Village Council - Regular Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insofar as I can't count or follow the numbers, I withdraw that. You don't have to pull tab three. Council Member Fairman already pulled the correct thing I was thinking. Which one did you pull? Also known as items three and four. It's only been a year and a half. Sorry. Still money.

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

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

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

All right, we switched microphones. I share some of the concern. I think one of the issues, and I've corresponded with a number of residents about it, and I think it is important. And if we are going to pass it, I would suggest we do it with a clarification in the wording here. And I'm not just saying this to be semantic. This isn't really just a bench. In fact, I wouldn't use the word bench at all. And I think the manager has come with some information. I would like to turn it over to her. But it really is part of the design feature. and so i think the concern the questions that councilman fa

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

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

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

Was this bench on the original plans for the artwork?

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

It's a rest area. Right. So I know it's concrete. It's liable to fail if it gets run into. I know insurance will cover it, but insurance costs money. It's a beautiful spot that we're using for this artwork. I think it is a spot that people may stop at occasionally. I still don't see spending $25,000 on a bench when the artwork is what we wanted. We wanted the artwork, and we wanted beautiful landscapes. To then spend that much money on a seating area, when there's some very natural stone seating areas that we could put in, I don't see why we would go there. It seems to me a bit of, if it was l

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

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

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

I do want to say, I mean, I think it's a very fair point the vice mayor makes. I mean, to me, and later on we talk about some items, you know, and I've said it in other places, there are things we're going to have to do or we have to be concerned about. very concerned about costs going forward. I think in the scheme of things, this amount is, and I understand it could be a slippery slope, but I think in the scheme of things, this is a small enough amount for a project that we're already committed to, serving a valid purpose. That's why I'm comfortable with it. But again, I think there are fair

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody has comments on that? Would anybody like to speak on tab 5? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. All in favor? We have a motion to approve. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. A motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? That one does pass unanimously. OK. Agenda and order of business. Nobody wants to change anything, do they? Good. Special presentations. Letter A, Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Miami. Council Member? Oh, perfect time.

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

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

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

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

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

He's five feet tall, exactly. He weighs 200 pounds. But Big Brother really has such a colossal impact in this community and nationwide, giving young people opportunities they otherwise would never have. And it's not just the traditional Big Brother, Big Sister program you think about with one-on-one matches, but they have a lot of programs that you're going to hear about working with organizations, including public entities, to try to spread mentorship and offer new opportunities. I was also on the board of Big Brothers Big Sisters for a number of years. And one of the absolute pleasures was w

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

It actually is a question. I mean, I sort of have to do the answer, but I want to, I think, so the way that you're describing it, obviously, you'll work with Big Brother, Big Sisters, or work with staff and the police as appropriate to do that, the school to work and do that pairing. But it seems like another useful component, and obviously with the schools, with the Palmetto's and what have you, to get that part going. But it also seems... that there's room for a third component, if you will, which is the village, through its own outreach and through all of ours, helping to recruit bigs for t

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

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

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

Not going to address that one. I have one to address as reports and recommendations. I was thinking today about the floating islands and the lake. And I've changed my opinion on this. And I agree 100% with Mr. Panov in that this, I want to explore turning over the lake if we can, to the neighbors in the area? We get a lot of resistance on these floating islands and whatnot. Even if somebody canoes out on the lake, it's really something that the public doesn't see very often. The neighbors don't like the public back there very much at all. Is there a way that we can explore the impacts of formi

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

We did a project, I guess last year at this time, where we put some environmental stuff in the lake, floating islands, to kind of test the cleaning water quality, this, that, and the other thing. It's met with an extraordinary amount of resistance, much like any sidewalk we would ever do meets with resistance. And sometimes... you know, I mean, universally when we've done a sidewalk project or something like that, after it's built, people love it and they use it and all this stuff. But a lot of times I'm sure that if we sat on the council long enough, you feel like, why don't we just, you know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because I think everyone's right that we have to have a conversation about this and what works. But I do think this has potential, much like the change from just doing the peacocks to the peahens. this change with the camera could be really substantial. Because a lot of the time, you see it. There's a bird in there, and there's nobody home. And you don't want to leave a bird standing there because they can't come that often. So this could really make a significant difference. And I think we should explore it. I, for one, am not and wouldn't support anything that allows the euthanizing or the k

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

Could you comment on having caught 13 of these things? Huh? The old way is they set up this cage, gate would be open, coin would be in there, and they tell the homeowner, call us, we'll come close the gate. Well, the peacock's usually gone by then. Or when they walk up to the gate, the peacock leaves. Attacks it. So... I'm going to pat myself on the back for this one. I instituted the rope trick, where you tie a rope to the door, run it into your garage, and when you see it through the window, it funds money, exactly. That paid off. You pull the rope, the door closes, and you catch them. So it's never been very, it's never been extremely efficient.

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

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

Well, remember, Mr. McDonnell. Yeah, I would propose that we explore with the County Commission a revision for them to take a look at the current statute, the ordinance, and to see whether it can be amended. And I'm not sure where we're going with it. I recognized Councilmember Greenberg's reluctance to go so far as to Euthanized. Euthanized. But I don't think that should be off the table. They're an invasive species that are a nuisance. But I think the county should revisit it, the ordinance that they passed 20 years ago. What former council member Del Prado did was outstanding. It was a nove

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

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

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

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

Right, and that's a good point. Maybe it makes an impact when everybody does it, the regional approach. Good idea. Ms. Britt, do you want to talk about peacocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any aspects of the code that this does not comply with? Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, thank you very much. We'll open the public hearing if anybody wants to comment on this one. Pat, welcome back. Thank you. You're welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. I would suggest it would be, I think, good for us to have, if we can put it on our next month's schedule for the meeting, to have our state senator and state representative come and explain, give us sort of their input from Tallahassee on this. I understand that both of them voted against this. No, they both voted for it. Oh, that's even better to get them in here then. Because I'd like to know why our legislature can do something like this in one day without any committee meetings, while at the same time, year after year, they cannot deal with property insurance, which also is a burden

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

But my point being, Okay, there's if there's a reason to to increase the exemption I get that because property values have gone up etc etc, but I have grave concerns over the how this Legislature did it, you know, the governor's office handed them something and they all raised their hand and said yes Just like the Politburo and I think we need to hear from our representatives Okay, why did you guys go along with this because it's going to have a negative impact on cities statewide. It may not pass I mean We'll see. But I just think they owe it to us and to our constituents on why they did some

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

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

I've had some conversation with our representative about it. And I think. while we're obviously not going to change their vote from before, I think there could be some benefit in having that conversation. Because there also are features of this that require, and by the way, there's a very useful discussion of this actually that White Sirota put out in a podcast. There's other places too that lay this out. I mean, there are other concerns and things that are going to be in the legislature's discretion potentially going forward in terms of the measure. which is, by the way, so plainly unconstitu

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

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

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

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

And I agree completely with what Council Member Meyer is suggesting. I understand there'll be some after we finish budget. I understand. maybe colorful way to say it, but separating out the budget from the educational town hall and whatnot. But I do think there's definitely an interest in, I've gotten a lot of feedback on the issue in the last week. If you ever, by the way, feel like your inboxes are empty, send out an email about the tax issue. Yeah, you'll get friends. I don't know if I made any friends. I did. I did, right? Right, I made some friends. or reinforce some friendships, let's pu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would go to something. I'm not spending. I don't want to spend overnight. I'd go to a meeting or two just to say hello to people. You're it then. Okay, you're it if you're going to go. I nominate Jim McDonald. Oh, you don't want to go? No, no, no. I will go to some meetings if it's like the transfer or something like that, but I'm not going to spend the night there. Don't worry. Where are you going to spend the night?

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

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

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

My recommendation on this is that we press the pause button. For all the reasons we just talked about, there is a lot of uncertainty. And one, I appreciate that we're talking about that the impact of what the state has done or is potentially doing to us won't be felt for a couple of years. But I think it's going to be a potentially very significant long-term impact. by any means doubting, Ms. Manager, what you said in terms of the numbers. But I think it's the beginning of a trend. I think that this behemoth piece of legislation has a lot of unknowns to it. We don't even know if it's going to

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

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

I respect what Jerry said. But I also think that we spent money. This council and this government operates in a deliberative fashion. We just don't do things by the seat of our pants. There's a lot of study. So we've taken, we, you guys have taken, I wasn't here, but you did a lot of work. on deciding to purchase the property. You've spent money on design. We now are at a point where we've got to sign the contract and move forward with the contractor, which if we don't, we know if a year goes by and we go back to it, the amount is going to go up. I just think we have to act responsibly and do

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

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

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

Just to respond to a couple of things, because I think it is important to the extent anyone's listening to our conversation, because I think both the points from the manager and from the parts director, Mr. Mattis, who are both the experts, are really well taken. And I'm not suggesting that this whole thing should be walked away from, that it's not going to, I mean, I think it's beautiful, that it's going to be great. I think just to me, This was, and I'll keep using it. I mean, in the realm in which we operate, and I don't use the term loosely, because there's places where there's real bombs

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

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

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

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

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

Whether it be engineering, I've got a little issue with because it's not like I want to make something cheaper. I think we should look at decide, do we need a bridge over the pond? Do we need certain things that we can save money on that we can reduce future maintenance on? Whatever we do, we can have a beautiful park. It doesn't have to have. every fancy thing we can think of. And I know the public brought in a lot of ideas they'd like to have and they brought it together, but the public at that time didn't know it was gonna be $14 million. And with that knowledge, maybe you make changes abou

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

Well, I, I'm listening to what you're saying and as, The previous council has worked many years on this project. We're now down to the wire. We either sign the contract and move forward, or we don't. And then we spend more money on taking things out of the project. We're going to save x dollars, whatever. And then we're going to go back and bid it out again. And most likely, the cost coming in is going to be higher than what we just saved. I mean, we are at a point. Let's say it's value engineering. Whatever it is, take out x, y, and z. Let's say you save a half a million or a million. We get

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

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

But the notion that if we don't do it tonight, that when the clock strikes 12, it's going to suddenly be all this money more. I very much understand the lecture that everybody is saying. But we have a contractor who's not letting us break it up, who's not giving any extension, who's not whatever else. And I feel like we're being held hostage by a contractor here. There's not that many places building that many parks like this. And I think we have to have some leverage. And I think it's very significant. I'm not suggesting we just kick this can down the road indefinitely. I'm not. But to me, Yo

I'm hearing Ariel say, expressing a lot of issues that I would have thought would have been dealt with as this council has reviewed this project for how many years it's been before you. the numbers that cost 2.1 million to run the car. All the numbers, I mean, this is not a new project. This is a project that's been worked on for how many years now? I've been off six months. Lots of years. Lots of years. So we're now, this group collectively, we're at a point where we've got to sign a contract. And as the manager was saying, they're not going to negotiate. They're just going to say goodbye. So

I don't think we're in any worse position with this park than we were with any other capital project or any other park. It comes with a lot of due diligence from the manager. The manager believes we can do this. She's not wrong with these things. She's never been wrong with these things. And I think that I understand the legislature's issue and all that stuff, but I think a change of pace now, we're at the end of this process, not the beginning, and a change of pace now is just going to cost us a lot more money. And I just don't think that that's worth it. I really think we go forward with thi

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

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

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

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

That's a bad gamble. And there's issues with the bonds and everything else. And we bought the land because the public said we want parks when they begin we bought the land, we're gonna make it a park. I just have a big problem about us not willing to make things not quite the perfect and try to save some money, especially when we know the cost, the anticipated costs went up much higher than we thought they would. For me, I just feel that we need to watch the people's money a little bit and make some sound decisions. We have a beautiful park and if we can save, $1.5 to $2 million, something lik

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

But see, I wasn't part of all this. But as you said, this council has spent a lot of time getting public input. People want the park. I notice whenever I go to the community center now, it's jam packed with people using it. And the reason why we want to do this is to bring more activity over to the new park to allow for expanded activity in the current community center. So when people have spent a lot of time with public input saying we want this park, and the manager is saying we can afford it, she's crunching the numbers. than for all of a sudden on the eve of signing the contract. And I get

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If that's where we can go, then if we can do that and be prudent about the money we're spending and the things we're doing, I'm okay with that. I'll second. Okay, hold on, hold on. We have a motion and a second.

I think the professionals will hold them out.

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

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

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

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

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

to request an amendment with the interlocal agreement. At some point in the future, they may decide to go to 20 miles per hour or whatever they decide.

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

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

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

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

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

I think the issue here is respecting the process and what we did to get to this point. And so I think the right way to maybe go about this is if what was the vote? If somebody wants to change the scope, doesn't the winning side have to say, hey, I want to revisit this? What's the protocol, Mitch? If somebody wanted to change a previous vote, What's the three or four that voted for it have to say, hey, I want to call this back?

So what would you do? Why don't you make a motion to put that on? We'll re-vote on it.

Is it in this? It's not in the study area, just to be clear. In the study area. In the study area. I thought the study area didn't cover. Did it cover this west, southwest? What's the study area again?

Do we have a second? What's the motion? The motion is to add a pilot. Say it again. Make your motion.

I'm very impaired with lowering the speed limits. I thought in previous meetings We decided we have this Vision Zero plan that's going to do a comprehensive study of the whole village. And we owe the people that live in and around Palmetto High School a traffic flow study. So it'll help us improve their conditions as traffic grows, as True North grows. goes, grows. So do we want to spend money on another study if we already have the Vision Zero study that's village wide? I thought, I know originally we wanted to, we talked about a pilot of a quarter of the community and that kind of went by th

You remember correctly, we spent, I don't know how long, how many months or whatever debating this, and we arrived at the scope of services that we approved as a council, and now this has been brought back up to us. So we made a motion. If the motion gets no second, the motion dies and we're done. So do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Hearing none, the motion dies. That's it for that. All right. Next, appeal of administrative decision on Southwest 107.

Somebody wants to come here and appeal. The property owner is appealing the administrative decision. That means they're asking to come before us and make the appeal or is this the appeal? This is the appeal. They're here. Are there any questions? This is the appeal. The question is we approve plans, right?

Does anybody have any questions about that? So not only was it built the plans, it was also built less than the minimum requirements.

Correct. Are these vertical or horizontal? They're vertical. Vertical. So our code is four inches? No, three and a half inches. Three is the minimum. Three and a half minimum. And the plan showed four, and it ended up at three. So there's a little bit. Right. OK. Why do we have the, what's the reasoning behind 3.5 minimum?

So a minimum of 3 is half inch, obviously, narrower. Right. Other than our code saying minimum 3.5, this is three. So a little bit less space between. Correct, yes. OK.

But the question is, so they submitted plans that said three? Said four.

No, said four. Four. So they're an inch and a half less.

The contractor built it at three. Right.

So it's an inch less. An inch less. But it's not like they didn't get approved plans. They approved them at four. Right. Okay. Any, any other questions? I mean, that's, that's kind of it, right?

Sure. The applicant here, Mr. Hob is here.

OK. All right. So you pulled a permit for four inches. for four inches. And the manufacturer built it to three inches.

So let me just try to understand. So we got a permit that said four. The owner... disregarded the permit, went directly to the fabricator.

It didn't happen that way. But you went to Steve and he said, nah, go ahead and do it. And he did write you an email.

I'm sorry. It can be solid above 37 inches?

Did anybody? It won't be approved. So they'll be coming back to us. They'll be doing the same thing he's doing, benching, or just fixing the game.

Was this approved, the 168 Southwest 61st Corp? Does anybody know?

Do you really believe you're being picked on? That's quite an allegation. I have an issue that I have it on this house, and I have it on another. You can't say that you're under oath, right?

Are you accusing us of picking on you? Not you. Are you accusing the village of picking on you?

And you default to a nefarious accusation that impugns the staff of the village? Yeah, but you said you're picking on him. I mean, that's a heavy allegation. Do you not agree? Getting picked on? He said he felt that way.

I would say this. That's pretty heavy. From what I'm seeing and hearing, I would give him a variance. And then if there is this kind of discrepancy among the gaps, then staff needs to look at it. But at this stage of the game, for this particular matter, I would reverse the administrative decision and grant the variance for the three-inch spacing. It'll look fine to me. Not for nothing, but we haven't got through the whole presentation or asked any questions.

I think that's what he wants. Of course that's what he wants because that's why he's here. When you come in and tell us what the staff... Look, we have professional staff that does their jobs every day in a very difficult position and he just... That's unprofessional at the very least. I mean, the staff is very professional. I can't believe we're picking on

So why would you feel that you're being picked on? You don't even know who made the decision. The manager. The manager, are you picking on him?

I'm insulted for the staff for that kind of comment. I think it's out of place. The zoning inspector went out there. I don't know how you can say that. I don't know how you... Make an accusation like that to professional staff that shows up to work every day, does their job real hard in the face of people who get permits, fabricate things incorrectly, and then go install them that are professional fabricators and builders that build more homes than anybody else in the community. You made the mistake, and your answer is the staff is picking on you. That's offensive to the staff. What the intent

I would argue the merits of the case, not that you're being picked on. That's an insult to everybody in this room.

I can guarantee you that that doesn't happen. I'll certify that that doesn't happen in the village of Pinecrest. We treat everybody exactly the same, and it's totally offensive.

I remember this discussion when we talked about these fences and that was the big deal that we didn't, we're trying to prevent pinecrest from being completely walled off. So we said solid three feet below, visible up above and that it should be visible enough And so you look at these, I mean, they're visible. Yes, there's a discrepancy on the spacing, but the pickets themselves aren't very big either. So there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of artistic room that can be had with our code here, obviously from all the pictures.

I would absolutely consider that substantial compliance. Now, there could be a technical answer. I mean, you could... measure the opening and the closed space and see how far above or below 50% it is, and there's a way to determine that, but.

Whatever, there must be a reason why they ask for this.

My neighbor, Schnell, gets through their fence all the time.

They messed up and they came in and blamed the village, that's why. Okay. Or they did it on purpose. I've been around long enough to see. I've been a planning director long enough to know that the first thing you do, you walk in the room and call up staff for your mistake. That's a problem. Anyway, I didn't do it either.

That four-inch deep picket, is that in this visibility triangle?

OK, a little off subject, but if I'm looking at that picket at an angle, it's blocking the view at four inches deep. That's the problem with that.

Has Olmstead approved these before to you?

And so the issue here is that he lost the planning director and the chief administrative official at this point in time is the manager who's interpreting this code for the first time, and she said, Let the council decide. She said no, but you can appeal to the council. She interpreted it her way, and the answer then is let the council decide.

But that's not the question here. The question here is not why it's in the code. The question here is there's an out for an applicant to appeal to the administrative official to... give their opinion on. And the question here is, the administrative official who you feel may have approved this, who may have approved these things for you in the past, has left. So we're in a cusp where a new administrative official is looking at the piece of code for the first time, decides to read it the way she reads it, and says, no, it's not literally. You don't make the code. You can appeal to the council. O

But that's really not the question, because you're here for this one particular house. So I don't think we should get distracted by something else. We're going to give you instruction tonight, one way or the other, of our interpretation of that. And then I would imagine that whoever is here, the interim planning director, the manager, or the new planning director at the time will take this as instruction for how to interpret the code. Any questions for?

Does this fence have a minimum openness of 50%?

Okay, let's open the public hearing. Anyone want to speak on this?

Oh, I'm sure they would have. Like, the other ones are going to get code enforced on and pull the fence out. I mean, that doesn't happen, right?

Why didn't you submit them plans that were conformed to the code? And in what sense did they conform to the code?

And the staff doesn't agree. The staff said that that does not conform to the code.

Has the manager looked at that? No. I would suggest that you bring it to the manager and let her give an opinion. I mean, it is to code. And the attorneys haven't looked at it?

This is not about your thing. If you're looking for a pathway forward, I would say the pathway forward is the exact same pathway that Mr. Hall took. I would dispute. I would suggest that you've got a thing. You think it conforms to the code. I would go to the next level up. I would go to the administrative official. She'll look at it and give her opinion on that. And if she agrees with the interpretation of the staff that it doesn't conform to code, then you have the right to appeal. And you can come in and do what Mr. Hall had just done. And if she agrees with it, then you'll get approved. I

Yeah, I hear you. Thank you. I would stick to the merits of the case and decide to not make personal attacks on the staff. But that's probably the best way to go about these types of things.

Not unless you do it. I don't plan on it. I'm going to hold it against Mr. Hall, but maybe he won't do it next time.

I have nothing further. Anybody else want to speak on this? I would. I would keep quiet, but that's up to you. Anybody else? All right, we'll close the public hearing. What do you all want to do? I already made a motion. All right. Second. Motion to second. I'm sorry. What is the motion?

Motion to second. Do you voice it? Do we? All right. We've got to call a question on this, right? Any debate?

The motion is to approve the design. Right.

OK. To approve as is built. I mean, what's out there? Right, right.

I would, just as a point, and look, I think under the circumstances, I'm in favor of that. I mean, I think there's a weird, we're sort of in a gap, no pun intended, I guess, with the fact that there were communications with Mr. Olmstead, and I know there's a long history, you know, to the builders and the village, and so I think these things happen in conversations. There seems to be some ambiguity. I would ask, and in light of the other gentleman's comments, and I know we just went through the LDRs, but I don't know if there's something we can do To clarify, I don't think now is the time to d

Not for nothing. But the plans were permitted because the plans were accurate. offense, not the plans, and went and installed it, and then came to ask permission after the thing was committed, and then blamed the staff for their mistake. We let that stuff go.

I mean, it's still that 50% threshold that's mentioned, so that muddies it up a little bit.

I don't think it muddies it up whatsoever. I mean, this is...

My opinion. If this is recurring, It does seem staff has got to make clear to anybody coming in for a permit to make sure they understand what the code says. They did understand what the code said. The plans were to code. I get it.

And they went and fabricated a fence that wasn't to plans with, I mean, if you're going to blame us for that, with the full intent, obviously, of coming in because somebody has a dog that can fit through a three-inch fence. I mean, this makes no sense to me. This is. This is the exact opposite of the way it was presented. Anyway, you're debating, not me. So go ahead, finish your questions.

know that it's, and I obviously very much appreciate the protecting and standing up for the staff. We have the best staff in the world. I don't know that I heard it the same way, just to be, you know, as questioning the ethics and integrity of the staff. I just didn't. I think the comment was, you know, my being picked on I took as more of a colloquial comment, and for someone who has a long history with this village and this community, and considering some of the attacks, we got called money launderers online this week, and all sorts of others, literally criminals and money launderers. So may

It's got something worse in there. All right, well, you've got a motion. Anybody want to second it? I did. Motion is seconded. Ms. Clark?

All right, excellent. Any questions on that? Village Attorney?

So it's not to strike the language that it's unconstitutional, but just to clarify it.

All right, we have no resolutions, and we have done the schedule of future meetings. When are we, okay, the 14th. Mr. McDonald?