Community Redevelopment Agency Board - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the city commission conference meeting this 10/07/2025. A little, housekeeping here. I think alright. There's no is there any way we can turn down this the mic seems a little like, I'm getting a little too much feedback. Okay. Alright. So, we have, some interesting topics to talk about this afternoon, and, I see where commissioner Sorensen is appearing by Zoom. So hello, commissioner. Hey, mayor.

Thank you. Can't hear you. Check one two. Can you hear me?

No.

How about now?

Keep talking. Yep. Yeah. We can hear you now.

Now you got me. Very good. Great. Thank you.

Very good. Okay. So, the, first item of business that we have is business one. This is a sit the city hall update, and I wanna start the, conversation and have asking our city manager to please begin the con the discussion.

Thank you, mayor. Good afternoon. Today, we'll have a presentation by Jacobs, the city's owner's rep. To introduce us, Ben Rogers, assistant city manager, will come to the podium. You should have received this morning some updated information on this item, and Ben will go over those updates in addition to Jacobs. Thank you.

Okay. And Ben.

Good afternoon, mayor and commission. Ben Rogers, assistant city manager. As the city manager indicated, we've onboarded Jacobs over the summer to be the owner's rep for the project. That is a task based contract. And the first task order that we did with Jacobs was to help us with the review of these initial unsolicited proposals. So I've got Jonathan Jordan and Alan Cohen of part of the project team. They're gonna come up today and talk about their process they went through, how they determine the criteria, what they looked for in the proposals, and the outcome of the proposals.

Okay. So today, Jacobs has submitted his report. You wanna go over that? Are they here? Oh, they're here. Very good. Mister Cohen, haven't seen you in a while. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon. I'm Jonathan Jordan with Jacobs. This is Alan Cohen, who most of you know. Wanna thank you for having us here today to present to you

Can you kinda speak into the microphone? Sure.

Thank you for having us here today to present to you on our process and our findings as part of the evaluation of the unsolicited proposals for your future city hall project. This is the agenda of what we'll be going through today. I'm not gonna mention each one, but just to summarize. So how do we get where are we today? How do we get here?

On May 15, the city received an unsolicited proposal from Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners and then issued a notice indicating that other firms that wanted to submit competing proposals could do so over a sixty day period. And August 5, the city received five additional proposals. And Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners actually revised theirs and resubmitted it along with the other five. So you have total six proposals that we evaluated as part of our role. And the city issued us task order number one to start that process on September 3.

And part of that was to include developing preliminary criteria, conducting initial evaluation, and then presenting the findings to the commission, which brings us here today. So the developer teams that proposals were received for, as you can see from the slide, the lead developer for each team, Balfour Beatty, Cypress West LLC. Gilbane was a developer as part of the Fort Lauderdale Beacon Collaborative. Plenary Americas was the lead developer for Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners. Meridian Infrastructure for Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners, and Industry One Development was the other developer.

The rest of the teams have a variety of members to them. Industry Developments is an all local team. We didn't have, much other information in Cypress West until just a few days ago. You'll see a note on the file here that they notified us that they've added CAST, as their general contractor. The other four developers have a variety of local and international firms filling out their team.

This slide just gives you an overview of the the different firms. You have two small, locally owned firms and four quite large, either national or even international firms. Those four firms have extensive experience with p threes and with large complex projects. And next slide, please. Okay.

Here's the evaluation criteria, and we're gonna spend a few minutes on this slide to give you a a view in the listening audience a better understanding of how we got here. So all but one of the criteria that you're looking at are what we call developer centric. The developer is the entity or individual that is responsible for delivering a successful project to you. They're the one you're gonna sign an agreement with. So we took a look at the developer and their experience and capacity.

The one exception to this is the first column, which is key personnel, and we looked at all of the professional personnel, for, the architect, engineers, general contractor, and the development team as well. The first column is primarily to address a requirement in the p three statute that you also comply with what is called CCNA or the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act. And you look at the qualifications and experience of professional personnel. So we we took a more comprehensive look at the teams for that. Moving on to the other criteria, again, we looked at the developer.

The first column, city hall or government center. To clarify, a government center is a city hall in another name. The Aventura City Hall is called the Aventura Government Center. It's a place where government is headquartered, where administration lives, and where the legislative body meets. Broward County also operates in the Broward County Government Center.

So, that was, the first criteria, but we also recognize that not everybody would have had the opportunity to work on a city hall project. And so we added two other what we felt were relevant criteria. The first were municipal projects where we wanted to assess the experience of the developer in working with local jurisdictions and delivering successful projects. With the office building, given the nature of this project, the site that we're located in, it's gonna be a multistory specialized office building, and we wanted to see what experience the developer had in delivering a similar type project. This is a the next column p three.

This is a p three process. So we wanted to understand the experience of each of the developers in leading and delivering p three projects. References, pretty straightforward. We ask the developers or examples of work that they've done in the past to fill in those other columns that I just spoke about, p three, city hall, municipal, and office building, and then we also asked them for references on those projects. We called everyone, and got through the most of them, and we'll talk more about that in a few minutes.

Developer financial capacity. This was taking an initial look at whether or not the developer had adequate financial resources. And when I say initial look, we didn't do a deep dive on this one. In the in the next step, we'll be looking at financial statements and the like. This was more of a cursory review looking at Dun and Bradstreet information primarily.

Developer litigation history, we were looking for essentially red flags that might be a cause for concern. Are there conflicts? Are there situations that might impact their ability to successfully deliver the city hall project? And lastly, the p three statute compliance, two fifty five zero six five is pretty specific in what needs to be included in an unsolicited proposal. So we looked at that, and we looked at other aspects of the statute as well to see if the developers were compliant.

Next slide, please. So we this slide is more for the benefit of the commission and not the review team. Our review was a pass fail review, but we wanted to provide you just our thoughts on what we thought were primary criteria and and and secondary. Secondary does not mean they're not important. As I just explained with city hall, municipal, and office buildings, they're all interrelated, and they should be treated as such.

And had we had our druthers financial capacity, might have been a primary criteria. But as I said, because we did a cursory review on that one, we didn't feel it was enough of a review to to merit being a primary criteria at this time. It should be absolutely moving forward. Litigation history, we only looked at current litigation. We didn't look at past litigation, and we think that litigation history for all team members should be looked at for shortlisted teams. Next slide, please. Yes. Okay. Go ahead.

So this was a first criteria for key personnel. And as part of that, we evaluated the developers, personnel, and all the team his their team members as well. And they sub supplied us with resumes for all their key per people. And we evaluated that. And what we were looking for was the professional qualifications and experience on large complex projects because we view the city hall project as large and complex, and we thought that was very important. So as you can see at the halfway through the slide, we indicate which firms met or didn't meet that criteria based upon what was submitted in our review and evaluation of that.

So, yeah, she skipped one. It's it's okay. Mhmm. Go back. So the previous slide that we

there we

go. Regarding city hall experience, only one of the developers has actually delivered a city hall project. The other five based and and let me clarify something. Our review was based on the information provided. We looked at the proposals. We looked at the supplemental information that we requested. And based on that, we look to see whether or not the developer led and delivered city hall project or the other relevant projects that we'll be talking about momentarily.

Could I jump in on that real fast? So I'd like to make this sort of an iterative conversation. So we've got teams here. Right? So you're saying that if one of the team members has experience doing that, but the developer the primary developer does not, you discounted that. Is that my understanding?

I wouldn't use the language discounted, commissioner, but Okay. We only looked at the developer when making these criteria determinations.

Yes. Okay. I I because I kinda thought that's a whole part of having a team is that you've got people with different qualifications that they bring to the team. Not everybody needs to have done every aspect of that project. But okay. Thank you. At least I understand the process.

And and I'll point out, commissioner, that, again, we did look at the entire team for their general qualifications and experience when it came to these other individual criteria. That's when we focused on the developer as the person responsible to you.

This next criteria was for municipal buildings, and all but one of the teams met that criteria as you can see from what's on the slide.

Office building experience, as you see, five of the six, developers had experience, delivering an office building project. And and we had four of the six that had experience delivering a p three project.

Okay.

Regarding references, as I told you, we spoke to a whole lot of people. Everyone was positive, and all of the developers met this criteria.

So all the firms provided some information on their financials, but not deep not full financial statements. So we used Dun and Bradstreet reports and gleaned whatever we could from those and to to do some sort of an evaluation on what the financial strength was. But at the next evaluation, there needs to be a deeper dive on that. But based upon what available information was available to us, we found that, all but one firm met that criteria. Just a quick question.

Dun and Bradstreet, don't they basically get their information from the party who they're analyzing? They don't have any independent information. So when you say we're relying on Dun and Bradstreet, we're relying on whatever that particular company has provided Dun and Bradstreet as being the basis for their financial wear worthiness. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

K. Litigation history. We also relied on the developers indicating to us whether or not they had any current litigation, and no one indicated as such they all met this criteria.

Well, that's not true. Yeah. FTL Beacon Collaborative, one of its party partners is s EDSA, and we're currently suing them. And that this was, mayor, again, a developer centric criteria, so

we only look Well, they're part of

the team. I understand that, sir. So we can't overlook that. And and we are encouraging you to ask for litigation history for all the team members in the next phase of your review.

Okay. Thank you.

Next was p three statute compliance. The as I have already stated, the statute has certain requirements. After review, we deemed five of the six developers to be compliant with the p three the Florida p three statute.

So this slide is the matrix where we basically summarized all the firms, all the criteria, who met and who didn't meet. And across the bottom is a a summary of each firm and of the nine criteria, how each firm did against the nine criteria.

K. We'll switch off. Alright. So we prepared some additional slides just to give you what we felt was some relevant information, including local projects and and just notable or noteworthy factoids about each of the development teams. And we'll point out for Balfour that they're completing the $1,300,000,000 Broward County Convention Center and Hotel project right here in Fort Lauderdale.

Cypress West is a a firm that I think we're all familiar with. In fact, the city is leasing space from them right now at the Fort Lauderdale Landings campus.

Beacon Collaborative, we didn't specifically have information on local projects, but they've been operating in Florida for fifty three years. They, were established in 1870. This is actually, interestingly enough, a family owned business, still owned by the same family from 1870. And their partner excuse me. Gilbane is the lead developer, but they are partnering partnering with Fengate as a major equity investor in the project.

And Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners being led by plenary sorry. And, of course, part of their team is Stiles. And, of course, I think everyone is familiar with Styles. They've developed numerous class a high rise office buildings here in Downtown Fort Lauderdale.

Civic Partners is led by Meridian, and they're quite well known for leading the Port Miami Tunnel, which is an internationally known p three project that they successfully delivered on time and on budget.

Under budget.

And Industry One Developments, you know, their team highlights are their as they stated, were their proximity to the project site, their long standing community ties, a portfolio of civic and global infrastructure projects. This slide summarizes the results from the matrix that we showed a little earlier. So of the six proposals, it was found that one firm met all the criteria or a 100%, which was Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners. Three firms met all but one of the criteria, Balfour Beatty, Fort Lauderdale Beacon Collaborative, and Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners, which works out to about 89%. One firm met five out of the nine criteria, Cypress West, and one firm met three out of the nine criteria, which was industry one developments.

So thank you for the time to present. If you have questions, we gladly will entertain them.

Well, great. Thank you. It's very helpful as we move forward on this process. Does anyone from the city commission have any questions of these gentlemen? Ben?

Thanks, mayor.

I'm good

for right now. Thank you.

You're good for okay.

Very good. So so, mayor, not a question. Just an overall comment about the process. Yeah.

Go ahead.

I I I wish we had had more of an opportunity to discuss this waiting criteria. I know I've talked to a lot of the folks who are proposing, and, you know, they were kinda surprised by some of the conclusions that were arrived at. And I think this is reflective of the fact that we really haven't been very communicative about the process to the developer community. I think we could have done a much better job. I I certainly would have liked to have had some input onto, you know, how these were evaluated. Not sure I agree entirely with with with what with what was done. So I just really think we could have done a better job in the process.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? I'd I'd like to at least start the

conversation of where we'd like to go from here because I I personally believe that we should hear four four presentations going forward.

Alright. So a number of people signed up to speak, most of which are just the developers. I don't know whether this is the time to be having that conversation.

Mayor Yes. Mayor, I don't think we should go through presentations or,

summarizing

at this point.

I think I think

at this moment. I meant our next step.

Yeah. Our next step. I didn't mean

to Right. Not today. Yep.

No. Alright.

Mayor Yes. Staff is recommending that four of the six firms be shortlisted to advance to the next phase of the evaluation process based on what Jacobs presented today.

Alright. So, Jacobs, first of all, thank you for your your work. We appreciate the the time and effort you put into it. I know you folks are are very experienced in this, and you're providing objective criteria in terms of the evaluation makes it, more, transparent for everybody to understand your conclusions and how you arrived at your conclusions. With regard to the results, I think that, saying, well, there's only one that qualified, a 100%.

I would I think listening to the city manager, we should probably expand that and take the top four, which at least gives the city, quite a few more options to examine, more deeply what the qualifications are of these people. I'd hate to I know personally, I'd hate to disqualify somebody because of of one criteria that wasn't met, especially since I think this is a 30,000 foot examination of these, of these applicants, and we now need to, get more ground level and and see dig more deeply into what the qualifications are and the expectations of the city. So Mayor? Yes,

sir. If we're going to be considering cutting some of the potential developers out of the process, I really think we ought to at least give them the courtesy of letting them present. I mean, a lot of these folks have spent significant amount of time, effort, and money putting us together. And, candidly, I'd like to hear from them before we make that decision as to what we're moving forward to. We're gonna be living with this for the next fifty to seventy five years. I'd like a really full robust discussion. If it's not today, then I think we should schedule it for another time, but I really would like to hear from all the presenters.

Well, you

will Can I jump in?

Yeah. Go ahead.

Thanks. So, this is you know, our our previous commission meeting, we had a great discussion about the process here and what the process would be. And, we all agreed to that process, which I think is is a great process for us to be following. And that process that we all agreed on was that today, we would shortlist. We would, eliminate some of the applicants, and that that would be a smaller list.

We agreed that there won't be any presentations today, and we agreed that when we would next convene after staff did a further, deeper analysis of the remaining firms, at that point, there'd be, presentations, short presentations from the, applicants. So I think, you know, let's let's stick with the process that we've agreed on. And I think the next step, after we, narrow the list here today, is and and Ben Rogers and Raquel can, maybe be helpful for them to speak to this now. But, my understanding is that there's gonna be a more robust analysis with the the firm that's gonna help with that this f, PFM, I believe, Mayor, is gonna be part of the process to take a deeper dive. And then what we talked about was that on or around December 2, the remaining firms would would present at that point.

So I I agree with, Mayor, what you're saying about four. Four makes a lot of sense. And, so I just share, I think that's the right process to kind of continue on.

Okay. I I just wanna correct the record, though, commissioner Sorensen. I did not agree to the scoring criteria. So let's please not say that it was unanimous because I did not. Thank you.

Vice mayor, sure. I said process. We all agreed to the process of what

would happen, what date.

Sure. The the the process includes the criteria by which we are evaluating them, and and and that's why I'm saying, had I had more of an opportunity to see what the evaluation criteria was, I think it would've been helpful to me. But leaving that aside.

Yeah. Yeah. No. That that's fine. And that and that's actually a great point, Mayor, because here's what I'd suggest

is Wait. Wait. Ben, before you go any further. Yeah. I just want I want every member of this commission to know that if they have some suggestions or they have their own experience that they would like to share with Jacobs, no one is preventing any member of this commission from picking up the phone or emailing these folks and getting a better understanding of what the criteria are or getting a better understanding of the approach that they're taking in order to evaluate these these applicants.

So, it doesn't always have to happen here, in a commission meeting. The only thing that has to happen here in a commission meeting is the exchange of ideas between commissioners. But if you have any suggestion if you have any suggestions to these folks, you're you're you're, you know, fully entitled to speak with them.

May mayor, I I would respectfully disagree with that. I don't want to be the one lobbying Jacobs as to what the criteria would be. I don't think that's transparent. I think it needs to be a consensus of of all of us. I do think it needs to be something that we discuss here in public. I don't wanna be calling up Jacobs and saying, well, here's my opinion about what I think is the appropriate design criteria without, you know, the input from everybody else. We could disagree as we often do. So I I wouldn't want to be be the one trying to drive that that, you know, outcome all by myself. But, we just

Well, is there something you'd like to suggest today then, or do you wanna wait for the next

suggestion, which which I think I was, you know, fairly reasonable about, is just to say I think we ought to give everybody an opportunity to present. I'm not suggesting that we don't go with narrowing this down to four or anything else. I'm fine with that aspect of it at this point. I don't wanna slow this down unnecessarily. But, again, I think in deference to the effort that everybody has put into this, I think it's worthwhile hearing what everybody has say. But that's my opinion. I I if if we don't agree, we don't agree. That's fine.

Alright. So we so, why don't we agree to, now narrow it down to the four? And at a future meeting, we will allow, we will allow folks to present and make their make their presentation and give them enough time to be able to make their pitch to the commission. I think that's always been the the I I think that's always been in the plan. You know? We didn't not gonna deny people the right to speak. It's just that this wasn't the meeting that we had intended for that to happen.

I just wanna be clear on this though, Mayor. You're saying how many are we narrowing down the number of presentations at the next meeting?

I I if we narrow it down to four, that would those would be the four people.

I just wanna make sure it was a little unclear what you were saying. I I wanted to make sure that that's what we were doing. We're not because you said that everyone's welcome to present and speak, but I I do believe that we need to narrow the presentations to four presentations.

But it doesn't prevent anyone else from speaking

with regard to on their own behalf. Of course. But not a twenty minute presentation?

No. I'm not saying that.

They would have three minutes to speak.

Or whatever. Yeah. Or whatever. Or two. Okay.

So may mayor, we can go through what we anticipate to be the next steps, but we are looking at December 2 as the date that those four shortlisted firms would be able to present. Okay. Then on December 16, we're looking for authorization for me to begin negotiations with the selected firm. I'm gonna ask Ben Rogers to come back up to talk about some of the steps that we would need to go through before that December 2 date that would allow us to have a thorough discussion.

Okay. Ben.

So, Mayor, the IT team is bringing up a slide just to help with the illustration of the timeline. There's really four next steps that we're looking at and categorized in buckets. The first one is shortlisting, which we're hearing the commission will be doing today, and staff will be working on refining the scope of the building. So we're gonna as we talked about in the previous meetings, we're gonna dust off the old documents. We're gonna get the the right square footage.

We're gonna define the amenities for the building, what the commission chambers look like, and all the other specialty elements of the building. We're hoping to have that process completed by mid to end of next week, and then we would be releasing that information to the shortlist of proposers to have them respond with updated information. We also are working with PFM, which was indicated earlier, who will be doing the financial analysis once the responses come in. So incorporate any questions or information that PFM needs as part of their response at the same time they release this square footage and amenity package.

So so if, once that's released and once the, applicants have a much better understanding of our needs, then, can we expect them, at the December meeting to be able to provide a cost estimate of the building based on all the criteria that have now been established by that time?

So we're gonna be asking them for their cost information based off of the information we provide. That way, it's apples to apples on the square footage and the amenities and what the building will look and feel like. Obviously, once we move forward and we get into negotiations and we start getting into the design elements, that I think that's when your real cost will be brought forward. But we are gonna be onboarding PFM to do a a a check of the information that they provide to make sure that it's in alignment with the downtown market, what the construction costs are that they're putting in their proposal responses to make sure it's accurate, and then they'll be identifying any challenges, concerns that they would have with that information. So that way, in December, the commission has a a number tied to our current standards or current space needs that has been reviewed by someone to make sure that the pricing is consistent with industry standards.

Got it. Yes. Go ahead.

May I if I may and just help me understand why we need another two months for this to happen, why it seems a little long, but help me understand why we need to wait another two months before we're able to come back and do some more work on this.

Yep. So for number one, we're trying to get it completed in the next week to week and a half. So we wanna make sure that we provide an adequate amount of time for the proposers in step two to refine their information and submit their updated information. So we expect that would be somewhere in early November. We are gonna be doing the financial review and analysis with PFM, and they'll need two to three weeks to complete that. That brings you right up to the Thanksgiving holiday, and the next meeting would be the first meeting in December.

Okay. Thank you. It's gonna take some time to do that.

Just checking.

Okay. Any other questions?

Yes, mayor.

Oh, yes. Go ahead.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you. And and I wanted to thank, Alan and and Jonathan for their work at at through the Jacobs report. I thought very helpful, you know, next step for us. So so thank you both for that.

Mayor, as we, think about this next step, just a a couple thoughts, and and this is maybe going mayor to to Ben Rogers and and Raquel. And and vice mayor, I thought, brought up a great point about making sure we're all on the commission in alignment around the criteria. So, mayor, I'd just like to have a little bit of conversation with Ben and and and all of us about what criteria is going to be considered in this next step analysis with, city staff and if that's okay.

Okay. Do we do we have that information right now? What what are the next step criteria with the second phase of of of analysis?

Yeah. So we're working through that right now. I think the overarching probably comment in for commission feedback is is it a design, build, finance operate maintain? So it's a thirty year leasehold where they're providing the operation and maintenance of the facility, or does the commission have a desire just to do a design build, design build finance?

What what what what? What? Oh.

So I guess mayor, one of the proposals, is asking to speak at this time.

No. This is not the time to speak. So We just decided. But but but this would be the time for any member of the commission who wants to talk to talk to the public and talk to Jacobs what criteria we should now be including in the decision making process. And and you've already initiated some of the ideas. Is there anything more that needs to be added to that discussion?

So, mayor, could I

Go ahead.

Oh, sorry. I I can't tell if someone else from the commission wants to speak, but I I just had some Keep going. Okay. Great. Thanks. Okay. So, some of the criteria. Ben Rogers, I'll just, direct this toward towards you for, what I think are are some of the criteria, and we can, you know, kind of as a commission, discuss this. So, one, I think, litigation. Right? Ben, is that fair? Is one of the criteria we're gonna further look at litigation experience?

Yeah. We'll we'll do, a review of that. I don't know if it will be before the next round, or if it'd be part of the interim agreement or that that phase, but, we can definitely we definitely understand that there needs to be more analysis done in that area.

Okay. Yep. I think at least a little bit more there. Okay. Great. Financials, which is gonna be part of role. Do I have that right, Ben?

That's correct. As I indicated earlier, we'll be asking for some initial costumers back based off of our updated square footage and amenities, and then will do a review of that to make sure that it's in line with industry standards.

K. Great. And experience, which I think Jacob's already did some of that, but, I don't know if there's a further dive on experience. And I think we wanna broaden that aperture a little bit to, across the team in terms of experience on, you know, public buildings, municipal, city hall. So is that part of it too? Is that fair?

So right now, it's not in our next phase scope, but I would encourage that that we look at having these, teams as they do their build their presentations for December 2, include all that information and and have a direct engagement with the commission on their project teams, their experience, and qualifications.

Okay. Great. Then next criteria, FM, facilities management, which, again, Ben, I'm I'm not an expert on this, but one of the possibilities for, these projects are to have a a contract where, there's a degree of facilities management over a period of of time. Should that be a a criteria listed as as if a applicant is interested in doing that or not?

So most of the proposals received to date were for design, build, finance, operate, maintain. I believe that's the path that we'll move move forward with, but I would defer to the city manager or the city commission for their feedback.

Okay. Let I'll pause there for Raquel or mayor to just opine on that.

Anything further?

Oh, yeah. A lot more.

But I

just Okay. Go ahead.

Okay. So, Raquel, is that the direction we wanna go in? Design, build, operator, finance, maintain?

I think it's too soon in the process to definitively say that we want the maintenance aspect to be incorporated, I think we would need to take a look at what's provided to us and then weigh our options. And a lot of this will need to be negotiated further once we get into a comprehensive agreement phase. I I do think there are advantages and there are disadvantages, and I think some of the firms may be better suited to offer that, opportunity. And and some of the firms, I think, are a little bit Weak. Challenged in that area.

So We never really had that discussion, Ben. It's Right. Right. Or not we wanna own it or rent it. Right? Right. Right. But I think that it would be I don't know whether if this is feasible, but is it possible for the applicants to come back with both approaches? You know, what it would cost the city every year if we if it was a lease purchase versus an outright design build purchase? I mean, can we ask that of them? Is that something that's that is is normally asked for?

Yeah. We can structure our our refinement package anyway. So if you wanna see alternates, we can add it in there. I just wanna caution the commission that, again, we're early in the phase, and we're moving through this expeditiously. So I don't think that any of these cost estimates are contractually obligation. And as things get redefined and as they move forward, there might be different numbers and figures down the down the road. But at this point in time, it would standardize all of the responses to the same criteria.

Okay. Mayor, can I jump

in as commissioner Sorensen? If I could, I just wanna piggyback on this. So

Yep. Go

ahead. Don't mean to step on your on your conversation. Just some thoughts. So I think we need to have them present to us a menu of options because I'm not sure that I want them to finance when I know our ability to finance is, you know, substantially better. But there are some options out there using, you know, not for profit tax exempt that could approach approximate our borrowing costs.

We also have to think about whether we wanna do a general obligation bond, which requires a referendum, or if we want to do more of what we've done or what you saw the county do when the general obligation bond for the courthouse got rejected where I think they did an excise tax bond. So there's different ways in which we can look at that internally. And I also think we should price out I I think we need optionality here. Okay? So I don't know that I want them to operate and maintain the building necessarily.

We have city staff that does that, but there's also a benefit to having, you know, professional outside management. So what I would like is a menu of options that we can look at and price individually, and we can select one from column a and two from column b. So I think that puts the city on the best posture to figure out what makes the most sense for them, and they could each decide whether they want to offer that as as as part of their, you know, as part of their menu that they're offering us. And if I may and I'm sorry, commissioner Sorensen, I beg your indulgence.

No. Please. I'd like

to see from from Jacobs is before we define all the criteria for them, I would like them to actually give us a memo with the criteria that they would suggest, and then we could all look at that and maybe come back with, say, yes. I agree with this, this, and this. I'd like you to change that. I'd like you to add this. I I think rather than us trying to ad hoc our way to the criteria today, I'd love to see what they propose to us, and then we could add, subtract as necessary at at our next meeting. Just just a thought.

Great. And and, yeah, I'm not ad hoc ing, by the way. I'm I've I've spent a lot of time with this. So, this is, this comes from a lot of, discussions I've been having.

Not not directed at you, sir.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, Ben, my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but the vice mayor's point, is Jacobs gonna continue to be engaged on this, or is it transitioning to, staff and

So the owner's rep agreement with Jacobs is in place. We're examining a number of factors, the timeliness, the turnaround time, some of the things that have, internal staff knowledge and being able to expedite some of those processes by doing it in house. Is does most of our reviews for unsolicited proposals or p three projects. So having them look at the financial aspects is in line with other projects, and then we'll continue to engage with Jacobs and and their owner's rep role through various task orders.

Okay. So I guess the short answer is Jacobs will be involved in this analysis this next step analysis.

That's still still too They'll be determined.

Okay. Still figuring that. Got it. Great. So and and device mayor's point that, you know, I like the optionality as well. So, my thinking, mayor and and and Ben, is just, look. In in two months is a very short period of time to expect the firms to come together with very, kind of narrowed down cost estimates, and and that's just not a lot of time, especially when we're asking them for optionality and and possibilities. So I think, if we could get I think a couple of things. What are they willing to provide? What what modalities of delivery and financing?

What experience do they have in that modality? And then rough estimates of that the price of that modality or option. Ben, is that is that a fair ask, do you think?

Yeah. Again, I'll defer to the commission on their feedback and direction on how they want us to include certain elements in in the next round, but understand the concerns and understand the feedback. Commissioner Sorenson?

Commissioner Sorenson, I just I wanna add. I I think we can add some level of optionality in our request to the proposals. Maybe it's, at a high level and it's not as granular as we might wanna go if we had, a time window that was beyond the dates that we've shared earlier. But I think we can incorporate some of what vice mayor Herbst is requesting and still come in on time and on schedule with this process.

Great. That sounds great. And Raquel and mayor and commissioner, one of the concerns I had is because this is a, you know, only a two month process, let's say, now to December 2, as I mentioned, I think for applicants to really fully do a deep analysis of what exactly the cost would be is gonna be somewhat truncated. But our and and I asked Ben Rogers about this, but our our, meaning the city's thinking is ask the applicants to provide, an analysis of what they think the cost is. PFM will do an analysis of their estimate so that in other words, if, you know, Sorenson applicant says it's only gonna cost $1 a square foot, well, that could be accurate or could not be, but will do a little bit of analysis to ensure that Sorensen's estimate is in line with their understanding and and and and market analysis and so forth.

So I just wanna pause for that comment for any feedback.

Is that possible? Is that possible?

Yeah. So, again, I I understand the concerns commissioner has on the timeline. And as long as the commission understands that we will get the best information we can given the timeline and the responses that the proposers have to be able to meet the December timeline, we can we can do that. So the proposal the updated information would come in. Would then review it, they and would do a financial analysis, and they would identify any major shortcomings or, things that aren't in line with the market conditions.

Okay. Alright. Okay. Great. Thank you. Then.

Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate it. Okay. I'm just looking at the criteria that I kind of think is helpful. So I think those are, some big pieces of it. Now, what my suggestion would be if we can do this, Raquel, is you've gotten some feedback, you know, some feedback from the the commission here, and there might be more after I, you know, be quiet. But, that then Raquel's city staff would then send a email or or memo to the city commission saying, okay. Here's the criteria in this next phase analysis that we are, going to be using. What addition subtractions do you as a a commission have?

Is that, can we can we do that as a next step?

Yes. I think that's feasible and appropriate, and we would give a deadline for the commission to provide feedback.

Yeah. Okay. Great. And then and, Raquel, just for clarity, and maybe this is to D Wayne too, but, an individual commissioner could provide that feedback one on one to you directly to you, Raquel. Right? There's no need to do this at a at a commission meeting. Is that my tracking?

I I think the feedback could be provided individually. And if it is the will of the commission to have a discussion, I would say that at the next meeting, we would try to have

that discussion. That makes more sense to do to have the

open Great. So maybe mayor, maybe that's our deadline as a as as a commission is to say, we're gonna get this memo, evaluate, assess, and then come back next commission meeting to finalize our criteria for evaluation. Is that fair?

Is that fair?

I think that's fair.

Got it. The Okay. Then, mayor, the next question I'd have is so we're aiming for December 2. And let's just mayor, just for clarity, I just wanna make sure. Can we just list the four firms that are gonna be on this, on our remaining list? Just I just wanna hear their names so we're all clear. The four that will progress to the next stage, that will present at December 2 meeting, mayor.

So, Ben, what are the four firms that you're recommending move forward?

I'm gonna defer the manager. So I think she has it printed out in front of her.

Bot Fort Beatty, FTL Beacon Collaborative, FTL City Hall Partners, and Fort Lauderdale Civic Partners.

Okay. So those are the four.

Okay. Great, mayor. Then my next question was would be for December 2 so that as these applicants begin doing their due diligence and and and preparing presentations for December 2, Mayor, can we set a time limit for the presentation so they're aware right now, of what that time limit is? And, mayor, I don't know if that's ten minutes or fifteen minutes, but I I'd like to be kind of finite today if we could.

Well, I mean, normally, we give fifteen minutes, so I think that's fair. They should be able to get their point across in that fifteen minute time. And then often, we add another five minutes in case they have any rebuttal or anything they forgot to say. So so we would obviously need to allow enough time during that meeting, and I assume it's gonna be a conference meeting. We need to allow enough time during that meeting and not have a lot of other items on the agenda so we have a full throated discussion and presentation because this is an important decision we're gonna be making.

Great. Yeah. I agree. So fifteen minute presentation, and then there can be a little bit of rebuttal, or there can be obviously as much time for questions. Right.

Okay. Mayor, I was going to, when we were talking about the time, I was thinking saying the ten. I was I was thinking a little longer amount of time, and I'm not gonna say how much more, but if I'm gonna ask if we could at least do eighteen minutes. Eighteen? Yes. Instead of

the twenty.

As you know, I'm pretty flexible on these things. Yeah.

I figured we can work with that. I won't put out my number that I was gonna put out there, but, allowing, a little bit more time because, again, they have worked on this. They've really, put effort into it, and I don't think we should, box them in fifteen. That's kinda like a rush.

Well, I would like I would like them to be able to send them send us the presentation ahead of time too.

Okay.

So we we studied it, and we we've swallowed most of the details. And so it's not it's not fresh information as they speak from the data. So it's an easier process. So but, yeah. I mean, obviously, I'm very

flexible. 18.

18. I I 18. Commissioner, I actually think I actually think 18 is too little. I mean, this is a major decision.

Think of a little more.

I I first of all, I don't understand why we're micromanaging this to this extent, everything, but that's okay.

What were you thinking?

I'm thinking you need to give each of these teams at least thirty minutes.

Go for thirty minutes.

Yeah. Yeah.

Just At least. I mean, maybe I would say let them take whatever they need to do the best job they can possibly do because this is a very important decision. I don't wanna put fifteen, eighteen, 20 I don't wanna box anybody in right now. I just don't.

And, mayor, we can include the presentations from the teams on the agenda if that is the will of the commission.

Alright. We'll we'll we'll see how it goes.

Yeah. But I think it is important to look. We've gotta go we this is a very important project and a very important process. So it's really important that we get clear on all the steps as we're going through. So that that's why it's important to get on these details. I know it's not you know, it's everyone's favorite, but we've we've gotta dig into the specifics. So and, Mayor, it's also a fairness question because these applicants are gonna be spending a huge amount of time and effort on their presentations, and it's only fair that we set expectations for them so they understand how much time they have to prepare. And so I look. I'm I'm fine with thirty minutes, or it shouldn't be any more than forty five minutes. So, Merrick,

you're I think we I think we lose our attention with this app. Yeah. I agree. So So let's just be let's look. Let me make that decision at the time. Let's just, know that we're going to be fair and reasonable regardless of, regardless of what you know, which applicant is is making presentations. So if people need a little bit more time, that's fine. If they need if they do if they can do with less, that's fine. Let's just be flexible. We're not here to we're not here to, to stifle the process.

We want a full throated discussion and explanation. So, you know, I I come from, being a lawyer and, you know, you go into court and you're given fifteen minutes to make your your presentation, and so you tailor your arguments so that it it happens within fifteen minutes even though you need two hours. So, you know, I think that the salient features of any presentation can be done within the amount of time allotted. I just don't wanna lose the attention. You know, the the fourth applicant is gonna be after an hour and a half of listening to all this, and we're gonna say, you know, we're not gonna give them the the the the attention that I think they're entitled to. So let's keep that in mind also.

Agreed. So aiming towards thirty minutes is what I'm hearing.

Oh, great.

That's what

I'm hearing. Alright. Awesome. So let me just so the process as we have it, I just wanna make sure we're all clear, feeling good that this is we're gonna get criteria in the next two weeks. We're gonna do analysis. We're gonna come back in the next commission meeting, finalize what that criteria is. The analysis will be done December 2. They'll come back, four firms listed, thirty minute presentations, little bit of extra time if needed, plenty of time for all the questions and comments. And then at the December 2 meeting, our plan is to select one of those four to enter into interim agreement. Mayor, do I have that right? Yes, sir. Okay. So I just wanna go through so, commissioner Glassman, is that are we good with that process?

Yes. I am. Although I would like to make just one request of staff, if we can get all of that further due diligence information in advance Right. Of the presentations, the financials, the litigation, all those pieces that have been mentioned by all of the commissioners plus Jacobs, if we can get all of that in hand, I would like to have that ahead of time before the presentations.

Yeah. Good. Okay.

Mayor, Yes. I'm I'm just trying to think ahead of this process. When we come back with the proposed criteria at the next meeting and there's hopefully consensus among the commission. If there is something that presents itself at a later point, but before we come back on December 2, I think that I would like us to have the opportunity to incorporate that as part of the criteria. Obviously, I would reach out

to gonna have a significant impact on our decisions. Needless to say, we don't wanna foreclose any opportunity to, you know, understand everything about an applicant or their proposal. So, yeah, of course.

Wanna have that level of flexibility should something come up. Yep. And I don't wanna be so prescribed that we're unable to present new information.

No problem.

Thank you.

No problem. Yeah. Okay. Does anyone else want to make recommendations?

I just wanna

we're all in agreement with what she's

I'm sure if they're not, they'll let us know.

Yeah.

Okay. Okay.

Great. We're all good. Alright. Thank you, Mike.

I'll let you know. Hold on. No. I'm out. I I I think I think it's a mistake to exclude Cypress West. I believe that this is the most cost effective and speed to delivery option that we have. I like the other don't get me wrong. I like the four other proposals that we have. I think they're great. I think they're very comparative, and I'm happy to consider them. But, you know, we talk about time as of the essence, and the only one that we can move into immediately is Cypress West. As soon as our police staff are able to occupy our new police headquarters, we can begin to move folks over into that building. And I think to ignore the speed of delivery, the ability to move in immediately and get folks at a very high price rental space in the downtown area is is a disservice.

So Alright.

I I I know that my colleagues don't agree with me, but I wanna be on the record that I think we're doing the city's taxpayers a disservice by not taking the least expensive and fastest option to get our folks into a top notch space that we will eventually own.

Okay. Thank you. So are there any other criteria that you would like to recommend, anyone from the commission would like to recommend to Jacobs and or the other consultants as we proceed forward in this, evaluation process? Not at this time. Okay. At

this time.

Thank you.

Mayor, I'm I'm gonna request that you, take an action in the evening meeting to confirm the proposals that are moving forward.

We just did. I thought I thought the city manager announced the four. You we don't vote. So what would you want us to do?

I would like you to vote to to reduce the number of posers.

Oh, tonight? Tonight. Tonight. Oh, tonight. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. Certainly.

Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Is that okay, commissioner Sorensen?

Thank you for checking. It helps me feel

I wanna make sure you're happy. You're not with us physically, so I wanna make sure you're happy.

Very happy. I miss you all dearly.

Thank you. Excellent. Thank you.

May I proceed? Okay. Thank you. Alright. Next up, business two charter revision board updates. Who's gonna talk to us about that? We have Anthony Fajardo. Anthony.

And I believe Paul Bengel.

Okay. So today, we're going to hear once again about the recommendations that the Charter Revision Board, has made to the commission, preliminarily. Thank you, folks. Made to the commission preliminarily as to their recommendations for charter changes. And, I believe we've all read the the backup, which shows the charter section, changes as well as the summary that was provided to us. And so, at this point, I'd like to, hear from staff as to what these changes are about and what our next steps.

Thank you, mayor. Anthony Vajardo, director of development services. So we've developed a presentation that I'm going to present in conjunction with the city attorney's office. Paul Bengal, as you mentioned earlier, and also Gabrielle Bush from the city attorney's office have have helped co develop this presentation along with the backup materials. So I'm gonna do the lead in, and then Paul's gonna take over for some of the discussions on the on the details.

One thing I would like to note is that the PowerPoint presentation's up on the screen. There was a slight modification to it to allow you to follow along with exhibit one. So when we get to that section, you'll see at the bottom lower right hand corner of the slide, there will be a reference to exhibit one and the page number if you choose to follow along that way. So on this agenda, obviously, we wanna do a quick little summary, go over the amended sections. This is where Paul will be more involved.

The deleted sections, that will be a quick overview. Paul will probably touch on some of that during his presentation for the amended sections. A quick little summary on the charter sections that are remaining, and then we have two discussion points that we'd like to get clear direction from the commission on. As you know, the charter vision board asked what you would like them to do moving forward. So a future work plan for the charter revision board and then a discussion on what you would prefer to see on the 2026 ballot.

So just a quick summary of where we are. We tackled or the charter vision board tackled article three. This consists of 10 sections, six of which were deleted. Either they were deleted because they were incorporated to another section or they were deleted because there was redundancy with existing state statute or other regulatory requirements. Article seven, we tackled a 7.16.

Just to note that I did put in the striking underlines for the titles of the section, so that's why you're seeing those that way. And then, obviously, the striking underlines are gonna be indicated in the back of material. There were six sections in article eight with one of those being deleted for the same reasons and then section in article 10 that was deleted for the same reasons. So at this point, you can see in the lower right hand side of screen exhibit one page one is where we're gonna start, and I'll turn it over to Paul, and we can get started. Any questions so far? Good.

Good afternoon, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners. Paul Bengal, city attorney's office. And I would like to start with section three point o three, and that is qualification of members. So the Charter Revision Board's recommendation is to simplify this section, and they asked us also to separate out the qualifications into bullet points or subsections. So some of the things that this proposal does is it reduces the age for qualification for office from 21 to 18 by requiring the candidate to be an elector of the city at the time of qualification, currently is 21.

A candidate for city commission would have to have resided continuously as a permanent resident of the district rather than of the city generally for at least six months preceding the date of qualification. And also in this section, a change would be that in a year in which there has been a redistricting, a candidate whose permanent residence ends up being in a different district as a result of the redistricting can run for office for the district of residents resulting from the redistricting.

Okay. Stop right here. So what you're saying is that an 18 year old high school kid could become a member of

the city commission? If the 18 year old is an elector, is registered to vote an elector of the

Totally against that. I mean, look at the decisions we have to make. There's absolutely no it makes no sense whatsoever to expect an, a kid, a teenager, to be able to come up here and to be able to have the experience or the knowledge or the maturity to be able to make, you know, multibillion dollar decisions that we have to make here. But you're saying that this was the recommendation of the charter revision board?

That's correct.

Okay. I can't support that. Secondly, we have to firm up what it means the can the candidate shall continuously reside as a permanent resident. We have to be more specific because I don't know what that means. So, like, when, commissioner Herbst ran the first time, he had a homestead in another location, but he resided here in Fort Lauderdale.

So we have to have some criteria other than just a a generalized statement like that that defines what permanent residency means. Because in the statutes and in the legislative history, it's all over the place. And I think that we have an op we have an opportunity here to not allow that, to be so vague like it currently is.

And that was part of the discussion also. There's also a discussion whether to use the word domicile. They settled on permanent residence because there is there's a body of case law. There are statutes that could be interpreted that that use that term.

It's I've read I've read it all, and and it's it's very vague. Different courts interpret it different ways, but I think we as a city, since we're changing it now or planning to change it, that we have more specific definition of what permanent resident means. And, mayor, could I add

to that? Because there was one complication with that. So you you mentioned my homestead, which is true. I had a homesteaded property in another part of the state, and that didn't conflict with being a resident. But one of the problems that you have is you can't drop your homestead until the end of the year. There's no mechanism if you talk to the property appraiser's office for actually withdrawing your homestead in the middle of the year, so it's done at the end of the year. So even if I wanted to drop my homestead prior to qualifying, I couldn't do it.

Well, I inquired at the time. And for tax

As did I.

Yeah. For tax purposes, you are correct. It lasts through the whole year. But you can you can terminate your homestead status at any time during the year.

That was not the guidance I received from the property appraiser's office. I talked to the property appraiser in two counties, in this county and in in the county where I had my homestead, and and they both affirmed to me that there is no mechanism by which you can drop your homestead during the year.

So for that so Right. So

that that's we need to we need

to We need to firm that up. Right. Yeah. Because that clearly creates more of a murkiness in the in the in the definition of what permanent resident is. So I recommend that we be a little bit more specific at what permanent resident means so that there's no equivocation about, the definition.

Okay. Any comments on the redistricting part of it?

I think that makes sense.

Paul, before you go on, not about the, but the beginning conversation about the age. How did that conversation come up where, the board, was looking at going to age 18 versus to 21? How did that that conversation start?

I don't remember the the specific conversation. I know I did did some research, and I went back to the I think it's the twenty sixth amendment of the cons of the constitution back in 1971 that changed the voting age from 21 to 18. And I think it tracked I think the intent was to track that. And, also, I also looked at

the statute But the eligibility to run as a member of congress didn't go to 18. You still have to be 25, so that's not a basis. That's not a criteria. Okay. I just wanna point that out.

We also looked at the Florida statutes on on registering to vote. That was another thing. Yeah.

And is there any precedence set with other counties, other cities within our state that they benchmarked two eighteen? We're I'm just curious.

I don't know. I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that. I don't think we looked at other jurisdictions.

Okay.

Alright. Thank you. I I don't recall that.

So Please proceed. Please proceed.

I had a question.

Ben, I

didn't hear you. Okay.

Go ahead. No problem. Thanks.

Paul, thanks. So, determining, I think, residency or domicile. So, mayor, my question there is, my understanding of how you, evaluate that is, like, a totality of evidence kind of looking at, like, voter registration, utility bills, so forth. And and my question is, who determines that, and how is it determined? And and do we need to more clearly articulate that in the charter?

We absolutely need to articulate it more clearly. I agree with you. Yep. And I don't know whether it comes in as a footnote or something that shows the legislative history of the charter change that or we just list the criteria, the total you know, if you meet, you know, more than half of, you know, voting, where you vote, where your driver's license is registered, where you receive mail. I mean, we have to we have to be more defined there because because it's just unclear by just saying a permanent resident.

So for clarification, are you just looking at the determination of residency or the total qualification for a member of the commission?

Right now, we're just looking at the residency issue. You're talking about the age issue?

No. In terms of the the, who determines that the person is domiciled, that's part of the criteria for determining whether or not a person's qualified to hold office. So I was wondering if that you wanted to look at the broader issue of determining, whether or the person's eligible to hold office Right. Versus just whether or not they are a resident. Well,

the way the way these amendments have been, phrased, I think in a later, a later article, it said that the city commission makes that decision. Does Isn't that what it says?

That's the next one. We'll get to that in

a minute.

It's the next one.

The the judge of elections.

Sorry, mayor. Just so I'm tracking. You're saying that I think there are two things we're talking about right now if I'm understanding. One is just how to define residency, and then two, who's the judge of residency. Is that right? Correct. Right. And so for defining residency, I think what what I'm hearing is we all want a little bit more clarity or fidelity on what that determination is. Like, what factors go into that determination?

Correct.

So okay. So Paul or or D. Wayne, is that something you would then provide some suggestions towards? Or

Maybe take back to the board and have them come up with criteria.

We can do that. Of course. Some of the sense.

Some of the

discussion some of the discussion of the board, though, was that if we if if you insert into the charter a list of qual of residential qualification or what what what, shows or what's dispositive of residents, it it would never be ex it would never be it would never include everything.

So Right. Well, it's not gonna include everything, but there's at least it provides certain objective criteria that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, would suggest permanency or nonpermanency or residency. So I think but but right now, it says nothing. It just says permanent resident, and that's open to to interpretation as we've as we've known over the many years. I've seen this happen more than once.

I don't even think it says permanent. I think it just says resident.

It says permanent resident. New the suggestion says the suggestion says permanent. Currently, it says shall be a resident.

The old one just says Right.

The old one just says Right.

But I don't know what permanent

Shall have resided in the city of

Fort Lauderdale. I I care for life.

You know? That's it.

The current one says shall have shall have reside in the city of Fort Lauderdale for six months immediately proceeding and shall continuously reside in the city of Fort Lauderdale is the current language.

Right. So if we can if we can ask the committee to come back with suggestions, but, also, what does the commission think about this 18 year old qualification? Are you good with that?

I'm I'm fine with 18. 18? I'm I'm Mayor, I'm

Well, maybe maybe then you were a prodigy.

But I

was definitely not. I was and and, Mayor, just look. If if the commission wants 21, I'm I'm good with 21 too, but I just I view it as the the elector the electorate will elect that person which they think is best suited. And so I'm I'm comfortable with 18, but I'll turn it over to you all.

I I agree. And that person is an elector and able to vote. And I I I don't have an issue over those three years. I really don't.

I agree. That's what part of my question was. How do we get to maybe not considering the 18 year old? We do have some very mature 18 year olds. We have some that are very engaged and wanna be a part of our system. Right.

And if And I and I think that's great. But are they in a position to make decisions on multibillion dollar initiatives? They are. Okay.

Mayor, that's that's for the voters.

I'm worried about the ones that aren't mature that know how to run for office and get elected.

Hopefully, we don't elect them. But

That's for the vote to decide,

mayor. Mayor, my comment on this is that, I enlisted in the marine corps at age 18, so and government put a rifle in my hands and told me I could go kill people, so I think we could allow them to run for office.

Then we should lower the age to run for congress then. It should be 18. Yep.

Yeah. I agree.

Alright. Let's move on.

Alright. Three point o four, judge of elections and qualifications of members. So there was some debate over this section. And in the end, the recommendation was to leave the city commission as the judge of municipal elections and referenda and qualifications of its members because the sentence because that sentence concludes with subject to review by the courts. That's the amended's recommendation?

The recommendation is to delete the the next sentence, which allows any registered elector to file an affidavit challenging a candidate for adjudication by the by the city commission. So it would if you look at the exhibit, it will be the first sentence, and the second sentence would be deleted. So the city commission shall be the judge of all municipal elections and referendums and of the qualifications of its members subject to review by the court.

Why do we wanna delete the registered elector to file an affidavit? What was the conversate what was the discussion there?

Do do you have anything, Anthony?

I mean, if we're so

There was there was a lot of debate and over several meetings, as a matter of fact, over that.

So what what the process is that it now exists is that if someone believes that someone is not qualified just to run or serve on the city commission, that that can be initiated by a member of the city commission or by a voter who files an affidavit questioning it and thus brings it before the city commission to make a decision. Is that how the process works? Right. Okay. And if the commission makes a decision that's, adverse to the elector's affidavit, then that elector can then ask for it to be reviewed by the courts. Is that correct? True. Why would you I don't I don't see why we'd wanna change that.

Mayor, can I comment to that since I I have some personal experience with it? I I think if, if any of the other potential electors want to object to the qualifications of a fellow elector, they should do it prior to the election because what this does is it creates a circumstance where sore losers file objections. If you're going to object to somebody's residency or any other qualification for somebody to run for office, you should do that before the election. Once the once the residents have chosen somebody, we have an obligation to honor that to the greatest extent possible.

Yeah. That that makes sense.

Okay.

Keep going. Keep going. Next section is three point o eight.

Roland, do we do are are we, determining who evaluates residency so we're it sounds like we're good with the city commission making that evaluation. Is that is what

I'm Do you have do you have another recommendation?

I I don't. I think that's ultimately who should. I mean, the only other question I had, mayor, is is there the is there any is it ever, the, city clerk that pulls together that like, for example, the residency analysis and provides that analysis to the city commission for then the city commission to opine on. I don't know. That's the only other thought I had.

I don't know

if that happens in other municipalities, man.

So when does that question get raised? At the time of filing or at the time or at a later time?

I I I feel like by qual at qualifying

At qualifying time. Right?

Right.

And and that would be left up to the clerk to decide?

Well, I just I I don't know. I was just saying the clerk maybe compiles that analysis, the totality of, you know, residency domicile, evidence, and, you know, presents it to the city commission, I'm not sure.

I I if anything, I'd rather throw that over to the attorney's office since it involves some discussion about the the, you know, the the the legal aspects of it. I I wouldn't wanna put our clerk in a position of practicing law without a license. I get accused of that all the time.

Yeah. Do you think vice mayor, should they do and do you like that idea of the of the attorney just evaluating all of the qualified candidates residency, I guess?

So maybe we should ask that when someone signs up to run for office, that an affid that it that, that the city attorney provide an opinion letter as to the qualifications and whether or not they meet the qualifications. And and so what would happen after that? Let's say let's say the the city attorney says that this person is not qualified. What is the what is the remedy for that applicant from that point forward?

I guess they could appeal to the commission maybe, mayor.

Well, if I could add, mayor, the city attorney's opinion would be just that, only an opinion, which

Well, that would that would but what we we're creating a charter change here. So we're we're saying that that's gonna be a a presumption of disqualification, which can be rebutted by whom?

It also puts an it puts a city attorney in a in an awkward position because it makes the city attorney actually a witness in the process. And

No. They're not a witness. They're just simply identifying the the the objective aspects of a person's qualifications. They just if the if the city attorney sees that the person lives in Indianapolis and they wanna run for office here in Fort Lauderdale, I mean, is that being a witness, or that's just identifying criteria?

Well, when I say witness, I mean, if there's a court proceeding that follows, and then it it makes the attorney a witness to have to to have to explain where that opinion came from and why.

Well, that's okay. He works for us.

Mayor, here's here's another idea.

You have to call him.

Here's another idea.

And and Go ahead. Go ahead, Ben.

And and maybe this won't be a charter change. But if when you qualify, part of qualifying is submitting there's a list of documents to prove residency. And let's say there's seven items on that list, and part of qualifying is submitting four of the seven documents to the city clerk. Not for the city clerk to make a determination, but for those to be, on record that the city commission can then refer to if they want to.

So so that would be in line with what is currently provided for under the state election code. It has a filing officer that does a ministerial job of reviewing qualifying papers, but the review of that officer does not include the verification of the information, just that the Right. Document is complete on its face.

Yeah. Something like that, mayor, is interesting to

me. Can we just make it ministerial at the clerk handle

this? That that would be in line with what the election code provides in that case where there is a form that the clerk reviews the form to ensure that all of the i's are dotted, t's are crossed.

Alright. So it but it's more than i's being dotted and t's being crossed. It's it's criteria. Right. So so now it's it's back in the lap of the city clerk then to see whether or not the the those criteria are are established. So if someone says that they're a permanent resident here in Fort Lauderdale and they they show, you know, the drivers like we're wrestling with

with which is, again, under you know, the state filing officer doesn't verify the accuracy of the information that's provided on those forms. And we don't think that the city clerk should do that either nor should the city attorney. The city commission serves as the the arbiter of

Yeah.

I understand that. But we've gotta set we're trying to set up a process here. Okay? And we're trying to do it in such a way that there's that there's due process that that respects not just the applicant running for office, but also respects the the the, authenticity of their being a qualified candidate. So, getting back to what we were saying before getting back to what we were saying before, just saying permanent resident is not enough.

So we have to come up with other criteria, which let the board maybe make a recommendation to the commission as to what that process should be. Maybe they're they're hearing us now. Mhmm. Let them come back to us with with a process that they feel comfortable with in recommending to the commission. How's that? Alright.

Keep going. Alright. So three point o four, we'll take back to the board. Three point o eight. So in this section, the word absence was added to the title, not that significant, and good cause shown was added for excusal by the city commission.

Also, I don't think it's on the slide, but forfeiture of office in the event of conviction of a felony was deleted because of the governor's powers and suspension powers of suspension and removal under Florida law and the and also the uncertainty of the mechanics of how forfeiture would work if if it's left in the charter. So on the first issue so absence of a commissioner from four consecutive regular meetings of the city commission shall operate to vacate the seat of such member unless, and this is what was added, good cause is shown, and such absence is is excused by the city commission by formal action. So that's what was added. The good cause is shown.

Paul, I have a question. Don't most of our boards and committees have three meetings, consecutive meetings, you're out? Why for the commission would it be four and not consistent with the committees and the boards that we impose that rule on? I don't know the answer to that.

Well, that's the recommendation. Okay. Well, I think we should

be consistent with the boards and committees.

Actually, that's not the recommendation. That's the existing chart. The only thing they're recommending that for the only thing they're recommending is if good cause is shown.

Well, I think we should either be consistent with the boards and committees and let them have four, or we should be like they and we should have three. That's I just think they should be consistent. That's all. I don't know why I don't know why the commissions would be any different than our boards and committees. Could the difference be because you meet more often? That could be.

I'm I'm good with three. That that seems consistent. And

I think three is more than more than liberal.

And the commission can and if I'm understanding right, the commission can say if you've missed more than three and there's good cause, this commission can allow that.

Exactly. Right.

Right? So, yeah, so that's a fine.

So the change would be changing four to three. Okay. And do you agree about the language regarding suspension or removal because the governor has that power?

The problem with that is it's it that can be political, and the we're leading to the discretion of the governor as to whether or not to remove somebody as opposed to our make allowing us to make our own decisions for ourselves and not relying on the governor to make decisions for us. Because I've seen where the gov this particular governor removes people from office when when he feels that, it becomes politically advantageous to remove somebody from office. We've seen that with a couple of district a couple of, state's attorneys, for example. But at the same time, some people have said that a certain sheriff should be removed because of past indiscretions, and and that didn't happen. So I think the city, our city, should make its own decisions, creating its own criteria, and and and we should be the final arbiters of whether or not that person should continue.

So I think that language should be left in.

If I may may I suggest that you still wouldn't be the final arbiter necessarily if the governor took action, but at least it would be in your charter.

Well, it doesn't have to don't have to rely on the governor. The governor still has that option, of course. Yeah.

Is that the consensus?

Yes.

Three point o nine, the organizational meeting.

Paul, sorry. Can you just remind me? And I'm I'm just not seeing it in the cam, but what's our deadline again? But just walk me through that again when we need to have these commission approved suggestions to go on the charter for to go on the ballot for charter.

I'll defer to the clerk, but I believe we needed to needed this needs to get to the supervisor of elections by June. Is that correct? Do we have a date in June?

June of next year. Right?

June 2026. Is that what you're saying? Yep. Okay. Great. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Paul.

And David's looking up the exact date. Alright. So on 03/2009, this recommendation changes the December swearing in of elected commissioners. It combines it with the swearing in of commissioners elected at a special election and provides for the swearing in to be at the first regular meeting after certification of election results by the Broward County canvassing board.

What happens if there's some irregularity in the voting process that is out of our control?

There's a special act that governs there's a special act of the legislator that governs municipal elections in Broward County, and it provides that the certification is within this is according to law. The certification is within five days after the election, and, quote, duly elected municipal officers shall take office within fourteen days after the general election with the specific date to be decided by local ordinance. Okay. So I don't know if that accounts for what you're for the the possibility that you're mentioning. That's what the

So if if, if let's say there's a very close election and we need a recount. This certification and the delay of the swearing in only relates to that officer. Right, not the whole commission.

I would think so. Well, it's not clear here. Let me see if I have the

It's only with regard to that specific candidate.

I would think so. That would make sense.

Well, I know you would think so, and I would think so, but I just wanna make sure we're all clear on that. Alright.

Does that change okay? 3.1. So 3.1 actually, I there's no slide, I don't think. 3.1 would become superfluous because the swearing in of a member elected in a special elect special election would be covered by three point o nine. They were consolidated. So next is 3.12. Yeah.

I think the six hour notice is a little So A little aggressive.

So if you read this section closely, the six hour notice, it is act actually refers to internal notice. So it's What does that mean? In other words, notice to notice to each member, the city manager, city auditor, city clerk, and city attorney. So it's not really what what I think what what I would suggest is that this language might actually predate the Sunshine Law. So the six hour notice is for for you all to to become aware of a meeting within six hours.

I will well, we need to we need to clarify it so that so if a if a special meeting is called and and is scheduled to be heard, it's not gonna be done within six hours.

Right. So what what what the, what your charter revision board is suggesting is that, it it replaces the six hour internal notice requirement for special meetings with a seventy two hour public notice requirement, except that in the event of an emergency, the notice requirement would be upon such notice as is practicable under the circumstances.

Now This Before you go any further, Paul, let's just be clear here. The six hour notice requirement is not so much that the meeting has to can be held in six hours. It's just the notice has to go out. See, that has to be clarified.

Originally written, I think it probably means that the meeting could be held

In six hours. Right. That needs to be clarified because, again, even seventy two hour notice requirement that say, for example, I, know, I feel it's important to hold a special meeting. I have to get that notice out within seventy two hours, but it doesn't mean the meeting is gonna be held in seventy two hours.

The way it's being proposed is that the meeting would be held after the seventy two with at least seventy two hours notice

With at least seventy two hours notice. To the public.

So the seventy two

hour say seventy two hours prior notice.

Right.

Doesn't say that. Just to clarify it, seventy two hour prior notice.

And I'll tell you that the seventy two hour requirement comes from the government and the Sunshine Manual and case law. There was some case law that we looked up. And as soon as practicable the language as soon as practicable for emergency meetings is in accordance with the Broward County Charter, which also which also applies to municipalities in Broward County.

Okay.

So, also, emergency, your, Charter Revision Board is recommending a definition of emergency, and that is any occasion or instance in which there is the potential for imminent harm to the public's public's health, safety, or property, or where the city has the ability to lessen or avert the threat of catastrophe. This is borrowed in part from the emergency management section of the code. Consensus? Next is 3.15. Three three point fifteen is quite, involved.

And and and Before before you even go there,

answer me this question. Does this change the current charter to allow 10 people to call a special election?

It allow it changes the current charter to create the committee of 10 people, but there's still a petition process requiring at least 1% of the registered electors at the last election. So it's a it's it's it's a little inapposite to the current section.

Right. But But but I the way I read it was that 10 people can call a special election.

Not quite because it still goes to a petition process.

Well, it doesn't say. It says proposed amendment will reduce the number of electors needed to start the initiative referendum process from a thousand to 10.

To start the process. Just to start the process. Right. So let me let me

Ron, this is a referendum, not an election. Right?

Well, it still goes out to the electors like a regular election. Yeah.

So I put together a condensed version. So I have a whole prepared presentation on the differences and what the current one says and what the recommendation is.

And that's in the backup. I read all that. But I'm telling you, the way it says now is that the process, the initiative or referendum process can be started with 10 people.

Yes. But that's to create the the initial committee, but it still requires a petition signed by by 1% of the electors in the new recommendation.

Where does it say that? I mean, I hope you're right because I'm looking on page 13.

Just look at the subsection. Just look in front of us. Look on the screen.

The subsection e one has the 1% requirement. What you're referring to, mirror is that in b, 10 electorates can, initiate the process, for the referendum proceedings, and they can submit their proposed, ordinance to the city city attorney and just based on those 10 people. Whereas now, it requires the the 1% or to initiate the review by the city attorney. They're initiating the review of just 10 individuals, and then it's put out to then after the city attorney reviews it, then it goes out for the petition signing process to move forward to the ballot.

If the city attorney the city attorney shall have thirty days from receipt of the redrafted proposed ordinance or proposed petition or both within which to find the redrafted proposed ordinance or proposed petition or both legally sufficient or legally insufficient. So if you say it's legally insufficient, can they still go out and and demand a a citywide referendum?

In that case, the the committee would have thirty days from receipt of the city attorney's notice of legal insufficiency within which to redraft and re resubmit the proposed ordinance.

Right. So if the city attorney keeps saying it's legally insufficient, does this does that block them from putting it on the putting it on the, the ballot?

It would until they submit it again in a legally sufficient form.

So at some point, the city attorney will finally say, okay. This is legally sufficient, and then they have to go out and get a thou 1% signatures. Is that

the process? They'll get 1% of the electors. Yes. Signature. So I I have a little condensed version of the differences. I'm reading it right from the statute.

But who wanna read your your analysis? I'm reading it right from the statute.

But, man, look at this in front of us on the screen.

Very misleading. It's misleading. It's not the law. The summary is someone's interpretation of the law. Let's read page 14. It says it right here. I just wanna make sure that the summary doesn't is it? And the summary is what does the summary say?

It's misleading is what I'm

saying.

Oh, it is misleading.

Yes. I'm saying.

And so the law the statute itself is unclear. Yeah. The summary is not helpful. No. It's not.

So what you're saying is if 10 people form a committee and they submit an a proposed ordinance and the city attorney says, yep. This is legally sufficient. Then they go out then be then it goes to the commission as to whether or not the commission wants to put it on the agenda.

No. Then they have to go and

obtain the signatures. Then they get Then the

they have to get the signatures. And then And then it comes to the city commission.

Then there's another step between that. Before that, the petitions are submitted to the supervisor elections for verification. Okay. Then the city commission considers the petition. If the city commission fails to adopt within forty five days or fails to repeal within thirty, then it's submitted to the electors. And then it's submitted at the next regular municipal election unless the committee prepays for an earlier election or a mail ballot, election.

So if the city commission says, no. We don't wanna put this on the ballot, and a thousand people have, have signed a petition and those thousand are verified signatures Not

a thousand. 1%.

Oh, what

1%.

It's about a thousand, but 1%. 1%. So that 1% can force the city to put it on, on the next ballot. Correct? I'm just trying to understand the process.

That's the proposal.

It still goes on the ballot even if the commission, according to the summary, repeals it within thirty days.

Doesn't approve it. Doesn't approve it. Right. It can still go on the ballot. Oh, it can?

Yeah. That that's

still a little awkward compared to what the summary is saying. It's a little misleading.

I mean, I'm okay with that process as long as I know what the process is. So you have 10 people form a committee. They, I don't know what the qualifications of the committee are, but let's just assume there are 10 voters, and they form a committee. They put together a, a legally sufficient ordinance or referendum asking for there to be some ordinance change or modification, and it goes to the city and the city attorney says, yes. This is legally sufficient.

And then, goes to the commission after after having gotten a 1% signatures. Commission says, no. We don't want this to be voted on. And so the people who've that the committee of ten can then go to the supervisor of elections and require, that be put on the next, election ballot. That's the process. Right?

Can I direct your attention to page 11 of 42 of the of the section?

Page 11? Yes. So if you look at

the bottom of the page, that's the that's the paragraph that I think we're talking about. Action on petitions in g. So if you don't

mind me reading. Action by city commission. Upon receipt of a certificate determining the petition is sufficient, the city commission shall promptly consider the proposed initiative ordinance and reconsider the, the referred ordinance. If the city commission fails to adopt the proposed initiative within forty five days or fails to repeal the referred ordinance within thirty days, it shall submit the proposed or referred ordinance to the electors of the city. If the city commission fails to act on a proposed initiative ordinance or a referred ordinance within the requisite time period, the city commission shall be deemed to have failed to adopt the proposed initiative ordinance or failed to repeal the referred ordinance on the last day that the city commission was authorized to act on such matter.

So when you say submit to the electors, that means that those folks take it to the supervisor of elections office and say, we want this on the ballot.

Well, I I would suggest that since it's in the charter, I think this the city city staff would would probably facilitate that.

The city staff would do.

Would need to facilitate that with the supervisor.

Now if there's an additional cost for adding that on the ballot

That's addressed also.

Do those do those does that committee pay for it?

The committee would not pay if it's at the next regular municipal election. But if the committee wants, an earlier an earlier election or a mail ballot election, then the committee would need to prepay the cost.

Okay. But if it's on the regular election cycle, then the city's responsible for any costs associated with that. Right.

If there are. I don't know if there would be any costs. There are. Right.

The supervisor recently changed to where when you have strictly municipal officer elections, there's no charge for that. But for referendum ballot questions, there is a charge. And, obviously, if they wanted to do a mail in ballot prior to, it's if there's a charge and it's a lot more.

But according to this proposal, that would be covered by the commit that'd be prepaid by the committee?

No. Even oh, what about in November?

A mail ballot. I'm

Oh, the

mail ballot. Yeah. I I saw that. Yeah. But it but if but if if it if it's intending to go on a regular election cycle in November, then the city pays for that, which could be several $100,000, by the way.

So for November 2026, like, for a referendum questions, it was around 300,000.

Yeah.

Good with that? Mhmm. Any any mayor Sorenson, do you have any thoughts on that?

No. I'm I'm done leading the meeting for today. Thank you.

Okay. So

you want me to contrast that with what you presently have, or is that not necessary?

Yeah. Sure. Tell