City Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for being here. Good morning to my colleagues as well. We'll get started. Busy day and I'll turn it over to our city clerk to give us any relevant information.

Thank you, Ralph. And before we get started with our invocation, I just wanted to give a shout-out and a thank you and a recognition of the incredible 39 days we had of World Cup. Our city really did shine in a big way worldwide. Personally, just being an American baseball, basketball, football, hockey fan, seeing the world's sport on our stage was something I personally have never witnessed. It was incredible. I tried to get to almost as many watch parties as I could, and it really took a collective effort. There was a lot of people here that my colleagues were so instrumental in bringing the

Dr. Richardson, no surprise. You did not disappoint. Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to recognize that while we are taking obviously serious work of our city today, while we celebrated the World Cup, there's still a nation that is dealing with tremendous tragedy of the earthquakes, Venezuela. Thousands have died, rescue operations underway. Many, many, many children have been lost. And we try to do our part here in Miami Beach. We sent four firefighters to volunteer. Two are present with us, Chief David Sola and Lieutenant Pete Darley. Thank you for being here. Also want to acknowledge fi

Before we start with, thank you for being patient to our speakers who are gonna speak, but I asked Michael Rossi from the Miami Beach Classical Music Festival Youth Program to bring a couple of his students. We're celebrating America 250 this year, and I think it's been a great celebration on July 4th. You put on a wonderful show, Michael, and your Miami Beach Classical Music Festival team. I highly recommend and you do a show for the holidays at the end of the year celebrating. I highly recommend anybody who hasn't seen the show to come and see it. It is first class, it's free, and it just sh

Soleil, Maria, that was absolutely incredible. You have no idea what you just gave to all of us, so thank you. And I see some proud moms in the room, which is always great to see. Thank you, Michael. Okay, I think we've had a very inspiring morning so far, and I'd like to start our Sutnick Hour.

Thank you. Thank you. Tell Mayor Cobb what we say hello. I will. She's a friend. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Kevin. You've been very consistent for years. Patient. Patient in health and wellness. And you've got to feel proud that it's happening.

Great. Let's get to the consent agenda. Yes, sir.

Great. We'll get started. We've got a lot of items, but I think we can get through most of it today. So that's the challenge that I'm putting on myself and all of us. R5A.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Debbie, if you can take it on.

R5C. Ralph, just why October, not September?

Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When we adopted the resiliency code, we knew that through its implementation, there would have to be periodic updates and clarification. We're not changing the code. These are just clarifications and technical updates. So I'll just move the item.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this is something that my intention is to help with the beautification and enhancing the aesthetic beauty of our city. Right now, well, any time in a city, you may have various plots of land that have projects that are coming further down in the future. And Debbie, correct me if I'm wrong now, there's a lot of nuance to this, but essentially if there is a pending project and there's no building permanent place, what is required right now is we have the chain link mesh fence. And there's a reason for that. You want to see visibility. You don't want this opaque str

And just so that I can understand, so this restores being able to see through the sideline, through the fencing?

I love this idea. I think it's always exciting to see what's coming down the pike. I do know that, I mean, there is a vacant lot on the corner of my street that has had so many code violations because their mesh that is disgraceful. It really devalues the neighborhood and it looks terrible. So I'm really happy to see this. I would suggest a friendly amendment which would be that for those properties they comply with or enroll in the police program to ensure that before such a solid fence is put on that they have the no trespassing agreement in place with the police department because I do know

Commissioner Magazine. Second by Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you for bringing this item. I think an example, maybe not totally, is the Doval, where they put it, you actually drive by there and it looks presentable. It looks really nice. So we could really make a difference for properties that are awaiting building and development by just making it look reasonable. So thank you.

So I'm going to call one more. I see County Commissioner Vicky Lopez here. Thank you for joining us. We're going to call the CRA items, but I can't call them until another minute. So we're going to do one more item, R5E.

So this is the second reading, and I move my item.

Right on time. Thank you for joining us, County Commissioner Vicky Lopez. Appreciate all the hard work you've done on behalf of Miami Beach. It's a pleasure working together with you. And you want to join us up here?

Welcome, Commissioner Lopez. Motion to convene as the RDA. Second.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER SHORT AND SWEET.

NEW SPEAKER WE'RE GIVING THE COUNTY THE EXACTLY WHAT DOES THIS ITEM DO.

And they want to do the transfer because the county can...

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hello. Good morning, Dr. Terry. Good morning, Commissioner Lopez. Thank you. Good morning, Chris, Christian, and Char. Hello. I actually, this is a companion item to C7O, which I pulled because I do have some concerns. with this transfer, actually not really with the transfer, but with the building. And I've spoken with you before about it because I know that Royal American in the county is operating the building now. And we also had a affordable housing advisory committee meeting last night where we discussed this at our meeting. And the committee has some concerns too.

Okay, that have been slowly transferring over, slowly transferring over. And, you know, we can't take them on. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS NOR THE MANPOWER AND IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED PORTFOLIO. I WILL SAY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH, YOU KNOW, IF THE COUNTY COULD MAKE US WHOLE FINANCIALLY BECAUSE WE PUT IN OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND OUR RDA MONEY INTO THIS PORTFOLIO AND WE'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING. THE CITY ISN'T GETTING A PENNY. SO THAT'S JUST ONE CONCERN THAT I HAVE. AGAIN, NOT TRYING TO prolong this. The other concern that I have is

Thank you. I understand. I mean, you know, again, I just, and thank you. And I'd like to connect with you and commissioner Lopez. You always are. Again, I have to reiterate so responsive. So, um, and I appreciate that. And I just, you know, There are multiple concerns in the building and I know all the tea in that building and I probably know it before it reaches even you guys because I live right there and people will knock on my door, which is fine. And I love that building. So I just wanted to share those concerns that we just have this open communication to make sure The residents in the b

Commissioner Magazine. Are there covenants or deeds on this that mandate the type of housing we need to provide here?

Walk me through that. Why are these covenants? Did we... Do we get tax breaks on this?

So let me talk about how I view this in general. And I should have paid more attention to this that I didn't appreciate some of these details. In an area like this, We are facing a housing affordability crisis across the board at every income level. In particular, our working class. It's just an article, Miami became more expensive than New York. We are facing this across the board and this is one of our working neighborhoods where families that have two parents or single moms living with daughters trying to make ends meet tend to live in general for this program. If this housing, I don't want

It would revert to market rate housing, but that market rate housing would house working class families, single moms with children, people trying to get by in our city where that housing is needed most. So now I'm trying to sit here and recollect where I'm saying, well, that housing actually is being taken away from them and we're paying to then move homeless people into it. How do I go and tell the working mother at my daughter's school, no, I'm sorry, you can't live here. You don't have the ability to rent here. The guy that just moved here from San Francisco and is homeless on our street, w

Very easy question. Is this a program where you take somebody from the street and put them right into this housing?

So, yes. That is insane. Okay, that we're putting people from the streets right into the middle of a working class neighborhood. How close is that to our community centers? And not only that, we're paying to do it. We are paying to do that and we are paying to take that housing offline in a working class neighborhood away from single mothers trying to send their children to one of the best schools in South Florida working two, three jobs so they can give their children a more dignified living than what they may have had. We're taking that housing away from them and we're paying to take homeles

Is Flamingo Park not completely filled with the same exact type of market rate housing where single mothers are raising their children? Of course it is. Okay. Of course it is. No, I'm sorry. No, there's affordable housing for various AMIs. I'm sorry, hold on. So you're telling me the overwhelming majority of Flamingo Park is not market rate housing that organically serves our working class. In fact, I'm sitting next to one. right, that lives in Flamingo Park that was able to be a proud single mother giving her children a dignified living in the same exact neighborhood across the street. So, of

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to ask a question of our housing department because what I am hearing here, we have a population that's in need of housing. there were public dollars that were used for the creation or creation of the availability of housing and that housing has restrictive covenants that govern the population and the affordability levels that are allowed to be housed in that housing, whether it's 30% of AMI, or whether they're formerly homeless individuals. The challenge that I'm seeing here is not the individual that is being housed in the property. It's the lack of what I and wh

And who approved? That was the Homeless Trust that approved putting that, and then I guess the county assembly. When did the county do that? I guess a few years ago?

on an annual basis, and when does that expire?

Wait one second. Okay, so the city is getting dollars and...

So I guess there's two parts here. In the meantime, we have a situation there where we have individuals today, and they're going to be there tomorrow, who don't have wraparound services that for as long as they are the tenants of those dwelling units, they do need wraparound services. Otherwise, we're going to end up with the challenges on the other end of after the issue happens. But then the other side to this is, okay, seeing, okay, where are we in that annual term? in that annual term with the homeless trust, where are we? When does that get renewed? And can we work through the county toge

Thank you. I would love to hear the response because it was a question I had. So I don't know if it's possible to get a response. Go for it.

Commissioner Suarez. Thank you. So just to get this for a landing, this particular property was developed for workforce housing.

Whose idea was that? When you say the idea was to combine?

OK. And so the people getting the 20 out of 32 units, are getting housed through the homeless trust.

So the homeless trust is giving a percentage toward the 20 units. Is that correct?

So in 2014, the city of Miami Beach agreed to house homeless people there?

The housing authority. So it wasn't anything that Miami Beach had any sort of input.

OKAY. SO DO WE UP HERE HAVE ANY SORT OF POWER TO SAY WE WANT TO FOCUS ON THE DISPLACED MIAMI BEACH RESIDENTS? SO FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW DOZENS OF ELDERLY PEOPLE THAT ARE FACING housing or getting kicked out of their homes. They live in Miami Beach now. They'd like to stay in Miami Beach. I share Commissioner Magazine's concern that we don't want to see some non-resident who's homeless that's from anywhere in the world get put in Miami Beach when we have Miami Beach residents facing POTENTIAL HOMELESSNESS. AND I CERTAINLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE HOMELESS TRUST, WHOSE DIRECTOR, WE'VE HAD SE

So Commissioner Lopez, would that Would that be something that the county, that the board might consider as sort of a reform to the homeless trust where they get to decide which referrals get sent where? Because like I said, we have plenty of Miami Beach residents, all of whom are pretty much elderly, that need, that can't afford to keep up with their affordability and are getting evicted. I certainly don't like the fact that you have a quasi-governmental entity with the homeless trust that decides who gets what. So if we don't agree to this, what happens now, City Attorney?

Well, I'd like to know what exactly would happen if we did we decline this this transfer because what does that mean that and and The nonprofit would then possibly come to the city for a renegotiation?

So then why do we need this meeting today?

The only- If we approve this, we're literally handing over any leverage we have.

But we're going to be out of leverage if we do that, correct? We should probably do that now. we should probably negotiate that now and then, and then decide on this item.

Thank you. So this is what I'm going to do now. I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Botton now. I need us to have a conversation. You've been incredible with a wealth of information, but I need us to talk because it keeps getting interrupted. I plan on reaching out to Mayor Calva. I'm concerned about giving off any leverage we have before I can have or collectively we have those conversations. Commissioner Bob.

Yeah, so I would I'd like to make a motion to defer, but I also want to talk about some ideas. First of all, I'm very concerned. I'm very supportive of getting homeless off the street into situations where they will succeed. I'm very concerned that taking folks off the street without wraparound service, without any kind of support, without knowing that they're homeless, Miami Beach-based homeless, I think that's a disservice to our community. Primarily the wraparound service. And I know money is tight for everyone, and I know we're all trying to do more with less, and we're all struggling. Thi

Okay, but still, that is an organization that is based in Miami Beach, and they can come to the table and say, you know what, we do think this is a better use, and let's bring them into the conversation. I don't know how to do this. This is all new to all of us on the table, on the days, rather, and so I think you're hearing, I think we're all hearing clearly that there's an opportunity and a desire to do something better that serves people better with the best possible outcome. And I don't think anybody here knows how to get from where we are today to where we potentially want to be. So there

I'd like to call the vote, too, but Commissioner Suarez and then Commissioner Matea Salinas, and then we'll call the vote.

Miami Beach doesn't own the land, but we have a mortgage on it.

But we're the principal loan owner, correct? So we don't actually own anything then. We just have a loan on the property.

If we're the loan... Maybe this is a question for the city attorney. If we're the loan holders, what rights do we have to the property? If, for example, we require this MBCC to... pay off the loan.

I think we have a motion to defer anyway, so I think it's, I'm pretty confident it's going to pass. So, I mean, obviously, I'd love to get more information.

Really quickly. I don't want to prolong this as we take our vote, but I just to Commissioner Botts point I would love to have a sunshine meeting to discuss this further because I think it really is important to clarify what happened with the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation and how we went down this path and We're discussing one building but there's actually in total 12 that are going to be transferring to the county and I just really want to be clear that what that means, and so I would love to host a Sunshine Meeting, Commissioner Bott, if anyone is interested, because this is a

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez, we get to see you again at our meeting, so we'll look forward to it. I'm delighted. We have a motion from Commissioner Bott. Second.

I'm sorry. I don't know. September will be enough time. I know a lot of people are gone in August, and this seems like it's going to be a pretty thorny issue. Do we want to defer it? And I want to get it right. I don't want to have this mess again. Do we want to defer to October?

Do we have a second meeting in September? It is a budget meeting. I don't know if you...

Okay, thank you. Thank you for your expertise. Thank you. It was incredibly valuable to this discussion. Great teamwork up here on the dais. So thank you. Yes, absolutely. Any other RDA items? RDAs conclude. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. We look forward to seeing you October 14th. I'm sure we'll see you before then now. R9G.

So I actually pulled this item last time as Commissioner Fernandez and co-sponsored by Commissioner Mateo Salinas and Commissioner Bott. Since I pulled it, I'll just, I think you remember the discussion last time. So I'm gonna recommend referring it to the Finance Committee, which was the referral, and also the item has a slight extension, if you want to address that.

Yeah, and as I mentioned, I won't elaborate too much, but as I mentioned last time, Sodexo, they're doing a great job. They do these large scale convention events, outstanding. My issue that I'm gonna continue working on, I've asked Eric to get involved in discussions, was the smaller resident charity events that maybe 500 people or a little less. You saw a representative from the Miami Business Club came last time. They've worked it out actually since that meeting. maybe somebody wants to do a wedding there again at nights or on weekends when the convention center is not activated and there's

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to be sensitive of those concerns. I'm grateful to Sodexo, and I know Doug Connor is here as well. As we all know, they've agreed to discounts for our local residents. I think it's a 20% discount and certain discounts. certain donations for 501 s, making sure that the events are at cost to these organizations. Clearly, more can be done. For example, one of the things I know, like the kosher caters, Danziger, and Danziger can be a little bit expensive. And I know you've mentioned to me you might be willing to also add more options, perhaps up to three or four po

Other kosher caterers that have worked with us in the last few years as well, so it's completely open. It's not exclusive to Danziger.

All right, so I'll move the item to go to FERC. I'll second.

R5G. That was R5G. That was R9. R5G, sorry. R5G, yeah.

Commissioner Suarez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Second reading for this. And again, you know, there's a lot of, I guess, misconception online. I think that we're going to be extending an off-leash dog park beyond the actual dog park in South 5th. The South 5th dog park is unique in the sense that there's no fence. So if one of our dogs runs out for a second to chase a ball, which my dog happens to do all the time, unfortunately, there shouldn't be a penalty from any enforcement agency of the city. And I think strikes a perfect balance of enforcement and leniency for pet owners considering this dog

Let me hear from Vice Mayor Dominguez. Vice Mayor Dominguez.

Yeah, I share those concerns and you know just just because a dog runs outside of the existing parameters doesn't mean that they that that owner is going to be cited I think as the police do with other matters of law enforcement that are not major there are there's there's a matter of judgment and discretion and so I don't think that expanding this is going to make anything better. In fact, I think it's going to make it worse. It's going to be harder to enforce, more complicated, and I have seen, long before even this was an item on the agenda, I've gotten residents reaching out to me about is

I'm looking at our communications department.

And by the way... So let's go to the next... Yeah, I mean, these have to be vetted, obviously, because we can't just allow the videos to go up without knowing what its content could be.

Just for the record, I want to make clear that my comments were made as a longtime dog lover. I've rescued dogs. I've got two rescue dogs at home at the moment. And the little dog is affectionately known as the 10-pound terrorist. He never goes off leash. Neither of my dogs, none of my dogs ever have because it's, you know, at the end of the day, dogs are animals who react to things the same way that people do on a bad day. And there's no telling when a dog, no matter how well trained, might have an adverse reaction or get provoked and there be unfortunate consequences. So this is not anything

Thank you. Commissioner Suarez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't see the big issue here with this particular dog park it's the only dog park in Miami Beach that's by design doesn't have a fence and I for one don't want to leave it to the discretion of an officer or park ranger to either give a citation or not. I think that's why we're up here to put some checks and balances on the enforcement side. one of the previous scholars, maybe five minutes is too much. I'm okay with two minutes because I think that's plenty of time to, if your dog accidentally goes outside the boundary, you should have two

OK. I'll be supportive, especially with that amendment. Can't let a good dad joke go unwasted. I'll have a short leash with this. If there's any issues here, I would ask to revisit it. In particular, kidding aside, the issues that Brian laid out, I think he laid it out pretty eloquently, where we don't want this to signal that Rottweilers and Pitbulls are somehow allowed off their leash and just to be roaming free. This is to accommodate this, let's call it grace period, if you will. So with that, I'll be fine supporting this.

And for the record, most dog breeds, I've had pit bulls, and they're the most loving dogs. So I don't know why we're vilifying pit bulls because they really were meant and bred to be family dogs. I think all dogs are domesticated. It's just who raises them is what really becomes the problem. So I just want to put that out there. But we have a motion and a second as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item actually doesn't have anything to do with terms of office, but it's the section of the code that we're adding that the city manager can amend the compensation. With that, I move my item. Go ahead, Mr. Manager.

Okay. So discuss an important item now. We'll call them together. R7A, R7B, R7C, and R9D. Oh, you even brought your bow tie for today, John, huh? So R7A, it is

Commissioner Suarez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So John and I have been talking in the last couple of days and I want to land this in the best way that's for the most equitable for Miami Beach and the residents. When you use the calculation for single family homes, it's not it's because you are able to have the water usage per household, correct? And the way you have defined it is 5,000 gallons a month, correct? When it comes to condos, it's much harder to do an analysis. And so part of this analysis is you, the city, had to do a sample, correct, of multiple condos. And there are, unfortunately, yo

and that's assuming 5,000 gallons a month, the cost is slightly higher, correct? And why is that important to note? It's important to note because if you are a resident in Miami Beach, you have a family, you're probably using 5,000 gallons a month. If you are a full-time resident here, you are using 5,000 gallons a month or more. If you are in a building that has, let's say, snowbirds in it, that average is gonna skew down because if you're only here for three months out of the year, some of the units, and the cost share or the usage share would average down below 5,000. So, John, if you own a

No, no, over the course of the 10 years.

I said so Just so my colleagues are aware if you have a median household income and you are if your portfolio is within the median and below, this would affect you disproportionately as if you were above the median household income, or not income, the value. So we have to wrestle with the idea that if we go with a hybrid option, the most struggling residents in Miami Beach are potentially paying more under the hybrid option. I do, however, understand the need to keep this enterprise fund afloat. And I think not our doing, decades of commissioners have really declined to put this in good standi

Sample for condos. Yeah. And just so everyone is aware, how many condos did you sample for this particular analysis that was on the slide?

And when you did the sample, from what we discussed, some buildings, some condos or apartments were better off with the full Geobon. Obviously, some were better off with the hybrid. What were the differences in those condos? When you when you did the sample and you saw that some condos were It was preferred it was beneficial to the to the ones who were sampled for Maybe higher usage more occupancy and the geo bond would have been more beneficial to them Maybe you could speak a little bit more about that.

Commissioner Magazine, and then Commissioner Bott, then Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you, everybody, for this.

Our administration, you have jumped through hoops that we've put you through over the past several years. Thank you to the Commission for being cost-conscious, but also realizing how critical it is that we move forward with some of these infrastructure and resiliency challenges. Because of how important and nuanced these discussions have been, evidenced by just the back and forth that we heard there. We've all become so detail-oriented. I think what we can also do is take a step back and make this even more simple. And I actually apologize for not kind of seeing this earlier and hoping steer i

Thank you, Commissioner Magazine. Commissioner Bob, then Commissioner Fernandez.

John, can you clarify if we are proposing to borrow everything now or just authorize the borrowing as we need it?

I'm sorry, Commissioner Buck. I wasn't proposing to compress that into an accelerated, I wasn't proposing to compress it into a more accelerated timeframe than what you had proposed. The exact funding mechanism that you have that exists in the hybrid method for the utility rates, we do that, but we don't move forward with the geobond portion, right? So we're borrowing less. We would have to essentially reconfigure what constituted that utility rate portion of the revenue bond, right? But we're essentially borrowing less, and yes, you're absolutely right, Commissioner Bach, we're just authorizi

So, John, I also, and Jason, in just a second, I'll, but John, I also want to talk about the other part of that proposal, having half the projects. I how long has it taken us as a city to get to the point where we are which is if we are going to do a hybrid option it has to happen today otherwise we missed the window to get it on the ballot in November and then we are back to being another year out if we're going to pursue the hybrid option so how long has it taken us to get here and can you give some backstory on on why we're at this critical juncture. I mean, we haven't had CPI increases for

Just to clarify, there are CPI increases, right?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. John, so when we talk about selecting projects, So it's my understanding that there has been a prioritization list that over the years the city has. The city has a list of projects and those projects are numbered based on their critical nature and their importance to our city? Yes, sir. Okay, and that's how the projects have been identified? and the funding that the city needs has been identified based on that? Correct. Okay. So you gave us a presentation where you showed us different numbers and in that presentation you were comparing THE RESIDENT'S TOTAL MONTHLY COST, N

All right. And the median that you established was about 300,000? 318,000, yes, sir. Okay. And for those properties, you showed an estimated monthly cost by 2035 of how much? Under the all-geo bond option?

Okay. Hold on. What's that? Help me understand how Commissioner Magazine's proposal could be more beneficial to the city from your perspective. to the city, to the system, to the utility system. When I say to the city, I think to the people that are receiving the services, to the homeowners, to the condo owners, and to the people who ultimately need to pay. Because my goal is to be able to deliver the projects that are, as the commissioner mentioned, mission critical, but at the lowest rate possible, which is why we placed that moratorium on the water and sewer rate increases because it was go

Yeah, so it shifts the burden based on the property value. The people that have a higher property value, in essence, are contributing more.

What? What's that, Commissioner Magazine?

Only if you borrow the same amount. You're answering Commissioner Fernandez's point as if we're borrowing the same amount.

And I don't mean to interject. I'm trying to understand the concept. You answered it as if we borrow the same amount across the board. I'm not proposing that. When you said people on the lower income threshold would be more impacted by what I'm proposing, that's not correct because we're borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars less under my proposal.

But I guess from what you were explaining, Placing more of the program on the utility rates shifts a greater relative burden, whatever the amount we end up borrowing through utility bonds onto residents in lower assessed homes and people of more moderate income, It puts more of a burden on them on a relative scale while placing more of it on the GEO bond asks owners of higher assessed properties to carry a larger share. Yes, sir.

John, what I've suggested is, is borrowing the same exact amount in the utility, via utility rates, under this proposal as your hybrid proposal. The same exact amount, right? So there's no shifting, oh, well, okay, it's more for people, the same exact, mechanism that you're proposing in your hybrid. See, let's do that and we move forward with it. Let me ask you a question. What happens to the lower income people if in November homestead exemption is taken away, I'm sorry, increased and then over the years It's greatly expanded. That means the people whose homes are at $5, $10, $25 million that

Geo bonds are funded via property taxes, correct? Correct. I'm asking a question, I know the answer. If in November, a large portion of the people that are paying property taxes are removed from having to pay them, by definition, then what is that going to do? The people that aren't part of that homestead exemption. And over the years, it's going to grow and grow and grow. That is the plan here. So the people whose homes are worth $10, $20, $30, $50 million in Miami Beach, are removed from having to pay into the GEO bond debt service.

OK. So right now, the property tax reform that's going to the voters is, if it passes, the first year, the homestead exemption gets increased to $150,000. And then the second year, it gets increased to $250,000. So we're not, we don't have a proposal, and Mr. Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong, we don't have a property reform that completely eliminates property taxes from people's trim notices, is that correct?

It commands it commands the legislature to prescribe a uniform method through which any other taxing entity could eliminate those those property taxes. And in this case, it would be up to us whether whether we decide to do that. in which case, if this property tax reform passes, and in year two we're seeing an increase of $250,000, in essence, the bulk of people who are in the medium property range, or below Jason, If this passes, they probably then won't be affected by this general obligation bond impact because they would have a tax, their property tax exemption goes up.

Okay, so in essence, those individuals, probably a big chunk of those individuals who are in the median property value range of about 300 and how much was it? 318. 318. If this $250,000 property tax reform passes, probably a big chunk of those individuals won't be affected by the general obligation bond. IF IT WERE TO PASS IN THE BALLOT BOX.

SO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE LOWEST INCOME RANGES WOULD BE PROTECTED. AND SO I JUST THINK THAT'S GOOD CLARITY TO HAVE HERE.

Commissioner, can you, I didn't hear you.

So the, sorry, the lower income homeowners would get exempt. However, 66% of our city, the residents are renters. They get no exemptions and they are the ones left holding the bag for where this shifts to. If you lose income, it has to be borne by somebody. It's not going to say don't pay your debt service. It's going to be borne by the people that aren't exempt from this. I'll just reiterate very simplistically what I am proposing is I can in good faith vote for and I don't lament people that are it is just my difference in opinion I think it's very important we move forward with water infras

I know, but just first phase three and four. Just talk to me. I don't even want to say off record. We're on record, but just not with the engineering stuff, just layman's terms.

But not in a compressed borrowing window. It's not even a five-year, right? But the projects that are not as mission critical, that is how we achieve affordability. is we prioritize right now for the next couple of years, and we revisit in a few years if we come back and these affordability challenges have lessened. Then we look to a further borrowing program. We're not getting rid of these programs. We are just saying for the ones that can get completed in this shorter, let's call it five to seven year window, those are the ones that we borrow for right now. I don't have, I don't think it is

We already have a free proxy because in your hybrid method, you're already proposing that. So in a large way, you've already mapped that out.

That's not correct because I'm wrong, but I think the hybrid proposal bifurcates the type of project. And what you're saying is that we'll take Regardless of whether it's water, sewer, stormwater, it could get funded with the immediate funding, and it's not bifurcated by type of project. So I don't think that's a correct analysis.

Nobody's been able to explain to me why the different types of projects would cost different. I think Jason is the one to say. To any material.

And John, also what it does is it removes any of the ballot risk and if the voters vote no, what are we going to do? Come back and say, oh, just kidding. I know we need to move forward with these things. So let's do it anyway. As our Public Works director, right we have this 10-year 700 million dollar project if i would say to you john right now we've been talking about this since years and years before you even came into the city with by october on second reading we can get you 450 million dollars of projects to go do this 10-year plan Would you not take that and run to the bank with it? Not

Well, first we got Commissioner Suarez. Did you raise your hand?

It was just to ask a question about that point. By that point, it will be gone.

We'll get back to it. Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Bott, Commissioner Fernandez.

Philosophically, I disagree that First Street sections three and four are never going to get done. If that's sort of the rationale, why even start with Part one right is you know we're not here to just rubber stamp something we're here to actually think things through and with the hopes that the entire project gets gets finished I for one want my children to live in Miami Beach and I wanna make sure that these projects, by the time they're my age, are completely done for their children and so on and so forth. So I don't know if I necessarily buy the argument that these projects are never gonna

I'm of the belief that we need to move forward on these projects. It's going to cost money. How do we fund it? And We're back to where we were about 30 minutes ago. What is the best way to do that? And one of the condos or buildings that John's staff sampled, which I believe is a good representation of full-time Miami Beach residents, whether they're renters or homesteaders, is Tower 41. And when the analysis for Tower 41 was done, was that the geobond option only was actually less expense, was advantageous to the people that are living there. And I asked the staff behind you, which option was

So just want everyone to understand when you know, I I don't really delineate between single-family homes or or condos I think of it more of a household and so If we want to give better relief to people who live here, who has families here, who has a lot of children, a lot of showers, a lot of toilet flushes, the only GEO bond option works best for that type of resident. How many times have we seen buildings go up where the people, it's only for second and third homes. You know to me that that's not that's not a no look not to say that those people don't deserve representation or Consideration

We're going to the second round of comments. So let's try to, my goal is to finish and vote on this item by 1230. So please keep that in mind. Commissioner Bott. Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez.

So just in the last year, I think, maybe two, we've had And one of them last week, we had a sewer line break in North Beach.

Sorry, a water main. Forgive me. We had faulty pipes under the school playground. We had a sinkhole last year or the year before. I know I'm forgetting some. We have North Beach NIP scheduled. I'm not comfortable deferring this to even a month down the road without a list in front of me of saying what are the projects that won't get funded if we go with $400,000. We don't even know without analysis if there will actually be savings. You know, it's great to suggest that future commissions will do the right thing. I would hope that would be the case. But previous commissions haven't, so why are

Question, point of information. Mr. Fernandez.

Option one requires the combination of a rate increase. Yes, sir. All right, so that would require five votes.

And what about the moratorium? Oh, I'm sorry, the moratorium you were referring to. It would require five votes to overturn the moratorium.

There would need to be a motion for that first, to overturn the moratorium.

You do need the five so that you can overcome the more time and then and then if the general obligation bond does not pass We would have to go back and increase the rates to Do I then I guess a second increase on the water and sewer rates to cover? the projects that were not adopted by the general.

You see, and that's and that's a critical part there. And that's my, you know, with I like the thought of selecting the mission critical projects. My concern is that we have, for example, I from what I'm hearing, a project like Lakeview, where we have homes, we've had residents come here crying because their homes have been flooding. Would that make it into that five-year mission-critical list?

Okay, so something, for example, Not elicited. By must park. By must park, we have the projects by 44th Street and Royal Palm, that area there that has been flooding. That's a critical needs project as well.

No, I'm not picking and choosing, I'm just asking questions to understand, you know, I'm not proposing that we select one project over the other. I just, you know, want to understand when WHEN THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR IS SAYING, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT MOVES FORWARD OR NOT. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD MAKE IT INTO THAT OR NOT.

So there's logic to doing the 10-year funding as opposed to five-year for the longevity of the program.

Vice Mayor? MS. John, so I'm looking at this list of projects, which I'm sorry my colleagues don't have, and we're not prepared to discuss this, so this is not great. But I'm looking at the NIP projects, which would be the ones cut, and North Shore D Phase 1A, Normandy Isles Phase 1, and North Shore Phase 1B and 2 would all go by the wayside. Is that correct?

to get rid of the neighborhood impact projects.

I understand that, but that's what we're talking about. If we're trying to get to that number, yes. But what we're saying by doing this, which I think is absolutely beyond irresponsible, we literally did not have an infrastructure map of North Beach until it's actually still being worked on until I brought to the Commission and fought kicking and screaming to get my colleagues to approve it and we've already replaced two pipe structures with much larger pipes than we thought we needed to because of what we found through that we have leaks and sewer breaks and water main breaks in North Beach a

I think we're just deciding how... We are saying we are going to cut the budget in half and deprioritize the neighborhood impact projects. The three biggest neighborhood impact projects are these in North Beach.

Nobody said that. We are the commissioners. We get to decide. If we would say we can borrow up to $450 million, guess who the legislators are? For better or for worse.

So which neighborhood are you going to tell your project doesn't matter? We're not even going to talk about funding it for the next 10 years. Have fun with that conversation.

Well, given that First Street Phase 3 and 4 won't start for 10 years, I think we could talk about borrowing for that 10 years. some years down the road. I would be perfectly comfortable having that conversation.

Let me summarize where we're at. I think we'll finish up Commission Magazine, then I'll summarize. And I think this is a good policy discussion. I don't think anybody has to get upset about anything. This is what we do as legislators. We go through the different options. I'll summarize the three options we have on the table. First of all, we have a motion and a second on the city recommendation for a combination, a hybrid model, stormwater, geobond, along with water sewer rate increases. I'm sorry? Well, the problem with deferring that motion is if we're going to get it on the ballot, it's got

Commissioner Suarez. And I agree with Commissioner Abbott. I'm not of the belief that we're going to kick the can on the road or we're going to stop funding projects. I think we need to move forward, right? And I think most of us can agree to that. It's just how do we get there and how do we pay for it? And philosophically, I believe that the geobond only option is a lot less burdensome on the poorest of people of Miami Beach. And so I'm gonna make a motion to go with that option. for the referendum question. Do I have a second?

I have a second. I have a question on that. We also had a motion to defer. The first option one is I would want to have a discussion about this one before we contemplate raising the water and sewer rates.

And to top it all off, we need five out of seven votes to lift the moratorium. So MR. CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU CAN PUT US IN PROPER STANDING, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A MOTION TO GO WITH OPTION HYBRID, OKAY, DO WE FIRST NEED TO PASS A MOTION TO LIFT THE MORATORY?

OKAY. SO WE, AS IT STANDS, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR HYBRID

model we also have a motion and a second for the geo bond and that is to the mayor's discretion of which item do you want to call first I don't know I'm happy to make that decision but we doesn't go in the order of when the motion was made it would go in the order that the motion was made I just need understanding and then and then Commissioner Vice Mayor Dominguez has a question and so

So Jason, just so that I understand, and my goal has always been, what is the lowest impact to the people who are at the lowest levels of affordability? It's the reason why I sponsored the moratorium, and the majority of us support is the reason why I've been inclining towards the all-Geo bond version, because it offers that. I wanna be able to be mindful of tenants, but it's hard to find a way that we can give that same level of relief to the tenants. So I'm trying to see what is the best that we can do for the majority of the people who have the lowest means. And that would be looking at the

I made my point already about the tenants. I want to be able to figure out how we can help tenants, and unfortunately there's no avenue here. Whether you do a utility rate increase, you're still going to pass a burden to tenants. Whether you do a general obligation bond, you're still going to pass a burden onto tenants, but there is a segment of lower income individuals who are on fixed incomes, a lot of them who are dealing with the challenges that we might be able to address through this. And so what you were answering me, the property tax reform passes. What would be the impact to them?

The average. Okay. And so if the property tax reform passes, they're going to be based on $250,000 less?

NEW SPEAKER SO THOSE $300,000 CONDO UNITS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING ABOUT EARLIER. Yeah, like I guess Commissioner Suarez was mentioning Tower 41. That is a model of many other buildings. It's a sample of the experience and the situation of many other condo buildings in our city. If the reform passes in year two of the reform, YOU KNOW, THOSE $300,000 UNITS ARE REALLY GOING TO BE TAXED BASED ON A $100,000 VALUATION.

I tried. I do. John is saying that you're going to have debt even when the projects are done, so you're going to have this debt living on, and then you're going to have to redo new projects and bring on debt on top of the debt you still owe. But how long does that project live for?

Okay, again, three options. The hybrid model, stormwater, GEO bond with the water sewer rate increase. We have a motion and a second. Just the GEO bond, I believe we have a motion and a second. That's the Suarez model. Then we have the magazine model. I don't think we have a motion and a second. But we're going to go in order anyway. Are we all ready to vote?

I figure everyone will get hungry eventually if we get a vote. Usually I'd force it into the vote, but this is a very important decision, so if somebody is asking for a little more time.

Can I just, and maybe we just have a casual conversation, people jump in here as they want. Here's my issue with this, right? I mean, I'm just following along, and again, this isn't knocking anybody, but the West Avenue thing

We can't pare down this list because we're gonna start FDOT Alton Road Utilities in 2033. That was the best argument you've made. Anybody, if Calshi is offering betting odds of us starting an FDOT utility on Alton Road by 2033 when the Venetian Road bridges are going to be shut down, I will take those odds all day long. There's zero chance. There's zero chance. Right, so we're sitting here saying, no, we can't reduce the amount that we're going to authorize borrowing, because we're doing all of these. We're not. If anybody thinks this list is all going to get completed in the next 10 years, I'

And I'm just throwing out these examples of projects that are eight years, ten years down the road where we're authorizing now. If we take on all of these projects, our city will be in construction paralysis. All I'm suggesting we do is thread a needle where we're realistic about the mission-critical ones as we define, right? So that can be our neighborhood improvement projects. And the ones that are not unimportant, but just not realistic. over the next, I don't know, six years, seven years. We can revisit that in a couple of years from now. And if affordability pressures have abated, then we

Commissioner Magazine and through the chair, Mr. City Attorney, I hear what my colleague is saying and there are valid concerns about efficiencies in government because, you know, I mean, Will these projects be built in 10 years or not? I mean, the betting odds are not there. Can we frame the geobond option as an up to allowed? Okay, so we don't actually have to borrow the full amount. We would have commission meetings to decide the tranches that are

Yeah, so we can, we certainly can, we don't have to borrow the full amount. We can borrow just a hundred or two hundred million dollars. And in the meantime, we can certainly list all the projects that are that through the for the Geo bond portion we can list the projects that have to be funded right in fact you have to well you don't have to but that's what I would propose is we specifically list the projects uh that will get the funding and And if there come a time that we say we don't want to fund this or that project or we shift dollars around, I think we still have that ability to do that

These are the projects that yeah, so we're gonna be doing essentially what you're saying. It's Again, how do we pay for it? Right? So I totally understand your your concern with giving the city administration a blank check. But I don't think it works like that. I think when it comes before us to issue a bond, we decide specifically what projects are going to be picked to move forward. So we have protection in doing it on a GEO bond only, or hybrid. But my preference is, We'll do for geobond only, the Suarez model.

Eric, looking at the magazine model, what's your thoughts on rate and sewer increases without doing the geobond at this time?

When would you estimate those debates will start to happen? Because what I'm hearing from Commissioner Magazine is those debates are going to happen seven, eight, ten years from now. Is that?

No, but the point is, assuming today we approve, well, first of all, we won't even know until November if we go that route, whether the GO bond is approved or not. But just based on the rate increase, let's say we approve that today, can you break down for how many years you will have projects funded based on that rate increase?

And just to be clear, it's not single digits.

So, you know, just to put this all in context, I mean, not to be an idiot, but water flows, right? I mean, Parkview Island is six years into a no-contact water advisory. And it didn't happen because something happened at Parkview Island. It happened because a sewer line broke because a contractor damaged it on a project near Lincoln Road. Water was, sewage was diverted into two smaller pipes. They couldn't handle it because they were 80 years old, and they ruptured. We had all our neighboring communities helping to try to pump things out. We had our residents trying to reduce the use of the wa

That's not what caused Parkview to be contaminated.

Yes, it is. I beg to differ. I beg to differ. We have photographs of the before and after. We had sea life before and after. I lived there before and after. It's not the only thing but it was the tipping point. It's one example. It's one example that whatever we decide affects the entire city. It's not just one pipe in one neighborhood. I'm so not in favor of picking winners and losers on who gets to get projects that will potentially keep their living rooms from flooding.

I'd like to turn it for a moment to Eric to respond to that, but I guess my question wasn't so much winners and losers, but how long are we funding the projects in the pipeline? And I guess I'm sort of trying to get answers to what Commissioner Magazine. Thank you, by the way, to I think you're Miami Beach Senior High students who are interning for the Washington Avenue bid. Thank you for joining us for the meeting. It's always good to see our young generation participating in the civic process. So I'm just trying to get a good understanding. But I'd like to hear an answer to what Commissioner

That's right. And I just want to say I'm not suggesting this is the entirety of the cause. I think there was a real issue before it was uncovered. It predates it because the engineering, the shape of the canal there, but it was exacerbated significantly. I mean, just look at the before and after photos. Look, I don't want to litigate what did or did not cause Parkview Island. My point in making that example was that that was a rupture caused by contractor on Lincoln Road that has affected North Beach six years later, right? So we're a seven mile stretch of sand in the middle of the Atlantic an

I'd like to hear from Commissioner Matea Salinas.

COMMISSIONER MATEA SALINAS Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a really difficult topic to absorb and digest and understand. I'm concerned with the GO bond that is everything together, because if it fails in November, then we have nothing. We have nothing. We have no backup plan, we have no you know, finances to help the projects that we want to do and so that's why I'm supporting the hybrid model. Now, I was just presented with Commissioner Magazine's solution and I understand it and I agree that there is merit to it, but I just don't know what the number would be that we could reduce the debt serv

Thank you. If the hybrid option moves forward, John, and the voters reject the GEO bond portion, or just rejects the motion or the referendum, You said that some of the funds for the rate increase wouldn't be used for the neighborhood improvement projects, correct? It would just be the water and sewer aspect of the neighborhood improvement project.

Right, so the stormwater would not be part of that, correct?

Okay, so just so everyone is clear, Commissioner Mateo Salinas, assuming that we go forward with the hybrid option and it We're gonna be raising rates today on water and sewer, which is, I believe, 42%, okay? So it's not single digits, it's double digits. And if it doesn't pass, then none of these neighborhood improvement projects are gonna get moving forward unless we raise the rates even more. So, well. Speak in the mic, please. I don't think any of us would want to go against the will of voters, which is why we're looking at two models that will allow... No, well, the question is, do we wan

Okay. Here's where we're at. We, stormwater, geobond, the hybrid model needs five, seven vote. We have a moratorium right now. So those, the hybrid model and the magazine model.

I'm not having my . We'll go, how did you put it eloquently, Eric? Option three. It was having a revised aggregate total that Public Works has to fit their needed.

Let's call the vote. We had a motion and a second. The first motion and a second we had was on the hybrid model. It needs a 5-7 vote since we currently have the moratorium in place. So this is option one, item R7B, correct? What happens if... Then we have a motion to second another.

I mean, I usually, I like to, but we, this item's been going, this item's been going, and we've also, we had a conversation last time.

I don't think it's going to change anything.

Just to make clear, we're talking about the hybrid model. That's B. I just asked.

And. Mr. Mayor, I just need a clarification. Please, please. I just need a clarification. It's an important vote. Because I heard two things, two different answers. Commissioner Suarez asked you about affordability, and when he asked you about affordability, you said that the all-geo bond option was the one that delivered the most affordability. And then, Vice Mayor Dominguez asked you about affordability, and you answered that the hybrid model offered the most affordability. And that is the one issue that I care most about, is delivering this in the most affordable way to the residents that a

All right, thank you. This is what I'm going to do, because I was just having some conversations with the clerk and legal, and we're trying to get We're going to take a break now. We're not going to continue the discussion, though. We're going to take the vote after we get back. This way everyone can collect their thoughts, make sure. No, we have to, because I think there's some confusion when we even, when I even just broached it, which item is which. Yeah, I mistakenly said that it was C, but option one is B.

Okay. I'd rather just vote now. I just want to make sure everyone understands what we're voting on. If I'm late for, you know, part two, I don't want to. I don't wanna miss the vote, so can we just vote now? I think we're all pretty much made up our minds.

Okay, we're breaking, we're coming back at 1.45 and then we're gonna take the vote. And Mr. Mayor, maybe one thing we can consider is

Before we break, one thing to consider is maybe the first motion should be whether to lift the rate moratorium. That's what we're about to do? But we're going to keep this rate moratorium in place.

That's what I'm saying. Right. So I think we do that. Maybe we do that now. Let's break for lunch.

Okay, welcome back to the afternoon session of our commission meeting. So this is what we're going to do. We have County Commissioner Mickey Steinberg here for some CRA votes. Thank you for being here. She claims that she has to be back downtown, so we're going to hear this item first. Then we're going to go to Sutnick and then back to the item, the Geobahn stormwater rate item. Welcome, Commissioner.

I have a question for Commissioner Steinberg.

If I may, Mr. Mayor, because I'm the sponsor of the item. Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So in South Beach, we have had a number of businesses that have come into the area, and the whole idea was to get spaces that were occupied by vape shops, liquor stores, check cashing stores, and different uses that we've established that we no longer wish to have there. So we've been able to identify, for example, Charlie's. Charlie's on Lincoln Road is a... It's a restaurant from Spain. And they opened their location here. We've also had a tech company. We had a tech company that opened up. Edgewood. Which one?

Edgelord. There we go. That has... that has opened up on Washington Avenue and Lincoln Road, I believe, as a result of that. And we've had a number of other companies that have been able to use the grants to come in and replace nuisance uses in our city. And I don't know if the Economic Development Director would like to add to that.

And I want to, through the chair of the CRA board, I want to publicly thank Heather Shaw, who worked with us on the original program in South Beach. When I sponsored that original program, she helped us create a framework for it, and I'm glad now with the leadership of our current economic development director, we're working on expanding it in North Beach as well.

Hope you make your next commitment. Okay, let's go to the subject portion, public comment.

Okay, so let's bring back R7. Thank you, everyone, for speaking on these topics. R7A, BC, and R9D, which we were talking about before the lunch break. Welcome back, John. Thank you. Glad to be back. Seriously? No, we appreciate it. There's a couple of things that could happen here right now because there's three proposals. I'm not sure we have the votes for any of them collectively, but what's gonna happen is I'm assuming once something fails, let's say somebody has a priority on A, Once that fails, they'll go to B. So we may have to actually take a vote, and we may have to have a motion for r

Mr. Mayor, I'll echo that in short order. That is my hierarchy. I will say my reasoning for not having the geobond only at the top of my priority list and actually having the hybrid below just the utility rate only, is just the tremendous amount of uncertainty that I think this referendum in Tallahassee is going to represent. If it does pass, going to market in short order thereafter with the GEO bond that is predicated on ad valorem property taxes, I think there's going to be tremendous caution in the bond market about how these things are going to be viewed and funded and things like that. A

Ms. Juarez. Can we just go through one more time if the hybrid model does pass what exactly is the increase in water and sewer rates?

I really I'm gonna let it go but we I feel like we've been through this we got to take the vote I'm so I'm trying to get now you're asking questions I'm answer the question but I'm we've been through this for an hour and a half. PJ can you put the presentation up again?

Okay. So overall, what is the percentage increase from 27 to 32? It's like 42%. Is that right?

But I just simply asked, what's the overall increase under the hybrid model for water and sewer? And they said 36%. 36%.

Okay, so unless anyone else wants to speak on where they're at, I'm going to call the vote. We have a motion and a second.

I just want one point of clarification. just to make sure everyone gets that. Like, those rates that you saw include CPI increases, which we have already mandated by law. So, it is a small differential going above the already mandated CPI, which let me remind everybody the reason why we're here is because CPI was not mandated years ago and was undervalued for the small increases that were Built in so there's CPI which is happening no matter what there will be a rate increase no matter what because that is how Inflation works in the real world and then the small differential of the incremental

So hypothetically speaking, if the stormwater geo bond didn't pass, would you still be able to move forward with NIP projects?

And would you have to come back with another rate evaluation, go through this whole process again?

Yeah, that's the point, right? I mean, if we're going to go to the voters to decide this, why don't we just, we have everything on the table because I think that's the more appropriate thing to do. Because if we pass this, water rates go, water and sewer rates go up no matter what, and then And if it doesn't pass the half portion for stormwater, then we're going to have to go back and raise them again.

Okay, we have a motion and a second on R7. Is it B as the hybrid model?

So we're taking the vote on the hybrid model?

Okay. Let's call the no geo bonds, just the increase.

So I'll make a motion. I don't know what order you want to call it. I'll move it. Yes. No. It's four-sevens. No. No, because we have a moratorium.

This is just on the rate increase. Oh, okay. No geo bond.

Because there was a moratorium. We need to remove the moratorium.

It was seconded by Commissioner Suarez. Hold on.

It is. What's the item number? Okay. There's no item on the agenda. The motion is the amount that we're going to borrow under the rate increase under the hybrid method, $450 million. Make that the entirety that we're going to borrow. a rate increase, no geo bond component, and reconfigure the important NIP projects within that $450 million. So essentially we're shifting outwards to longer dated projects that aren't going to be undertaken. And that needs five seconds, correct?

If I can ask for some clarification, how are you going to determine what gets included and what doesn't? Because somebody is calling strikes and balls on this. So is it purely based on timeframe? Anything outside of a six-year window is punted? Or is it based on who gets most emails? Or is it based on where people have property? I mean, what's it gonna be based on?

But we're being asked to vote on that without knowing what that includes. I'm sorry, I sound like I'm challenging you. I'm not challenging you. I'm very frustrated with this process. We are being asked to vote on that without knowing what would fall off and what would stay in.

Mr. Mayor, if I can make a suggestion. Why don't we have a vote now to lift the rate, the moratorium? And see, you know, because we can't do anything as far as water and sewer rates unless that moratorium is voted.

I don't know about that. We could take a vote and see if we have the 5.7. Then we could overturn the moratorium.

Yeah. So let's just start there and see where the chips fall.

So I'll move it. Okay. I'll move it. I'll second it.

This is for the rate increase only of the hybrid version. No, no.

This is no. I make a motion to lift the moratorium.

I mean, we can do it. The reason why I didn't do it that way, because I was trying to be fair to each one. So the first one we just voted for that failed needed five sevenths. Seriously, you didn't even get four. You didn't even get the four votes. So it wouldn't have passed regardless. I don't know. So I would take the vote. I would take the vote on this item, see where we're at, and then we'll kind of overturn the moratorium. I'm trying to be fair. Because I've told you where I fall, so I don't want to make it look like I'm trying to skew the vote with four votes on something that I'm tellin

No, I'm simply saying that, look, none of these options where water and sewer isn't going to increase is going to be possible unless we lift a moratorium. So I make a motion to... Four and less five of us agree. No, you still need to lift a moratorium. You still need to vote on that. So...

Don't we have to specifically say we lift the moratorium in the motion? No, by voting 5-7 you are lifting the moratorium. Oh, okay. That changes it then. Because I was under the impression procedurally we have to first vote on lifting the moratorium and then we can vote on Any sort of measure that increases water and sewer rates, right?

You're lifting the moratorium got it Which is why we don't need five because otherwise you need four I withdraw that's good because it's I can just add something I know we have Two who are supporting my two at the ends here. Well are supporting the geo bond model only is anybody else supporting that I Do you want me to call the vote just to have it on the record? Okay, I'm taking everyone that they're worried that that's the case. So if we have a motion and a second on the GEO bond only. We've had only two people say they're voting. Let's get that out of the way.

Okay. So what I want to do now, I know I'm getting a few suggestions here, is ALL THE SEWER RATE ITEM ONLY, THE SEWER RATE INCREASED PORTION, WITHOUT THE GEO BOND, IT NEEDS A 5-7 VOTE. IF THAT PASSES, IT PASSES. IF IT FAILS, THEN WE'LL GO TO REMOVE THE MORATORIUM. MIND YOU, THE HYBRID VERSION ONLY HAD THREE VOTES.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THAT? PLEASE. OKAY. SO GOING AGAIN TO WHAT IS MOST COST EFFECTIVE FOR OUR RESIDENTS, OKAY, BECAUSE FOR ME IT'S NOT YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT COMES OUT OF THE UTILITY BILL OR THE TAX BILL, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT LEAVES THE RESIDENTS' POCKETS AT THE END OF EACH MONTH? AND SO I WAS WEIGHING BETWEEN ALL GEO BOND AND HYBRID. THE ALL GEO BOND HAD THE LEAST FISCAL IMPACT, ESPECIALLY TO THE PEOPLE ON THE LOWER END OF THE BRACKETS. with this model that Commissioner Magazine is presenting to us, and when we're looking at, I guess it's about half of the depth capacity? All right, so whe

I believe it's just short of $800 million. So we would be looking at about $400 million as opposed to $800 million.

That's on the hybrid? That's on the hybrid. Okay. All right. And with Commissioner Magazine's proposal is how much? Purely 450. 450 between water and sewer and storm water. Correct. Then to me, then under those two scenarios, that is the option that then I would imagine, and Jason, you're our CFO, is would that have the least impact on our residents? Sorry, which? The Commissioner Magazine proposal where you're cutting the debt in half.

Wait, wait. I'm sorry. Earlier, before lunch, when we had the same question asked, we were told that without doing the calculations, it was unknown at this point if there would be cost savings. Like, yes, if you're borrowing less money, you're borrowing less money. Even I can understand that. However, given all the machinations, et cetera, it was unclear if there, that's what I heard coming from you guys. It's unclear at this moment without doing all the calculations if there would be a cost savings or how great that cost savings would be. Did I misunderstand that? It's entirely possible. Mr.

No, I understand that. I got that part. I was asking about the, I guess because you're right-sizing it, you would only be able to fit in as many projects as would fit into the allotted rate increase. But there wouldn't be cost savings for the projects, et cetera. Thank you.

And my question was based on, you know, at the end of the day, what is leaving the residents' pocket at the end of the day when you compare the two models? And Mr. Magazine's proposal gets us started on the programs. that you can't do the $1 billion package all at once. And so you're, I guess, it's almost like phasing it. We are imposing upon ourselves tranches. No different than when you go and you do a full general obligation bond and you say, okay, we want to borrow this amount of money. You're not borrowing it all at once. You have the flexibility in pacing it. This would... would in effec

Vice Mayor Dominguez and we have Commissioner Suarez and then we've called two of the three votes. I want to call the third item that hasn't been called yet.

So the item before us now is to simply just raise water rates and water and sewer rates and some stormwater.

Okay, so why did we pass a moratorium two months ago? I'm serious. We should have just decided then of what we're going to do, and now we're somehow going to change that? Again, it's a regressive tax, the water and stormwater rate increases. What? Why are we doing that? Why would we sign up for a regressive tax when we can have more of a progressive tax?

Maybe, Eric, I'll turn that to you about, I took what you said to heart about why we would fund projects like these not via geobond, but in the typical utility rate infrastructure. And in terms of why we passed the moratorium, I think what we essentially achieved in that time is scaling this amount that we're borrowing down by 300, 400 million dollars.

We just figured that out on the fly today. It wasn't like an option that staff presented to us. You know what I mean? We're kind of shooting from the hip on this one.

And that's what I said walking in here. I wish several months ago, I wish what I would have done is just take a step, a breath, and say, you know what, we're trying to achieve a significant amount of infrastructure and utility projects, but we also need to do so in a way that is more affordable to our residents. And what was being proposed several years ago was this very robust bells and whistles package that maybe from an affordability standpoint, we're just not in a position to do today. So we do the things that are mission critical and essentially we're providing cost savings to our residen

Yeah, but that also means many projects now potentially not being funded, right? So we're picking winners and losers.

ACTUALLY, SEE, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. I DON'T VIEW IT THAT WAY. THE WAY I VIEW IT IS WE ARE FUNDING THE PROJECTS THAT WE WANT TO GET DONE IN THE NEXT FOUR, FIVE, SIX YEARS. WE DON'T HAVE THE, WITHOUT THE GEO BOND, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE FUNDING FOR NINE, TEN YEARS OUT, AND THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE REVISITED. BUT WE HAVE ENOUGH NOW, AND BASICALLY WHAT I AM COMFORTABLE IS NOT CHARGING OUR RESIDENTS AN EXTRA TAX AT THIS POINT AND IN THIS ENVIRONMENT. to do that. I think we can get done what we have to get done now.

But to be fair, Mr. Mayor, they're going to pay one way or the other, whether it's through on a millage or a water and sewer rate. They're going to pay. So what's the more fair and equitable way for people to pay, Miami Beach residents to pay? And that's why we're here.

Correct. Mr. Mayor, if I may, I think the challenge that we're facing is that We don't have the support to do the progressive tax that takes away the burden and the weight from our most cost-strained residents. We don't have that support, obviously. Now, the goal of the moratorium was never to... Can I just ask a question? Do you mean legally? because of the tax structure? The votes. We don't have the votes. Okay. Yeah. We don't have the support, you know, to... We'll call that a progressive tax, but okay. Well, I mean, I'm just barring Commissioner Suarez's... I don't know. I'm barring his be

And I agree with that. Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. If this was about picking winners and losers, I wouldn't be supporting this next vote and proposal just to raise. But what I'm hearing is we're going to fully fund the projects we need to just over a shorter time frame, maybe five years as opposed to 10. And I'm comfortable with doing that now. And I think it's actually fiscally the prudent thing to do. But how do we decide what projects to fund?

So we don't determine which projects get funded. You have your orders of priority and those projects that fall within the budget of that list of priority are the projects that end up moving forward. I will bring my recommendation to Commission. Well, I mean, what I would say is that we should not deviate from what the professional recommendation is. It shouldn't be because one group organized and sent emails and one group made phone calls. The recommendation, we have a chart and that chart exists and the projects in that chart were the ones that were going to get funded in order of priority if

You know, I'm being flexible because I'm not going, I'm going to prioritize the needs of our city, which is infrastructure and affordability. But what I will not vote to do is, you know, in essence politicize then which ones make it into the $400,000, into the $400 million.

Commissioner Suarez, then we vote. You know, Commissioner Dominguez brought a really good idea. Would the voters decide? Yeah. Would my colleagues be okay with both options on the table? Both one and two. Okay. Let's hit rewind. We voted twice. They failed. Well, this motion would be for both questions to be on the ballot. I mean, how do my colleagues feel about that? Let the voters decide.

We have a motion and a second already on the sewer rate increase.

Because I don't feel, let me just finish, because I don't feel comfortable saying we're going to cut the project in half and then five years from now we'll have to go back to this. You know, look, we can let the voters decide. I mean, because right now we're just deciding. I would like the voters to decide.

Okay. That is literally what we are elected to do, to make hard decisions about public safety of which critical infrastructure needs is one of the most important things. I mean, are we going to punt all of our decisions to the voter? Then we'll have a direct democracy like they did in ancient Greece. Let's go.

But the question is how to fund it and who gets disproportionately affected by those rate increases, Commissioner.

So, you know, that's... Let's call the vote on the sewer rate increase portion of that hybrid without the GO bond component.

So I have a question because Commissioner Dominguez...

And by the way, in all fairness, I actually announced this is the way I'm going to do it. I'm going to call all three votes, which I have. I've called two of the three. And listen, we'll call it. If it doesn't pass, then we'll figure out the next option. But I really want to call this vote, and we're kind of delaying that.

Well, because I guess my question is what Commissioner Dominguez is proposing is the same thing as the option two, just bifurcated into two questions. putting you know giving people the option to you know I liked it because at the end of the day I wanted affordability and if people voted yes on those two questions is the same effect as the option that that I preferred was which was also true is that not correct okay I seen this wrong so if Rick could you help me understand this if neither of those options get approved by voters then a

We are back to square zero. We have no rate increases. We have no mandate from the voters to increase.

I feel like these are just, these are literally morphed from the first two that failed.

To me, it's a complete non-starter because then either we say, fine, we're not going to fix our infrastructure and we're going to turn into Fort Lauderdale, God forbid, or we're going to just be back here in six months going through this entire drama again. But am I misunderstanding that?

No, I'm sorry just to be clear I think what Rick originally sent was probably the most appropriate. Why don't we ask the voters for water and sewer one Geobahn and the other for stormwater and and have the voters decide. And then we can, and if both, one or both fail, yes, we're technically back to step zero, which is only four months from here. And then we can decide what to raise. And in the meantime, we can also prioritize the projects. But again, that's, I'm just.

Guys, I'm calling the vote. I'm calling the vote. I literally laid out how I was gonna do it, and now I feel like you're stalling a vote that needs to be called. There's a motion and a second. I'm calling about, okay.

Can we lay out the next steps? It is exactly what they would have been under the hybrid methodology, where, John, you come back for essentially the first reading of that in September, and then we take a final vote on that in October.

By the way, thank you, everyone. This wasn't easy. I don't think anybody's really fully satisfied, which actually that's kind of what a compromise is. Some tough decisions, but I think we made some good, hard decisions with a very thoughtful discussion. So thank you.

And Mr. Mayor, one last thought. It looks like we're going to have some cost savings because we've been so fine-tuning our budget. We will have cost savings where last year we sent a stipend check to our residents. Perhaps if we have excess cost savings because of the extensive measures that we're taking through a more efficient government, we can put that towards some of this infrastructure funding to even lessen the burden. We don't have to vote on that now, but as we go through the budget process, that's something that we could all keep in mind that essentially the excess savings that we re

So can you do it one more time, Tamika, please? What millage rate are you?

I don't know if it's okay with my colleagues, but we just voted to raise the water and sewer rates. Can we offset that through a millage so that we, at the end of the day, the residents end up net neutral, at least in terms of water and sewer? Mr. Mayor. Again, but we could still technically do the rollback rate in what month?

But today we have to definitely set the proposed millage, the floor millage rate. So... YOU CAN ALWAYS COME DOWN. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO THIS FROM NOW UNTIL THE NEXT COUPLE MINUTES, JASON, BUT COULD YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT THE COST IS OF WHAT WE JUST INCREASED AND OFFSET IT BY A LOWER MILLAGE? NO. DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DO IT IN THE NEXT HOUR AND PERHAPS THE MAYOR CAN CALL IN AN HOUR OR TWO? Is there a ballpark estimate? No.

Jason, what is the millage rate for the rollback? What is the millage for the rollback rate gonna be and what is the proposed flat?

Understood. So what is the current millage?

Okay, and then what is the floor for that year?

Well, colleagues, we can certainly lower the mill. Even if we pass the ceiling today, I understand we can lower it in September further. But do I have a consensus up here to at least meet halfway on this millage so that we are guaranteed to lower the millage for next year? Instead of 5.8, it's 5.5, so 5.65.

So what I can tell you is you have my wholehearted support that that's always how I entered this budget process, that I wanted to give our residents a further rollback in the millage rate. I think it is slightly premature today to set exactly what that is. I feel comfortable if we set a ceiling and we say we are 100% confident our millage rate will not be going up. As we saw on Friday, we are already, if we would set the budget, at a millage rate that's rolled back. And in July, or I'm sorry, in September, I want to go through defining the more cost savings. I just don't know what rate we're g

If we did... If we took off 0.05, what does that translate into dollars? Would that be about $100 a household median?

Again, where I'm just simply saying, look, we have the ability today to at least offset what we just raised. And I want to hold our feet to the fire and say that we're definitely going to do that and not do the millage of what's going to keep our operating budget i want to get obviously closer to the rollback rate but again we just raise taxes on the water and sewer storm water so why don't we just decide today that we are going to tie our hands and make sure that we're going to do additional offset cost savings to THE TAXPAYERS.

WHAT DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO TOTAL AGGREGATE IN THE BUDGET?

Commissioner Bott and Commissioner Mateo Salinas.

Commissioner Salinas- Thank you, Mayor. You know, we have a very robust budget process, and this year it has been all the more so through the collective desire of this body to get into the weeds, have a line-by-line item document that we can review, have many lengthy conversations about how to find efficiencies and how to cut things that might be a little bit painful. I think it is premature to put in a false cap until we have completed the budget process. I share my colleagues' sentiments in that I think we are all here trying to find the best way forward. We don't have all the answers yet, a

Hold on, it's not rolled back at all, right? And I'm trying to just be reasonable. I don't think a 0.0, no? All right, let Tamika.

Two point, so essentially we came in, you said to balance our budget and keep our millage rate flat, we had to essentially come up with cost savings of $6.9 million, correct? And we found further reductions Several million dollars. You're saying to reduce our millage? Three million. It would be $6.9 million deficit that we have, plus $3 million, was it?

So we have $4 million in additional savings that we realized. And if we cut our millage rate by 0.05, that would be an incremental what? So I'll pose it to you, Commissioner. I'll either support you in this methodology now or if you would like to keep our maximum millage rate where it's at and we have that discussion to say we either reduce our millage further or we keep it the same and essentially pay for further infrastructure funding with that. I'm fine wherever you want to take that.

Thank you, Commissioner. I mean, I want to save taxes right now. So I would be in favor of capping it We're lowering it by 0.05 mils. And we'll then have about a million and a half to really decipher. And that's good because now we have a pot and we're going to have to decide who gets the funding instead of just the full four.

And to remind the group one step further, we actually now have a line item by line item budget. So there's nothing preventing us from all individually going through there and saying, you know what, I think that can be cut. I think that can be cut and I plan on doing so. So I don't think that that $4 million is going to be the maximum amount of cost efficiencies that I'm going to be looking to save. So I'm fine backing into that lower millage rate because that's well within the absolute floor what I'm looking to save. In fact, my goal over the next month, even if it's individually, is just goin

So I'd like to make a motion for a maximum of 5.8.

I don't feel comfortable doing stuff here on the fly right now, although I appreciate what you guys are trying to do, and I'm not necessarily against it. But, you know, I want some more time to process this and speak with our staff, Jason and Tamika. So I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable doing this right now. And like Commissioner Bott said, it is a process. Um, and you know, we're not all aligned on where we want to cut and where we want to save and we all differ. And, uh, you know, we're still hearing from our residents about things that have been cut, reduced. So I just want to be fair

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just going to air a frustration that I had last Friday that I wish we would have had we had our conference room session today, I was going to bring up. Last year in December, a number of us voted to ask for a rolled back budget and to give us options for a rolled back budget. And I'll tell you, my frustration with all of this has been that I believe we were given a rolled back budget, but a rolled back budget that was poison-pilled. That was poison-pilled on purpose. That every possible efficiency that this organization, $1 billion budget organization, was able to fin

I couldn't agree more. The proposed rollback rate budget cuts that the city gave us was a cooked document. I mean, they even had the cats in there, right? The cats people who showed up. It had all the bells and whistles for everyone to come up and say, no, we can't do that, we can't do this. It had frontline police workers who are on ATVs doing real patrol work, which I don't want it. I want to fund those positions because those are the police officers who are literally out on the beat on the street, not sitting in a car. They're on four wheelers. roving and patrolling our city streets. So, yo

Yeah, and thank you for the co-sponsorship, Commissioner Fernandez. But it really was a shame that we had the opportunity to really do a rollback rate, set the standard across Dade County, and Unfortunately, this is what the administration gave us, and it's going to be very difficult. But I just want to bring up another point. I know some of my colleagues mentioned that we have a process. Technically, this is the process, right? And we have the ability now, as part of that process, to lower the millage rate. We have a motion and a second for a .05 drop to 8.5. I'd like to get the win now for o

So we have a motion and a second. Let's call the vote. Yes, sir.

Wait, but let me go. 5.860, that's in our total general millage, or is that in the combined?

And if I could clarify, right now, to balance our budget at this millage rate, we're facing a deficit of $6.9 million, correct? Correct. So if we would roll back our millage rate by .05, which Commissioner Suarez suggested I'm on the cusp of supporting, it would translate, we had to find an excess cost savings of what? 2.6. 2.6. We found through our budget process Friday above and beyond the $6.9 million in excess cost savings of what? 4.2. 4.2, right? So we are well past there. Okay, well past there. In fact, we'd be able to add things back into the budget and still have room. My goal is goin

Let me ask a question. So that, in effect, this would be a rollback rate? No. No. What is it? What is it? A reduction of smaller, just a lower. Let me ask you, Jason, what is for, and again, for me, what matters at the end of the day is not the definition of the rollback rate or the savings and what that means for, for the city, it's ultimately what does the resident ultimately have to pay. And to maintain, not a flat rate, but a flat tax bill. That now that we are going ahead and infrastructure is a necessity, so we have to do what we have to do, we have to bite that bullet and move forward w

Okay. And is that the amount that is being proposed? No. Okay. I would like for us to consider that because that is what would protect our residents the most, absent doing a rollback. And ask our administration, you know, Go back and find what would be those good areas, you know, that are not the essential services.

And how I'll respond, Commissioner Fernandez, is I think that's an... By the way, I know there's a lot going on.

Please go through me because there's actually people who wanted to be heard and not being heard. I apologize.

That's our aspirational goal for September, when that number is refined and they have the correct analysis. I think where I'll go and support Commissioner Suarez is it gets us on that path there, right? And we'll give the administration time to say, okay, what is the millage rate that would correspond with an offset of what we just passed? And we can discuss that in September. This gets us at least moving in that direction because we just don't have that analysis ready.

Okay, let's call the vote. Do we have a motion and a second?

Mr. Mayor, if I could, I don't want to speak out of order. I do want to ask our administration to find what are those real efficiencies that we can find in the budget that are not critical. that are not critical that could get us to that 5.704. That will keep the tax bill then flat for the people at home that are getting that tax bill. So I'd like to make a motion asking our administration to come back to us with proposed savings. And again, let's not do what we did with the rollback budget. To me, that was unfair. Forget about us. to the people that are doing those critical services. I am con

Okay. Thank you, Jason. Tamika? An error.

Mr. Mayor. I'm happy to move the item for me the most important thing associated with all of this and with 1250 West is making sure that the tenants that were displaced are being You know are having a soft landing and so we just want to ask the applicants Since we are on this item Where where are we on the rental relocation? checks short

Okay. So the total is over, I guess, one point, is it about 1.3? Substantial. Yeah, about 1.2 million. The 35 that are remaining, why have they not received their checks yet?

So the 51 people that have provided you with their new address, those are the ones that have received their checks. Individuals that have not provided us or you with their address, those are the 35 people. who have still not received their check, and by when, until when do they have to provide you with their address before that reverts to the city?

Okay. So that will be 86. So that will leave about 20 people, I guess. Correct. That still haven't given you their address. But it was a tremendous program.

Commissioner Magazine. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. What I think here is a tremendous opportunity that we have in front of us for our city. We have a office property that's owned by a private individual on city-owned land with a land lease. This individual has already put in $50 million of capital improvements that has significantly benefited our city through further economic development, but perhaps just as importantly, we actually get a gross percentage of revenue of this project. So the more this project earns, the more the city earns. That is increasingly important with all the things that

Yeah, you know, I, Robert, after the last meeting, I mean, you don't have to get up, sure. I called out some of these public benefits and I said, hey, look, these are great and all, but I think all of these public benefits should go toward infrastructure. And I don't know how my colleagues feel about that because when I'm looking at this, YOU'VE GOT $100,000 FOR BLUE ZONES TO MAKE THE RESTAURANTS BLUE ZONES APPROVED. IT'S $100,000. YOU'VE GOT $100,000 TO A TIP LINE FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING, $50,000 FOR SISTER CITIES, AND THEN THERE'S $600,000 FOR LINCOLN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OR LINCOLN ROAD ART.

SO 1 MILLION IN TOTAL FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE ALL OF THAT TOWARD INFRASTRUCTURE. BECAUSE HOW MANY TIMES DO WE GET AN E-MAIL OR A COMMENT SAYING WHY DON'T WE JUST HAVE THE DEVELOPERS PAY? HERE'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHERE A DEVELOPER CAN LITERALLY PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INSTEAD OF you know, $600,000 to Lincoln Road Art. So I'd like to see where my colleagues fall on that before we move forward on this.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I had suggested the $100,000 to go to a tip line for folks who call in for suspected human trafficking, provided that it leads to, and they'll get a small amount, provided it leads to an arrest or conviction. And that's something that's not my personal slush fund or pet project. It's something that's very important to me and very important to the public safety community of our city, especially considering there was a very high profile arrest that happened in our city not too long ago. I'm sure you heard Andrew Tate and his brother was arrested right here in Miam

THANK YOU. BY THE WAY, I JUST WANT THE LITTLE BIT OFF TOPIC BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING. THERE WAS AN EVENT RECENTLY probably 100 law enforcement personnel. And the work that's being done in Miami Beach, our police department, we have our own dedicated unit to human trafficking. I believe the only city in Miami-Dade that has that, if I'm not mistaken. And the task force, but ultimately working together with multiple law enforcement agencies. It's really incredible work. So thank you.

Commissioner Magazine, Commissioner Suarez.

Yeah. Thank you, Ozzie, for the suggestion, Commissioner Suarez for bringing that up. I agree how important infrastructure is, and I think we're able to achieve multiple goals, right? These public benefits, my colleagues thought out and discussed that length for several months. totaling a million dollars, what the administration is suggesting will essentially bring two and a half times that for infrastructure funding. Is that correct? So if we do five years of $500,000 per year, that's bringing two and a half million dollars to infrastructure funding. One of the things that I think also is ver

Look, our core function as a government, public safety, infrastructure, sanitation, and literally with all due, and I don't mean this in any sort of disparaging way, giving $600,000 for art improvements on Lincoln Road MEANWHILE, WE HAVE ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS IN INFRASTRUCTURE IS REALLY OFFENSIVE TO THE VOTERS. I MEAN, EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE CAN DEDICATE TOWARD INFRASTRUCTURE IS JUST LESS TAXES THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY. AND THAT'S OUR PRIORITY AS A GOVERNMENT. FOR ME, THAT'S WHERE I STAND. Now let's go. I may not have consensus on that with my colleagues So explain how the

Is that part of the proposal here today? Yes, it is.

Okay, I'd like to hear what the rest of my colleagues have to say.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As it relates to the public benefits, I'm going to leave it to, you know, ultimately what the applicant proffers, and I'll let that be determined with the sponsor of the item to get finalized, because at the end of the day, I think these are proffers that are being made, and so I'm going to let the sponsor iron that out. I appreciate the significant investment being being proposed and obviously I support revitalizing Lincoln Road and there's so many amazing developments happening from all the way the east end of Lincoln Road that hopefully soon we'll start seeing transfor

The proposed amendment establishes a much lower base rent than the appraised fair market ground rent. Can you walk us through the financial analysis that explains why the negotiated economics are appropriate despite the appraisal conclusions?

We're currently a landlord in an agreement with a tenant? Correct. And we're not able to go in and reset the rents? That is correct.

Let me ask you, the administration has, I guess appropriately, emphasized the tenant's $50 million investment in this property in terms of the new construction. How did the city quantify that investment when negotiating the financial terms of this amendment?

So in essence, you're treating that investment as the consideration the principal consideration for extending the lease term and I guess modifying the rent structure?

Okay, this amendment grants an additional 40 years. 220 years, correct. Two 20 years, okay. Did the city obtain any analysis on how much that additional increase of, that additional term increase would have on the market value of the tenant's leasehold?

And if we didn't, so if we didn't, how did we determine whether the city is receiving adequate consideration for granting those additional 40 years?

So, okay, you're telling me that we didn't do an analysis of how much the additional 40 years of what impact that has on the market value of the leasehold that the tenant has. We haven't done an analysis of that. So how did we determine whether the city receiving adequate compensation for granting those additional 40 years?

And when we look at when we look at the base rent and the percentage rent, when we combine those, what do we anticipate will be the aggregate?

NO, NO, BUT THE TOTAL OVER THE TERM. 248 MILLION. 248 MILLION. THOSE ARE REVENUES THAT OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T BE GENERATING.

OKAY. You know, my concern is that this increases the value of the leasehold. And Mr. Rivani, you are a businessman. You don't have to get up. You can stay seated. You are a businessman. And so I would imagine you're not looking to hold this property for 100 years. I'm sure that eventually you're going to want to sell your interest. You're looking to invest in this property, make participate in this renaissance of Lincoln Road, and at some point, I'm sure you're going to want to recoup your investment from that. When that happens, whenever that happens, does the city get a participation rent?

Okay. Let me ask you another question, another question that for me is important because, you know, This is a taxpayer asset, and I want to make sure that the taxpayer gets the most that they can. When we started this conversation, and I asked you a few questions, you mentioned that right now if the city wanted to get the total appraised rent value for the property, we're not well positioned for it because this is not the time for a rent reset. That is correct. However, if at the time that we have a rent reset, The city wants to seek its fair market value for this property. Does this agreement

Okay, so my understanding is that there is a cap. on the rent reset? Correct. So if there is a cap on the rent reset, how will we get what would be the appraised market value at that time?

So you're saying today, under the current existing agreement that governs the deal today, The deal that we have today with Mr. Rivani, there is no cap on the rent reset. That is correct. But under the new proposed terms, there is a cap on the rent. Correct. That I have a concern with because I want to be able to support this. I see the value, the long-term value of $248 million for the city long-term. I just don't know if I'm gonna be around 60 years from now to experience that. We won't see it. And so my concern is while long-term, yes, it's great, how can we not have a less favorable term fo

But you see, what I like about this deal is that we're getting better. In general, it's putting us in a better position generally than where we are today, except when it then comes time for the taxpayers who own the property to get a true fair market rent at that point. It's at that point that the taxpayers, the taxpayers of the future, today we are limiting the hands and the ability of the taxpayers of the future to get their fair, what would be the fair amount of their asset that the taxpayers are going to own tomorrow. And that's my challenge with this, that I am, I'm looking short term is

And so, Mr. Rivani. Again, thank you for the investments you're making in our city and obviously you have a tremendous vision and I think we want to see that come about. But I also have to be mindful of the residents to whom we are sending this question to. And I have to be able to look at these residents in the eyes and tell them that what I am sending them in all these different terms is better for them now than when it was prior to this agreement. And that's where I have a concern with the rent cap because that is a new, that's a change in a term that could be perceived to be less favorable

Okay. I'm not the one talking about that. No, I'm just saying in the story of the two buildings. Let me just finish. Sure. That is a term that was brought about as part of this negotiation. Mm-hmm. that is changing as a result of this negotiation. So you all are the ones that have brought that change to this deal. How can we figure this out so that we don't tie the hands of future commissions down the road?

But that's been your proposal, by the way. Or, Mr. Manager, did you ask Mr. Armani to invest $50 million?

So, so let me then just understand Aussie then. So this is a new term that does not exist in, in the agreement that governors today. I'm not a commercial real estate businessman. So I need to understand in commercial properties, what is the typical rent reset term?

The rent cap that's been proposed in this agreement? How does it compare to what is usually in the market?

That ultimately is my concern because the whole, I mean, obviously we have trust and we have faith in our community and the future. If not, we wouldn't be making all of these investments. But understanding that you believe that the number is fair, then I want to understand, you know, the increase in value in the leasehold that adding these 40 years generates for the developer, Mr. Rivani. Today there's no transfer fee for the city if Mr. Rivani decides to cash out on his investment and sell his leasehold interest? That is correct. Okay.

That to me is a concern. And it's something that I've advocated for when we were discussing Lincoln Lane. I advocated for there to be a transfer fee as part of the Lincoln Lane deal. I know we had one as part of the Miami Beach Convention Center hotel deal. I'm all fine with you making money from this deal. but ultimately the taxpayer is the owner and I want the taxpayer to benefit from this as well if there is a transfer. So I need someone to guide me on participation rent because I would imagine that you would must feel probably is fair for the city as well, wouldn't it be?

As it relates to participation rent, why wouldn't the city benefit from participation rent here if you sell your leasehold interest in the future?

I mean, don't we have it? Isn't it something that we typically, I know we had it with Lincoln Lane, Eric, if you can guide me through this.

And so I just want to be mindful of that because this ultimately, we don't make the final decision on this. This is ultimately made by the voters of our city who we're passing this to. And I need to tell them how this is the best business deal. And we know that there's going to be a lot of talk out there and people won't understand certain things, unfortunately, such as, you know, we can't reset the rent now. That even though there's an appraisal, there is an existing agreement. Unfortunately, a lot of things will be distorted. However, if there is at some point a transfer, I think our residen

Well, I would want to ask Eric. Eric, you know, what would you recommend? Do you believe that a transfer fee would be appropriate in this deal? And if one would be appropriate, what would be an appropriate transfer fee?

Mr. Mayor, while Eric, maybe in the meantime, Eric, I just want to kind of get back to what the added value is to the residents by signing this deal. Because I certainly want to make sure that if we send this to the voters, it's a good deal, notwithstanding these public benefits. If we were to do nothing at the next appraisal date, what would the value, what would the city receive in total for funding?

I'm assuming right so eight right so And this is through 2051 So correct me if I'm wrong if we don't do anything We're 18 million dollars short but if we sign if we do this deal Through 2051, we would have had an additional $18 million? At least, yes. Okay, at least. Well, I mean, I don't know. That doesn't seem very fair. Just an additional cash value of $18 million through 2051, and then we have a rent cap of 20%. I MEAN, LOOK, I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. I JUST WANT TO HAVE A REALLY GOOD DEAL. BUT JUST SAYING AN EXTRA $18 MILLION FOR SOMETHING WHEN POTENTIALLY MY SON COULD BE A COMMISSIONER UP O

Yeah, like a members club. Would it be possible to have a rev share on that?

No, with the gross income from the restaurant. I don't own the restaurant. Well, you could potentially lease it to someone with the understanding that whatever revenue you have, it has to go to the city because it is on the city property. The revenue from the restaurant to go to the city? Similar to what we do at Smith & Walensky's.

Right, and typically that'd be true, but this is on city property. Correct. And so similar to Smith & Walensky's, they pay 10% of gross, right, Mr. City Manager?

But couldn't there be a negotiation or deal of whoever is in, whatever revenue gets generated in that building, which sits on public property. Maybe it's a better deal for the city where we get a percentage of that revenue.

Right, because, I mean, look, you could... I'm assuming you're probably gearing up to build something similar to, like, a really popular place. It's almost like a Mila's. And we want to make sure, at least from... the city side that we're gonna benefit too from any sort of venture that's gonna be going on on city property. And right now, I don't think $18 million through 2051 is, I don't think it's a good deal considering what we're giving away, but is there a way to have some skin in the game as a city where when you do good, we do good? I think that's why we have the percentage rent, because

Isn't that part of the responsibility as being a landlord to a city asset?

What exactly, Ozzy, what exactly does Smith & Walensky do?

Okay. Okay. Well, I'd like to see what, I'd like to hear from my colleagues also.

I just have a question. So, you know, at the time of the rent reset, there are appraisals that are done? Correct. Okay. And that's dictated in the terms of the agreement?

But not withstanding the appraisals, you know, were capped. We never really got the full amount of what the value of the property is at that time. That's where I kind of like what Commissioner Magazine is mentioning. No, Magazine, I'm so sorry. Commissioner Suarez is mentioning about the restaurant because it can become a term in the lease so that, okay, we don't touch that rent cap but at least the city is still getting an extra source of revenue from that $50 million investment that is really not being taken consideration right now in the current rent. And frankly, 100 years from now when we

On the rents, but when it comes to the restaurant, a percentage of the sales that they have.

Right. So in your lease, it would be a term in your lease between yourself and whoever becomes your subtenant.

If you could both please step back because what's going to happen now is if we don't, we're never going to decide. So I think we need to discuss amongst ourselves. Here's my view. We, absent this agreement, which our city has negotiated, and of course there's always ideas to tinker and we'll ultimately have to make a decision, each of us, whether we're comfortable with it. I look at the big picture that if absent this agreement, we're locked in for 64 years and we're going to get no improvements. So I like the direction this is going. I think it's good for Lincoln Road. I'm appreciative of you

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So thank you, Mr. Bonnie. I think this is a great project for our city, too. I think it's going to be so much better than having an empty, dumpy building. So thank you. I someone suggested to me because there is a narrative going around that this isn't a good deal for the city. And it's you know, there's CONVERSATION AROUND THIS, AND SOMEONE HAD SUGGESTED TO ME TO PUT IT INTO CHADGBT OR CLAUDE OR WHATEVER AND JUST TO SEE WHAT IT SAID, SO I DID. AND IT ACTUALLY, CHADGBT AI, WHICH WE ALL THINK IS SMARTER THAN HUMANS AT THIS POINT, SUGGESTED THAT THIS DEAL WAS ACTUALLY AN 8

But another investor, so everything will just kind of remain the same? I mean, is there a percentage that we get?

I would suggest that we get a percentage of that sale. Is that the discussion where you said you had never heard of that before? Correct. Okay. Yeah. But thank you for what you're doing because I think it is a great project. And thank you again for the human trafficking funding. It's very important for our city. Thank you. Thank you.

I'll put a few things, I've tried taking notes on where people stand the things that are important. The motion, in addition to what staff recommends, what I would put forward is dedicating five years of infrastructure funding from the new building, or five years of funding from the new building in total up to $500,000 per year towards flooding resiliency and infrastructure funding, taking of the public benefits dedicated towards Lincoln Road, $100,000 of that to dedicate towards our trolley funding. And I've never heard of this transaction fee, but just given where the city attorney suggested

Last point and then we got to figure it out.

$200,000 per year? No, the one-time fee.

I still want to explore this idea of the restaurant component or any sort of revenue generating business that's going to sit there. What's to say that you charge a dollar to the restaurant or the members club for very low rent and you have your own deal with the restaurant? Where do we get protected on that?

Listen, I think it's a bad hedge because at the end of the day, the points I brought up are points that I bring up because ultimately we're not the ones making this decision. It's ultimately a decision that is made by whom? By the voters of our city. And I think it only... It's to your interest and to your benefit to give as favorable of terms as possible to our residents when we send this to them. I'll tell you, for me personally, the rent reset, the change of the term between the current governing lease and the new proposed lease, that change of the terms and the rent reset, It's something t

The motion will, because I will take Mr. Rivani up on his offer, of increasing that incremental $100,000 to an additional $200,000. So that will bring the summation of our total public benefits to, I think, $1.5 million, with $200,000 of that that Mr. Rivani pro-offered benefiting or going directly into infrastructure, flooding, and resiliency. And you're recommending this, Eric?

I am. Second the motion let's call the vote who dis Who decides what this six hundred thousand and cash contributions for Lincoln protein Lincoln Road improvements are I?

All of this money I think should be kept in this area of the city. We have so many needs. So many needs on Lincoln Road. Even needs for affordability and housing and infrastructure and so many things because when we talk about resiliency we think only of infrastructure. Resiliency is also people's resiliency and being able to afford to live here. I would love us to figure out a way, but I'm just going to yield to the sponsor, in a way that these dollars can continue to be reinvested in this part of the city so that we can shepherd through the full renaissance of Lincoln Road, the 17th Street,

Anything with a cash flow that's consistent like that is bondable.

Yeah, so it's just I think to the extent that we can keep these dollars focused in this area and the long-term needs, we have a single-family residential neighborhood there. that has resiliency challenges that we need to take care of. We need investments on Lincoln Road. We have housing affordability in this area of the city as well. I think the dollars are coming out from this area. They should also be reinvested there.

Items. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, all commissioners. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mayor.

Commissioner Bhat, co-sponsored by me, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Mateo Salinas, and Commissioner Fernandez. Commissioner Bhat.

This was something we heard some months ago when we were still in furlough with the federal government. We made some modifications based on data analysis, and it's pretty self-explanatory. With five co-sponsors, I'll call the vote.

Chair, can we have staff go over what the changes were from the last time they spoke to what it is currently?

So what time does that start on demand? 11 p.m.

Well, I want to thank Commissioner Bott for hearing my concerns when this originally came up. I think this strikes a perfect balance of vessel traffic and quality of life issues in the immediate area.

I need to recuse myself from this item, and I need to... Do I need to read something into the record, Nick? Okay. If I may. Thank you. I'll be recusing from discussing and voting on Agenda Item R5C. because my spouse and I reside on a property with a seawall butting the Biscayne Waterway, and I may directly or indirectly benefit as a result of the adoption of the amendments in this ordinance.

Can I ask some questions? Amy, if you have somebody who has a seawall that overtops and the water stays and sort of it becomes fetid water in their yard. So it doesn't literally go into the neighbor's yards, but it becomes effectively a swamp. Where would that fall? That's this item. That would be rectified by this.

Right. So the reason I'm asking is that I know of cases. I've been approached by residents who have neighbors who are not attentive homeowners and don't live in the properties but have their seawalls over top. The yards become a disaster. All kinds of bad things happen there, and the property is on either side. then have to deal with the consequences and have no recourse because it's not literally on their property, but it still affects some swamps of mosquitoes and whatever other issues.

Right. So my concern is that the people... It's one thing if it only affects your property, but if it's also affecting the neighbor's properties, is there a happy medium? so that there's like a two-year, a three-year, and a five-year. If it doesn't affect anybody else at all, then it's five-year. If it affects the public right away, then it's two-year. If it affects your neighbor, any one of your adjacent neighbors, then there's a three-year.

Okay. Should we let him back in? Commissioner Fernandez? No.

While we're waiting for Commissioner Fernandez to come back in, let's call R7M. R7M.

And should we call R5AG and R5AH together? I'm getting the nod. We voted unanimously to let you back in, Commissioner Fernandez.

Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an ordinance I'm sponsoring, modifying the maximum setback requirements in the GU zoned area. Right now, there's maximum setbacks, and that limits how the city could redevelop a GU zoned property here by doing this amendment. We, in fact, are allowing... WOULD ALLOW FOR THIS PROPERTY TO HAVE EVEN GREATER SETBACKS. USUALLY WE SEE PEOPLE WANTING TO WAIVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OR GET A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THEIR SETBACKS, AND HERE IS ONE OF THOSE RARE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE IT'S something different, is to increase the setbacks. It doesn't

And with that I move the item Madam Vice Mayor.

All good? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. R7K.

We're getting some requests here, so let's call R5M.

Thank you. So this is a second reading. This has been a couple of years in the making. We've had a lot of input from our Transportation Committee, e-bike and micromobility device users, bicyclists, pedestrians, the police department, park rangers, code, Marketing, I think almost every department has been touched with this. What we are trying to do is start setting a framework that we can all live with so that we can encourage micro mobility and set parameters for safe usage. We have seen devastating fatal accidents where usually the pedestrian suffers more injuries than the micro mobility devi

I will add that literally this morning, Axios put out an article where the headline is South Florida sees a surge in e-bike injuries among kids. Yesterday, the county had a very lengthy discussion about banning e-micromobility devices outright on some of their county roads, not all at this moment, but there has been discussion about opportunities for other cities to adopt portions of their ordinance that was discussed yesterday and unincorporated Dade having that same ability. That is not the goal that we are trying to effectuate here. We are trying to effectuate a way for us to coexist, and i

And Mark, just to confirm, the equipped handlebars appropriate on these e-mobility devices for more than one person?

So Matthew, to your point with, you know, it's just, it's getting late and we have a lot to go through still. So we did have that conversation and I do hear the concern. You're not the only one to have raised it. And in discussing this with Mark, correct me if I'm wrong or if you see a different path through now and our police department, what, the consensus was is that you might be asked to stop if you are riding an e-bike but with your battery removed but you won't be penalized because your battery will be removed the problem as we saw it um with codifying this is that it then makes things l

And I think, remember, this also is taking effect in some time from now, if I remember correctly. It's in August of next year.

And so... Give us time to, let's do this in incremental steps. I mean, if I had my druthers, I'd spend a whole bunch of money to build protected bike lanes and do all kinds of things and build a second beach walk. And those things are not in my purview. So before we make draconian changes, I mean, it's taken two years to get to this point. So let us figure this out. Let us put this into action. Let's see how it goes. By the time this law goes into effect, we're going to have speed feedback monitors on the beach walk. And we might find all kinds of new information between now and when this goes

So through the chair, could I respond? Yes, but then I'd like to call the vote. I just want to ask, if Matthew does take out the battery, is he...

He would not be in violation if the battery is gone, which is what we're saying.

The goal is not to be punitive to people. The goal is to encourage better behavior. If you're doing something egregiously unsafe or stupid or racist or homophobic, there's not a lot of discretion there. If you're doing something that, hey, that's not OK to do, please don't do it again, move it along kind of thing, they have the option to be mindful about the person, the knowledge base, the intent, how it's being handled, and proceed that way. you know, our police chief will tell you that officers have discretion, and that is why we spend as much time and effort hiring intelligent, astute, emot

Let us try it the way we think is the best way to try it before we decide that's not the best way to do it.

Thank you, Matt. We have it on the record, Mark, if there is an e-bike and the battery is missing, Will police be able to issue a citation? No matter, it's not there, it's in the backpack. If a police officer decides to give a warning, or not a warning, but a citation,

By the way, the only reason I'm saying this, I'm not trying to throw a curveball. I was at South Point Park last night, and Commissioner Mateo Salinas can attest. There was a young kid. He's, I think, 18, 19. He's a special needs kid. And someone gave him an e-bike. And he didn't have a battery. And he was, I think this was in December 25, he told me he was on the boardwalk. He was pedaling. And he got arrested. He went to TGK. Can I finish, please?

Let me finish, please. By the way, I should have called this vote 10 minutes ago. Seriously, I'm going to cut this. This is going so far afield. But finish your thought.

Listen, I just want to make sure that that doesn't happen.

I'm pretty certain that the gentleman in question would not have gone to TGK for riding an e-bike in South Point Park. I mean, I don't... Or on the beach walk. And also, I forgot the other point that I was going to make. Never mind.

Yes, and I just remembered the other point, which is that this does not apply to ADA devices, lest anybody be concerned. Since there was a mention of a special needs person, I wanted to make sure that everybody understands this does not apply to electric ADA devices.

I believe this was pulled by Commissioner Mateo Salinas. Monica Mateo Salinas.

Yes, so I did pull it only because I was wondering if we could send this to FERC because what's the dollar amount that we're going to be, is there a dollar amount? So I would just like to send this to FERC and maybe even dual refer it to, no, no, just to FERC. Let's just send it to FERC because what exactly are we trying to do with this? I just want to understand a little bit more.

It's simply to send, SAVE ON EFFICIENCIES WHERE AI CAN HELP THE GOVERNMENT AND IT'S SOLELY BASED ON A CONTINGENT BASIS. SO THERE IS NO COST UNLESS THERE IS A COST SAVINGS TO US AND EVERYONE USES AI NOW SO I CERTAINLY DON'T SEE WHY WE NEED TO DELAY THIS CONSIDERING we're trying to save money moving forward in our budget, in our operating budget, it's kind of like a no-brainer. I don't think we need to put this through the meat grinder of .

I don't remember when, it was a while ago, but I had brought an item that this commission passed to incorporate AI into every level of government. But certainly happy to enhance it. Certainly looking at our building department separately, our commission passed a pilot program to incorporate it for our permits.

I just have one more question, actually. But is the consultant AI, or are we hiring a consultant to tell us what AI model to contract? You know what I mean?

I don't know if Frank is here. Is Frank here? OK. I just have a question. So we're not hiring. We're not using AI. We're going to see if there is a consultant group will use AI to save us efficiencies. And it is going to solely be based on a contingent matter. So Frank, maybe you can give a little bit more nuance to what this proposal does.

Yeah. And so I, you know, look, we're all, we're debating how we can save money right now for, to lower our millage rate. I mean, this just goes hand in hand. I don't know why we need to send this to the committee. I have a question.

Recently, a former high-level Google executive who now has a company we met with, Eric Frank, offered his services for free. Now you tell me, based on that conversation, whether you think if there's anything that can come from that. And there's, recently I had someone else, another pretty high level there. I don't know, they claim their motivation is pure. I'll take it at their word. Maybe there's some level of benefit to them to offer services. But that's my question. Do we need to hire a consultant? Do you think some of these, whether there may be opportunities where high level companies wil

I also would like to hear from Frank, but I would not be comfortable in the slightest turning something over without a proper vetting of a high-level vetting.

And it comes to commission, but I'm just saying they're offering their services for free.

Because look at what has happened on a national basis, where high-level, supposedly secure, purest motivation companies, and at every state level.

The commissioner, it obviously comes to commission, but the point is whether there's opportunities to get a service that is not going to require a consulting agreement. That's the question I'm asking. I mean, there's no difference between that and a consulting. I mean, you still have to vet them.

Yeah, but again, guys, I mean, I just want to move, I want to get back to the item. The item is designed specifically for a consultant to make a fee on how much we save. So if we save $10 million based on their recommendations and we move forward with it, I don't know what the percent, maybe they get, they save 10%. So we, the taxpayers have saved 10 million and they get paid a million in fees. I'm not saying that's the case, but we pay less and they get, THEY GET CREDITED FOR THAT. SO THEY HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME ONLY IF WE IMPLEMENT THESE MEASURES. IT'S NOT THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US A BUNCH AND

Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Recently I had a conversation with someone from Tyler Technology, which I know we use, Tyler, in our enterprise technology. And they specifically about this type of use of artificial intelligence and they brought to my attention Collier County that had used their technology when it came to their budget and identifying efficiencies with Collier County using this type of technology. They were able to identify about 22% of their budget for potential patient opportunities. And they had, using this type of technology, already been able to implement $40

Commissioner Bata and Commissioner Malika Mateus-Alenas.

Frank, could you advise how we would safeguard sensitive information, employees' home addresses, date of birth, Social Security, that kind of information? We've seen it time and time again when AI is allowed into systems that things go wrong. I just read an article today about how AI broke out of its proscribed definitions and I don't even remember what happened because it was like a bad headline of a B-rated movie, but it basically said no to the guidelines that were governing it and went off and did its own thing. So I'm not... objecting in principle to the idea of finding ways to find effic

Yeah, fine, let's prepare the RFP, but I still want to hear it at FERC because I know, Commissioner Suarez, you mentioned the contingency because everything over $75,000 has to go to FERC anyway, so we would prepare the RFP and then based on the responses that we get and then look at, you know, I can't imagine somebody would do this on complete contingency.

That's what it's directed to do. There is no fee to this. There's no flat fee. It's zero right now.

Yeah. So I can't believe it comes back to us. It's going to be still be zero. It's only going to be based on how much money they save the residents. Now, what that fee is, we can certainly determine that when they come back with that solicitation. But again, I mean, guys, we're trying to save as much money as we can. We're trying not to cut frontline workers like police and fire. This is a perfect opportunity right now to save money where there may be efficiencies. I don't see why we need to send this to FERC. It's going to come back before us and we're going to be able to take this as fast as

I'm supportive and I agree. I think there's a place when it comes back to us that we'll send it to FERC. I would like simultaneously to explore some of these companies to see if we can get the same services for the same quality, maybe even better quality that these, at least two that I know of have reached out and offered their services to our city.

Yes, understood. Commissioner, Vice Mayor Dominguez.

Okay. And Eric and Frank, I met recently, you described to me a lot of the efforts that have been made to incorporate AI throughout our city, and that is continuing? Yes, sir. Full steam ahead? Do I have a second? With the safeguards. Motion?

I just wanted to point for the record because we're an hour and a half away from adjourning. We have, according to the city clerk, 32 resolutions, 24 ordinances, six pulled consent items, and four addendum resolutions. You passed good legislation that you proposed limiting our discussion, and I'm happy to abide myself by it if you choose to enforce that so that we can get...

I know, but it's 526 now. I don't know if we've all abided by that till now, but... I appreciate that. I'm trying to go as fast as I can, but thank you. Since we're on the topic C7AS, I think it's similar, but thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. I agree, and let's try to get through these as quickly as we can.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We, again, just had a lengthy discussion on how we can save taxpayer dollars moving into the next budget season or year. And I want to see if there is a consensus with consolidating some of our departments. So, for example, tourism and economic development I certainly think we can combine the two and we can save a lot of money on instead of hiring another tourism director and consolidate the role similar to what we did with fleet facilities and parks. For the longest time we had parking and transportation that was also consolidated and at the time I think everything was r

So you know That's a director for every 4,000 residents. I think we can start shrinking our government to have less of an overhead. I wanted to see where my colleagues sit on this to really find an efficiency in government and have less of a tax burden on our tax.

Commissioner Fernandez. Point of information. Wasn't this a consent item? It is not, yeah. Okay. I'm happy to second the item.

Commissioner Bott? I move to defer this item. I think this is a very substantive discussion. It was added to the agenda after 6 last night, I think. I was on my way to a neighborhood association meeting. I didn't even know about this until this morning. And I'm not voting in support of something that I haven't even had time to read yet. So I'd like to make a motion to defer this discussion. I'll second that deferral.

I haven't read it. I'm not going to vote for something that I haven't read yet. Let's call the vote.

So we're deferring to have a presentation on what the city administration could consolidate with?

As a matter of form, I think it's bad practice, for myself at least, to vote in support of something that I haven't even seen yet. I don't think that's how legislative policy should be made. I don't think it serves our residents well. And if everybody else somehow magically had the opportunity to read this and give it due consideration last night and I'm the only one who didn't because I was at an HOA and I didn't see that it had been added until this morning, then I guess I'm the idiot here. But I'm not voting for something that I haven't read yet.

IT CAN BE PUSHED OUT TO NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER.

AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT A ROLLBACK RATE THAT WAS A BUDGET FOR THE ROLLBACK RATE THAT WAS COOKED. AND IT WAS REALLY LITERALLY putting police officers, firemen, and cats on the chopping block. And here we have an opportunity to lower managerial positions and shrink the government so that it's less of a burden. I mean, again, this is to October, and there's plenty of, there's no... There's no, this isn't going to hurt anyone. We have a motion and a second to defer.

I'd still like to hear it in October, whether it is deferred or not.

I'll vote to defer because at the end of the day, I mean, we're still going to get the information. It is what it is.

780 direct administration to repurpose and deploy retired police vehicles as decoys Thanks for being up here, I'll tee it up So essentially this would and I know we have and I'll let you give all the numbers we do have decoy cars out there in the past year or so starting to put solar-powered battery packs in them so they have the lights and they with the, it's hard to tell if they're decoy cars or not, which is great because they're newer models. The older decoy cars are kind of obvious. This would, and I guess what's on the table is there's 27 police, older police cars, retired vehicles that

I'm being told is about thirty six thousand dollars give or take so thirty six hundred thirty six hundred dollars per vehicle Give or take I think I think Commissioner Fernandez you had a separate item to put Strategically at the entrance points of our city police cars and police vehicles this I think could be a nice supplement to that item I don't know whether you had in mind I did but I'm not sure that made it through the enhancements mr.

Manager I'm not sure. I do know it was part of the budget. So I don't know if we were able to get the funding.

Well, what I'm saying is I think this is a nice supplement. We obviously have our police, and I think we made it pretty clear that we're going to keep our staffing levels at police. And I've noticed the decoys, and they're pretty, again, the newer vehicles, the newer models. So it's not as obvious. It's a decoy. The solar power is a game changer. I'd say it really got me thinking because a general manager at a retail store, I don't want to say which one because I don't know if any bad guys are listening. I don't want to know where's the decoy. But he called me and he said, I want you to know b

I would propose, I can't move the item, but I would propose that we not auction off these 27 vehicles. And again, it's just a supplement to our already good police visibility. Do any of these police vehicles have a video footage?

Do any of these police vehicles have a monitoring?

It might be worth considering what the expense to that would be. Do you have any sense? I know we're catching.

Commissioner Fernandez. Mr. Mayor, this is an item that adopts recommendations from the Inspector General from the lessons learned from the Poseidon Ferry No-Bid Contract. It broadens how we define the lowest and best bidder, so it's not just about pricing, but it's also about risk responsibility and whether a vendor is truly prepared to deliver services to the city. And when the city uses cooperative purchasing options above the formal bidding thresholds, the city manager will now have to provide a more detailed written justification, as well as analysis with any bid waiver request addressing

Agreement with Savino and Miller developed master plan for entirety of West lots r7 th Commissioner bought Co-sponsored by Commissioner Suarez co-primed co-prime Thank you ladies first Yeah Great

Just for the record, for anybody listening, this is to authorize one of our existing vendors. This is to authorize, thank you, for any one of our existing vendors, excellent landscape architects who just completed a long planned and long desired project in mid beach the bay shore park which is a spectacular location if you have not yet been there to take a look at the west slots which are underutilized and imagine how they could be used differently not getting rid of parking and keeping the services that need to stay there in that general area but looking at how to use that land mass more effe

Let's call the budget items R7D and R7E.

Commissioner Fernandez, co-sponsored by Commissioner Mateo Salinas.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an item actually that Commissioner Mateo Salinas and I worked on together when I was an aide, and I'm proud to be – well, she was an aide. We both used to be aides. And I'm proud to be working now together again with my great colleague, Commissioner Matos Salinas, so that in the slow months, our businesses can have the support of attracting visitors from throughout the region to support our local economy. And I'll pass it over to Commissioner Matos Salinas.

Thank you, Commissioner and Mr. Mayor. I just want to say that this is excellent legislation. This really does help our businesses. I had a meeting recently with the Washington Avenue bid, the Lincoln Road bid, and the 41st Street bid as well. And they brought this up that this was so helpful to them last year. And I said, great, let's bring it back. And here we are. And thank you for this legislation. And I'll move our item.

Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez and Commissioner Mateo Salinas.

So sponsored by myself, Vice Mayor Dominguez, Commissioner Bott, this has been an effort, and I know you spent a lot of time on this as well, Vice Mayor Dominguez, so take it away.

One question. Thank you for citing those numbers. Is it broken down by how many are given during nighttime hours?

Is that something that could be broken down and provided to us? Okay. Yeah. No, thank you. Thank you collectively working on this. It's a complaint we get a lot, certainly as the late night hours when those modified mufflers come rumbling down the street.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to have Deputy Tackett kind of bring it home on this one. This was before us and then staff wanted to come back and give us, I think, two options for deregulating a lot of the issues that we have when it comes to the permitting process.

And how much? You said it takes a considerable amount of time percentage-wise.

I'll be okay with option two. That gives it a more nuanced approach.

Debbie, you said that you would like direction to move it to the planning board, either option one or two? We are recommending option two. Right, but the direction is to move it to the planning board for further discussion.

So could we refer to the planning board for them to discuss it before you prepare the ordinance? Yes. That would be my motion on option two.

Then it has to go back to the planning board?

That's ridiculous. Why? By the way, this is exactly why we need this, is because we have these long processes that get drawn out and government just gets in the way and red tape. So we have to go to the planning board, hear what they have to say, then it has to come back here, then it has to go back to the planning board. So that's like six months. Guys, what is the number one thing that we heard, not the number one, but one of the major things that we heard when we were knocking on doors? It's getting a permit. By and large, that is one of the biggest pain points about our government that we

Through the mayor, if I may. Commissioner Bach. Debbie. So if it goes to the planning board for discussion and there's an ordinance prepared, if the discussion ends up giving very different guidance, you have to revise the ordinance anyhow, right? I'm not trying to add layers of time to this. I just want to get the most Effective way of getting feedback that we can see before it becomes Law of the land you put so I'm sorry So is it a viable Process to go to the Planning Board with a prepared ordinance and then say they change a whole bunch of things then what happens I

And could you create the title so that it covers every possible eventuality, and then if you only do five of the ten in the title, you don't have to worry about having a revised title?

Well, I think that's probably a bigger issue anyhow, right, than just the re-noticing. It's a bigger issue because it's a fundamental change of what you guys thought was good direction so okay so I retract my amendment and I'm fine to send it along with a broad title and a draft ordinance to Planning and see what happens.

Sure. The reason why I pulled this item was specifically I like for for this to go to committee to discuss how feasible would it be to incorporate into this the unified valet systems that we still have pending at committee for 41st Street, for the entertainment district, possibly for Lincoln Road. So I'd like to be able to discuss the pros and cons and whether that can be incorporated into this contract. So that's the reason why I pulled this.

I also want to send it to FERC for similar reasons. Thank you.

So I'll make a motion to refer to FERC with a month-to-month. Thank you. Of course.

for a couple of reasons. David, can you go over some of the funding and the roles and responsibility that this third party would be doing?

The harmonization agreement's already done, correct?

Okay, so the only reason I pulled this is I think it's a little redundant. We have a neighborhood affairs division. Why should we spend close to a million dollars on outsourcing this when we already have a department designed specifically for this? I think a million dollars in taxpayer funds could certainly be used BETTER OR MORE EFFICIENTLY. THIS WAS APPROVED IN 21, SO THIS PREDATES AT LEAST THREE OF US ON HERE. I WOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED IT IN THE BEGINNING. I HATE TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD, BUT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT HOW WE CAN SAVE so much money from the operating budget, I just think it's