City Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome one and all. Today is September 3rd, 2026. It is six o'clock and it is time for us to have our budget meeting for the 2027 fiscal year, followed by the commencement of our regular city agenda meeting. So Mr. Clerk, if you would, please call the roll.

Thank you very, very much. And Mr. Dodge, if you would offer a presentation, and then we'll go from there.

Thank you very much. And I also want to acknowledge Lisa Chong, who is our Assistant City Manager and Finance Director, who's on the dais with us today, as always, when we have a budget item on the agenda. Mr. Dodge.

Yes, sir. So I don't want people to be confused because of subjects that are in discussion today. The $596 million that you have listed on the total for the budget, how much of that, roughly, is property tax intake by the city?

OK. So of the $596 million, only $112 of it is property tax. And the rest of it comes in through a variety of other revenues or fees or so forth.

OK. I have one speaker signed up, and that's Shawna Hixley. There's my friend. There's a button there that says speak. You're on.

I can't thank you enough for your testimony, Mr. Dodge. I know that Assistant City Manager Goulding is out of town, but when she comes back, if you could. Talk to her about the Juneteenth and the events, budgets, and where do we go from there. And I think that there should be a presentation before your board in terms of what you can expect under the new rules. And we will go from there. I can't thank you enough for all your service and for everything that you and your fantastic advisory board do for us. Thank you. It's always my pleasure.

OK. Does anybody else wish to be heard? Yes, Mr. Barnett. Any address for the record?

Well, I want to thank you for your comments and for everything that the Citizens Budget Commission does. It's more important to us now that we have citizens looking at every nickel that comes into the city and going out of the city, more important that we have that in place now than ever before. And you're a very talented group of people in terms of your financial capabilities. And we want you to continue being watchful for any opportunity that we can to do a better job in the city, not just internally, but also for the taxpayer. So thank you very much. Anybody else wish to be heard? Yes, ma'a

We can't get into that subject here. I understand. So I'm going to leave it like that. Please understand that there are restrictions about what the states placed restrictions about what can be discussed in this chamber. I understand. It's my first time, so I do apologize. No, no. It's hardly your fault. It's hardly your fault. It's least of all your fault.

Americans should be able to say whatever the heck they want. However, that's not the law in Florida. It's at least not in city halls. So we have to stick to the budget. And you are doing so well, so please continue.

That's all I have to say. Thank you so very much for your testimony. And I'm glad, you say you did get hired today. Congratulations, I'm very happy for you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the budget? Does anyone else wish to be heard on the budget? Commissioners, any comments?

Mr. Mayor, I have comments, but I'm going to wait until we get to the item.

Anyone else? Okay, without further ado, this hearing is adjourned, and we will take a short recess and begin our city commission meeting.

Okay, well. Then let's get back in business.

Thank you, City Attorney. Can I have a motion, please? I move it. Moved by the Vice Mayor. Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez. Any discussion? Any from the public? Mayor? Yes? We heard a yes. Did you have anything? Yes.

On the, is this, wait, sorry. Okay. I just wanted to kind of follow up on the special events in the recreation and cultural arts total. I did actually happen to have highlighted this when looking at what the impacts of the DEI restrictions that we will be having in the next year. Although I understand that Legally moving forward, we can't name these festivals or celebrate them in specific ways. My assumption is that that's why the... Caribbean Heritage Festival was brought down. I'm wondering if we can put in place a similar budget for the upcoming year for a Caribbean music festival or someth

Commissioner, I can tell you that in, I'm looking at Mr. Dodge because he and I had a conversation about events and the activities of the of the Diversity and Heritage Board as part of our ongoing one-on-ones. And it was his impression, Charlie, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was your impression that somewhere in December, staff will be ready to discuss their review of possible recommendations on moving forward in line with what the state's new rules were. And then I thought that we had talked about that maybe what we would do when staff is ready, they're still reviewing it, is that we would

And I feel comfortable with that. I just want to make sure that we are dedicating a budget at some point for the possibility that these events may need to be changed in name or in time frame and things like that, as well as adding at least a small amount of money for digital advertising of these events as well. And if that was part of the communications plan, I apologize if I didn't catch that on that end.

Commissioner Good. Yeah, I'd just like to, I mean, I have other comments about the budget itself. But like I said, I reserve that for the next item. However, on this side, it was a concern for me as well, too, the special events. For me, I think we all agree, these type of events, it's like the best connection that we could make with our residents. And I don't know why we even contemplate any removal of any event under any circumstances. The special events was reduced by about $100,000 from last year to this year. And in my opinion, I think that we should actually be doubling that special even

Could that be done between first and second reading?

Just one stipulation. The 500 cannot come from police or fire. If it does, that loses my vote.

Does anyone object to consensus moving forward with that? Okay. Anyone else wish to speak on the item?

We have to follow what the ordinance says.

Thank you. We appreciate your efforts on economic development, and we know that you will discuss those fully with the city manager, the city attorney, and also with Mr. Stamm, before you bring your item here. And then from there, the commission will decide how to proceed with citywide town hall meetings and the like. So thank you very much. Any further discussion?

I just have a follow-up on that. I think what was alluded to was some of the lists that were provided during the Amendment 3 conversation that we had on Monday. And personally, looking at the list, while that was an exercise conducted by the administration to show us possible effects, possible items that could be cut in the future, I look at this list and I don't feel comfortable, at least for this year, if we do not have to absolutely cut down on these. Because to me, a lot of this is also essential services. So I just want to put that on the record.

I appreciate that. And this commission? Mr. Dodge, Mr. Gorin retains the ability to amend the budget at any time. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So anything further from the commission? Hearing none. Any from the public? Seeing none. All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much.

Is there a motion? Moved by the Vice Mayor. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Any discussion? Yes, Mr. Mayor.

Commissioner Good. So thank you for even making a vote in favor of this budget. So I'm going to start off real quick. Real quick, the presentation that was given tonight, Mr. Manager, can that be pulled up again for just a moment?

OK, good. And go to page 14. On the slides there. Next slide, please. Yes. So I just want to just get clarified on, it's a simple thing. I didn't pick this up until just, again, looking at the PowerPoint. But the fire rescue, it shows $1.2 million for a fire engine.

All right. On page 336 of the budget. Hold on. And it would be object number 664450, which is within the fire budget.

Page 336. Yeah, I know. I'm trying to get there. And it's a 664450 fire engine on the right-hand page. Sorry.

And the number here is $2.27 million, and the PowerPoint is $1.2 million. Just clarity, is it really supposed to be $1.2 million and it's incorrect in the budget?

But it's in the budget right now that we're approving as 2.2. So is that a million dollars that we all of a sudden found to be able to put in our events?

Well, I don't need the explanation other than the fact of what's right.

If you're asking a question, let the chief answer it.

I'm not aware of any political action committees that have ever been funded by the city of Pomerantz.

OK, can I have my floor back, please? Can I have my floor back, please? Yes, go right ahead. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, so on page 340 of the budget, And it's a line item 546155. It's R&M land and building school major projects. So there's several billion dollars of school building projects that are being done under the general fund here. And I was of the understanding that maybe a school things are going to be done under school budgets, not under necessarily general fund. I'd like to get an explanation of why we're spending money for schools under general fund.

OK, we'll have more conversation on that. So you're saying basically it's an authorized expense under general fund? Using tax dollars for schools. OK. The second thing, the next thing is, you know, I'm looking at the vehicle replacements. Again, it looks like it's about a $4 or $5 million cost. Probably just like to have a general conversation on what is that replacement cycle for some of these vehicles because...

They're just throughout. They're like replacement of vehicles and it totals about $500 million or $5 million in It's through a lot. I'd just like to understand what the replacement schedule is. Are we replacing them after four years? Are we replacing them after six years? Are we replacing them after 10 years?

Okay. So I will just take a look and see how it compares to the industry norm, just to make sure that, because I know newer vehicles are obviously better, but Nowadays, the way we give maintenance to vehicles, the way they make them, they last a lot longer. And sometimes maybe some of these charges can be pushed further out and last a little bit longer. So we'll have that conversation again. Another item here is it's not in the budget. We had talked about having a professional solid waste manager. I see that it was not included in the additional staffing. I think we're at a position right now

Well, before I'm going to chime in, I'm going to say, Mr. Manager, I agree that you should take a look at it, and it should be funded out of the trash fees. And if we need a position there because the environment has changed, that's the way it should go. I know that you have an assistant city manager who is operating as the environmental overseer. And I know that these individuals will probably answer there. But if there's a feeling here that we need to have you know one more person in order to Get these things done.

I think I think that's that should absolutely be evaluated Just one question you said director or manager, and I know that there's a difference a solid which man I mean right now like We do have a sustainable and one of the assistant city managers. He's doing a great job I'm not there's nothing I am really impressed with the growth that has occurred since taking that. But I've been in this business 25, 30 years. And I'm telling you now, I still don't know everything. You know, it's more you know, the less you know type of thing. And that's what this industry is. It shifts all the time. I think

Do you need a motion for this? No, I think the manager is taking note of what we're saying. I don't hear anyone objecting to it. So I think that it's pretty clear that that's something we'd like him to look at.

I don't want to stray too far from Commissioner Good's question.

Commissioner Good, reclaiming your time.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the next thing that I don't quite understand, and I think I need an explanation, or maybe something is not right. But looking at employee salaries throughout this document, Every employee from, that's a city of, I appreciated the detail. I gotta say, it's spot on. It really gives a good picture about what's going on with the budget. I did notice, though, that every position is getting an increase anywhere from 10 to 20%. And what's happening is that as you are going higher up in, In management, it gets closer to the 20%. And I do recognize that there is a general emplo

Let's add. Mr. Dodge, what say you to this?

Yeah, it's substantial. And thank you. The other thing that I was having difficulty with is the city is using Florida Contract Staffing, which is FCS. And FCS, it's a workforce management company that does supply personnel to support our city operations. And there are no details in the budget that define what positions are being sourced out in the city. It could be the window clerk. It could be somebody in the parks and recreation. It could be somebody in finance. And the only way that these numbers are provided to us is under what they call other services FCS. And so he just comes up with jus

Excuse me. Mr. Manager, I'm just going to maybe better my statement to you. When you total up personnel service costs in a department for city employees, And then you match that to what the total amount for FCS costs are. The FCS costs double and triple what the personnel costs, total personnel costs for city employees. It just tells me that you might have one or two FCS employees for every one

So I'm just saying, I just like to see that. I'm not saying that they're making more than our people, but I don't even know what they're making any. I don't know what they're making. I don't know what position titles they are. I just know that they're working for the city, somewhere in the city, and I just don't, it's hard for me to assess that.

Mr. Manager, a number of these questions didn't come up before then, so I'm kind of at a loss because I'm hearing this for the first time as well. What the commissioner is asking for is in order, obviously. But for next year, if we could, let's distribute these books in advance of when we distributed them this year so that commission has the opportunity to review the books earlier and these questions can be there so that we can hopefully resolve these questions and not have to bring them up on a day.

Sorry that just for clarification the online budget was provided on August 1st. The printed one I think we all requested a little bit later because it's easier to see but It had been available to the public.

Thank you, Commissioner. You clarified what I meant. I meant the printed budgets earlier so that because Commissioner Schwartz is right, a document like this is easier looked at in hard copy. So if you could just make sure that we get that out several weeks beforehand so that we don't have to go through this process now where questions are being raised very legitimately that many of us haven't heard before. Go right ahead, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And so other things that came to my attention as I was reviewing the details as well was, again, public safety has its own IT and media personnel. So police has their own IT. Fire has their own IT. They have their own media people. And then the city has IT and media people. And I don't understand why we can't consolidate all of them under one roof and maybe get a little bit of synergy out of that action. That's my opinion. I want to bring it to the attention to my colleagues, whether they find it to be of any value or not.

I can tell you that within uniformed services, they will be. they will be hard pressed to give up their PIOs. Both the fire chief and the police chief have PIOs that answer directly to them so that the information that they provide under their state authority meets their particular expectations. And it has always been that way in every city, in every jurisdiction that I've worked in. But I certainly believe that we could look at it. Okay. It differs from general communications. PIO is one thing. That's what. I got you. They have those responsibilities.

If I may add, there are certain cities that do have a communications department that includes all major organizations. However, they do have dedicated personnel per city. So the only thing I would add to that is maybe someone within the communications department that can have branding across the board. But I think our media personnel in each do pretty much as good of a job as they can with the branding of the police and fire being separate. But the structure could be different. There are plenty of cities that combine all of it, but they individually are under the same umbrella. But they are as

So another thing that I'd just like for us to also have to take and reconsider the 410 work days versus a 5-8 work week. And I'd like to share with you some of my beliefs where I think that operations are efficient. are inefficient, both on a service level and as a financial impact. So I would like for us to, at some point, have that conversation where we talk about a 410 versus a 58 workweek.

Would you like to bring that back as a commission item with whatever background you wish to include? Or how would you like to proceed with that discussion?

I can do that. It could be a lengthy discussion, or it could be Quick, I don't know how my colleagues would feel.

No, not tonight. Because it's too complicated.

And I thank you for bringing it up. Go right ahead.

And the other thing that I'm still having some difficulty with is understanding our attorney costs. I mean, there's a small section here for the attorney, and it speaks to what they have as a retainer. That's most of what the cost is. But I know that there's more cost than just what's under the attorney, that the attorneys get paid or outside attorneys. For instance, I can't figure out what is current hourly rate. I know that we approved an hourly rate at some point in time, which was about $2.25 an hour.

I think that you should meet with the city attorney and go through your questions.

Because the other thing is I just can't. And maybe somebody can help me find where the cost for external legal fees are captured in the budget, because I couldn't really lock that down. And then the only other thing would be I'm still not clear about what our anticipated budget amount that has not been expended will be that we carry forward because again, we have a very large amount of encumbrances or designated dollars for projects and things of that nature. I do understand encumbrances when you talk about them being in a PO or some kind of purchase order or some kind of commitment for paymen

I don't think we have $100 million in rollover. I think we should sit down with the manager and ask those questions directly, because I don't have that information in front of me.

And I would offer to you, Ms. Manager, but more to my colleagues as well, is to maybe we should be thinking about having a capital budget as well as an operating budget, because we don't have a capital budget. What we have is money set aside for capital projects But capital budgets typically would get approved at the same time in operating budget, which means that any monies that you have still sitting there, like you might have a five-year project, I got it. And the money needs to be there for it. But if you have a capital budget that gets submitted at the same time as your operating budget,

OK. Mr. Dodge, if you could provide that clarification. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I just want to say that with the comments that I'm making today, I'm not Asking for the reduction in the budget. That's why I went ahead and said I don't think Why I agreed to the the millage. I think it's very important. That's a very important decision that we made What I'm speaking about is just reallocations Right move money because I rather see projects like like we were talking about the events I'd like to see the events elevated because it's a direct contact to the community. That's what we need to be doing I'd like to see it go into some of our capital projects

Okay. We have that ability. Okay. And, Mr. Mayor, that concludes my comments. Thank you very much. I think everybody did a great job. Again, like I said, I appreciate the detail, the work. It was good stuff. And thank you for the time. Thank you, sir. Anyone else?

Sorry, I have a follow up that just from kind of following up to what Commissioner Good mentioned. You did mention employee salary bump. And I want to hear if Ms. Chung has anything regarding that. I think it was mentioned 10% to 20%. But that was not my interpretation, if you can clarify.

So if we saw what, if later on we saw what the actual budget was from 25-26 versus what we have as the proposal, it would be more of like a tighter space between those two.

Yes. So Commissioner, may I point you to an example? So I wouldn't say it unless I could prove it.

No, I just had interpreted something different, so I wanted clarity.

Well, I just want to make sure that we have the opportunity to meet with the manager and go through the questions completely. Well, I just want to share.

I heard the answer, the response, and I think it's important for the commissioner to recognize where I'm speaking in particular to the budget. 330, and you go to item number 512451.

And 4-5-1. OK, I see. OK, and then you just look. You can look across here. This was 24, 25, 26, 27. Yeah, I see that. So Thomas, . Well, there's just several examples. So Commissioner Good. We can look through them together.

Seeing none, yes ma'am. Please. Your name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

Thank you very much. Anything further? Any from the public? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Joe passes unanimously.

Yeah, on the budget. You're a no on the budget. Yes. OK. Mayor, if I may quickly.

OK. Anything else on this item? OK, this budget hearing is closed and we will now open our regular City Commission meeting of September 3rd, 2026. Mr. Clerk, if you please call the roll.

Thank you very much. Would you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for the National Anthem?

Vice Mayor, will you lead us? In the Pledge. Yes, the National Anthem.

Thank you very much. Please be seated. Mr. Clerk, announcements of items to be pulled from the agenda?

OK. Under presentations today, the first will be the Fire Rescue Department will formally introduce to the commission and to the public a new sponsorship program. that allows for the hiring of non-certified individuals as city employees while they complete the required training and certifications to become sworn firefighters. Chief Rodriguez, you are recognized.

Chief, I want to thank you for your presentation, and I want to commend your staff for their creativity in finding new ways to... to produce an even better fire department than we have now. And I really, really appreciate that. And my understanding is that Labor has reviewed this and they're on board with it as well. So we have a full labor management partnership on this item.

That's important, because labor management partnerships are the stuff from which great success is made. And I very much appreciate the presentation. And this, Mr. Dodge, has been incorporated into the budget we just read at first reading. Yes.

OK, thank you very much. Any questions, commissioners?

Comment, not questions. But I hate that you spoke before me, because I was going to mention labor. And I appreciate, not obviously you, Chief, I can't see him, but Dan Rothstein, when I reached out, because I do think it's incredibly important, especially with our public safety departments, to work with, proactively work with our labor leaders. They represent the body that serves this community. So I appreciate very much that you met with them. And this is only fire, obviously, but I'd love to see the same over with our police department. So thank you, Chief, for what you've done.

OK, thank you very much. I just want to say, everybody I talk to, all the kids that are coming up, choice between police and fire, I tell them fire, because police eat donuts and fire eat gourmet.

Thank you very much. This is a proclamation of the city of Pembroke Pines, Florida, declaring National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. Is there a group here that's coming forward? Come on up. Just stand here. How are you? Good to see you again. How are you? Where September has been designated National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month to honor the children whose lives have been lost and those whose lives have been irrevocably impacted by this devastating illness, while strengthening our nation's resolve to find cures. And whereas cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease among chil

Yeah, let's take a photo, and then you can pass those out. Wonderful.

Thank you very much. Thank you all so very much.

Okay, now we have... Our commission auditor, who's here to present the completed audit plan for 2026. If you would draw near, please, and your name and affiliation for the record, please. You're on.

Can you pull that down just a little bit? Thank you. Thank you.

Anything, commissioners? Thank you so very, very much for your presentation and for the work that you do. You are the internal audit arm of the city. Separate and apart from you, we also have the year-end audit, And I know that you're in contact with them as well. We also, as we mentioned before, have the Citizens Budget Council here in Pembroke Pines. That's not something every city has. The money in this city is looked at, as you can tell from our budget discussion, with a great deal of scrutiny and a great deal of interest. It is for that reason that the city has kept not only its finances,

Any announcements of board and committee appointments?

Thank you very much. Today's consent agenda consists of items 1 through 13. Commissioners, what is your pleasure? Any polls? Seeing none. Any from the public? Seeing none. Can I have a motion, please? Moved by the Vice Mayor, seconded by... Seconded by Commissioner Good. Any discussion?

Just one. I want to, again, thank the city administration for the MOU that is being approved with the Broward Teachers Union.

Yes. And I know that they will be very, very pleased. Anything else? OK. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Show passes unanimously. Mr. City Attorney, we are on a regular agenda.

OK. I know that there was a survey that was passed around so that some sort of consensus could be gotten on what is a very long list of items. OK, Mr. Gomes, if you'll walk us through this.

Mr. Mayor, full disclosure, the survey came in last night in the email. I was celebrating my 44th birthday with my family, so I did not complete that survey.

Also, happy birthday to you, Commissioner Good. There you go. In fact, happy birthday to all of us. Go right ahead. Don't worry about it. We don't fill out every survey. It happens. We're all very, very busy people. And we all do the best that we can. And I know all of us do.

Okay. So the first item is, how much time should firms be provided to submit proposals following the advertisement of the RFP? Two people said eight weeks. I said four. Eight sounds fine to me. Anybody object to eight? I would agree with eight.

No, sir. We're going to go through this list because we've had two workshops. No, we actually had three. And you didn't respond to the survey. So we're going to go one at a time, and we're going to nail this down.

OK. Well, happy birthday. The question before us is number one.

All right, so the question now is eight weeks. I got four people who are happy with eight weeks. You good?

Honestly, I put down four weeks because I feel if they can't do it in four weeks, they don't know what they're doing. But if we want to go to eight weeks, I'm not going to object.

No, they don't get a say in this. This is our RFP. Let's focus.

It doesn't matter. If we say it's eight weeks, they'll figure out a way to do it. We've already asked these questions. The question before us is eight weeks. We good? All right. Let's move on to the next item. The next item is You'll have to forgive me, but I'm having a little difficulty reading this. Is there a way you can bring it up on the screen?

OK. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. So should the RFP retain a non-mandatory pre-bid meeting? Everyone said yes. Any objection? It will be included. The next one is, should city staff document all verbal questions? Everyone said yes. Any objection? So noted. The next question was, should the city clerk be required to attend the meeting? Everyone said yes. Any objection? We're good there. The next one was, should the RFP remain the proposed minimum required roles and staffing levels? I'm reading this to say everyone said yes. Any objection to that? All right, that's good.

One second. So in that one, I did find a little bit confusing. Should the RFP retain the proposed minimum? But right above it, it provides option A and option B. So I thought that that one was supposed to say option A or option B. Which one was the preference? No.

For both options. Either option. Okay, so then I change mine to yes then on that one.

Yes. Okay, so those two are done. We're on C3 now, correct? C2. I thought we just did that one. OK. Should the RFP retain the ability for assistant building official to also serve as one of the four required trade chiefs? I'm reading this to be yes. Anyone object? I just need a little.

I objected, but I'm not going to die on this one.

Anyone else? So then that one's good. The next one is C3 now. Should the RFP maintain the restrictions that the minimum required dedicated personnel shall be prohibited from simultaneously providing building department services to other jurisdictions? I'm saying yes, adapt it as necessary, and yes. So that sounds like three yeses to me. Anyone object?

Yes. I'm saying yes to retain the restriction, but only while they're clocked in. When they're not clocked in, I think they should be.

So my My answer was yes, but only during their clocked work hours, not during their off time.

Is a break, because one of the mentions was of a break, is a break clocked hours or is a break unclocked?

No. A break is not a clocked hour. Lunch hour is not a clocked hour, because otherwise you run into mischief. If they're on their own time, out of the office.

I'm just saying, if they're on their own time, they shouldn't be subject to this restriction.

Yeah, but my thought is during a lunch break. No.

They're on salary during lunch. They get paid lunch.

So is the breaks mentioned in the questionnaire, would that be on the clock or off the clock?

There was an IG report on this very thing.

If they are collecting, I read this to mean if they're collecting, which is a paid six-day, that's PTO, they can't use that day.

That's correct. If they're off on a day, they can do whatever they want.

Okay, thank you. I still think that's just too restrictive.

I understand the concept of a lunch, if they go out for lunch, but if they choose to take a half day, a full day, whatever that may be.

Yeah, and if they take the time off, that's their time. If we're paying them.

If we're paying them, it's not their time.

If they take time without pay? If they take PTO, they're on our time. There was just an IG report on this.

No, it doesn't make sense. The IG report was they were doing it while they were still on the clock. This is not on the clock. Mr. City Attorney. If you put in for time off, you are time off.

Well, but if it's vacation time or if it's sick time, And it's part of your own time. That's one thing. But if it's city time and you're collecting a benefit, you're working on city time.

I think I am coming to understand where Commissioner Good's coming from. Like when I worked at, let's say, the county, I took time off to go do things that I couldn't do on county time. And so you would take the time off to be able to do those things, even though, in theory, you're taking the time off and the agency is paying you.

Yes, but you're being paid for that time. So he's paying you that time. That's part of your compensation. You get to get some time off.

So if, let's say, and not to pick on home. So they can't go on vacation.

Not to pick on police or anything, but if, let's say, our police officer takes time off, and then, and I don't know if this is true, but then does private security, and they're not allowed to do private security during their time off?

Not unless it's an approved detail. That's correct.

Okay. Any other example? Because PD obviously has specific rules and regulations, but...

The whole point of this was not to have Pembroke Pines implicated by association with the part-time work. If you're going to work part-time, it should be on your time. It should have nothing to do with city compensated time, whether you're on the clock or off the clock on PTO, if you're being compensated, you shouldn't use that time for part-time work. You're already being compensated.

But this is still also, again, we're not paying the employee. We're paying the service provider to provide a staff person there to do a job. And if it's person A, B, or C, it doesn't matter so long as they have it filled. That's the whole point behind having all these positions filled and no dual roles and all this other good stuff.

Exactly. So somebody could come in. Let's say the vendor gives the time off, but they fill the position as they should because we have minimum staffing requirements. We are not paying that person who took that time off. We're paying then the person who's at the window or doing the inspection or whatever.

I make a motion that we only have the restriction when they're clocked in and it does not include the break or lunch hour.

I'll second for discussion, but I'd really like to hear from the manager on this. I do not know how I'm going to vote on it, or assistant manager.

OK. There's a second. You can ask your question.

So I just exempted that so it's not a lunch break issue. conversation. He took it out. It's exempted. They can't do it on a lunch break.

Okay. Okay. But to Commissioner Rodriguez's point, which maybe you need to restate it, Commissioner, but it's I think, who are you paying? Are you paying an individual, or are you paying a company? If Mike Hernandez, PA, is the building department, and Angelo Castillo is one of my employees, wouldn't that be amazing? I'd work for you. So let's just say he's one of my employees. He's not reporting to work that day. So Tom Good fills the slot. They meet the minimum requirements. Angelo is not being paid or is being paid at that moment by the city of Pembroke Pines. Because my question is, are yo

So with that clarification, is there any objection to what the assistant city managers just said, that those officials will only serve the city of Pembroke Pines? Does anyone object to that? So I'm not hearing an objection.

Well, I mean, I'm still missing that point of just serving the city. All these providers have they have a requirement to fill the position with a qualified staff person, right? Whether that qualified staff person is person A, B, or C, so long as they're there on that day, I don't think that we should be meddling with those kind of details within that organization.

I got to tell you, Commissioner Good, and this rarely happens, I 150% disagree. I want to know who they are proposing, and I don't want bait and switch down the road. And we should hire our own staff to do this. No, no. We don't have to hire our own staff. Because that's what we're talking about. No, no.

That's not what we're talking about. We're managing. We're direct managing personnel.

No, no, no. We're getting our money's worth out of a contract. We have that now. We have that now. And there are other companies that may want to engage in other practices. But in my opinion, that doesn't work for us. If you want to work for Pembroke Pines, you have to propose dedicated people in your proposal who we know are going to be there, not an apparent all-star list. And then when the first day the contract shows up, it's the B squad. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in them delivering the people who they said they want, the quality people who we rank them on, and nobody else

I could probably agree for sure if we were still operating off of traditional models, but the model has been substantially changed this past legislative session when they gave private providers the right to do the work that our staff or our contractor would otherwise do. And it's going to create an incredible shift in this industry. And this is something that I'm not going to listen to. I don't care. To me, it's about what we buy.

I don't care about the rest of the world. It'll be a conversation later on when that happens.

It sounds, and I could be wrong, it sounds like I could be the deciding vote. I've listened to both sides. I have spoken to administration extensively on this. And I've been with administration on almost every point. On this point, I'm going to be with Commissioner Good, because I do think there are changing dynamics in the industry.

There is no ethics conflicts, and you're off subject. So please, let's just stay on this matter.

Well, let's please stay on the motion that we have here. It can be managed in any way that we say.

It's changing already. And for no good reason, in my opinion.

Mr. Mayor, can we call the question, please?

That's the way we've always operated here. I see absolutely no good public policy changing that.

Imagine managing a staff, and you don't know who's going to show up.

So I'm going to clarify, because I think we're all I think we all agree on that point. I think there is consensus, because I agree on that point as well. My question was simply on off time, because there is a difference. Because my train of thought is like, yes, on Monday to Friday, whatever. It's not like these companies have unlimited PTO. They have, I assume so, and most companies have limited PTO. So if you ask for vacation time, if you ask for off time, it's not like we're going to have this bait and switch 100% of the time because there's a limit to the amount of time off that you take.

I'm telling you that the IG has had investigations where they have held cities in gross mismanagement for allowing employees to do unauthorized work during paid time off which they're compensated for. And we open the door. We're inviting an IG complaint. And in this industry, there has been a history, without pointing fingers, because, you know, but there has been a history of all kinds of shenanigans, unless the rein is very tightly pulled. I cannot go down that path. I just can't.

But I've read that OIG report, too, and they were on time. They were doing this simultaneously.

it's happened to us already okay so my question to you assistant city manager stam if i were to support here's what i want bottom line yes the chief building official like mr pozillo who's in the back is specific to pembroke pines i don't want to change that now tell me what i'm voting on so c3 specifically was about them serving in yeah but i'm not on c3

All right. Let's just focus on C3. All of our officials can only serve in that capacity in this city. I don't know who's objecting. Does anyone object? No. So then that's a yes.

Let's get to the... Let's just dispense with the motion that was made.

Okay. Motion's gone. So the next one is C4.

Should the RF... Mr. Mayor, we didn't... Did we vote on that motion? I motioned it.

It was seconded. I seconded it. It's removed. It's gone.

It can't be removed. You can pull it off. I didn't pull it off. I just want it to be record.

What would you like to do? Would you like to vote? OK. All right. There's a motion and a second on C3. So yes would allow. them to work in other jurisdictions and know what we're doing. Time off being not on the clock, not being paid time off.

While they are on leave on whatever it may be.

Hold on a second. Hold on a second. OK. All those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed to the motion, indicate by saying no. No. The ayes have it. So by that motion, we will allow employees of the vendor to work in other jurisdictions. Do you understand what vote was just taken?

One second. Hold on. We were, so as long as my motion, which I seconded the motion. Yes, you don't have to vote just because you second. No, no, no. Follow me.

No, no one talks me out of my votes anyways. So the point here is, and I understand when we went to C3 and what we were discussing, why I have confusion, okay, C3 says yes, yes, yes, all of them. And I have indicated, I don't want a chief building official that does not work exclusively for the city. What I understood from my conversations, and this is why I also voted in the majority, because I can bring it right back up for reconsideration, Robert's Rules of Order. Therefore, what I am asking is, was I not just voting on anyone but the chief building official?

Mr. Stamm, with great Reduction in the number of words. Please answer Vice Mayor's question as directly as you can. What is this item mean?

It was blended. That's my confusion. I'm not referring to E. I wanted to vote on C. I looked at C and it said yes.

But the thing is that we weren't technically voting on C. We were voting on the motion.

Correct. Because the motion was blended. It wasn't just on C. Here's what I want, and you have to explain it to me because I'm getting dizzy. I want the chief building official on these individuals to be specific to the city of Pembroke Pines. However, I am also sympathetic to what Commissioner Good has said because there are changes coming, whether we like it or not. regarding private provider and how we provide this service and with all due respect to everyone who's been here pembroke pines cannot continue to operate the way it has for the last several decades because outside of our control

So then let's vote explicitly on what is written in C3, and let's tackle E1 afterwards.

That would be a motion for reconsideration.

Any discussion on reconsideration? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passes unanimously. Commissioner Rodriguez is recognized for a motion on C3.

So I motion that the RFP maintain the restrictions that the minimum required dedicated slash dedicated personnel shall be prohibited from simultaneously providing building department services to other jurisdictions.

Is there a second to that motion? I'm seconding the motion. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. OK. That passes. C4. Mr. Stamm, walk us through C4.

Two said yes. One said adapt is necessary.

Okay. We're not talking about Mr. Gomes or you.

Well, and he should, because they do a great job. The auditor's just told us.

Again, this is another one of these things where it's... Mike, please. I mean, I personally believe that the reason why I put adapt is necessary because you're going to wind up having to change. My biggest concern is the restrictions that you continue to put on here is that we're going to hold staff that's not necessary. And those staff hours are going to be built into the permit fees. And my residents are going to have to pay those permit fees at an elevated level.

But Commissioner, it says unless otherwise expressly approved, in writing by the city's contract manager. So if there's someone who isn't necessary, the contract manager should be able to deal with that.

I'm just making it very clear that my opposition to this is I believe that some of these issues are going to be a cost driver that's not necessary for my residents to have to pay for permits. And we're going to find that to be true once the private providers come in. And we take a substantial amount of work off of the building services.

Well, you would be the contract manager, right? OK, so I would encourage you to heed what Commissioner Goode is saying. Nobody wants to. And I can't imagine that you would want to incur any more expense on anything than we absolutely have to.

And I apologize for my- I have to tell you, even in baseball, tie goes to the runner. So C4, will somebody make a motion consistent with the language in C4? I'll make the motion. OK, so that's moved by Commissioner Rodriguez. Is there a second?

Seconded by the Vice Mayor. Any further discussion on C4? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. C5. Let's walk through C5. Should the RFP maintain the requirements that staff filling minimum positions shall remain assigned to their designated disciplines while allowing an appropriately qualified and certified employee to provide limited and temporary Who keeps moving this? I can't read it if you move it. OK. Temporary assistance in another discipline with the written approval of the city's contract matter. Explain what that means.

Does anyone want to make the motion as written?

I don't think we need to make motions. I think there would be consensus for some of these.

So I just want to make sure that we're not jumping over. There seems to be consensus. Does anyone object?

I have a question. If the saying, yes, keep this, but I'm trying to land these planes here. So I'm sympathetic to what Commissioner Good is saying. I also understand what it is that you are trying to get at. However, there may need to be adaptation. And that's what we're trying to do. That's why it says. That's what this does. So it will explicitly say that.

It literally says, while allowing for appropriately qualified and certified employee to provide limited and temporary assistance in another discipline with the written approval of the city's contract manager. So the flexibility is in the link.

As long as it's also in the RFP and also followed and not just here for us.

Okay, so does anyone object to C5? That gets done. OK, now we are on C6. Mr. City Attorney, is that Mr. City Manager?

My question would be if private providers come in and our work gets slashed in half, which, I mean, that would be an exaggeration or something like that, but our work gets slashed in half, would we still all agree that only one person per role?

Of the extras, but you're saying here it wouldn't be of the minimum staffing? Correct. OK, that makes sense.

In the private provider world, if somebody is qualified That would be an engineer. If a private provider is qualified in all the disciplines, would they be able to sign for each one of those disciplines? That is my understanding. Why would we be any different than the real world business out there?

Very rarely do you see somebody with... Can I ask a question? Can that private provider be the same person signing for all disciplines? Yes. But you're implying that the private provider is one person. I said a private provider who's qualified and all. Okay. All right. So let's take it to the individual. Can the individual, if they are qualified in each and every discipline, can they sign for each and every discipline themselves? They'd be an overachiever, but yeah. That is my understanding.

I'm telling you. You're going to have to pay... Quite the salary for so capable a person, I imagine. It's no different in inspecting homes.

Okay, so I purposely cover the names so that I don't see who wrote what, but I'm with whoever is in the third box providing that option that in the future workload of efficiency and managing that workload gets changed, the vendor would have the option to present a valid plan to reduce staffing.

That's Commissioner Rodriguez has come. I didn't want to know. I'm covering the names on purpose, but whoever that is. Well, it's a public record, so I...

Thanks. I think built into most of this is obviously the ability for all of us to, like, whether the vendor comes forward to speak to the contract manager, eventually, like, we could... Somebody, whether it's on our end or the contractor or the vendor, could come in and say, actually, look, we have this one overachiever, and they can do all these things. Can we switch that? Like, I suppose at some point that could come up. I just wanted to state that flexibility.

OK, I think we can work that into the motion. Mayor, this is just for the RFP, so what we'd We're trying to approve language for you. Yeah, we can add or as approved by the contract manager if that's there. I'm trying to get that approved for you. So that would be part of it. What does the commissioner want?

No, that's fine. Allowing whatever is on there is fine as a consensus.

All right, so C6 is written with the Commissioner Rodriguez comment. Any objection to that? No. OK, that one's cleared. C, a D1.

And that's why I wrote what I wrote. But it should be up to the contract manager. I agree with that.

I still didn't want to know who wrote what. But I just think setting a year with the dynamics of the industry and how everything changes, I wouldn't stick our feet in concrete at 365 days. So I wouldn't.

So let's just, is there consensus for that to be negotiated with contract manager instead of a timeline?

Anybody disagree? OK. D, that's agreed to. E1.

I don't want people who we pay for doing that work. I want them working for us, and that's it. I think that that's the cleanest way for the city of Pembroke Pines. This has been troublesome and embarrassing in IG contexts. And I don't want them drifting away. I want them working for us for as long as we can. And if the world changes, we can work it out again. But so long as we have a hand in it, I want them working for us.

I don't want our chefs working other kitchens.

So you would add during city business hours.

City business hours. So I can live with city business hours.

Well, but city business hours is not Fridays.

There you go. City business hours are not Fridays. 76. But I think what you're saying, Commissioner Rodriguez, is city business hours including Fridays.

So is that the difference between A and B, that scheduled city working hours, technically our city does not open on Friday?

So then it would be more of the consensus of Monday to Friday? 7 to 6 PM. Adding the time frame.

All righty. So consensus, 7 to 6, Monday through Friday? Monday through Friday? 7 to 6. 7 to 6? Monday through Friday, 7 to 6. Anybody object?

I still think the time off, but there would be consensus otherwise. So you guys can go ahead.

And to clarify, we wouldn't be deciding this now. This is simply to put, well, I mean, if we decide to go with only option B, then we would modify the RFP and go with that. The reason I kept both A and B is to gather that information from the possible bidders and make a decision later was my preference. That was one of the options. At least on this paper, I don't see that as a consensus, but I wanted to...

I don't know. I think we should decide it up front. Yeah, and I think that's the whole point behind just not putting in the both of them. We pick one over the other. Then we decide right now. We talked about, yeah, we should have a building official employed by the city of Pembroke Pines dedicated to the city, and then don't even put it in the bid. And that way it keeps it nice and clean for the review process. And then just like the mayor said, and then like you said too, Commissioner Rodriguez, let's just make that decision now.

But what if the person who the vendor chooses also happens to retire? So then you come across the same issue.

I have to tell you, I agree. I think that it's not that it hasn't worked the way We've had it, but the option of having CBO who answers directly to the city and is our employee offers the stronger internal control.

It's just too many people. It's too many people. And it doesn't achieve anything. If you've got a CBO who is a city employee, and then you've got an assistant city manager who's the contract manager. The assistant city manager knows enough, but doesn't have to be the one who approves the permits, because all he needs to do is manage the contract. And that's a different discipline. It's a different skill. I'm OK. Commissioner Good has been saying for years that he's been uncomfortable with this setup. And in fairness, it's the only department head that we have that doesn't answer directly to us

I don't have an issue with it. I'd like to, at a later date, be briefed on liability issues. Regarding having that individual as an employee, but I don't have a problem because it sounds like there's consensus Probably less liability as an employee Hence why I wanted to understand later mayor before This is for option B is two positions It's the building official And option B was just to do

You were talking about somebody between the CBO and the assistant city manager. This is someone below the CBO. Correct.

But that's where the difference between F1 and F2 comes in. So F1, I think we're looking to see agreements.

F1 is simply the internal, external for the RFP, or we provide the both options. But it looks like we're going with simply option B in the RFP, and consequently as the vendor only having the possibility for in-house.

Where is Commissioner Good on the building department operations manager? I think that's perfectly, I mean, if I, who does that role right now?

She understands the city as well as the operations of the contract.

So my question is, if we bring it in-house, do we need that operations person?

So that was my misunderstanding on my part because I thought that it would be duplicative, but for clarity, you don't believe it would be duplicative even if we bring someone in-house to have the operations person?

All right, so I'm hearing a consensus for the chief building official and the buildings department operations manager to be Pines employees. And not FCS, it's actually Pines employee. That's correct. Is there an objection? F1 is agreed to.

Oh, OK. That's the one that I was saying was duplicative, because if we bring it in-house, we wouldn't need someone. Correct. They would be the same person.

I really don't understand what the issue is with transition. If you need a transition, I believe it should be negotiated when the transition need arises. I don't see a need to... talk about a transition in a proposal other than to put the requirement in that there shall be a transition negotiated between the company and the contract manager.

Well, the out should at least have some. I mean, you could say 180 days or less, depending on what the commission says.

I thought it was a historical as far as how if...

Again, then you're blending. That's what the second one is talking about, the historical.

That's what the mayor is saying, that he doesn't believe. I don't think so.

I mean, I'm OK. I think you could say that in the event of a termination for convenience, A transition shall be negotiated without city commission approval, not exceeding 180 days. That's it. So I can agree on that one. Because it may take you that long to throw together an RFP.

No, I don't know. Allow me to say my piece on that. Because I think that you need to have a transition, some form of a transition plan out prior to a contract being signed and executed. Because then it's terms of the agreement that requires the contractor to do certain things. Because if they're leaving, they're not going to negotiate your best interest.

OK. I'm with Commissioner Good for the record.

Which one do you want? What do you want said? Just the one. OK, so you've got to come up with terms for transition out.

They give a transition out, and then the transition is negotiated in the contract. OK.

No, any vendor would have to pre-establish their transition out terms. It's out for both.

Not the current out, the later out. Later out, fair enough. Negotiate with whoever.

We're agreed. That's just B on that one.

We should ask the other cities, not the vendor. I don't think that's a question I would ask them. I agree with Commissioner Good. We should ask that of the city. I don't see this as being a thing we need. Does anyone disagree? No. OK. H1A, we're almost there.

OK. I'm going to say this. It doesn't matter. I think it should be an odd number, but it doesn't matter to me whether it's five or seven. I don't like the idea of bringing people in from outside of the city. I think that that's not good form. So I would not be able to support that. But it doesn't matter to me whether it's five or seven. I just think six makes it complicated for math.

So then that's just H1A. That's just how many numbers. So can we all say how many numbers we'd like? And I do agree it should be an odd number.

I think the question, the reason that they put in the...

There wouldn't be a bid protest on that basis, Commissioner, but it would be a break from tradition.

The reason that the options were given as alternatives was because Commissioner Good mentioned adding additional people from outside of the city.

Leave it at five. If the decision falls to bring outside people, then you go to seven.

So then you would take up H1B first. So yeah, then let's decide how many people we want to bring from the outside and then decide on the number.

I think it should be none. I think it's bad form. I can't support it.

I'll go with two, too. I just think we need some outside thing. Like I say, again, this has been a long-term contract. It's got a lot of relationships, a lot of perception issues.

And for that reason, I'm good. But I think we need to define, if you're going to bring two from the outside, what they look like.

Wouldn't they want to get paid? No, of course not.

So we're going to go out for volunteers? Yeah. You can do professional courtesy, city to city.

I sat on interview panels with municipalities in Miami-Dade County when I was the comms director for the county. I didn't tell them to stick it back in my day. Well, in your day, yes, sir. I appreciate that one. You were never in public relations, were you? Yeah, you never got a call, did you? I'm good with Commissioners Good and Rodriguez on it.

I agree with you. I've got an idea. How about if the other two are retired contractors?

It happens all the time, though, in government.

Number one, it happens all the time. Number two, I'm going to flip it on its head here because I'm going to say, well, we've had the same vendor for 17 years, and you haven't changed your evaluation process. Optics matter. So from my perspective, I do think it isn't unusual to have someone from the outside. Like I said, I sat on dozens of them in Dade County for municipalities. Doral had me come in to interview candidates for their chief communications officer, city of Miami, et cetera. So just because we haven't done it doesn't mean that it is bad form. It's routine.

Also, aren't there cities that have, a lot of cities have internal building departments, so would not have worked with any of the vendors at some point, no?

The building department world is a very small world. It cannot be smaller than public relations. That's all I'm going to tell you.

Mike, I've been with like 90% of what you proposed on this one. I just think it's going to be difficult.

So let me ask. Can we get our hands around seven members and two from the outside? Yes. Wait, wait, wait.

I thought you meant seven total members, five inside, two outside. Are you saying nine or seven?

No, seven members with two of them from the outside. Seven members with two from the outside. We good?

No, seven total. Two of them are from the outside.

You do the best you can. You've gotten the direction from the city commission. Work with the attorney. Figure it out. We believe in you, Mike. Yeah.

Well, that's the question in H4. That was my response. If you can't find these other two people, you go back to five and you move it along. I can live with that.

On the document, I disagree with that. You look hard.

If you can't find them, you move on. OK? Any problem with that?

H4 is done. I won. What communication restrictions should apply to members of the city commission? I don't even know why this is in here. We already have an ordinance that talks about this.

No, because I believe the cone of silence is the cone of ignorance. And I want to hear from everybody.

No, I'm not calling you ignorant. I'm saying that a cone of silence is a cone of ignorance. I want the public to be able to talk to us. We don't make this decision, but we may have to review an appeal. That's fine. And in that case, I want to be informed.

And what if there's an irregularity on the way up? I want to know about it.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't agree with you. It's not necessary. I don't even think that it's ethical. We don't make this decision. Well, let's ask the city attorney. It's a question. Why don't we just delegate the whole thing to staff? Why do we need to do this?

I'll be honest with you, Commissioner. This item is moot because it's already been decided in our purchasing ordinance. It's already been decided. The Kona silence issue was debated here, and it was decided. So the fact that it's even here, I don't even understand it.

That's why it's here. I'm not going to change the procurement. You don't have to support my position. I'm not going to change the procurement officer's ordinance just for this one solicitation. We have a procurement ordinance that already deals with this issue. So I think it's moot.

I think you have consensus, at least, to move on.

Yes. I think there's consensus to move on. OK. I, too. Same item. If the city commission voluntarily joins, that's done. All right. So we done? You've got all your guidance? We are finally finished with the buildings department RF. When can we expect it to go out? Yes. We're going to have a five minute recess.

This is the consensus of the document. We haven't dispensed of the item.

You will now come back to us with an RFP, right?

We don't have to vote on anything. They're going to come back to us with an RFP. They've now been told.

Yeah, that means we're putting it out, right? Yes. It would have to go out.

Hold on one second. We've got to wait for the Vice Mayor.

If we do that, does the timeline change?

No, because the timeline didn't think that we were doing it coming back.

There's a motion before us with a second to approve what we just did.

OK, but my question is, does this timeline change?

So it comes all the way back to us in March still?

Any opposed? Passes unanimously. All right. Now we have reports of the league and MPO representatives.

Today we had our directors meeting in which a couple of things were discussed. The Broward League of Cities has a education on Amendment 3 campaign going on. And online, and I'll share the link with you guys as well, I believe the League of Cities has already done so. They have online just general educational information, in a sense a little bit more broad than what was brought to us regarding Amendment 3. some specific facts and statistics and then they also actually go ahead and went ahead and provided for each individual city. So if you guys would like to look at the Pembroke Pines document

So there was a document that the League of Cities put together. Roward League of Cities, yes.

OK. So Jonathan is saying that it was prior to the BCCAA. BCCMA? BCCMA. And my assumption is we were able to look at it and fact check. Because I saw a number on there and I wanted, I wasn't too sure. I just wanted. Our finance department checked it.

Our finance department checked it. And I think it's a good tool for us to be able to put out. They've checked also with their legal counsel, which is our legal counsel, regarding whether it is just factual or if it has any, what is it called? if we're promoting a yes or no, and that one is a factual document only, and so it'd be something that kind of can guide us, but especially when we're trying not to advocate. Advocate is the word I was looking for. Okay. The next general meeting is in two weeks.

MPO? We don't have a meeting until next week.

City Attorney? I'm sorry, Mayor. Do you have a report?

City Manager, do you have a report? No, I do not. Thank you very much. 15 has been pulled from the agenda. Item 16, Commissioner Schwartz.

Well, I want to thank you for bringing the item forward. This is one of those things that I've rarely seen in my time as an elected official or in my time in government where I can honestly say from the bottom of my heart that everyone is right and everyone is wrong. And I want to explain to you where we're at in my view. First of all, I want to thank the chief for his courage and the city manager for his courage I announced as mayor of the city that I was encouraging them to suspend the program, and I did that because we are in a situation where too big, not everyone, but too big of a percent

Who would want data about me going to Publix to pick up a gallon of milk? I personally don't get it. The company's charging you how much you pay for that milk. OK. But if they're selling that data, that's a problem.

Look at that. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're right. Maybe that's how it's working now. But here's the thing about all this. The state of Florida, our state, is the one that authorizes all camera technology for law enforcement. Nobody else does. That's why we have permits with them and this and that and the other thing. And I think Governor DeSantis actually did the right thing. Now, let's hold out that his cameras on the turnpike, which are there to collect tolls, are still up and working. It's only the ones in neighborhoods that catch bad guys that he had a problem with. Somebody else is go

Maybe they want to do it. Another way to do it would be the commission auditor. I hesitate to send the commission auditor into our police department. I think the optics of that are just horrible. And frankly, my working relationship with this police department is such that when they tell me we are unaware of any instance whatsoever in which this tool has been misused within the city limits of Pembroke Pines, I believe them. Because I happen to know that they do not tolerate that kind of behavior, and they would have acted on it. So I don't feel that we have to go back in time and try to dig ou

And I'll opine quickly. I want to first thank Chief Vargas, because whenever there's a concern with privacy in this city and anywhere else, law enforcement steps in. And I commend Chief Vargas. I know it wasn't an easy decision, and I know you and I have spoken multiple times. including this morning when I was on radio and I was being interviewed about your decision. So I appreciate that. And I forgot the captain's name, but I know Captain Wollard was involved, and he spoke with Al Left, but Al Salvey, who was here earlier multiple times. Oh, where is he? Sorry, Al, my bad. And when he emailed

He's talking about when we started using these things.

The whole point is that You all are paying the price for a decision that was not your decision. You were encouraged by the chief executive of our state government. And that's incredibly unfortunate. But on a good note, let's end positively. Thank you, Chief Vargas, for your decision. It's not easy being a police chief in a major city. I know it was difficult to make that decision. You have my support, as does your command staff. Thank you.

Anyone else want to? I have two people signed up to speak.

I'd like to speak. So Commissioner Schwartz brought up the idea of continuing to look into what that contract actually stated, what the atomized data actually meant. I think what we're going to find, which I went to a conference up in Baltimore over the summer, and one of the things that they brought up is basically, yeah, you can You may only be sharing the data, like some cities only share the data within themselves and didn't share it elsewhere. But it's that caveat on that contract that then the vendor can take any of that information. They say they package it in a different way. They kind

Commissioner Good? I think everybody said everything that there's needed to be said, so I'm ready to adjourn.

Okay. Well, we have two more items, and then I have a very quick item on old business. Yes. I'm about to call them. I have Ben Olson from Davie, Florida, and there's nothing wrong with that.

You're our neighbor, and if you would state your name and address for the record. There's a button there if you could press it.

You're on now, and be careful because you're on a camera.

Thank you very much, Ben, for coming forward. And all my best to you and to your family. Thank you.

Thank you, Al. You're an inspiration to us always. And we thank you very, very much. Okay.

There's a resolution. We need a legal memo from you. We'd like some additional information from the chief to the extent that he can provide it. about any suggestions to improve the program. That's what I'm hearing, Commissioner. I'm not hearing that we want to do an audit of the police department, but that we want to have some information from them about how to make the program better, if that's even possible, what internal policies can be made, a legal memo about our status and so forth, contractual issues, and certainly a resolution for the state to get their arms around this and fix it.

I have absolutely no objection to that. Let's include the congressional delegation. Let's include the Broward delegation. Let's make sure that our resolution gets the attention of social media. I'd like to see it, once it's adopted, posted in its entirety, get it to the press. Let's let people know that we didn't just do this We care about it, and we want to see a solution come out of Tallahassee, which is the only proper place where it can come from, because they're the ones that authorized the use of these cameras. So I think that covers it. Commissioners, I have one last item on old busines

Let's think of a few, and maybe we have to boost it or something. I don't know what the answers are, but people are hungry for this to be educated about this matter.

The factual and educational purposes, I do agree that people need to know more about. A PowerPoint of that length should not be shared publicly. on social media, it needs to be more concise and in a more shareable fashion. I know a couple of cities have done more public forums that have been publicized. And obviously, they have good legal teams as well. That wouldn't put them in jeopardy. But we could think about possibly doing something of that sort, keeping to factual and educational information only to be able to make that more accessible to residents, because it wasn't necessarily publiciz

If you all want to put together public forums, I think that that's fine. And however it's decided to be presented, I think that's great. That's fair game, Mayor.

No one's suggesting that we violate the law. But I think that there's a great deal of hunger for information that people can rely upon about this very important matter. We have that information. And we should find a way that is legal to disseminate it.

Thank you very much. And I, again, I want to reiterate, I mean, facts are facts is one thing. But probable solutions that were presented is not something that I'm supporting at all. Just like I stated today, when one of the potentials was get rid of all events, I'm not in any case whatsoever, I'm not interested in supporting that. And I'll make that statement should it be at the time it is to be. But that's not a fact. That's a potential. And it needs to be very clear, because I'm not going to stand behind some of these things until we go through the exercise of what it is that we're really go

Thank you very much. Anything else? OK, this meeting is adjourned.