the November ballot today. That is not the purpose of this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss whether we want the prospect of a new police station, a new public safety station, a replacement station for Fire Station 69, placed in front of our residents at, what is it, nine town hall meetings that are scheduled?

Yes, Mayor.

Nine town hall meetings that are scheduled to happen in June. The commission unanimously directed that we have nine town hall meetings on the two charter questions that are before the public. We're not going to discuss those two charter questions today. The only question that we're going to discuss today is whether we want to move forward with the presentation of a police station option to the public. So that's all that we're discussing. Shall we discuss this with the people of Pembroke Pines, or shall the prospect of building a new public safety station for the city of Pembroke Pines be abandoned? Now, this station, the new public safety complex, has been part of the city's work plan for well over a decade. I had that conversation with both our current fire chief and police chief, with our city manager who was here since the inception, obviously, of that discussion, with two of the current police chief's predecessors, and also with the predecessor to the fire chief. This has been a discussion that the city has been having for a very, very long time. We are now at the point where we have to make this decision. There will be a presentation given to us by the architect which has been working feverishly for the past year together with the city administration. I want to thank all of you at the fire department, the police department, and the administration for working with this talented man who's going to present to us today his depiction of what this public safety station will be. The last time we went to the public with this, we did not have enough details, they told us. And they wanted a menu option. only one project that they might consider to vote on. We have been listening very, very carefully to what it is that the residents have told us. Now, I want you to know that all of the words that belong here are placed before us, commissioners, and we are now the owners of these words. So if something has to be changed, it can be changed. If something has to be adjusted, it can be adjusted. But I feel it's very, very important if we're going to have nine town hall meetings with the residents of the city about this subject, the public safety complex, that there be some showing of support on the part of this commission. More so than some showing of support. I just want you to know how I feel about this. Having been through all 10 of those planning years, I am convinced that As the first resolution suggests, which is placed before us at the recommendation of our city manager, our police chief, and our fire chief, building a new public safety complex is required to uphold the health, safety, and welfare of the city. The facility is obsolete. It's technologically obsolete. It is not hurricane rated. It is much too small. We have outgrown it. And it is getting in the way of them being able to do a better job, as they must, for a city that is constantly changing during times that are constantly changing. They are recommending that this get done, and I agree with them. If this vote on this dais, and as you know, I vote last, is not unanimous, I will vote no. If anyone here feels that we should not be moving forward with it, I think we should abandon the idea. Because I'm not in the mood to get bitten by the same bee twice. When we went out the last time, it was very difficult to explain why folks should make a sacrifice in their own best interest for the city that they live in when their city commission couldn't even muster up a unanimous vote. Now, that's different when it comes to ballot language. Those are policy questions. This one is about money. And when it comes to something about money and big money like this, in my view, it should be unanimous. So when we take this vote, if anyone says no, I'm going to vote with the no vote. And I'm going to give anyone else a chance to change their vote. And I've checked this out with our parliamentarian. And as mayor, I have that authority. It's not something I'm going to do very often. Once we cast the vote, it should be cast. However, on this one, because of the stakes that are involved, there will be an opportunity. I think it's very, very important, if we're going to move forward with this at all, that it be unanimous and that we be able to say the City Commission is unanimously against it or we're not going to have the conversation at all because the project's been abandoned. At which point, I expect that one of you will make a motion to take this project out. of our strategic plan, because we should not be telling the public that they should expect a new public safety building when we have no interest in proceeding with it. So that sets the stage. Mr. Dodge, I will turn this over to you. And you can introduce the architects who are going to be making the presentation. And then from there, we'll go to the resolutions. Well, there'll be questions, obviously. And then we'll go to the resolutions. Thank you.

OK, thank you, Mayor. I would like the architect to come forward to present the option that staff has worked with. And I think it's very important to notice that the project scope is there. But I will be making a recommendation after we complete the review of the project, having also had an opportunity to hear from our bond counsel, our finance director, and then I'll make a recommendation as to where I think we should be and how we could come up with a number to fund it. But the bottom line is this. The project is the project that's listed, and he is going to share with us what the total cost is, but also included in that cost are close to up to $20 million extra to account for changes in the cost of the project. So we have flexibility. So, sir?

Sir, if you could, there's a button there that says speak. You are now on. If you could please, your name and your affiliation.

Sure. My name is Rodney McManus. I'm the Senior Vice President and Director of Operations for Architects Design Group in Winter Park, Florida.

Welcome.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Dodge, and all commissioners, it's a pleasure to be here. Same with you all too. As the mayor said, we've been working with the city for over a decade now to help put this project together. We believe as well that it's a very important project. We've toured the buildings that are existing. We've seen the condition of them, and we understand the difference between what you have presently and what a state-of-the-art facility could offer.

If you could speak a little closer to the mic.

Sure, sure. and what a state of the art facility could offer to the city of Pembroke Pines. To gather this information, we've met with a variety of police chiefs and fire chiefs. As you said, over the years, we've met with the city. We've met with every department within each of the fire and police departments. We've got a very good idea as to what the scope of the work is that you want to accomplish. We understand how the chiefs want their departments to run, how they want the fire and the police department to function, and what departments need to be adjacent to each other to make that happen properly. We're utilizing the same site, which is a somewhat small site. The buildings that we're proposing are a two-story fire station, along with a five-story police department, and also a five-level parking garage as well, so that we can get all the public and the secure parking accommodated on the site. While we were working with the departments, as you'll see on the screen up here, we've come up with the different needs that each department will require to be the state of the art facility that you would like to have here. In order to get this information, we used a variety of techniques. We had questionnaires that were filled out. We met with the chiefs on many occasions. We've kind of volleyed back and forth with ideas. We've met with every department, and we've captured every square footage or square foot of space that needs to be in this building, we believe. Basically, what we have here is about five acres of site. We have a public safety facility that for the first year, next year, this year, would need to be a little over 108,000 square feet that would also grow in 30 years to 122, almost 123,000 square feet. We've got fire station number 69, which day one, it's not going to grow any over the next 30 years. Oh, thank you. It won't grow any over the next 30 years, according to the information we've gathered. And that would be 21,391 square feet. We have, in addition to that, on the second floor of the fire station, we have, in 30 years, we'll need a 9,189 square foot fire administration area. And then a parking structure with rolling assets storage, both fire and police, that would be 145,671 square feet. And then we've got two decentralized utility plants. This project is going to be built in phases. And so we thought it best to have an individual central utility plant per building. And that would save you money. And it would also allow you to bring those needs on board while you're doing the work on those buildings. So there's no crossing of the construction. And then we will find a new home for the tower, as well as replace the existing fueling depot as part of this project. So when we were working with this, we defined many different development options, one that was built just for the present needs, one that were designed for 15 years down the road, one that was designed for 30 years down the road, the square footage to capture with incorporating shell space for additional functions exactly where they need to be in the buildings as the departments grow. These spaces will be not occupied when they're first constructed, but will be able to be occupied as the building and the needs change. We like to do that because you're building at today's prices versus building at 30 years from now prices, which the construction industry is only getting more and more and more. So that's how we put this together. The option that we're presenting tonight is option C 2.2, which I think you should be familiar with, which shows the new, public safety facility and garage being phase one and the fire station being phase two. We'll first go through the costs that we've outlined. You can see them on the monitors above. The new public safety building, the police headquarters and training construction is going to be 108,853 square feet. That's about 500.

Mayor, can the presenter please put it on the screen so the public can see? I don't have the ability to see it at the moment.

What do you need?

The slides, if they could be aired. Right now, all I'm seeing is the commission desk.

IT, can you air this, please? Commissioner, let's pause. Thank you, Matt. It's important that the commissioner be able to see the information. Is it up? Can you see it now, Commissioner?

It's up. Thank you.

Go right ahead.

It's up. Thank you.

Great. First, we'll talk about what we call development hard costs. That's the building construction and the site development. The hard costs include the new public safety facility, the police headquarters and training construction for 108,000 square feet, 853, 108,853 square feet at $555 per square foot for a total of $59,869,150. Future expansion, this is what I was talking about with the shell space, could be constructed at $450 a square foot. That's 14,088 additional square feet that would be usable in the future for a total cost of $6,339,600. I'm sorry to interrupt. Yes. I just need clarification on if we're going with option C to

2.2 are you saying that it's for the year 2041 or for 2056 it's built the entire space that is going to be necessary for 2056 with the area required for 2041 built out on day one okay and so there will be shared the entirety of the building would be for 2056 correct in not totally built out, not every single closet stack, things like that.

Exactly.

Okay, understood. Thank you.

And the reason we do that is because things might change a little bit. And so to build something for 30 years out can be a little bit hard.

And then would there be additional cost in building?

There would, but it would be pennies on the dollar.

And not building a whole new structure.

Not building a whole new thing. Understood, thank you. The floor, walls, ceilings, everything will be there. And the power, everything. HVAC will all be there. In addition, the parking structure is built for 288 spaces. That's about, or that's at $34,000 per space for a total of $9,792,000. The enrolling asset storage, including 29 spaces on the ground level of the parking structure to be outfitted, takes a total of 24,687 square feet at $220 per square foot for a cost of $5,431,140. And then the PD headquarters utility plant allowance is at 65% of the gross square footage. would cost $5,200,000. My apologies. And that includes the generator, the fuel tanks, fuel pumps, HVAC equipment, protective cages, et cetera, which will harden it for hurricane-rated winds. This also includes the demolition disposal of the existing PD headquarters at $7.50 a square foot for 39,800 square feet, totaling $298,500. And then a new fire station, which will be part of phase two, would be constructed. It would take 30,254 square feet at $625 per square foot for a total of $18,908,750. Along with that, we'll have fire administration utility plant. And that accounts for 35% of the growth square footage at a cost of $2.8 million. And that, again, includes the generator, fuel tanks, fuel pumps, HVAC equipment, and protective cages. The demolition and disposal fees for the existing fire station number 69 are included as well. 24,706 square feet at $7.50 per square foot for a total of $185,295, making the subtotal of the building construction cost $108,824,435. Question. Yes, sir. For all of these square footage,

Because all of this is just an estimate.

Yes, sir.

Did you build in the possibility of future cost? So what did you do? You took current square footage costs for these areas based on your professional experience, and then you added some for possible inflation between now and the time that the building gets built?

That's correct. Okay.

So what was your baseline for square footage construction? Where did that come from? I'm going to be asked this question.

Yeah, the square footage comes from identifying every single room that's going to be needed in these facilities.

No, what I'm saying is where were these market values derived?

Oh, they're based on information that we've gotten for working in Florida for the last 52 years. We've got databases built on it. 52 years.

So this is based on 52 years of experience building buildings like this in Florida. Yes, sir. Thank you. Go ahead.

Sorry, on the inflation part. Understandably, inflation has been rapidly increasing over the last couple of years, much more than what a normal inflation increase data set would provide. So what's the difference that you've placed in it to accommodate for what now is inflation?

We find that it's somewhere between 5% and 6% per year annually. So we have to make sure that the escalations are that. That's how much we see presently. So when we do the project schedule, we look at the fire station. The fire station is going to cost a little bit more per square foot than the police station is because it's being built at a later date, slightly later date. And that's accounting that now inflation goes up much more than, you know, the... Yeah, no, it's a little hard to get a handle on inflation, especially coming out of the pandemic where inflation jumped 20% per year for three years.

Especially in construction, yeah.

Exactly. And then we have long lead time items and things like that. So... We've been doing this a long time, and we've built a lot of projects since COVID had hit, and these numbers are exactly what we see in this industry for this level of building. These are essential facilities, so they're a little bit different than, say, a house or an apartment complex or something like that. They're really built as a Category 5 hurricane. to make sure that the health, safety, and welfare of the police empires are maintained.

Thank you.

Sure. So next we go into site development costs. The PD headquarters and the parking garage occupy about 2.8 acres at about $425,000 per acre. for a total of $1,211,250. And then fire station number 69, with the fire administration and the fueling depot, take up 2.15 acres at $425 per acre for a total of $913,750. The site security systems allowance, which we've calculated, we've worked with our TLC, a company that we've worked with for about the last 15 years to do the security and technology so that we can make sure to capture all this in the the cost estimate. The police department has a $950,000 allowance at 57%. Equates to $541,500. And the fire department, the $950,000 allowance takes up about 43% of that for a total of $408,500. The fueling island allowance, this would also be split 50-50 between fire and police. And that would be $557,500 per police and per fire. And then the communications tower allowance will be done by the city at a cost that's outside of this. And the FDOT, the median modifications and signalization that will happen on Pines Boulevard will also be borne by the city. It's outside of this cost estimate. So the subtotal for the project site development allowance was $4,190,000, which makes the subtotal for the project hard costs, being the site development as well as building construction, a total of $113,014,435. And those are broken into the two facilities, as you can see below. Blue beam police, red beam fire. The project soft costs. This includes fees, furniture, FF&E, fixture furniture, and equipment allowances, technology systems, security systems. So the FF&E allowance, the total is $5,312,040. The technology systems allowance is $5,312,040. And then that's broken out by that. Now, the other things that are not included in this budget are the permitting and impact fees allowance, which would be borne by the city. Testing and inspection fees allowance, also by the city. moving costs by the city. And then here's where we talk about the escalation costs. We've got at a 4% annually for two years compounding would be $9,221,978. And then the project contingency allowance that Mr. Dodge spoke of is at 10%. We've got $11,301,444 as a project contingency allowance to take care of any kind of unforeseen conditions that come up. So that makes the project soft costs. $42,448,945 with a grand total development cost estimated at $155,463,380. So this is the site plan that you have now. You'll see on the left building the PPFDH, fire station number 69. That is the existing fire station.

Oh, I'm sorry? Thank you. Before you move on to this next piece, I just had a couple of questions as you were going through all those numbers. Yes, sir. So I'll work backwards. We can go back one slide. So the mayor asked a very good question, as my colleague Commissioner Rodriguez did, dealing with the cost. Is it based on current numbers, or is it based on a future value? And you had spoke, I may have missed then, The numbers prior to item 10.7 are based on current values. And this 10.7 is based on what the mayor asked in regards to the escalation, as well as Commissioner Rodriguez, the escalation cost or the inflationary cost. Yes, sir. So I seem to have missed that. So the numbers we were seeing prior to 10.7 are based on today's cost. Is that correct? That's correct. And this $9 million is based on a projected two-year increase in cost.

That's correct. And then the $11 million. is for unknown conditions. That's just a contingency. Yes, sir. So it's a total of $20,000, I think.

Yeah, that's something that can be talked about, too. But OK, so all the numbers are today's cost, basically, that we're looking at prior then. Yes, sir. All right, so can we go to the prior slide now? Let me see, maybe this is at number two. Okay, so on 2.3, you have a cost for the fueling island. Yes, sir. I guess that's like a $950,000. So that's... So I'm sort of, you know, because I'm anticipating actually having a meeting in two days from now, not tonight. So pardon me for, you know, some of my questions here. But on... Let me see here. Just give me a moment. Let's see here. Okay, I'm sorry, because the document I'm operating off of is a little bit different. We re-numbered it to make it clearer. Yes, there are errors, right? Because the numbers are not matching, right? My apologies. So we have a 1.7, which is the fire administration utility plan. And we have... 1.4, which is the PD utility plant allowance, which includes the fuel tanks.

That includes the fuel tanks for the generators. Yes, that's all for the generators and the special equipment for the buildings themselves. That's different than the fueling. The fueling is for filling up the apparatus.

So the fuel tanks and the fuel pumps are separated. They're not the same. That's correct. So the fuel pumps are like a fuel island?

Yeah, like a gas pump. The fueling island is a gas pump. So you can fill up your apparatus or your cars.

Right. And that doesn't include the underground storage tanks?

It does for the fueling island. It does. Yes. But we'll have separate storage tanks for the generators at each of those other.

OK, but I'm just still thinking about it, because I don't know why there's a separate. I don't know what exactly is in a site development for the fueling island, as opposed to what is in the building construction, where there's you know a cost associated with that in the hard cost as well so I don't know what the difference is I mean you're not giving us any detail so I can't I can't I can't look and say I know so to me it's like either it's in the hard cost or it's in the site development I don't know why they're separated and it's substantial yeah the hard costs in the site over the building construction and the hard cost combined make up

I'm sorry, the site development costs and the building construction combined make up the hard costs.

Yeah. I'm sorry, say that again?

The building construction costs plus the site development costs together is what we call the hard costs for the process.

Right, and I'm just trying to, determine if there's a double counting or not. I just don't know what is included in the site.

If I understand the question, he would like you to explain what the difference is between the reference of fuel in 1.7 and the reference of fuel in 2.3.

I understand. My apologies for not understanding the question. In 1.7, for the utility plant, and at 1.4, and the utility plant for the police department headquarters. Those would include the fuel tanks and the fuel pumps needed by the generators to provide power to the buildings.

Not fueling trucks or cars?

There's not fueling for trucks or cars. It's only fueling for the generators that would be necessary to keep these facilities running before, during, and after any type of activation. or any type of hurricane or any other event that might happen.

So fueling the generator is a hard cost and fueling...

But I'm not speaking about that. I'm really starting to become a little agitated because I'm not really ignorant to this. Please. What is a fuel pump? It says 1.4.

It says fuel pump. What's a fuel pump? It delivers the fuel from the tank.

Is that tied to an underground storage tank?

It would be, but it would be a separate storage tank that would be located near the CUP, the central utility plant for that building. And then there would be another underground, or it could be above ground, that would be for the fire department. And then that is totally separate.

Okay, so let me break it down. What is the fuel pump in 1.4 and 1.7?

It's the piece of equipment that takes the fuel from the fuel tank and delivers it to the generator as necessary to power the building when the power goes out.

So the fuel pump here is not related to any automotive, OK? No. No. All right, so.

It's not related to any automotive use or fuel at all. It would generally be diesel fuel that we would run the generators off of. The fuel pumps would.

OK, I'm going to let this go, because I want to see probably a little bit more of the details in that, because I understand a generator, and I understand a fuel tank that's associated with it. And a fuel pump is probably a very small part of that entire system, which is weird to pull it out as a highlighted component of the system. And I understand fuel pumps could be the above ground fueling for a fuel island. But you're saying that's not what this is. That is not what this is. All right. OK.

So I'll let it go. OK. For either of the century utility plants, it's not.

OK. So the next question I have. So what is, you are predicating the rolling assets and the parking and all that predicated on some information that was provided to you regarding what we have for rolling assets. Do we currently have all these rolling assets today that have been identified in this?

I don't think so, no. It's an estimate based on what you would.

So what assets do we not have that we have not yet actually determine whether we're going to have them or not. I need to know what that would be for what are the assets that we're considering for the future to be incorporated into this garage. I mean, I think it's important for us to know. I mean, are we at 75% of the rolling assets, 90% of the rolling assets? Is one of the rolling assets going to be some sort of mega cost that we're not aware of yet? I know that you can't answer that question, by the way. You're only operating off the information you have, but I just have a question, and maybe to the city manager. The question is, I don't know what the differentiation of what we have today versus what we're planning for in the next 30 years in terms of rolling asset increase. I mean, replacements is one thing, but increasing the size of the fleet is another thing that I don't know that we even had any conversation about. Mr.

Manager? Yes, Mayor, I think the Chief can address that. We've identified all of our rolling assets, and I believe they're pretty well have been identified. Chief Vargas, do you want to address what additional space there may be for replacement assets or new assets?

Or is it just that you're building the capacity out to growth? So you're only building the thing once? Is that what it is?

Well, I think the rolling assets have pretty well matched what we currently have. There may be some additional spaces, but I'll let the chief talk about that.

Jose Vargas, police chief. Yeah, mainly it would be additional police vehicles as we expand 2056. We're anticipating additional police vehicles. We're anticipating additional assets in terms of if we get an additional full-time rescue, armored rescue vehicle. And some of the rolling assets also include for the fire department as well for their growth. So fire engines and apparatuses. Is that correct, Chief?

So what would help me is then just to have the ability to know what assets we have today and what assets we plan to have in the future. Because I understand having more vehicles. And if it's just police vehicles, I'm not registering very well because they're typically take-home. They're by shift, and they're not typically at the amend office or at the police building, unless maybe you do a roll call or something like that, possibly. But I'd just like to know, what do we have today versus what is it that we're building So I just need to know what that differential is. Yeah.

And we can get you a detailed breakdown. But just to give you a general idea, we also have pull vehicles that we have to maintain. And they're there just in case. And we roll through them as necessary so they don't go bad. Beyond the rolling assets, we have our armored rescue vehicles. Presently, we do have some motorcycles. We also have license plate readers.

No offense, though. Yeah, no. You made a comment just now. If we get another armored vehicle, that was the statement you made when you were making conversations a couple minutes ago.

Right. And I'm listening to those kind of things. I wouldn't be the police chief probably in the year 2050, right? So that'll be a decision that'll probably be done after me. But that option will be there, and these adjustments can be made. I'd just like to see.

Yeah, and we'll give you a detailed breakdown, sir. That's part of the decision-making process.

We also have the portable red light cameras. That's part of our rolling assets. Again, the license plate readers, and we expect that to expand in the future as well, especially the way technology is going.

Where are they at now, by the way?

I'm sorry?

The portable stuff that you just mentioned, where are they at now?

Are they at the- We have them throughout different areas of the city because we ran out of room. So we have some of the traffic lights are out west. Some of the LPRs are scattered throughout. Our second armored vehicle is stored in a different place. I'd rather not get too into it, but- No, I got you.

I don't want to- I mean, I just know that there are other places too, like you said, in the city where we have very large, Space, when I drive by, they're very empty, but they're very large that could accommodate those kind of things, so I mean, I'm thinking about that as well. Other space, as you said, centralized versus a decentralization is another consideration. If everything's gonna come there, then yeah, of course, we're gonna have a need for all this space, The city does have assets throughout the city that is intentional to accommodate equipment and things of that nature.

So, okay. And we'll give you that detailed breakdown so you can have that. Okay.

Thank you. And another question that I have, and this would be relevant for you. So, I mean, all these numbers here are run... and I'm just trying to evaluate, you know, is this like, like if you had a pristine piece of land, would these numbers be different?

Of course. We wouldn't have any demolition to worry about, but there would also be unknowns that we don't know, like site utilities and things like that, because this is a functioning site, and it presently has a police component and a fire component, even though they're not to the level that these new facilities would be at, we have a pretty good idea of the power, the utilities, the fiber, things like that that are coming into the site. Now, if we went to a virgin site, a clean site, a green site, we'd have to worry about more stormwater management. We'd have to worry about how we're going to handle fiber. If there's a fiber loop coming in, are we on one grid or two grids? If we're only on one grid, we need more generator capacity, things like that. So a lot of things can change depending on the site that's selected. This one, because the site is somewhat small for the square footage that we're proposing, This is building very vertical. Like I said, we've got a five-story police facility instead of a two-story police facility. So, and if we could go back a little bit to the rolling assets too, one of the things that we had talked about that I believe was a benefit to both the fire and police was having the rolling assets within the constructed structured parking area on the first floor. So it has direct access from outside. It comes in, it doesn't have to go up to any of the ramps or up to the higher levels. It can be all kept in there safe from the weather, from the winds and all that kind of stuff. It will be protected along with the rest of the cars in that. So putting there is actually, somewhat of a cost savings because we can utilize space that would otherwise just be cars for housing those apparatus, which, you know.

So what would be the differential in cost if you did have a virgin piece of land? Would there be an expected? Because, I mean, I'm sitting here looking at this, and you're speaking exactly some of the things that I'm anticipating. You're already on a developed site. You don't know. what happens when you knock down a building and next thing you know, you take out a quarter of the county's infrastructure because there was a main whatever running through there nobody knew about because It was the Wild West days when things were built, right? So, I mean, I'm assuming that you're factoring in some of those unknowns in these costs that you're providing here per square foot.

These costs are based on projects that are of similar nature of this. And so that cost is built in because we're using a cost per square foot.

Similar nature in a demo and a rebuild. Yes, sir. and an existing operating capacity, et cetera, so forth and so on.

On a phased project, exactly, exactly, for an essential facility for this category of hardening. OK. If I may add, too, with a Virgin site, in order to give you the differential between what it would cost to build on this site versus a Virgin site, without talking about the demolition that would be required, we really need engineers to go and look at those things. Civil engineers would really need to look at that, as well as mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and structural engineers to make sure the soils are good, that we can build, we don't have to do pilings, to make sure that the stormwater can be dealt with in a proper manner.

Well, you're still doing that now here. Otherwise, your site cost wouldn't be quite as high as what I'm looking at here. We are.

But a developed site, we can make some assumptions that we couldn't make with a Virgin site.

Well, in a Virgin site, you don't have to worry about getting in the way of other things and you could just dig a hole and not be worried about digging a hole, which makes a cost differential because any damages would have to be restituted, which is part of the cost that's associated with building on a developed site. So I understand that. OK. And the only other thing that is I don't recognize, maybe it's built into the cost here as well, is you're talking about how do you manage an operating facility and a displacement of a service? Because here you're making reference that obviously the fire department is going to be displaced. They're going to have to go to a different location or maybe in a tent on the same location. I don't know. And then, of course, too, you're talking about the parking for the operating facility and, of course, Just so you know, I actually walked right by that facility today because my house has no obstruction between me and the police station. I literally see the police station every morning I wake up. So I'm very familiar with the location.

How uplifting.

Yes, it is very uplifting. then I'm actually considering a five-story facility in a view that I've never had before. But we'll talk about the buffering later. But for right now, I understand the need. And just contemplating today, if you do this kind of construction, what is the impact to that area and that community? Because that park that's there, to me, I will tell you, is very, very important. Because other people don't know about that park. If you don't live in a neighborhood, you don't know about that park. Mostly. But it gets used quite regularly. And there is actually an access to a very large apartment complex that's just to the east of there, because it uses that road between the park and the police station in order to be able to gain access to Pines Boulevard. And that was a contemplation, is how will construction actually impact, A, the mobility of the people that live in that apartment complex, and B, the limited park space that my district has. That's one of the very few parks that actually has a pavilion that people can actually utilize in a way to celebrate birthday parties and many other things. So you have an outdoor facility along with sports activities, capabilities, and things like that. And I'm very concerned about this could be a one, two, three year project that all of a sudden we don't have no use of the park. And I certainly don't agree to any consumption of using that park to take away from the residents that would otherwise enjoy that park. So that's a thought. I'm putting that out there, Mr. Manager. OK. I'll leave it at that. So for right now, I will reserve further questioning either for tonight or for Thursday if I'm still having that meeting. Yes. Okay.

Mayor stepped out. Commissioner Rodriguez, any other thoughts or Commissioner Schwartz?

On just that portion?

No, on anything.

Anything? I interrupted. Yes, I interrupted. Yeah, we haven't presented the master plan yet. Okay. Go ahead.

I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, COMMISSIONER? IT DIDN'T COME THROUGH WELL ON THE MIC.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION. GO AHEAD. THE WALL CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS COMPLEX. Is it based on silt wall, block construction, or a 3D concrete forest?

I don't know exactly what it would be based on yet. These numbers are very similar between.

That's a significant issue then. If we don't know what the construction type is, then how can we rely upon the dollars per square foot?

The cost of a traditionally masonry-built building versus the cost of a tilt-up building versus the cost of a precast building are within the same ballpark. There are efficiencies and inefficiencies in each of those. With the tilt-up construction...

Within the same ballpark, it's fine if you're buying it yourself, but these are public dollars and the public is expecting us to do our fiduciary responsibility of lending a cost per square foot if there is a blended way of going about it.

That was my first question. The second question

As you had mentioned, there would be space that would be built and used later. Were the energy costs to provide air conditioning and electricity and that sort of use, was that contemplated with the overall operational cost of the building?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it was. You can tell by the cost of the square footage for those. Let's see, what do we have in there?

Well, that's the construction cost for the operating cost.

Well, the construction cost is $100 per square foot less for the space that's not finished out. I see that. And that space could either be closed off and not conditioned, though you'd have to be concerned about unconditioned space within a conditioned environment. And so precautions would have to be taken. Or that space can be open, and the floors, ceilings, walls, electrical, all that can already be located and be distributed at a later date. and making it more cost effective to develop that space. Again, looking into the crystal ball of 30 years into the future, the use of those spaces might be a little bit different, but we have based it on the way the fire chief and the police chief have determined that their departments will grow. And so that space is strategically located where it would need to be for the departments that would grow in the future or are contemplated to grow into the future.

What LEED standards, green building, what LEED standard level was this contemplated for? And is there any solar proposed to reduce

I'm not aware of any LEED standards that are required. Every building that we design is to a sustainable level. In order to meet, for essential facilities like this, in order to meet the energy codes and just the standard building code that's also enhanced for essential facilities, It's pretty much determined that these will be certified buildings, can be certified buildings. Whether you desire to go after a LEED certification or not would be up to the city.

But the buildings will. A LEED certification would open up the opportunity of grant money and federal kick in, potentially state kick in, in order to reduce the overall cost. Was that contemplated by the administration?

Mr. Dodge?

Commissioner, could you please repeat that?

He's asking whether we've contemplated whether the building should lead in order to achieve grant funding from various governmental sources.

I would have to rely on the architect for that, but I don't necessarily believe there is a tremendous value in LEED certification as far as grant money that's available today.

Grants are a little tricky, because sometimes you can get grant money for certain things. And certainly for sustainability, that's one criterion of grant. However, every grant, every federal grant, every state grant that the city gets comes with strings attached. It also comes with a litany of items that have to be accomplished in order for that to be. We work with grants a lot.

So it could be Davis-Bacon. It could be any number of books.

It could be. Well, it will be Davis-Bacon.

So if we add Davis-Bacon to this, I mean, there's a significant difference in cost.

Correct.

SOMETIMES IT'S WORTH NOT GETTING A GRANT IN ORDER TO BE SOMETIMES IT'S WORTH NOT GETTING A GRANT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO COME IN WITH A COST A GRANT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO COME IN WITH A COST EFFICIENT PRODUCT. ABLE TO COME IN WITH A COST EFFICIENT PRODUCT. AS MUCH OF A PARADOX AS THAT EFFICIENT PRODUCT. AS MUCH OF A PARADOX AS THAT SOUNDS. AS MUCH OF A PARADOX AS THAT SOUNDS.

YES, COMMISSIONER. SOUNDS. YES, COMMISSIONER. THE MAYOR IS CORRECT. YES, COMMISSIONER. THE MAYOR IS CORRECT. IF YOU HAVE TO SPEND X THE MAYOR IS CORRECT. IF YOU HAVE TO SPEND X NUMBER, IT'S ABOUT NET. IF YOU HAVE TO SPEND X NUM doesn't make any fiscal sense. So those are the questions I have thus far. I want to thank Commissioner Good for his detailed questions. Now, we know that oil and electric cars are a current decision-making process. Are there electric stations being built, I'll just say the Tesla charging stations, are they a part of this construction consideration?

To my knowledge, no. We have not identified any EV charging stations within. Those could be added at a later date if necessary. In order to do that, generally what we'll do is provide the infrastructure so that you could incorporate them as you need them.

All right. So Mr. Dodge, who took the lead on determining whether or not we're going to move our vehicles towards electric or not? I DON'T WANT TO AS THE ADMINISTRATION LOOKED AT CREATING SOME TYPE OF ELECTRICAL VAULT WHERE WE COULD WORK WITH FPL TO BASICALLY GIVE BACK POWER WHERE WE CAN REDUCE OUR OVERALL UTILITY COSTS.

I appreciate the question. I respect the question. Those are operational questions. We're not here today to talk about the operational questions. We're here today to talk about this construction estimate, which is really part of the scope of the project. Ultimately, the price things will cost is what the bids come in on. This is not a bid. This is a construction estimate that would be incorporated into a bid. Isn't that correct? Into a bid document.

That's correct.

So what we're reviewing today is the architect's initial rendering. What are these, 40% drawings?

we will bring the, this is the pre-design work.

This is the pre-design?

Yes. We would create a criteria package at 40% of the project completion.

And then those other values could be built into the RFP or RFQ. I'm not sure which, the RFQ. And we could proceed with that at that time. Right now, all we're looking to do is to get a ballpark factually rich, the best that we can come up with estimate of what this building might cost, knowing that it will be constructed to the needs of the year 2026, to the best of the ability of both chiefs to determine what those needs might be.

Okay. Yes, I'll yield for other questions.

OK. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I still have, can I say something more?

Yes, he still has the rest of his presentation, but.

No, I got you. But I just want to, before he moves on, because it's relevant to what we've been talking about. So I do agree with Commissioner Schwartz in the sense of, I mean, here we had talked about what is the future vehicles that we're going to be considering. But this whole concept of you're going 30 years into the future. And I don't know that's something, seriously, I think it's relevant to think about. Because I keep thinking about the building that we have today. didn't contemplate these advances that we have today, particularly with communication. I think now we have concrete bunker walls that if you wanted to improve communications within the current PD, you couldn't get through because the walls are too damn thick to get to, right? So I mean, that's a very good point to keep in mind in this. But I didn't get to get my answer on a question I asked because I sort of got off trail. and talked a little bit about the park itself. But again, I meant to ask when we talk about these relocations and these reconfigurations of utilization of the site that are abnormal, is that factored in the cost here as well? Is that a separate cost that we're going to have to consider?

Well, the relocation of the fire department while the police facility and the garage are being constructed are not included in this. So that's not included at all here? That is not included.

We're talking about moving an entire fire, rescue, all the equipment off-site? Correct.

Because they cannot. To other locations. They cannot be on site. I would ask that the fire chief.

And that would be a question and two that I would have of the fire department in terms of what their response times would be and things of that nature. So Mr. Manager. Mr. Manager, your staging plan.

That's a conversation. Commissioner, we have looked at that. And I've spoken to the chief. We have some alternatives to that. I don't think we'll be. extravagant but it will require us to put temporary facilities in but we need to stay at that same location for response times so it may be moving it to the back until such time as the police station is built and the police department is relocated there, then the original police station will be torn down, then we will build the new fire station. Moving it to the back means into the park? Near the park, yes, sir. Near the park or does it make the park? Probably right in the beginning of the park.

Mm-hmm.

There's going to be some inconvenience, but that makes the best sense because then you have the response time sort to be plugged in at some point instead of redoing a whole garage or whatever it might be.

That's right.

But I suppose that is contemplated, the fact that technology is moving in a different direction.

If we're told that you want to use EV vehicles or electric vehicles in the future, then yes, we can put, if we don't put the charging stations in day one, we can put conduit in for all of the wiring.

That's the question, yeah. Like are we putting in the preliminary assets into the building? Not that we're going to have EV patrol cars, but in 30 years, could there be a possibility? And I wouldn't want the whole infrastructure to have to completely change if we can just plug something in that we could have set in place now.

the more into the design that we get, the more of those questions will be answered. And I would also surmise that In 30 years, we might not be talking about electric vehicles being the state-of-the-art vehicle. It could be hydrogen cells.

It could be flying cars.

It could be flying cars. It could be jetsons. And so it could be drones. So it's hard to foresee into the future. Like I said, we work with TLC, their security and technology gurus. We work with them on every project that we've done for the last 15 years. And we have We have almost daily conversations with them about the contemplation of what new technologies are emerging. We just went to a conference last week, this past week, where we talked about real-time intelligence centers and how important they are for police departments and even fire departments to utilize, because it gives you situational awareness. And for that, you really need special accommodations. And that will be built in. That's part of all this.

Yeah, and are we going to have a crime center? Maybe you talk about it.

That's the real-time crime center, real-time information center, and real-time intelligence center are all three just different words. Okay.

Sounds good. I appreciate it. Thank you.

If you could please continue with your presentation. Yes, sir. Okay, so this is the existing site plan. As we talked about, you've got your police department headquarters with the comm tower behind it. The CVS, the storage building there, and then you've got the police department, the four-story structure there with the fueling station behind it. The contemplated master plan for this that we've determined working with the two departments is to, as a first phase, would be to demolish the existing fire station and build the new a parking garage along with the comms tower that would be on the back corner of the parking garage. The comms tower would be built first so that we could be utilizing that so that we could build around it. We would build the garage and then the new police headquarters as part of phase one. During that time, we would make accommodations for the fire department to still utilize the space that it utilizes now. And we'd have to make sure that you can get in and out of that. So construction walls would have to be built on site and around the site, around the police department, the new police department headquarters, so the construction could be contained within that area only. making sure that we don't impede the fire. In the second phase, the existing police department, well, the police department would move into their new headquarters. We'd make sure everything was working great, the turnover, everything's fine. Then we would demolish the existing police department and build the new fire station. Now, the new fire station, as you can see here, has the apparatus base more towards the center of the site. That's a different location than they're in presently. It's a little further to the west. Yes, sir. Thank you. A little further to the west. So we will have to do some Florida Department of Transportation work, or the city will have to work with the Department of Transportation so that you can get a left out and a left in or right out and left out, so that you can get a call going either way on Pines Boulevard. And as part of phase two also, the fueling station would be constructed during that. My guess would be, because we would be working with the criteria package, bringing this up to 40%. The final 60% would be with a different builder architect team. And they would put the finishing touches on all this.

I'm sorry. The fire station moves east of its current location. Yeah, I was going to say.

Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, east. OK. Is there any other questions?

Any questions on the preliminary location design?

So for the parking, how many vehicles is it anticipated to hold? Because I think the question was brought up a little bit earlier. Our patrol unit takes the cars home.

Right. This is all based on the information that we got from the PD. And I believe we're talking about

Was it 258?

Yeah, I believe that was 288 spaces in the police, in the garage, in the parking garage, 288 spaces. Plus we would have surface parking behind, as you can see, behind the fire station, which would be secured. And then we would have public parking along Pines Boulevard.

I guess my question is by how much does the parking increase? Like how many spaces do we have now versus how many spaces would we have in the garage?

Chiefs? I don't have that.

And I know that currently, obviously we have some people that have to park on like the swale and this and around all sorts of corners. So I want to understand, I guess, the amount of growth and then plus what is contemplated after that.

Do you have those, Ms. Chief?

Good evening, Marcel Rodriguez, Fire Chief. So to your question, Commissioner, currently there are 172 available parking spaces. 124 of those are assigned to the police department. 48 are assigned to the fire department. So in any given time, based on our estimates, we can have around 270 employees present.

both facilities so we'll need to accommodate in this new design you said originally okay because that was the other question i know i assumed the community room or something of that sort would be included in in this new development as well, because we have the community room in the police department currently. And when we do Student of the Month, sometimes even I have a little bit of trouble parking if I don't get there early enough. I think if the three of us go, one of us needs to park in Veterans Parking. So I guess confirmation that a community room or something of that sort is included as well. And then how much parking is allotted for that public space or that public parking area.

So I'm seeing a bunch of parking spots along the front that aren't currently there.

Yeah, all the public spaces that would be part of the building. Anything below where it says secured access or in the parking structure would be all secured parking. That would not be public parking. The public parking, the extent of the public parking will be what's shown.

Basically just along Pines Boulevard.

Yes, I believe a total of 55 parking spaces.

Do we know how much is currently available for public parking?

like in my head i can count like 30 maybe i don't know yeah it's probably around 30 maybe 40 on the high end maybe but just to give a little clarity yes patrol officers do most of them take the vehicles home however we have about 115 or so civilian employees each usually work during daytime hours we also have an overlap between our day shift and Charlie shift. So what we provided to the architects at their request was how many vehicles during your peak time and your peak day so they could account for those spaces and that's the formula that we were told they would use.

Okay, so there's the overlap and then there's the civilian.

Right, and then you also have the visitors, right? Plus the visitors. So all of you attend at some point our events at the station. You see the limited that we work with, along with limited parking spaces. So we try to get as creative as we can to accommodate our personnel and our visitors.

OK, thank you. Go ahead.

OK. The last thing I wanted to say, just up in the right-hand corner of the screen there, you'll see how the parking deck or the parking structure aligns with the actual police facility. And it's on the same level on the first, second, and third levels, which allows the police department to come up and have a direct access into their facility from the parking deck, which helps with evidence processing, things like that. You don't have to bring everything down on the lower level and bring it up elevators. So we do have connectivity between.

OK. OK.

And this is really just showing how each of the floor plates in the police department lay out and what departments. And these have all been worked out with the fire chief and the police chief and their department heads. And so you can kind of see we've got the public access area, which would also include the community room, the community center, exactly. And so any kind of public-facing areas would be on the first floor. Second floor mainly is patrol, some training and school officers, some traffic units, et cetera. The third floor, a little bit smaller footprint. Third floor is mainly property and evidence and other facility support services and IT services. the fourth floor being the crime analysis and the crime scene, and the investigations are all the detectives, digital forensics, victim advocate, more support space, and the SWAT department. And then on the upper floor, the fifth floor, we have the police administration, which is the police chief and his command staff. And then professional standards, finance, payroll, and a 311 center as well, as well as communications. And then in the corner, you'll see the real time crime center or real time intelligence center.

Can I go back to the floor with Evidence?

With what? Evidence. Property and evidence. Yes. Yes, sir. The third floor.

What is the estimated total square footage for the property and evidence areas?

I don't have that off the top of my head. But later in the presentation, I believe it's all outlined in the files that were sent.

Will we net additional property and evidence square footage over and above what we have now? Is it comparable? Or is it way more? Commissioner, Chief, if you Chiefs can sit closer. I know you like to sit in the back. When I went to the movies, I liked to sit in the back. But it would really help. We have company. It would really help if you would sit with us up front. It will save you a lot of walking. I know you guys are in great shape. Do we have more property and evidence space in this new setup than we had before?

Yes, sir. A lot more. Significantly more to account for the needs for the next few decades.

This is very important to me. Yes, sir. And I know that this misses, people say, well, who cares where you put the evidence? Let me tell you who cares where you put the evidence. If the evidence isn't properly stored, the bad guy gets away. And right now, Property is all over the place. Let me just leave it that way, because we lacked the space in order to properly secure the evidence that's needed in order to convict people who commit crimes in this city. Something is going to have to happen about property and evidence in Peppert Pines. You can't get around it. So I'm very glad to hear. that we're going to be in that kind of shape. Is this building going to offer a place where you can do labs of narcotics and of individuals?

So we do have plans for a crime lab. Where would that go? That currently would be on the first level where it says crime scene, level one.

Can we go back to the first level? Thank you. So that area in the back is crime scene. That's where you will have your labs in order to process the narcotics that you take in and offer any sort of tests to suspects?

We'll be able to process evidence in-house. That's the idea.

Do you have that capacity now?

We do not.

You do not have that capacity now?

We can do some of it, but not to the extent that our crime scene investigations supervisor would like to take that unit to and those capabilities. But to address a little bit more in your property and evidence concerns, we share those concerns at meetings with our property and evidence supervisor. We are reaching our limits to be able to store the high priority evidence in our building, which is where you want those things, guns, drugs, jewelry, money, for the very serious crimes that they do happen even in our safe city. We get them. And our people do an excellent job of doing what they can and storing it as appropriately as possible. But we really are running out of room. And at some point, we will. And that is a concern, Mayor.

Well, I have to tell you that that gives me a lot of comfort. I'm a civilian. I was never a law enforcement officer. However, I was part of the Sheriff's Command staff at BSO for six years. And one of the units that I had was evidence. And there is stuff in an evidence and property section that you would not want anyone to get in. And that's why they are encased in concrete. And those doors are nearly impenetrable. So nobody can get into the building to remove evidence. It's very secure. This is not the typical building. This is not an office building. This is a fortress. And it's built for that purpose. The building that we have now is not even hurricane protected. We get a strong storm coming down here. Forget about tents. The tents are going to blow. The building's going to blow. And I'm very, very concerned about making sure that when the chief issues an order, both chiefs issue an order, that all hands on deck, we've got a Category 5 coming down Pines Boulevard, that they can do their job without fearing that they're going to lose their lives in the effort of protecting someone else, because the building that they're in isn't even raided. It was built before the rating system was even there. I had a chat with the city manager, and I asked him, what's the history of the police station and the police departments and everything else? And he says, well, the current building that Chief Rodriguez operates out of was the original police station. In 1978, he told me, it was built on a grant, when they had such things as grants to build police stations, which currently do not exist. And in the fullness of time, a police station, Mr. Dodge, correct me if I'm wrong, because no one has a memory like you do. Somewhere around 1990 and 1991, the city built a police station and converted the former police station into the fire department. It's one of the oldest fire stations that we have. Now, I believe that there are two bays in 69. but you're going to give them four bays. And I got to tell you, I think that that's a godsend for the eastern part of the city of Pembroke Pines. This is their principal fire station. There's two in District 1, this one, and also, well, actually, it's three. This one, the one at Century Village, which is really, you know, face it, full-time over there and the apartments across the street. And then you have the one at the... at the airport. Out west, there are four stations. There are no fire stations in District 2. So those two fire stations are really taking the bulk of the work in the eastern part of the city. Having four bays is twice as good as having two when it comes to the ability of deploying fire assets quickly. I'm enthused by that change alone from the previous iteration of this just about a year ago. Kudos to all of you for coming up with that solution. I'm very impressed with the layout that you've designed so far. Please continue.

One other thing, I just want to elevate a statement you just made about the importance of the station that we're looking at here. You're right. There are three relevantly, really, to this station here and the other one by the park in the Pines Village. But again, and the city manager, if he can make a statement, we're on a five-year lease on that property out at the airport. Is that correct?

At Maxwell Park, yes. That's correct. Maxwell Park. Yes, sir.

Mr. Manager?

Yes.

So, and is there any guarantee that we're going to be continuing that lease in the future?

They, the county has not indicated anything otherwise because we're paying rent there. So I would assume they would renew that. But we've been on that lease for, I don't know, maybe 45 years. And it was renewed every five. I think, Christine, is it 10 years now or five? Five years.

Well, it's not five more now, unless we just renewed it that we don't know about. But I know that it was, you know, we had a very large disagreement with the county where they had threatened to take that site away from us. Is that not correct?

Well... They did, but we were providing fire services. So presently, we're paying rent not only for the fire station, but also for Maxwell Park and also for Pines Recreation Center. I think they would be very hard-pressed to shut down a fire station that services the east.

Well, I can go back to a presentation that I made several years ago that made it very clear that they almost didn't care whether we had a fire station there or not. And they made it very clear that they didn't need the fire station to service the planes. The point I'm trying to make, though, is that that property does not belong to the city. It belongs to another entity. And of course, a couple of years from now, or even 30 years from now, there might be different players. And again, I'm just trying to elevate the mayor's reference to the importance of this particular location going from a two to a four bay. We may wind up having to use that for all of our east side fire rescue services. Heaven forbid, correct.

We would lose our class one.

But I will tell you, though, that we've already experienced the county, Broward County Aviation, saying we don't need your fire station for our airport.

Well, it was never intended to be a fire station for the airport. It was a West Hollywood fire station that was intended for the community of both West Hollywood parts of Miramar and Pembroke. It just happened to be located there and they asked us to provide fire service. And we should find a way to. It would cost them a lot more money because they have to provide fire service. They'd have to build a fire station just for the airport. Especially all the crashes that they have. That doesn't make any sense.

Well, we all know what we think, but it's not what we think that makes the difference. And again, you know, for them having presented their position once before, you know, in the absence of owning that property, we are at risk. And so we need to be thinking about...

Because you don't need a lot of land for a small fire station as such. OK.

I'm just trying to elevate again the importance of what could possibly happen in the future and why this fire station becomes more relevant than just being an improvement from a two to a four bay.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Please continue.

Excuse me. So we've gone through the police department, the five stores of the police department. Then we come to the fire station. Both level one and level two are shown on this plan. To the left, we have the four bay fire station with the facility support areas like this SPCA, fill stations, turnout gear, decon, all those things, along with pressurized vestibules that divide the apparatus bay, which is the dirtiest part, from the crew quarters, just to make sure that we don't have cross-contamination of any kind of carcinogens or other bad stuff going through. Question. Yes, sir.

So you have two separate buildings now, correct?

Well, we've got the one on the right is on top of the one on the left. The one on the right is the second level where fire administration will be. Ah, OK. Yes, sir.

That's what I was confused about. I'm sorry. I couldn't figure out, why are they putting two buildings when they could just put one on top of the other?

Yes, sir.

And gain the parking.

You're absolutely right.

OK. Where they have fire administration, where you have that, that's really on top of the command area.

It's on top of the crew quarters. Okay.

Now it makes sense. Okay. My apologies. No, no, no. My apologies.

Both levels are shown on this one plane.

And I see it underneath, which I missed, L1 and L2. So L2 goes on top of L1. Okay, good. That makes sense to me. Okay. Go right ahead.

Good.

Good. Before you continue, I'm going to ask both chiefs, Mr. Dodge, with your indulgence, and you, sir, if you could, I would like for you to be able to meet with Labor, both the police union and the fire union. They're the ones that are going to live in these buildings, and I want you, at the proper moment, I know that we're just designing, But they're going to have to use them, and I want them to know what they're looking at and to be able to offer comments for improvements that make sense to them. I know that this takes nothing away from either one of our chiefs, but it's been a long time since either one of them pulled a hose or sat in a police car. And I want to make sure that the people who are on the road have the opportunity, doing the job, to have some input into what's going on. Can we agree on that, Mr. Dodge?

Yes, we can.

Can we agree on that, Chiefs? OK. Thank you.

Please go ahead. Even they like it. Even they like that. Just to reiterate, we did not come up with the spatial needs assessment by just talking to the police chief and the fire chief. We came up by talking with department heads of every department in here, which includes patrol. It includes K-9. It includes everyone, everyone that would have a say. And both the fire chief and the police chief their leaders within their departments to speak with us candidly and express what their needs were. I feel like I'm on American Idol or something. You only graduated from high school once.

We're going to have to tolerate it.

Go right ahead. I just wanted to say that baked into these numbers, we've already got a lot of that information. So I heed your request. Thank you. And then this is just looking at- An elevation? Yeah, we call it an accelerometric that just shows the relationship between the parking garage with the blue police building and then the red fire station next door and how volumetrically these will work. The new comms tower is further off of the road, closer to the park on the north side. So- Both the-

Both the fire facility and the police facility are north facing buildings.

Correct.

And that is ideal for some potential lead incorporated design. I know that this is early. But certainly, you have heard this commission, and I joined them in this, express an interest in sustainability. Elements of attractiveness are also very, very important. And so I would like you to take full consideration of that in your ongoing designs, because their comments are well taken, and they reflect the desires of our people. So if you could please keep that in mind. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Go ahead. For all these type projects, we understand that we're the stewards of the taxpayer dollars. These are all taxpayer dollars that pay for this. And so we take great responsibility for making sure that we do the right thing with the taxpayer dollars.

Frugal should not mean unattractive.

No, no, absolutely not. Okay. Also, it It might be important to understand that these are all flat roof buildings. So the reason we put the central utility plant on the ground level and we have one for the fire and one for the police department is because we don't want anything that we don't have to have on top of the roof. of the building, because during a storm, those can become projectiles. So we keep them in enclosed cages to make it safer. The same with the parking garage. One of the things we have seen and we've done in other buildings is design the top of the parking garage, which would be uncovered such that you can add a canopy of a solar array on top of that. Wonderful. It provides protection for the cars, as well as provides the solar energy that Commissioner Rodriguez mentioned.

I love that idea. Where is Pooch's and Pines?

Where's the what?

Are they on this campus? Yeah, they are. And are they being relocated as well?

They're on the first floor, I think.

We work with Pooches and Pines. Our program's actually the animal assistance program. They are within here. They won't be displaced for too long. They clearly, where their current trailer is, where they care for the dogs, that's on the side of the garage. So we will have to, for some time, accommodate their needs as well.

Maybe we can possibly give some thought to you know, moving them up a little bit in terms of their accommodations. Not that what they have now is insufficient, but maybe we can think about them in 2056. You know, when... Maybe they'll have robot dogs by then? Yeah. So just give that some thought that we can possibly figure out a way to do the right thing by them as well.

And I think an important note that the architect was trying to really... this isn't the police chief's plan. This is a ground up when it started with Chief Justino, later with Kip Schimpano, and now myself, each time that it was done, it was done from the ground up, every single supervisor at that time met with their units and provided what their needs were today, what they wish they had, and what they anticipate would be the needs for their specific units in the future.

I remember it that way as well, and I know it happened the same way in fire.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I think the rest of the presentation is.

Yeah, we don't have to. I don't know the commissioners. You've seen the rest of the presentation. They're just square footages by locations and so forth. Anything else that you need to discuss with respect to the building? And I want to thank you for your presentation and for answering the question straightforwardly. I think you did a terrific job giving us an orientation of what this building might be. Thank you. Anything, commissioners? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez.

When will we have more?

Excuse me. Commissioner Schwartz, are you still there? Commissioner Schwartz, are you still there? Here I am. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm checking in on you and making sure you're there. Commissioner Rodriguez. Thank you.

This might not be particular to you, but when will we have a little bit more details about the transition process from the transition process? I don't know if that's the word for it, but the way that we're going to move from the building.

The stair phasing. Phase out.

As far as the transition, once we move forward with this, we go out and we select a contractor to do this. That'll all be part of the negotiations, and they will come up with a transition plan that will be submitted to you. So you'll have an opportunity to see that.

And then more just more detailed questions as to some of the notes that I saw on the side Is there contemplation for a wellness slash lactation room? Yes, okay If possible, and maybe later if someone can point out where that is. I just want to confirm that that's there in in the larger spatial needs assessment I also saw a note on the soft children's interview room obviously unfortunately people come to a police department in the worst of times as victims and so i want to make sure that we're building a space that is feel safe for maybe sexual assault victims as well the the the kids that may come in um i see the this children's interview room are there any other facilities that kind of accommodate those kinds of needs that i maybe did not see there there are it's interesting at last

Tuesday, I gave a talk at Station Design in Reno, Nevada. And it was about trauma-informed design for public safety facilities. And we talked a lot about those type of areas. To your point, there aren't too many people that come to a police station that are there for a good time. Generally, they've been brought there because they didn't want to come or they're there because something terrible happened to them, traumatic happened to them. Someone might go to the fire station because they can't take care of their child anymore and they need a way to help someone else take care of their child. But we also look at the staffing of the stations as well, because 911 call takers, EOC workers, police, and fire folks are... every day their life's on the line from the time they start to the time they don't. And they need those decompression areas. And it's also important to have training facilities, training opportunities, because every day is a training opportunity no matter where you are. And so built into these stations will be training opportunities that they can utilize. That might be physical agility spaces, things like that, just to keep to the best fitness possible. which also allows you to do your job better. keep the public safe and also keep yourself safe. And like firing ranges, it's not just shooting guns, it's learning how to shoot guns well and how to deescalate versus escalate issues.

Yeah. One of the things that I guess comes to mind is when I visited the JC Cotterman Center that Broward County owns, it's a center for sexual assault victims, they are extremely particular as to how the rooms are set up what's even on the walls like those kinds of thing I know that's getting into the nitty-gritty but I want to highlight just how important that is especially for victims and so I want to make sure that you know no nothing is spared in making some of these places feel as comfortable as possible. And then going back to the lactation room, is that considered for both the fire space and the police space or just the police space?

I believe both would have lactation rooms. Okay, perfect. We call them quiet rooms. Yes, I understand.

They might not be in use 100% of the time, and so that's why a lot of places have them as wellness rooms, something like that.

Well, the difference is you just have a small refrigerator and a sink.

Exactly.

And it makes it a lactation room.

I appreciate it. And then, and maybe this is a question for our chief. What is considered for the future of the department facility out west, the PD station out west that I know I think right now is simply storage or something like that. I'm not sure exactly what the use of it is. Have we contemplated what that's gonna look like in the future and could it hold maybe some of the things that we've considered to put here? I know we want... a lot of things to be centralized, but what is that facility gonna be used for if not for storage that would be moved to this facility?

This facility is meant to meet all the needs of the police department to the year 2050 and beyond. That would be a decision for city administration to make what to do with the West District Station at that point. Currently, it has our traffic division. It has some of our other needs. such as our backgrounds and selections unit is out there, which is a bit inconvenient to be quite honest, but we just ran out of space. We actually had to move them out to make space for other needs in the main headquarters.

So I guess we have that asset out there, right? We do. My question is could we reduce any of this scope to put in, I know it's a very small space, but even I guess some kind of reduction here to be able to actually use that space, if the people who are there currently are going to be moved into this space. Do you get what I'm saying? Whether it's like a secondary storage facility, something like that, or if the manager has any more insight as to what that facility would be used for in the future.

Those are discussions that I think city administration should weigh on. But ultimately, this would meet the needs of the police department in the year 2050.

So let's say moving forward, you feel comfortable that everything would fit in this building. We necessarily would not need that other.

We wouldn't need it.

And so I guess the question is, what are we doing with that other facility?

That's a question we will have to tackle at another time. It's certainly one that we can discuss together with the community. I know that it is in your district. And we would have to sit down and we would have to come up with a use for it. One of the things that could be done is it could be sold. Another thing is it could be repurposed. I don't know that administration has a plan for that. We could direct administration to begin thinking about what happens with that. Obviously, your input would be essential in that discussion.

I think that's my preference, too. I feel comfortable with this design and this stuff here. But obviously, if we're moving everything out from there to accommodate here, that space is left unused in theory. And I'd like to know what that's going to be used for because it does impact a lot. It's kind of like the center, I think, between Hernandez's and Ice District.

Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner for some of those other concerns we too are passionate about victims providing that lactating room which we do currently it's not ideal but we do what we can same with you know just to praise our victim advocate unit which Once a year, you recognize up here during Victims' Rights Week. They've done a phenomenal job of doing what they can with the space they have to make it as comfortable as possible for victim children. But clearly, a new facility would allow a much better environment for those types of victims. And I share those concerns.

Yeah, and I encourage us. I think the work that they're doing at the J.C. Cotterman Center is absolutely amazing. And if we can maybe take a gander over there as to what they're kind of, I know our facility would be of a completely different use per se, but victims still could come there first. And so making sure that they feel comfortable in that space. So that's just my highlights.

Any other questions on the architect's presentation? Commissioner Good.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Just a couple questions. forgot to ask a little bit earlier. So asbestos abatement, I mean, the manager said that this was built in 1978, right?

Yes, the currently used fire portion in the other building in 91.

Has there been an investigation in terms of asbestos in this building? Because the abatement of that would be a little bit of an expense too, unless maybe that too is incorporating these costs here.

Mr. Mayor, if I may, that's a very good question, because when the original police station was built.

If you could speak into the mic, Mr. Dodge, so that Commissioner Schwartz can hear.

When the original police station was in fact built, it did have issues when we converted it into fire. There had been a gun range. There was a lot of asbestos. We found out that it wasn't built according to code. And that was a grant building that was quite surprising. So we had to rebuild that building. So the fire station as it exists now has been retrofitted. As far as the police station, there are issues with that building. And that's why when we looked at it, to look at the variation of going in and Modifying it and using that, it would cost us a lot more than simply just tearing it down and building a new building. There's all kinds of issues with that building. Not only does it not meet the hurricane codes, there are issues with that facility, and that's why we're moving forward with it.

No, I understand that, but I'm just, I'm asking about the cost associated with the fact that if there is asbestos there, what is the cost increase that's going to, it's not incorporated in this right now.

I don't believe, we can check. I don't believe there's any asbestos left there because that building isn't that old, but we certainly will look at it. But that's part of the renovation and tearing down. I don't think that particular building had those issues. I don't know. Is Marty here?

But we should know for sure. I mean, we're going to make this kind of investment. I mean, this is a, I guess, is not the way I want to go.

Oh, no. There isn't any. No.

On record, there is none. Are you going to still be here when we find it, if there is any?

He's going to be here in 2056 when him and Charlie aren't going anywhere. But sorry.

And that's really important, by the way. I don't want to blow it off. You understand that? Because asbestos I've seen can become a very substantial increase of cost. Even in demolition?

The buildings that we've had asbestos problems with were all the buildings at the Howard Foreman Park. that we've had to go in and mediate and that has been very expensive.

Mike, sorry, just on that point, my question is even, would you have to remediate even in demolition or just have special precautions in the demolition?

You have to take it out first. You have to take it out. Oh, okay.

And then you gotta wrap it up. Got it, okay. There are some asbestos-contained materials that are considered non-friable, which means they don't go into the air and they can't be breathed in. Those are less expensive to mediate. More expensive are the ones that are friable. But even the glue that they used to use to stick the linoleum down, if the linoleum didn't have asbestos in it, the glue did. Got it. So it was a miracle material of the 60s and 70s that turned out to be not a very good thing.

Sorry to interrupt. I was just confused on that.

And one other question I have, Mr. Mayor. This will be the last one, at least for right now, on this one. So we're doing version option 2.2, C-2.2. How many versions are there?

I believe we did more than 12 iterations of layouts from the master plans on all these.

So there's a multiple number of options. There are.

This was deemed to be the best of all of them.

And in regards to all those options, is this the most expensive one? I mean, is this like something we're looking at as a cap?

We didn't do the cost estimate, but I don't think it would have been any different cost because this is an opinion of probable cost, of construction cost, not a cost estimate by professional estimators. However, it's based on square footages, and the square footage numbers did not change. So there may be fluctuations of how the buildings would actually lay out and the height of the buildings and things like that. But for this exercise, I don't think you would have seen a significant difference, as long as it was based on the same square footages.

And all the options had the same square footage, then, is that correct? Yes, sir. All right.

Thank you. OK. Anything from the public? Seeing none. Mr. Dodge, before we get into resolution number one, What are your thoughts about managing the cost of this, additional value engineering, the financing side of this? What are your thoughts on how to make this a more workable presentation should the commission choose to discuss it with residents at town hall meetings and then sometime thereafter possibly placing it on the ballot. What are your thoughts on all that?

Mayor, thank you. I've been reviewing this with staff and I think we have some great opportunities here even though We showed this option of $155 million, which included about $20 million worth of escalation cost and contingency. Actual costs are $135. Again, that's really an estimate. But I believe that we have the resources that I could really recommend that if you're going to present this to the public, We could probably accomplish this very similar to how we're working on the strategic plan when we did our parks and recreation and our roads by utilizing resources we have. And my recommendation is that we have up to August 18 to make a final decision. But I would suggest that we go with a number of 80 million. And let me just share with you. 80 million for what? for building this facility in bonds with the bonds can you speak into the mic please i'm sorry he he can't hear you oh i'm sorry my recommendation would be that if you did a bond issue or revenue issue and lisa's going to get into and so is mr ford the the differences between those two uh i would suggest that we go no higher than $80 million. And let me tell you how I got there. We have resources that we are currently working on that we would be able to generate those cash dollars to bring it back up to 130. And I feel very confident that that could happen. And let me tell you why. Because this isn't going to happen next year. It's not going to happen the following year because by the time the architect finalizes the plans, we go out, we select a contractor to do this, and we sit and negotiate, and then we do some value engineering. I believe we can bring this down more. And by doing so, we're going to bring those costs down. We have some revenue. opportunities that may be coming to the city that would generate cash that would save the residents money in borrowing money that we don't need that we could do so my recommendation i strongly would recommend that if you put in the resolution a number no more than 80 million i feel confident we could make this project as it was defined by our architect to be made whole, the 155, 135, whatever it might be. So those are my thoughts. I've discussed this with staff, with Lisa Chung, and what resources we have. And I think the public would see that when we originally talked about $120 million 120 million dollar project which today is 155 if you look back. Six or seven years when we first started this that project was only 70 million and the cost of construction has just escalated so hard so quickly, we need to we need to take action now, because we need. We need a police station. Not so much the building, because you're going to hear that from staff when we go to the town hall meetings. This isn't just about bricks and mortar. This is about all the infrastructure, the technology, everything that's needed. That's the heavy weight that we have to carry when we're doing this thing. Crime scene, labs, and everything else. in crime fighting. It's very, very important to the city. We need to come into today's environment as to how we fight crime a little bit smarter. So that's where we are. So my recommendation, Mayor, if you ask, would be in a resolution no more than $80 million.

So you would be supportive of an amendment when we get to item two. that the 155 become 80?

No, what I would suggest is that, well, the 155, which is the project, stays there, but the amount that we need to fund to build this project is no more than 80.

So Sam, so Sam, so I'm hearing the manager say, that he doesn't want to mislead anyone by saying that the project is 80. The project is 155 at this point. He's going to try to chip that down through negotiations and value engineering, but that we only need to borrow 80 in bonds. What amendment is legally necessary for the ballot language so that people are not confused between the 155 and the 80, which, from what I'm hearing the manager say, is all he wants them to vote for. So what would we have to do to the draft bond resolution at this point to change that number to 80?

May I respond, Mayor? Yeah. Based on the manager's analysis and recommendation, the $155 million is in the ballot question, and it is the upset number that would be authorized by the voters to, in fact, borrow up to that amount of money. If it be the wish of the commission to limit the expenditure to $80 million and take the position that the upset maximum of that would be $80 versus $155, then the bond question could be changed to become $80.

OK, so that's basically where I was going. So are you, Mr. Manager, are you recommending that the language in the ballot question be changed to no more than $80 million in bonds?

Yes, but I want it to be understood that the project and the scope of the project isn't being minimized. The cost is going to be the 155, 145, 135, whatever it is. We're going to use other city resources to fund that difference so that the only thing that the residents would have to be concerned with the amount of $80 million and how that would affect them on their taxes. And Lisa is going to be here to explain and show the difference between a bond issue of 155 versus 100 versus 80. We ran those numbers.

And these are resources, additional resources, obviously, that were not available the last time that we spoke to the public about this matter.

Absolutely. OK. Mayor, if I could jump in very quickly, because I've been sitting here quietly. Because we have two items, and I have very strong opinions on all of this. But to be clear, item number one is a resolution supporting our manager, our police and fire department's recommendation in layman's terms, that we need the public safety complex for the future of the city of Pembroke Pines.

That's correct.

I just want to make sure the legal eagle says that.

Sam?

If I may respond there, the drafter of that resolution who is sitting on the dais with you, with the collaboration of his colleagues, would answer that question with a simple answer. The answer is yes. It is in fact a collaborative decision and recommendation of the manager, police and fire, to support a project which looks just like this. That's separate from number two.

That's correct. Legally correct. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to address a few things very quickly because I have said absolutely nothing up to this point. I want to thank the manager. I want to thank our professionals and our staff. And I don't like surprising anyone on the dais or you, Commissioner, that's on the phone. We absolutely need the complex. I'm not in favor, and we'll get to that. I am not in favor at this time of even discussing going to bond. I could vote legally present instead of no to prevent you all from having the mayor vote no, as he mentioned earlier. But folks, I mean, whether it's 155 or 80, I have nothing but great faith in our manager and our team. I'd like, number one, to have a meeting with the architect, which is not scheduled because of my personal scheduling, where we do have day jobs, most of us. And I could not meet with you before tonight. I believe it's Thursday afternoon that you and I are getting together, or you and I and your partners. So that's number one. Number two, I love that the number is reduced, but I also know a few matters. Property tax reform has still not been proposed in the state legislature. We still don't know what that's going to look like for the future of the city's finances. We also are sitting here right now in an affordability crisis. Dare I say, we're ground zero for the affordability crisis across the country. Gas is up 40%. Basic goods are up across the board. And I just don't feel that I'm gonna have enough information tonight to say, On item number two, yes, I support potentially going to bond and putting this on the ballot. Again, I have nothing but faith in Manager Dodge and his team and the architects. And I don't want to stop this, because to the mayor's point, if someone votes no, he believes that perhaps we remove it from the strategic plan of the city. I disagree with removing it from the strategic plan of the city, because we need it. I've been to that police station. not as an arrested subject. I've toured it. I've been there. You all need it. I also insisted on the fact that it not be a police station, but a public safety complex, because Station 69 and headquarters is next door. And I know you do the best to keep it world class, but it's showing its age. So I appreciate that as well. But I also know that, and Mayor, you know them well. You represented Century Village for 20 years. There are 13,000 residents out there. I know they contact you. They contact me. I'm sure Commissioner Good in Hollybrook has residents that through no fault of the city of Pembroke Pines, they're paying double in their maintenance fees over the last three years because the legislature in its infinite wisdom decided that condos in the city of Pembroke Pines should be treated the same and held to the same standards as a condo on Miami Beach. that was built long before them and probably would not have been built in the way that it was by today's standards. But those elderly folks who are on fixed incomes, and many still do pay property taxes despite all of the different exemptions that they have, they're fighting. They're having children my age try to move in and help them just to make their condo fees every month. I don't want to stop this, but I'm yes on number one, because yes, we do need it. I don't want my words mixed. We absolutely need this. But already forwarding it to a bond, I would be irresponsible, even though it's just one step, before I meet with the architects myself in roughly 36 hours or so. before we have these town halls, because we are in an affordability crisis. And I mentioned gas. Florida Power and Light, we were the first commission in the state of Florida to say, we oppose your rate increase. Well, guess what? Those elderly folks, and myself included, I don't get a waiver because I'm an elected official, we're paying about $240 to $300 more per year for the same electricity coming out of the same substations as we were a year ago. Again, through no fault of this commission. And yes, there are some homes that, and Ms. Strong is wonderful at what she does. Believe me, I call her all the time. That yes, some homes will not see much of a bump if you've lived in the city for 20, 30, 40 years. But then there are newer homebuyers with property values at $700,000, $800,000, $900,000. They'll feel it. But again, I appreciate all four of my colleagues, the three of you here and the one on the phone, and your questions were spectacular. It's an honor to serve with you all. I don't want to stop this process. And I'm willing to actually abstain on number two rather than vote no and stop the process. But I am not voting yes on number two. I think we need more time. I think everyone needs to know more about what's happening and how this will impact their bills, because this is an affordability crisis that we are currently living in. And this is, in essence, even if you pass it now and it doesn't kick in for two years, let's see where the world is in two years with our affordability. Gas has not come down. I pumped that $5 regular the other day. And me, who drives to Miami almost every day for work, I'm hurting. I do not have an EV, Commissioner. But by the way, you're paying more for the EV when you charge because Florida Power Light raised its rates, in fact, of January 1, 2026 as well. So thank you. Plus, when fuel costs go up, electric utilities, all they do is pass the cost of the fuel on to you, thereby raising your electrical bill. So that's where I'm at. This is not a reflection on the wonderful work that Manager Dodge does. Outside of being an exceptional colleague, I actually admire Manager Dodge and speak to him about non-city issues. So this is not a reflection on him or his team or on any of our professionals. But I'll wait for guidance. But I'm a yes on one. And when we get to two, I'm either a no or an abstention at this time.

Mr. Mayor? Yes. If we could jump ahead for one minute, and this might be helpful to Commissioner Hernandez, if Lisa could come forward. And I know whether it's eight cents a month or... If it's 20 cents a month, it is an increase. But if she could make her presentation to us to show the distinction between the cost for a bond versus a revenue issue. I think it's very important. And do you have your slides you can put up, Lisa? Yes, sir. OK. And then you will see that the reason I went with an 80 million, it has a minimal, minimal impact on our community and our residents. I know even if it's a dime, it's more money that has to come out of the pockets of people. But let's at least put it in proper perspective so when we go into these town hall meetings, the people can understand what that means to them because public safety, our senior population, is probably more concerned about their life safety, and that's very important. Not only life safety from police protection, but even more so in the area, excuse me, of fire service. So if you would put that up there, I'd appreciate it. MR.

Thank you, Mayor, Commissioners. Good evening. Lisa Chon, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director.

Can you speak?

Oh, so sorry. Is that better? Mr. Schwartz, are you still there?

I can, and Mr. Chon, I can hear you just fine. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead. Yes. We were putting together what it was going to cost the resident based on the different amounts. $155 million was one example, $100 million, and then $80 million. We are assuming that it is issued in two separate series, one in year one, and then two years later, we would issue the second portion of that. We're assuming a 30-year fixed rate bond at 4.63%. And the taxable values we're assuming will increase 3% every year, and that should say maximum. If you have a homestead, your taxable values cannot go up more than 3% every year. With that, we were looking at the median taxable value. Right now, that's at $217,400. Using $155 million in bonds or debt, we're looking at paying a total for the 30 years at $2,904. The average per year is $97. The average per month, we're looking at $8 a month and per day, $0.27. For $100 million in debt, for the full 30-year period, we're looking at $1,873. The average per year is $62 for the year. Per month, we're looking at $5. And the average per day is $0.17 a day. And then at the $80 million, which Mr. Dodge was recommending, the 30-year is $1,499. Average per year, $50 a year. Per month, we're looking at $14 and 14 cents, sorry, $4 and 14 cents a day for that median value of $217,000.

Just a point of clarification, these are average numbers?

These are average numbers.

That means there's an equal number below the $217,000 median property value and an equal number higher.

There are properties that would be higher and there are properties that would be lower, yes.

And some would pay nothing, that's correct.

And we're looking at the median condo value. Again, this was the median at $122,000 taxable value. At $155 million, which is the top end, the total they would pay over the full 30 years, $1,629. Their average per year is $54. Per month, they're looking at $5 per month, and per day, $0.15 a day. At $100 million, they're looking at $1,051. The average per year, $35. Their per month, $3.10 per day. And at the $80 million for the full 30-year period, we're looking at $841 for the year. They're looking at $28 on average per year. Per month, $2 a month. And per day, $0.08. We know that those values fluctuate. People will have higher values and lower values. So what we did was create a calculator that everyone can go online. They would need to know what their taxable value is, and they can retrieve that information from the BCPA's website. And in this particular example, even though their market value was $362,600, their taxable value, based on their homestead and all the other exemptions, 202,000. $420, and that's the amount that they would put into our calculator. And once you press calculate, it will tell them what that amount is. This calculator is not yet available until we know what the amount of the commission consensus is. We don't want to put three different calculations there. We just want to know, based on the amount, what that would be. And that was it. I have Mr. Dodge.

Any questions for the director? MR. Assistant city manager.

MR. Mr. Mayor, I just, you know, I'm hearing all this too, and I, you know, really appreciate the, you know, the fact that we go from 155 to 80. Just a couple questions for this right here. I think I might have missed something. You said in two series.

MS. Yes, sir.

Does that mean like some now, some later?

Yes. So let's say for the $100 million, we would put $50 million in year one. And then in year three, we're doing another $50 million because we can't spend, let's say, all of it in one year or two years.

So what we are looking at then in your presentation is as if it was all done at one time?

No, we're doing two. So year one, we'll issue, let's say, $50 million. And year three, we'll issue another $50 million. And we're doing that consistently for each example.

Commissioner, we have done this in the past, rather than borrow all the money up front.

I clearly understand, because I see it in your table. Yeah, so in the first two years, you'll see the small amount. Yeah, I see that. But I'm still trying to figure out the numbers, how the numbers, a singular number, is referencing two series. So again, coming back to, if I'm looking at this 30-year total at $80 million, it's $14.99. So an average person is $50, and that has to assume then that you pulled a whole $80 million. Otherwise, you would have two different numbers.

Well, if you look at the $80 million in year one, I'm assuming $40 million in the first year. So they're paying $26 and then $25. Then year three, I'm also pulling another $40 million. So it's adding on to the existing debt. You know it jumps to $52 that they're paying. I don't know if you see that in year three's column. Is this a pointer? No, I see that.

OK, so now the- Is there a typo in 80 million year two?

Year two? No, because I'm issuing $40 million in year one. And that goes for 30 years. And then in year three, I'm issuing the remaining $40 million to come up to the 80.

It's probably a rounding year.

OK, yeah. If I had to guess. Yeah, it's probably a rounding based on the-

You probably have the decimal out there. You probably have, yeah.

We're close enough.

Yeah.

But when you average those 30 years, it's at $50. Commissioner?

So it's $52 in here. OK. All right. So having that said, the other thing that I'm just a little bit thoughtful is if it's going to cost us $135, $155, depending on escalations and contingencies and things, and you're able to bring that down by half, the question that I immediately turn to is, well, what are we giving up in order to make up that half? Because I know that in our strategic plan, we had a lot of other projects that we could not do because we did not bond. And some of those projects are important. So what are we giving up? And then when you talk about a revenue, What new revenue is being generated in order to create that? I mean, I just don't understand all that stuff, and I'd like to see that, because that really is a very... You know, can I address that?

Because that's such an important question.

In the original bond... Commissioner, if you may, I would very much like to sit with each one of you individually and share with you how we're able to come up with that. We are not taking any money, Commissioner, out of the strategic plan for parks or for roads. These are additional dollars that we're looking at that I think will become available to the city, and there's two or three different elements of it that I think we can work with, and I'd like to share that with you.

I have a question on that. The strategic plan that we currently have is a percentage of what we had in the original bond. The strategic plan that we set forth this last year that we've been approving portions of it of was for $60 million, and that was for a priority list of projects. I think what Commissioner Good or at least what prompted me to think is there's also a whole set of other projects within that strategic plan that the funds that you are saying could go to this, the $75 million that could possibly go to this to go from 80 plus 75 to equal the 155, which is the true cost of the building. could, in theory, we could be using those other 75 to complete those other strategic plan projects that we did not prioritize in what we voted on. So I'd like to see, and I think that's, I'd like to see one, and it can be on a one-on-one, what gets us to 75 million, because the last thing I want to do is go out for a bond only for 80 million, hope that we get 75 million from whatever assets, because we saw even in the selling of the affordable housing unit, that sell fell through. And I know we're working on a couple other things, but we contemplated that amount as part of the first round of conversations on the original bond. So that is always a fluid number. We don't have security on 75. And we might. We haven't had those conversations where those 75 might come from. But I don't want to be in a position where we say, all right, only 80. We're coming to the table with 75, and then prices increase. This war never ends, and we have forever high gas prices or something like that. And we end up having to... put out another bond or something of that sort. I do not want to come to that scenario. So I want clear explanation as to where those 75 come from, what projects in theory, the assumption would be anything that wasn't on the priority list for the strategic plan. And then could we build in a buffer like something like the 100 million, because it makes, I mean, 20 million difference is $20 million. And I am very sympathetic as to the cost that this might mean for our residents. Obviously, like mentioned earlier, at no fault of Pembroke Pines in this day as costs have been rising. But to a certain extent, we can't put a price on safety. The safety that comes with a hurricane rated building is essential for what our residents are gonna need in the future because I'm thinking about the contemplation, let's say because this expense goes up and people decide, or I guess we decide because ideally this goes on the ballot and the residents decide, we're not deciding on this. We simply decide on the value of it. It ultimately is the resident's decision. For something tragic to happen, and then for our police department, our fire department, not to be able to have 110% tools and necessary equipment that they need in order to respond to an emergency. And let's say a hurricane comes through, and you don't have... I mean, you have to have housing insurance or whatever, but something happens that... makes it an even more financial impact than paying something like even $97 a year. So to me, I have all these questions and I want to, make sure that we're getting answers for that. But I also want to say the investment of this piece for our residents while, like the manager said, any cent more is adding to that affordability crisis. We also have to think of how do we set up our residents for prosperity in the future when it comes to an emergency.

I agree. I just wanted to jump in. Again, I said at the very opening of my remarks that I believe we need this. However, I need more information in order to say to residents, this should be on the ballot. Commissioner Rodriguez mentioned insurance. We didn't even have property insurance taken up in the state legislature. They actually ignored it, even though, as the mayor correctly points out in most meetings, the number one squeeze that we're having. We're actually the number one state in the country in foreclosures due to homeowners being unable to pay their property insurance, not their mortgages. So they didn't address property insurance. We each are representing folks that are struggling to get by in the same city, paying for the same services that they did before. And again, I appreciate everything Commissioner Rodriguez said. She actually brought up a great point, 75 million that we would have. Is that calculating the impact of a potential $500,000 homestead exemption, as has been rumored to be discussed and potentially voted on in Tallahassee to be placed on the ballot, that they're hoping that 60% of Floridians pass? Listen, I want my taxes cut too. The problem is, how am I going to pay for cops and firefighters? How am I going to pay for the social services? that we need that Jay Schechter puts together over at Focal Center? How are we going to pay for that? And that's why I'm not saying no. I'm saying, could we slow down and not vote on it today? I mean, at the appropriate time. We haven't even gotten to number two. But I just have a lot of questions. Because to put this on the ballot or to say, let's proceed with it, And by the way, I don't think we need to have a vote on number two to have it discussed in nine town hall meetings unless Mr. Gorin tells me otherwise. I think you can do that. I think you can say there's a proposal. I think you could even bring down Mr. Ford from Tampa and he could speak to the potential interest rates that you would pay. I know he loves coming to South Florida, Mr. Ford. His name really is Jerry Ford. It's not the former president. But that's what I am saying. We need it. There's no question about it. More importantly, our first responders deserve it. Police and fire and EMT, everyone that responds. But I personally need more time, especially given the affordability crisis that we are experiencing, given the fact that Tallahassee hasn't been a partner to its cities. Hell, they may have just taken a vote to preempt us right now just because. That's what they do. They don't work with cities. They don't work with counties. This isn't specific to the city of Pembroke Pines. Tallahassee simply ignores 430 cities and 67 counties. And they decide what the heck they want to impose on each one of us, including property tax reform. All right. So I'm for deferring that.

I just want to, on one point, can there be clarification, though, from Commissioner Hernandez's point that If we are struggling on something, it is the value and not the process of going out to bond. Because I do not see any other way that we get this building done other than a bond. From my conversations and my understanding, we've contemplated, we've talked, in meetings with a couple different people, I've asked, what about a P3 agreement? What about a couple of other funding sources? And it all comes back to none of those work for what we have in the city, because even a public-private partnership would mean that we would have to relay the taxes for the future and ultimately raise the taxes that we have on our residents, which isn't the trajectory we've ever taken. So are you saying you are... questioning and need more time to understand the value of the bond or the bond itself. Because I don't see, and maybe I'm not in your head to understand that, but I'm trying to square the circle of, or circle the square, whatever it is, how one can vote for one thing and then be a no on the- Well, Commissioner, it's very simple.

I can vote to say that we need the public safety complex and say, let's figure out how to finance it, whether it's 75, because what I'm looking at right here- But that's just the value, correct? But here's the point. What's in front of us tonight- is $155 million of a general obligation bond. The manager just said, I think I can 575, and I think you can make that 80. That was 15 minutes ago.

Yeah, that's just the clarity I'm trying to get at. Is it simply the value? I'm asking, is it the value of the bond or the bond as a funding source?

I want to have a meeting with the architects. I also want to have a meeting with the manager and I want to see also if we are calculating the fact that it is very likely that in November we are going to have a property tax reform bill placed on the ballot for all Floridians to vote on that could in fact impact the finances of this city and this county. Okay.

Let me sort of chime in because I think we're actually getting close and I really, really appreciate all the commentary that we've had. Lisa, your presentation, as always, is on the money. So thank you very, very much. Speaking of which, I'm going to ask Mr. Ford to come up. I just have one quick question. And I want to thank Mr. Ford for coming to us all the way from Orlando, is it? St. Pete. St. Pete. I didn't want to insult him. St. Pete, please, Mr. Ford, if you would come forward. I know that you have a presentation, but I would want to ask you. So I had you and your son on the phone the other day, and I asked you a very, very clear question. Is it true virtually all of the time that a revenue bond carries more interest than a GO bond? And you said virtually always. That's correct. And I'm assuming that that's because when the bonds are syndicated or underwritten or however these bonds are processed, the people that are behind it sort of see an obligation on the public as having a greater reliability than an obligation that a city or a county commission chooses to take upon itself. Is that correct?

It is to a great degree.

Jerry, just tell the record who you are, if you will. I'm sorry. Certainly.

For the record, my name is Jerry Ford. I'm with Ford & Associates. We serve as the city's municipal advisors.

Thank you, Jerry.

The fact of the matter is, is that general obligation bonds, the revenue stream is less elastic than it would be, say, on a water and sewer revenue, where Your usage can go up and down. Other forms of revenues, you saw your communication services tax decline over time, those kinds of things where there's more stability in that ad valorem revenue stream.

Thank you very much. Did you have a presentation beyond that to talk to us? Or did you have some thoughts that you wanted to share with us? I mean, you've been with us now for over 30 years. You were with us in 2005 when we issued the GEO bond. And I want to remind people of what it was like in 2005, because I alone was sitting on this commission. We were all alive. But I alone was sitting on this commission and voting on that bond issue. It passed unanimously on the bond issue. At that time, it was me, Mayor Ortiz, Commissioner Seipel, Commissioner Ferrandino, and Commissioner Armstrong. And it was adopted unanimously and placed before the voters. And it passed by 52% to 48%, 52 for, 48 against. And that was a year. That was amazing. It was a very forward financial year for most Americans. We weren't at war. We didn't have COVID. We didn't have tariffs. We didn't have this. We didn't have that. We didn't have a legislature threatening to take away property taxes and so forth and so on. We had just won the election. All-America City, which very few cities in America actually get. It was an All-America designation, which we still have. Once you're in All-America City, you always have that designation. We had just changed mayors. We had just suffered through the election and the tragic death of another mayor. And we went out there. And I have to tell you, I had many doubts about that bond issue that I shared with Mr. Dodge before. I knew him well enough, or nearly as well as I do now. I had lots of doubts. But I put those doubts aside because it was explained to me very, very clearly by Sam Gorin, who was our city attorney at the time. and who's a man, has a lot of wisdom. And he said, it's not so much that you're voting to tax them, it's that you're voting to allow them to decide whether the series of projects that are covered in the bond are something they want. And if it's something they want, they tax themselves. That is the nature, is it not, of what this bond issue is. Still is, Mr. Mayor. And it still sort of is. So this isn't one of those where, oh, he supports a tax increase. No. He supports you deciding whether your city, where you live with your family, is worth how much you're going to pay. We're talking about $50 a year here for most folks. You can't go out for pizza for that much. I mean, it has to be more meaningful than just the amount. But that's just my opinion. That's just my opinion. I have two roles here as your mayor. One is to represent all of the people of the city. The city of Pembroke Pines is my district, okay? That's different than the job I had before, which was only representing one district. And each of our districts, in an amazingly delicious and great way, are different. And they think differently. And that's great. It takes all of those different points of view to come together and make a city. But I also have a responsibility to all of you. And I don't want to have to go down the path that we went just a short while ago with anything less than a unanimous vote. Now, if you all feel that you need more time on the second item, we can defer it.

Mayor, I don't want to be the impediment. No, no, no. You're not an impediment.

You're not.

OK, but I'm going to be clear. I'm not voting yes on number two today. Listen to me. Listen to me.

You're not an impediment. You're being honest. And I respect that. OK? You're not an impediment. There's no such thing as an impediment when you vote on your conscience. OK? If you need more time to meet with folks, that's fine. But resolution number one is important because I don't believe, as your mayor, and I don't think that we, as a city commission, should invite our public into a town hall meeting and talk about a thing that could involve money unless we're united, that this is something that is truly important. And we did not have that step before the last vote that we took on the bond issue. We probably should have. And so if what you're saying today is let's defer number two because we're not sure, we still have some questions, that's fine. I want to separate the issues so everyone understands the mechanics, which some folks would call bureaucracy. But trust me, these are legal realities that cannot be ignored. The two charter questions that are going to be discussed at our town hall meeting have to be done by law, by ordinance. Correct, Mr. City Attorney?

Correct, Mr. Mayor.

OK. That means that they have to be read twice. We read it the first time, and we got majority votes on both of those. And it's okay not to have a majority vote on a policy issue. But I just feel it's very, very important, given our recent past, that if we're going to talk to folks about money, that there be unanimity here. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. Hold on, hold on. That's number one? That's not a shot at you. No, no, that's really- No, I'm asking if you're talking about number one. Yes. Oh, I'm a yes on that. Okay, well, but I don't know how everyone else feels. So that's the first thing. If we can have the discussion, and if you all are comfortable on number one, we can begin to broach the issue with the public that a bond is necessary. We can defer number two until you are comfortable having spoken to the city manager and I will rely on his judgment to bring the second resolution back. If you all are comfortable with that, I am comfortable with that. If you're not comfortable with that, then you'll vote no on number one and it really should be removed from the strategic plan because we have no intention of even considering the only means to achieve it, which is some degree of borrowing. I think this commission made the right choice in the situation that we were in. In 2025, we asked the residents for money. In their wisdom, and I say that without any sense of trying to joke around, They decided this is not the time for that degree of borrowing. That's okay. They own the city. We just run it for them. But we had agreed that we were going to put up, what was it, $60 or $66 million? $60 or $66 million?

Yes, but that's with city funds.

Okay, and those city funds were going to leverage what we borrowed. When we walked away from that vote, all we had was the $66 million. We went back to work. And we said, what is the thing that we can most quickly, most effectively do to bolster this city after, frankly, and I say this with great affection and regard for everyone who's ever worked here, a decade of inaction? a decade, and it builds up. When you don't have a capital plan where you're doing it a little bit all the time, it's like at your house. If you ignore everything in your house, come 10 years, you got a mess to deal with, okay? Now we have all of these different projects, roads, parks, Drainage, turf, public safety, all of this other stuff that's just piling up. And it does seem like a lot. It made life easier on the way up. But sooner or later, you hit that reckoning point. What did we do? We said, OK, we know we can fix the parks. And we know that we can fix the roads. Let's deal with everybody drives and just most of us have kids. Let's do that. And then let's try to figure out a better plan for the public safety station complex. I believe that that was the right policy decision. And we are on that road. I don't believe that we should. I don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a disruptive idea. I think it's an unprofessional idea that we should unshackle our train from that track. We should proceed and do, because then if we do that, we've done nothing. We've achieved nothing for this city. On this issue, if you continue to have questions about whether or not it should be this or that or where the additional monies are coming from, and I understand that this was a last minute announcement by the manager. I'm thankful that he made the announcement. He could have easily shut up and let it go to a vote on the amount that was presented, but he didn't. And I respect that. He has come up with a different way of looking at this, even if it's last minute. If you all wanted some additional time, you should have the additional time. But the town halls begin Thursday. So I feel, as your mayor, that I need some indication that there is an openness to consider placing something, an openness to consider placing something, depending on how the facts come down. And you guys can make that decision in August, because by the law, a resolution for a bond is only one reading, not two. And all we're looking to do today, all that we sought to look today with the second item, was to pass a draft of what that would look like in August. Why is this necessary? Because our state came up with this rule where we cannot discuss what's on the ballot after we place it on the ballot. In the case of the charter questions, that's two readings. So we can talk about it until the third one. And then after that, we can't. That's the rule in Florida. It makes no damn sense, but that's the law, and we must follow it. Now, with the bond resolution, we only get one crack at it. So we have to delay that so as to give our families, our taxpayers, our residents an opportunity to ask us questions in the other presentations. So before we deal with one or two, I want to ask you, do you want this to be a topic at the town hall meetings or not? We can do this by consensus. If you tell me we want administration to at least introduce the discussion, we can do that. But that consensus needs to be unanimous. It cannot be just four or three, two. Now, we're talking about big, big money here. So I need to know that we are authorized to have that conversation with the residents, and only you all can authorize it. So where are each of you with that? At the town hall meetings, do you want the public safety subject discussed, presented? And do you want residents to know that one of the ways to achieve it that we're thinking about is the potential bond issue of about $80 million? That's my question to you.

Vice Mayor. That's exactly what I said, though. So my only question was, why would I need to take a vote on number two? I'm all for number one. We can defer. I would love to have the manager, Mr. Ford, Anybody who needs to be there, Ms. Truong is at every one of those events when we had the 500, not really, but 40 town halls the last time. So I have no issues whatsoever. Actually, I prefer that in those town halls we have a thorough explanation that, hey, we absolutely need the public safety complex. This is the way we think. Actually, the only way that we can finance it because it is for the future of our community, and then have public input.

And you want to authorize the staff to go through their presentations and so forth?

Well, by authorize, you mean vote yes on number one?

No, no, no, no, no. Just to present to the residents how it would look.

I can't make it any clearer. I want them to present everything in front of every audience.

Commissioner Rodriguez, you on board with that?

Yes, I think so. I agree. I do not want the contemplation of 80 versus 100 versus 155. I propose that we mention it, but I don't want to say that the recommendation like you just mentioned would be 80, because I think we still have a lot to talk about about what that value may be. OK. That we are looking at bonds as an option, because it's the most viable option. I'm looking at exhibit three, page five, which I'm going to ask you to present on in a second. that that's a valid vote option, and we're looking at all the kinds of different funding that we can add to a bond. But I don't want people to hold onto this $80 million number if we decide to do something different.

Commissioner Agud, how do you feel?

I feel like we talk about this a lot, so I agree.

Your mic's not on.

I believe that the public certainly needs to be exposed to this and weigh in on what their comments are. And I'm in agreement with everybody here about moving forward and having conversation. And I am in agreement to Commissioner Rodriguez that we're careful with a number because of the same reason that you expressed regarding what are considered to be potential issues challenges, I guess, to other things within the city. But I definitely think that we need to have that conversation. I fully support taking it to the public, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. Commissioner Schwartz, where are you on this?

Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Ford, I apologize for having to stand up there for so long. Mayor, On the reso, number one, I want to see if there's, given the discussion I'm hearing, so we can get to the proper place. Under section two, page two of two, section two.

That's not the question yet before us.

The question I had before us. Allow me, if I may. Section two talks about the funding of the funding of the proposed public safety complex. It doesn't speak to how it's funded. I am comfortable removing how it's funded to allow the public to to see Mr. Ford's presentation, everything from GEO bond to CB&A and other financial instruments that may be possible.

What is CB&A? What is CB&A? Mr. Ford can respond on the record.

What is CB&A?

It's covenant to budget appropriate. You've used it in the past. It secures the bonds with all legally available non-advalorem revenues. And in a few minutes, when I get into my presentation, I'll go through that. But it's still a bond. It's still a bond.

OK, so.

Well, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Ford and I had a very in-depth conversation over the past several days, actually. There are pluses and minuses. It's a part of his presentation. It might be on page two or three. The difference is the CB&A can be done at the dais with public input. The GO bond is done at the ballot box. And either way, Um, I, I am in agreement with commissioner Rodriguez that we currently are not in a financial position to pay for the entire amount of a complex like this requiring input from the public on what they are more comfortable with us going out, uh, to secure, to secure that finance. One of the questions I have for Mr. Ford. is there is an uptick in the interest rate for the CB&A.

Hold on a second. Commissioner, we're just not there yet. Hold on. Please focus on the question. Are you okay with us having town hall meetings at which the public safety complex is discussed together with the possibility of a bond issue? That's all we're asking is the form of consensus around that. They start on Thursdays.

No, I'm not. Okay. I am 1,000% comfortable letting the public know that we need to support our first responders and we have antiquated buildings that require an investment.

Okay. I don't think we're there.

How it's paid for... How it's paid for does not necessarily have to be bond. There are different opportunities for us.

Which ways are those?

Mr. Ford can get into his presentation, but to limit ourselves to bond only, to present the public bond only, I don't believe is

is is the best path forward hold on i'm trying to find a compromise all right hold on one second mr dodge other than bonds can you conceive of any other way bank financing or anything much much much more interest right

Mayor, the only other option I think Mr. Ford can refer to it is there is a bond issue. There's also a revenue issue. But with the revenue issue, it would require the city to raise taxes to pay the debt.

Right.

Either way is a tax increase. And you'd pay more interest, right? You can do it in that manner, but it costs the taxpayer a little bit.

Mr. Ford, can you think of any other way?

Can I interject for a minute, please? Can I interject? Before Mr. Ford, it's unfair to say that borrowing is the only option.

What is the other option?

Selling city assets.

Selling city property. The school board is going through this now. Which city assets do you want to sell? This is why last week. I don't think we're ready.

I am bored. We can contemplate all funding sources. Exactly. All of that. While I personally do not believe there's other options as very well put in this thing, in theory, there could be other sources of funding. a million, hundred thousand, bazillion dollars could fall from the sky tomorrow into our bank accounts. And we could pay for it in that way. So to say simply, we have the, right now I believe there's consensus in all of us saying we can discuss it and we're open to looking at all funding options. Because in theory, we are looking at all funding options.

I got to tell you, I got to tell you, I just don't know how you can structure a, I don't know that you can structure a town hall meeting without a clear proposal. I just don't think it's tenable. It would become a magical mystery tour of gibberish. And I don't think that we should say that. I'm not saying that we're guilty of it. But what I'm saying is I don't think we can do it. And if we just don't have the consensus here to do it, we have to abandon it. And instead, just hold the town hall meeting on the two charter questions and move on.

If we abandon it, we abandon public safety. I don't feel comfortable abandoning it.

I can't help how people are creating input. I can't help that. I don't see it. I still think we should entertain resolution number one. And I think that we should defer, if you all wish, resolution number two. But I don't think that we're prepared to have this conversation in front of the public. Mr. Ford, why don't you do your presentation, and then we'll entertain resolution number one.

The hour is getting late. Resolution number one does not mention bond. No, it doesn't. It just says fund a police, fire, public safety. So we can vote on number one. Yes, we can. I believe that there's consensus on number one to be able to talk about it. It does not mention bonds, which is what we were getting at previously.

That's correct. Except that I have explained to you and to all of you, if anyone votes no on number one, I'm voting no. Please, Mr. Ford, your presentation.

Thank you very much. And just for the record, we're happy to come down and assist you any time in any way you need. Yep. Or we may not always be thrilled to come to South Florida. We're always thrilled to come to Permanente. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just for the record, we wanted that. Welcome, welcome.

I want to start out with some things you all know. If you could speak into the mic a little bit more. Thank you.

I will. With some things that you all know, and that is a little primer on the legal framework when you're talking about general obligation bonds. And let me preface this by saying that all of the financing alternatives we list here are bonds. Right. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. We may call it a geo issue. We may call it a covenant to budget appropriate. We may call it a revenue bond. We could call it a lease revenue bond. They're all, at the end of the day, money that you borrow from investors and that you pay them back periodically for it. At the end of the day, it's all debt in one form or another. It's just how you get there. So with that said, when you want to use your property taxes to pay off debt, if that debt is longer than 12 months, it has to be approved by the voters. It has to be voter approved. Therefore, the referendum, a GEO bond referendum. General obligation, because it is an obligation on your property tax base, and you're going to levy what's necessary to pay off the debt. There are several common financing structures. First of all, those general obligation bonds. As we've talked about, their source of security is your property tax base. It goes on your property tax bill. Your property owners pay that. It's very consistent. While there have been some exceptions around the country, over the years. And the primacy of geo bonds has been threatened in a few places. Investors still believe overall that within a given community, that is the highest quality credit that you can have. And therefore, it comes at lower interest rates. It requires a referendum. Very importantly, It provides a new revenue stream. It doesn't take revenue that you're currently using and shift it to something else. It's the only financing mechanism on this page that doesn't disrupt existing revenues, existing operations. It is a new, completely independent revenue stream. There is no non-appropriation risk. You can't decide three years from now, well, gee, I'm tired of paying that, so I'm just not going to levy the property tax anymore. We're not going to pay that off. You don't have that legal ability. That would be considered a default. People have legal remedies against the city if they were to do that. Does it have property tax reform exposure? We are not lawyers. Sam can comment on this, but we believe it does not because of the non-impairment laws in this state. If it's passed by voters and then property tax reform comes about, we believe that the decision of the voters would remain intact and those bonds would continue to be paid. Sam, would you like to comment on that?

May I respond there? Yes. On that premise, yes. On that specific premise described by Mr. Ford, that answer would be it's a covenant with the bondholders. The state would not be able to legally impair that obligation to pay.

I have not heard of any, Lisa, I know you've been following the issue as well. I have not heard of any discussion by the state legislature that would disrupt or keep cities from passing debt on bonds. Have you? I don't think anyone has. Sam, have you?

Not yet. But just to be very clear, Mr. Mayor and commissioners, that the description that Jerry is offering to you is if there were bonds issued, there would be a protected relationship occurring with regard to those bonds. As to future bonds, I'd like to believe you're correct, Mayor. But I've not seen any legislation or proposal that would impair those rights going forward.

OK. So that's a helpful point of fact to consider. Go right ahead.

of those options on this page, it would have the lowest cost of financing. And we'll talk about how much in a minute. Have you done this before? Absolutely. In 2005, there was a referendum. We issued bonds in 2005, the first tranche of it. Two years later, we issued them again in 2007, just the way that Lisa proposed doing should you go with GO bonds now. And that's simply because the projects themselves under federal tax law, you have to have a reasonable expectation that you can expend all of the proceeds within 36 months. In addition to that, if you can spend them within 24 months, there are some tax advantages. If you earn interest over and above the rate that you're paying on the bonds or your bond yield, if it's over 24 months, you owe rebate to the federal government, arbitrage rebate on that. But if it's spent within 24 months and meets certain requirements, you get to keep any excess interest earnings that you have. So that's why that two-year staggering is in there. That's why that was done.

OK.

The second is a bond that would be secured by legally available non-ad valorem revenues of the city. So anything in the term for legally available is not quite definitive. but it takes out public safety, some of those other things, and right now, for your operations in the city, you use ad valorem taxes for some of those expenses, and then to the extent that they don't cover those, you use your non-ad valorem revenues to come in and support the rest. A CB&A pledge, a covenant to budget and appropriate, is simply that, you enter into a covenant that every year, from those non-ad valorem revenues, you will place in your budget, and then you will appropriate those monies at the appropriate time, the debt service payments. What happens if those revenues aren't available? Well, you have something in that, set of documents called an anti-dilution test that says you're gonna maintain them at a certain level. You're gonna try to make sure that you don't run out of those legally available revenues. But should you, okay, you miss a payment, doesn't relieve you of your obligation going forward for the next 28, 25 years, whatever's left on your bond issue. You're still obligated to make those payments going forward. Estimated financing cost, it's slightly higher than a GO bond. You're good credit. You have a double A2 Moody's rating. It's a very high credit rating on the GEO side. It's possible you would get an equal rating. If not equal, maybe just one notch below, but probably equal to your GEO rating. Unless tax reform comes around, then that could change the game here. And it would probably price at a level that's about five one hundredths of a percent, maybe a little bit more than your general obligation bonds. And you saw in the memo that John sent out, that was about $30,000 a year. the present value of every 1,100th of a percent on the issue you're looking at when we were looking at the $155 million, which is what those numbers were based on in the memo, is about $113,000. So somewhere over half a million dollars, between $500,000 and $600,000 is the value of that difference in the interest rate. That being said, Should property tax reform come in, nobody knows exactly what will happen, but we do know this. You would have fewer ad valorem revenues coming in. It would place greater strain you would have fewer ad valorem revenues. Your property tax revenues would go down. You'd have to shift items that are being currently paid for from property taxes to non-ad valorem revenues, creating additional stress on those revenues. And remember, this is not a new source of revenue for you that you would pay this debt from. It's taken from existing ad valorem revenues.

So in other words, if there was ever a time for a geobond issue, this would be it?

That's a policy decision, Mr. Mayor, but that The fact of the matter is, property tax reform will very likely create additional stress on your non-advalorial revenues. No question. And if that occurs, my personal opinion is that if it occurred before you issued those bonds, the pricing differential between that and GO bonds would likely go up. That is, I could be wrong, but that is my guess. Okay. You can issue a revenue bond that is secured not by all of your non-advalorum revenues, but has the pledge, yes, sir.

I have a question, though, because we don't know what it's going to look like, obviously, but there's been talk amongst elected officials in Tallahassee and lobbyists and others around the governor that the possibility is they place a property tax amendment on the ballot in November, assuming they receive, it doesn't take 50 plus one, it's 60% to amend the state constitution, assuming 60% vote for it. However, they phase in, that's because you just said something I really want to understand because I honestly don't understand it. Let's say it's effective in January, I'm sorry, fiscal years in the state are July 1. If they're saying effective July 1, and I'm just making it up, 2028, we put this on the ballot. Voters approve it. Ms. Chong and our manager go for the first bond. I don't know if the appropriate terminology is bond issuance. Well before the date when the property tax exemptions start creeping in because they're talking about piece by piece over a decade. How does that affect what you just said in terms of the costs?

Well, you're asking how it would affect the general obligation bond? Yes.

Yeah.

I don't know, because I'm not a lawyer. That's what Sam spoke to earlier. That part of it is uncertain. If the referendum were already in place, we would hope that the non-impairment clauses would protect it. But I'd like to hear Sam's opinion on that. I am a lawyer, but I'm not a magician or a seer.

And I can't know what's going to happen. I thought you were a magician. Not exactly.

My name is Castillo, not Houdini.

And I say that not tongue-in-cheek, either, because the answer is that Jerry raises the issue. Understand that the homestead exemption, the homestead tax exemption, is actually in the Florida Constitution. And if the voters have an opportunity to vote in some way to change that exemption in some form or fashion, To be quite frank with you, if I were to prognosticate tonight as to what impact that would have on future drawdowns of a bond transaction, that would be exceptional. I should go to Las Vegas tonight, because I can't know the answer.

But for example, we may very well be voting. If this gets on the ballot here in the city of Pembroke Pines, we may be voting on both items on the same ballot. Then what the heck happens?

They can both pass, or they can both fail, or they can split.

Well, obviously, I appreciate that. They can both pass. They can both fail. My question is, how could that potentially impact what we pay in terms of interest on the money we borrow? That's what I'm really getting at.

If there's a GO bond issue, we don't pay it out of the tax revenue that comes from us. It goes on as a line item on your bill. So we never touch that money. It goes directly from the taxpayer to the tax collector to the bond company. We don't touch it. We only get involved if we pass some sort of revenue issue, then it comes out of our share unless we increase taxes. And I don't see it. If the property tax reform goes through, Mr. Dodge may have to come back here and raise the village just to pay the bills, just to make payroll. That's what I'm concerned about. I don't know.

But the highlighting part is that it's on a completely different line than property taxes. What Tallahassee is contemplating is simply, and let's not give them any ideas, is simply property tax reform. When a GO bond goes on your bill, it is a separate line item, and it would not be affected by property tax reform.

It's not homesteaded property, right? It is on a separate line item. The revenues from that do come from the tax collector to the city, who then makes the payment for the bond. However, the McKenna plus McKenna.

From what I understood, it affects the interest rate of what we borrow. So it does impact. Even if it's a different line item, we could be paying more. I pay property taxes. I own my home. I could be paying more. And that's, I'm not saying, I'm not disqualifying it. Trust me, I want the complex. What I'm saying is we've got to be clear. Property tax reform will, could, if passed, impact the interest that we are paying.

Well, here's what I believe. I'm not sure that that's the case, Commissioner. But what I am sure is the case, if homestead exemptions went up, the tax base went down, the millage rate to pay that bond would go up.

Right.

Because that's the way it's legally designed. So the millage rate would rise to whatever that rate was that was necessary to produce the amount necessary to make the payment. OK. That's what would happen.

So that covers pledge revenues.

How about lease purchase? Lease purchase is It's done in a couple different ways. One, it can be called a lease revenue bond, or it can be called a certificate of participation, frequently referred to as COPS. No nod to the folks in the room here with us tonight. That is the most expensive of the options in front of you. It does not have any pledge on any specific revenue or any specific stream of revenues. It is secured by the lease payments that the city would make to investors, and it is secured by the building itself, by the property that you're financing. So the security would be the project, and it would be subject to annual appropriation, meaning that each year, in your budget, you would budget to make that payment, and then you would appropriate it. And should, at the beginning of any budget year, you determine that you no longer wanted to make that payment, you would have the legal right to walk away from it. Not a default. You'd walk away. But you'd give up the facilities that the architect just spent a long time showing you. Right. For that reason, because it's got that annual appropriation risk, that would have the highest cost of financing.

Any questions of Mr. Ford?

Financing options not depicted, special assessment, private public partnerships, and potentially other structures, is it because they're less favorable to the city?

It is. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you talked about public-private partnerships and had discovered that this particular type of project is not well-suited to that. Generally, in most public-private partnerships, while there are some exceptions to this, but most of them generate a revenue stream themselves, and that's what forms the background of the ability to bring in

What would be an example for that, like a water treatment plant that we could get utilities from?

Highways are frequently a really great example.

Tolling highways would be an example.

Yeah, tolling highways. There are parking districts, things that produce a revenue. Not always the case, but most frequently the case. That's really what they excel at, and this is not a revenue-producing project.

So in conclusion, I suppose, while there are plenty of other options, the most favorable for the city would be a general obligation bond from this depiction.

It would be the lowest cost option. That is correct.

Thank you.

Commissioner Good?

Commissioner Schwartz? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Ford. Late last week, your firm gave us a memo that referenced $30,000 a year based on a small uptick in the interest going with CB&A. Now that the manager has essentially cut that number in half, we can say that it's probably half now. So that would be about $450,000 over the 30-year period. And it would take $155 million total with a total payment of $9.5 million a year, taking it to $285 million. We can also take that number in half. So that would be an additional probably $35 to $40 million of total debt, so roughly about $120 million over a 30-year period. On the back of an envelope, does that math seem about right?

I didn't quite follow you, Mr. Schwartz. It's Commissioner Schwartz. It's a little bit more than 50%, but I didn't quite follow your logic there.

Okay, the $30,000 a year that was referenced in your memo is $900,000 with a 30-year period. Now that the manager is recommending it gets cut in half, the additional cost would be cut in half, and the total interest would would also be cut in half, generally speaking.

Well, the present value of one basis point on the smaller issue, on the $80 million issuance, is about $58,500. So you multiply that by five basis points, which was that differential that you were discussing. It gets you between $250,000 and $300,000. Do you need some water? Yes, thank you. But the bottom line is, I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it doesn't negate the fact that the GEO is an independent revenue stream that is not displacing an existing revenue stream. Right, right, right.

It's just the...

you want to take the risk of a current revenue stream being displaced. I mean, that's a policy decision.

Right. So the policy decision is what's at risk with CB&A from what wouldn't we be able to, what capital would be impacted versus, well, it's just going to cost us more in interest. If we're going to rank the pros and the cons, The small uptick in the potential interest being charged is minuscule compared to what projects may not be able to move forward if the CB&A were to be the preferred method from a policy standpoint.

And the other thing that differential does not factor in, Commissioner, is should property tax reform come about, would the stress that it placed on your non-advalorem revenues cause that differential in interest rates to increase? I believe that it very well could.

Correct. So if at a town hall we were to discuss funding options, we can't just say it will cost us more in interest. It's more complex discussion. than that. It's property, what the state does, what projects we have, everything that you just summarized. It's not just a one-line answer. It's just going to cost us more. There's a difference of interest.

Mr. Ford, can you put your screen back up where you ranked the possible options in terms of Increasing expense. OK. So you're saying general obligation, hands down, will tend to be lower cost to the taxpayer. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And then CB&A is likely the second Most expensive? Least expensive?

Least expensive in today's market. That doesn't make any projections about what happens.

And then pledged revenue is basically a revenue bond. And that's the third least expensive. And the most expensive is lease purchase.

That's correct.

So under any scenario, going with CB&A would cost the taxpayers more money. Is that correct?

In Pembroke Pines, it would. There are places where that might not be the case.

Not only that, but in the atmosphere that we're in right now, it also opens up a box of additional risk that none of the other options carry.

It does.

So I think this is now very, very crystal clear. What the city manager, is this the reason why you're recommending city manager, that we go with a general obligation bond? Not only because it creates the less risk for the city, but it creates the least cost to the taxpayer. Do you have any doubts about that? You need to put your mic on. I'm sorry.

No, I have no doubt at all. I've had this experience with Jerry regarding general obligation debt, and I do understand that.

OK. So I think that's clear now. We're all there. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Ford. You're welcome. Yes, go right ahead.

I just want to add. So we're talking about a sizable bond. Yes, sir. And what is the... WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON BEING ABLE TO SECURE A BOND IF YOU HAVE A LIMIT IN YOUR ABILITY TO HAVE FREE REVENUE OR NON-ABVALORM MONEY?