City Commission - Regular Meeting

Bye.

Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in five, four, three, two, one.

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, Mayor. Good morning. The city commission is physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall, located at 1700 Convention Center Drive, third floor. Members of the public are invited to attend either in person or virtually. If you're joining us virtually, you can log in using the Zoom app or visit the zoom.us on your browser. You can also phone in at 305-224-1968. Again, 305-224-1968. The toll-free number is 888-475-4499. The webinar ID is 813-928-576-71-pound. Again, webinar ID is 813-928-576-71-pound. If you would like to speak virtually on an item during the meeting, please click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or press star nine on your phone. The Zoom link, webinar ID, and phone number stay the same for every commission meeting. All lobbyists must register with the Office of the City Clerk located on the first floor of City Hall. You do not need to register if you are an expert witness giving only technical or specialized testimony, a representative of a neighborhood association or nonprofit speaking without pay, or a private citizen speaking on your own behalf without compensation. However, if you're an expert witness or a nonprofit or neighborhood rep, you do need to submit a written disclosure to the office of the city clerk before speaking with the commissioner, commission, or city staff. Forms are available at the office of the city clerk. If a lobbyist gives or agrees to give $1,000 or more to a neighborhood association or its representative regarding a city matter, that must be disclosed in writing to the clerk. Note that contingency fees are not permitted to compensate lobbyists. If you plan to speak during the comment period today, We ask you to please sign in. You can sign in in the sign-in sheets on the podium or the QR codes that are also located on the podium. Thank you, Mayor.

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 Tartan Army from Scotland, the Norwegian Rowing Club, And certainly I spent a lot of time in North Beach with our Argentinian fans, which is incredible because not only do we have North Beach, which is a little Buenos Aires here, we had fans from Argentina, from other countries, from... Our country, I had fans tell me they came from New York or other places to specifically come to Miami Beach to watch the games here because they knew that the excitement, the energy, the passion was right here in Miami Beach. And I have no doubt we're going to have a lot of repeat visitors after the success we put on. So thank you to all of my colleagues, Eric, our police department fire, sanitation. I mean, this was a major cleanup effort across the board and it was done brilliantly. So kudos to our city and for really making us look like the world-class city we are. So congrats. I would like to ask Dr. Walter T. Richardson, chaplain from Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office. So during spring to come up, during spring break, WE HAVE A LOT OF OFFICERS AND THERE'S A ROLL CALL THAT I KNOW ME AND MY COLLEAGUES SOMETIMES JOIN AND THERE'S HUNDREDS OF POLICE OFFICERS THERE FROM OUR MIAMI BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, STATE POLICE, OTHER CITIES. IT'S REALLY SOMETHING TO BEHOLD. SO MANY DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS COMING TOGETHER WITH ONE GOAL AND TO KEEP EVERYONE SAFE WHICH WE'VE DONE BRILLIANTLY THE LAST THREE YEARS. BUT DR. gave the invocation there one morning, and I and my team walked over to him afterwards, and I'm like, you have to come to our commission meeting. You spoke brilliantly and eloquently, and I'm so proud to have you here.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and to you and to all the members of the dais. God bless each of you, and I so much appreciate this opportunity. Before I pray, I would like to mention that I'm warmed by this by this setting as a little boy coming up in Liberty City Coming across the bridge to come to Miami Beach as a little boy with my parents and my little brother We enjoyed riding through Miami Beach When I was old enough to understand a few more things about life we stopped on Collins Avenue and And I wanted to get out of the car to see the sights and to feel the ground beneath me. And my daddy quickly advised me that that was not a good idea because at that point colored people, as we were called then, were not allowed to walk the streets of Miami Beach. I remember that. I remember that with sadness because I didn't understand why, as a colored person, I was not able to walk the streets of Miami Beach. Let me give you another perspective. In 1960, when the Lincoln Road Mall opened, I was 12 years old, and for the first time in my life, I felt free because that mall was open to the public. And I was able to ride the trains that they had at that time for the children and their escorts to go up and down Lincoln Road Mall, one of the first malls built without street traffic. And so I'm glad to be here. This is warming for me. And thank you again for the invitation. There are three Abrahamic traditions that speak about those who are called to be leaders in God's house, making sure that they instruct the people of their communities to pray for civic and government leaders. Judaism through Jeremiah says that we must pray for our leaders because they, by their doing well and honoring God, bring peace to the city The Christian scriptures offers a rabbi by the name of Paul who says virtually the same thing. He says, pray for rulers and magistrates that there may be peace in the community. And even Muhammad in his writings in the Quran urge us to make sure that we lift up in prayer those who lead us in our communities. It's a very sobering reminder of what happens when people do not pray for their leaders. It's also a very telling comment about what happens when we do pray. God promises to bring peace to the city, to the community, if we lift up our leaders in prayer. So with that in mind, I'd like to pray for everyone here today. Let's pray. eternal and ever-present one, source of all order and origin of all justice. We gather this morning in gratitude, grateful for another sunrise over this city by the sea, grateful for the sacred labor of governance, and grateful for the leaders assembled here to steward it. God, we give you thanks to Mayor Stephen Minor, whose commitment to law and order is not cold enforcement of statutes, But the warm safeguarding of a community's peace grant him, oh God, the wisdom to know when firmness serves the people and when flexibility serves the people. The courage to lead decisively and the compassion to remember that behind every ordinance stands a human being. We give you thanks and pray for city manager Eric Carpenter, whose care for the city's workforce reflects the truth This House of Government too easily forgets that an institution is only as strong as those who show up each day to serve. May he continue to lead not merely with competence but with kindness, honoring the dignity of every employee whose labor, often unseen, keeps this city running. Oh God, we give you thanks for Chief Wayne Jones. entrusted with the delicate balance of protecting our streets while preserving the very spirit that makes Miami Beach the coolest city. Keep it vibrant, welcoming, alive. May he walk that line with integrity, ensuring safety never comes at the expense of soul, and that security and celebration remain partners rather than opposites. We give you thanks for these members Board of City Commissioners, call to the demanding work of deliberation and decision. Grant them patient minds in disagreement, generous hearts in debate, and a shared devotion to the common good that outlasts any single vote or term. Bind all of these leaders together, we pray, not in uniformity of opinion, but in unity of purpose that Miami Beach might flourish as a city of safety and soul, order and opportunity, discipline and delight. For those who serve and those who are served, for residents and visitors, for the vulnerable among us who look to this body for protection and provision, we ask your continued favor upon this city and this commission. May this session be conducted with integrity, its decisions marked by justice, and its outcomes measured in the well-being of the people of this great city called Miami Beach. We ask this in the name of the God who is known by many names, worshiped in many languages, and trusted by all who call on the divine in sincerity and in truth. Let us all together say amen.

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 firefighter Michael Savadro and Lieutenant Ivan Chavez, who also took it upon them, putting their life in danger, going into a very dangerous situation, dealing with the after effects of an earthquake. Wanted to invite up two children to really recognize the children of Venezuela who have either been lost, lost parents, are now orphans, and we have to acknowledge their pain. And I'd like to ask James and Astrid to come up and hold the Venezuelan flag. Thank you Jose Frias for doing your work and being Venezuelan yourself to really keep this at the forefront. We also had donations at our fire stations to send food over. And I'd like to ask us to do a 30 second moment of silence while James and Astrid hold the flag. Thank you. We continue to pray for the people and the nation of Venezuela. I think one thing the World Cup definitely showed us is that we're a united world. We have to keep uniting and not let the differences divide us. I'd like to ask Chief David Sola and Lieutenant Pete Darley, James and Astrid, you're welcome to join as well, Jose, in leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you and God bless. So today,

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 shows what we do here at Miami Beach. But you are training and inspiring young local artists. You provide music education, mentorship, performance opportunities. You had this summer over 40 local youth participate in a full-time youth camp located at Temple Emanuel. not too far, for seven full weeks. And today, we are very fortunate to have Soleil Nation, Soleil Nation, 12 years old, and Maria Perroza, 16 years old, to celebrate today with us and America 250 by singing God Bless America.

God bless America Land that I love Stand beside her and guide her Through the night with the light from above From the mountain, to the prairie, to the ocean, white with foam, God bless America, my home sweet home. God bless America One that I love Stand beside her and guide her Through the night with a light from above From the mountains To the prairie, to the ocean, to the waves where we're from God bless America, my home Sweet home

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.

Good morning. Good morning, Mayor and City Commissioner, City Commission. My name is Annabel Urrea. I am the new IG liaison for Mayor Daniela Levine Cava's office. So I am taking over David Leyte Vidal's position. So I just wanted to introduce myself personally to you guys and just, you know, wanted to, Mayor wanted me to come here and, you know, just keep on growing the relationship and strengthening it because it's been a wonderful one for the past few years. So please, I'm here to help you or if you need anything with the mayor or the county, I'm your girl. Okay? And Blake has my contact information. So anything you guys need, I'm here for you.

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

Absolutely. Thank you.

Welcome. Next, please. State your name, address, I have two minutes.

Good morning, Jose Alzi, 788 South East Park Drive. I'm a resident of Hialeah, but I come here to talk as a resident of Miami-Dade County. Miami-Dade County has invested billions and the county has invested billions for the services you provide. The residents of Miami-Dade County, like me, I'm here almost every weekday morning, either working out in your Muscle Beach or walking my dog in your beautiful parks. My concern, I followed the prayer, what the pastor was saying. I used to pray for Miami Beach, but now I'm praying for Miami. I used to pray for Hialeah, but now I'm praying for Miami Beach because the danger that my family did in Cuba, you guys are facing that danger. And what Miami City of New York faced, you guys are facing that danger. So did Venezuela when Chavez came as a... Socialist Democrat. Fidel came as a Socialist Democrat. There were many videos on that. You can watch it on YouTube. I specifically ask you to be aware of that. Don't think that you're immune to it, just like New York City was immune thinking that would never happen to them. I... I ask you, Commissioner Alex Fernandez, I know you're very in with the LGBT community, but let them know that communists like Fidel Castro put homosexuals in camps. Let them know the real reason why the movement is behind. And the people of faith, they don't get involved with politics. And like the Catholic faith could have stopped, the Catholic Church could have stopped either Hitler and they could have stopped Fidel Castro, but they chose not to get involved. And Mayor Steve Miner, I know you have a targeting hand. You're aware of that because you're open with your faith. And you guys are primed for that because only 17,000 of your residents determine the outcome, and the special election is half of that. And they're very active already in North Beach telling them, oh, look at all the services North Beach has compared to South Beach. Capitalists, you know, they're taking And you have a lot of young people that they're very active, you know. So even though it's only a small amount, please don't let your guard down. Don't think it could never happen to you. That's what they were saying in New York City four years ago. Be aware of that. And I love coming to Miami Beach and I love everything you do.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. State your name, address. You have two minutes.

My name is Gina Russ. I'm 2800 Sunset Drive, Miami. I'm here to ask you to please call today or move to consent. 9F, reference P-S-N-Q-L-C, to rename a street in honor of Dennis Russ. Many of you knew Dennis personally. Many of you worked with Dennis. Dennis was one of the unsung heroes of Miami Beach, the Art Deco District, Lincoln Road, Washington Avenue, and affordable housing. And you've gotten letters of support from community leaders, Neeson Kasdan, Marty... I RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY AND I JUST WANTED TO READ. THIS IS FROM SUSIE JACOBS WHO WORKED WITH DENNIS IN THE 80s AND I THINK SHE SUMMED UP DENNIS. She said, if Barbara Kappenman was the face, then Dennis was the backbone. He saw the beauty, value, and worked tirelessly to restore South Beach's charm. If you didn't participate in early preservation efforts, you could have missed his contributions. Fame wasn't his motivation. He wasn't flashy, nor did he rush. Instead, Dennis laughed and kept building the city we celebrate today. Dennis Russ was a great guy, so smart and kind. one of a kind and definitely deserving of collective memory. So I ask you to please honor his work. These are the kind of people we want to help Miami Beach. He loved Miami Beach. As you know, he died a couple months ago and this would be a great honor to him and the people that worked with him and the people that have learned from him and he was mentored by. So I respectfully ask you to please agree to name a street and the specific streets that we've requested are, I have 10 seconds, The naming of either 14th Street from Ocean Drive to Pennsylvania Avenue or 12th Street from Washington Avenue to Meridian Avenue. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Dana Stillman. I've been a Miami Beach resident for 15 years, and I'm here to discuss the spring breaking of our cat overpopulation problem. Over the last few weeks and months, I have met with most of you or your amazing staff members regarding our cat program and have been very, very pleased with the feedback I've been getting regarding improvements to the program. Today, Miami Beach has the opportunity to become a leader, not only with responding to the cat overpopulation, but in preventing it. That starts with owned pet cats. not the ones that we've already failed that are living outside. And that's a fact. Whether you love cats or don't like cats, we can all agree there should be less of them. Right now, our city spends most of its time and resources managing the consequences of this problem and not addressing the root cause. Right at this moment, we have thousands of unaltered Miami Beach cats reproducing, and last month I went over how ridiculous it is to drive them off the beach to get them fixed. Every year we rescue kittens through our Trap, Neuter, Vaccinate return program, We respond to complaints and we also load hundreds of cats onto expensive private planes operated by various nonprofits, which basically kicks the cost over to them to get them out of South Florida where they will have a chance at a better life. Yet despite those efforts, our cat population continues to grow. Our taxpayers deserve a system that delivers better results for every single dollar invested. Every cat prevented from reproducing today means fewer kittens born tomorrow, fewer kittens dying in the bushes, which is what happens, Fewer complaints lower public health risks, reduce pressure on city departments, shelters, veterinarians, nonprofits, volunteers, and lower long-term costs for our community. Communities across the country have already demonstrated that when prevention becomes the primary strategy, cat populations decline, costs decrease, and outcomes improve for both animals and residents. In September, together with your help, I look forward to presenting a comprehensive spay and neuter prevention-based initiative that builds on those models, starting with the Miami Beach Spay and Neuter Task Force. County participation will be essential because this issue extends beyond municipal boundaries and significant funding opportunities will be available. Thank you.

Good morning, Mitch Novick, 901 Collins. At May's commission meeting, six of you voted to hand another $100,000 to the chair and owner of the Betsy Hotel to subsidize the Ocean Drive Association's music series, often held inside the hotel's lobby. Despite the fact that I had my hand raised to speak, no public comment was taken before the subsidy was approved. Then, at last week's Finance Committee meeting, the same six of you voted to spend another 137,000 to print and mail the antiquated Miami Beach Magazine, even though it's already available online. This publication produced by our very own Office of Marketing and Communication has become a fitting example of the taxpayer waste that occurs all too often within the walls of City Hall. Today I urge you to pull item C7C from the consent agenda. Why would this self-proclaimed budget-conscious commission spend nearly $1 million on an outside consultant to communicate with West Avenue residents about a construction project? We already employ 19 people in the city's Office of Marketing and Communication. Surely this arm of government has the expertise and capacity to handle public outreach for the West Avenue residents without outsourcing taxpayer dollars. I'll continue to argue that taxpayers are being fleeced while special interests continue to receive preferential treatment. If the city has discretionary funds available, those dollars should be directed toward genuine public priorities such as after-school children's programs, or even the repavement of the basketball court at South Point Elementary, rather than producing a costly, glossy magazine that's already available online or subsidizing a private organization's music series. Thank you.

Next, please.

Good morning, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Ofer Manor. I am the owner of Blue Star Linen in Hialeah. We do business with hotels in Miami Beach. Last year, we value the relationship with the city. We always try to work with the city on every issue that arouse. And last year, we had an agreement with the magistrate and the city regarding parking tickets that was above $100,000. The global agreement was supposed to cover everything that was before 2025, and recently we just got another ticket from 2024 of above $10,000. It's very hard to deal with the parking issues coming with the trucks to deliver linen to hotels. Those are very big bins that each one of them weigh above 600 or 700 pounds. And there's no parking at all the places that we need to service. The magistrate asked us to meet with the parking department and we've been trying to deal with them and have a face-to-face meeting to find a solution to the places that we don't have parking and how to work it out to make things available and fair for everybody. And we're not able to make that meeting. We're getting the runaround. We want to ask you to to help us with getting that meeting with the parking department to resolve these issues. We don't want to be causing any issues with parking, but we want to find a solution to our problem. Thank you very much. Eric, can you meet up with him or your team?

Absolutely. Thank you for coming in.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Claudia Jagat and I'm here on behalf of the Lincoln Road bid. I wanted to make sure you were aware that the Lincoln Road bid supports agenda item R7H regarding the proposed lease amendment with R.K. Rivani LLC for 1691 Michigan Avenue. We've also submitted a letter of support for the record outlining the bid's position. In case I'm not present, if When this item is called, I wanted to ensure that our support is noted. We believe this proposal represents a positive investment in Lincoln Road and will continue to add to the district's long-term vitality. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good morning, Commission, Mayor. Nice to see all of you. My time already started. For something different, and since South Beach inspires in me poetry, I wrote a brief poem to share. This is in regards to the Washington Avenue Up Zone, proposed primarily by the commissioners that's not seated there right now. What's wrong with leaving what's left of our small historic district untouched by a bulldozer or wrecking ball? Why not be content with our unique two- to five-story buildings tall? Residents wish not breathe construction dust and debris, but rather, as Paul McCartney says, let it be. Yet let it not be in disrepair, empty, deteriorating, as there are dozens of ways without new build for renovating. How about a marketing campaign targeting Brickell Gen Z? Out of place in that intense vertical space. Or applying for HP grants. Many there are. We likely wouldn't need to look that far. Or imagine our own version of Key West 30's island conversion. read about it. It is cool. History is in the making here, and tearing down our old buildings should not be part of that, to be sure, to be clear. Este es un distrito histórico, icónico y único. I'll end with my 20 seconds. I might even change out what I'll end with. I love the micro-mobility movement. I think everybody under 18 should have to wear a helmet, and I love that you are making a way, Mayor Minor, for people that have a mental problem that get in legal trouble. I read about that as well. And I like the MB Magazine for the record.

Excuse me. I didn't catch your name. Your name?

My bad. Jessica Pita, 639 13th Street. Thank you so much. Thank you all.

Good morning, everybody. I want to kind of open this up to our neighborhood. Kevin Krueger, nine-year South Beach resident. So good morning, neighbors and commissioners. Coach Kevin, I've been here promoting sports tourism most of the last seven years, as a lot of you guys know. And I want to ask, because it's viral on video worldwide right now, especially on YouTube, how much do you miss our FIFA fans? How fun were they? And I want to open up with a quick Q&A. I'll probably ask you like four or five different moments Which moment in hosting our sports tourists was your favorite was the Argentinian fan game watches at the Miami Beach fanshell show of hands could probably pick more than one if you want was it the the finding the the footballs that oversized soccer balls with the with the foreign flags that was kind of cool that was done also with badger ops it was a little scavenger hunt you could do really cool experience celebrating our foreign fan flags the Brazilians saw Samba dancing in the streets don't forget that that was during the group round and Brazilians something there we go The Scottish Tartan Army, I think that's got a lot of hands. The Norwegian Viking row we just had, I know that's got a lot of hands. Fresh on the mind, but don't forget. Others? None? Anyone dissatisfied? I ask because, and I hope that the hotels and restaurants got a lot of great stories and filled your bank accounts, but I ask because if you notice, the common denominator are the fans. So years ago, a unanimous commission sponsored my suggestion that we rebrand the month of March, and we did some fitness activations. But what I recognized then was that's going to lack fans in the hotels and restaurants, I think. some of them are here represented, deserve those fans. They deserve those dollars. So with competition and our fitness competitions, starting with 305K and half marathon in place, I would like to help the marketing department, the tourism department, this commission could be the first to program an entire month that lasts well over a decade. We can own the month of March. You know, beyond sports and fitness, you all know that I'm going to present to you at some point more formally Miami Beach games or some other concept. And I've sat down with the tourism department. But I want to ask the audience, would you like more fans on their best behavior? Okay, great. With that, I'd like to follow up with you next month in the tourism department and continue. And feel free to add your own Q&A and answer in the last 10 seconds if you want.

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.

Well, I think it's this FIFA host committee that I've been strategizing and learning as we go. And I think that's what it is. I don't want to be a producer. I want our city to host. And it's a we. It's 85,000 people, as we just did. and the host committee's not producing the World Cup, but they've done such a great job as did our city. So compliments to all of us, residents included. So I'm here to help if asked. Thank you.

Good morning. I may need just a couple of seconds extra, but I hope not. I have a letter to read to you. Dear Mayor, Stephen Miner, City Manager, Mr. Eric Carpenter, and members of the City Commission. I'm writing and speaking before you as a director of Sobey Business Alliance. Sobey Business Alliance has now grown into having 47 members, of which 27 members are comprised of Ocean Drive hotels, restaurants, cafes, and retail establishments. Our hotel members include the Park Central Hotel, the Bentley Hotel, the Beacon Hotel, Colony Hotel, Breakwater Hotel, Edison Hotel, the Clevelander Hotel, the Villa Casa Casa Arena, Versace Mansion, Hotel Victor, Hotel Ocean, the Carlisle Hotel. Over 25 Ocean Drive cafes, restaurants, and retail establishments are also members. We also have hotel members on Collins Avenue. This organization now constitutes the largest Ocean Drive and South Beach business organization in Miami Beach. All of these hotels, restaurants, cafes, and retail establishments are unified in the importance of Ocean Drive remaining fully open and accessible to vehicular traffic and for our valets on Ocean Drive as well as restoration and maintenance of side street parking. We are also vitally concerned with all major events held on the beach, in Loomis Park, and on Ocean Drive, and most importantly, life safety emergency services on Ocean Drive. This organization exceeds the amount of real estate of property tax paying properties and Ocean Drive Association and as such wishes to become an active participant in all decision making processes relative to Ocean Drive going forward into the future. We look forward to a close association and dialogue with the city of Miami Beach and other South Beach civic organizations. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, David.

Hello, everyone. My name is Christina Vega. I live in Golden Dreams Condominium, 65 Washington Avenue. As the United States of America is celebrating 250th birthday, little or maybe none of us asked, what does United States of America want for his birthday. What does it need from us? And what it wants is respect. It wants for us to be united. It wants us to respect the law, history, and law-abiding people who live here. I have a doubt, as a founder of Cyber Money Laundering and Real Estate Investigations Corp, a company that investigates cyber-enabled crimes, that Citi respects the law and the history. A year ago, I discovered that plot books, plot books are documents that describe, visualize the land of Miami-Dade. were replaced with forged ones between 2009 to 2011. I specifically spoke to Commissioner Tanya Bhatt via Facebook Messenger and notified about this. I sent many emails regarding this matter to the mayor, the city manager, building department, and other officials. One of such plot books is a plot book describing South Beach, which is Black Book 281. It has streets that never existed on our land. For example, Orange Street, Mango Street, Pear Street. Furthermore, after more research, we came across this old Miami Beach book, which was published in 1994. What we discovered is that majority of mortgages and deeds were also removed from county records. One of the most disturbing discoveries are the review findings of our permits, applications for development, and documents submitted by the developers. 1250 West Avenue, two LLCs that do not exist, Delaware LLCs, San Juan Hotel, Barclay Hotel, But the most disturbing are the bank applications, Bank of America and PNC Bank. Those two have inaccurate claims regarding the land and identity of the applicant. Because Miami Beach permits are being used for Know Your Customer CDD requirements, we are filing petition for injunction under the Bank Secrecy Act with the United States Secretary of Treasury. Thank you so much.

Seeing no one else in the audience, I'm going to go to Zoom. Jeff Burkow, state your name, address. You have two minutes. Let's go then to Johan Moore.

Good morning, Commissioners. Johan Moore, 717 Jefferson Avenue. I want to speak to two topics today, three items in total. I want to express my appreciation for Commissioner Fernandez C7AO and urge that that move forward expeditiously. Any and all efforts to amend Live Local can only benefit our communities. My primary comments today revolve around items R5AJ and R5AI. While I and many of my neighbors would very much welcome the return of 3,000 of our now lost residents due to census data shows, we believe that there are better ways to do so than changing the zoning in a shoot from the hip fashion on Washington Avenue, such as an item that would incentivize reconversion of formerly low income housing that is now short-term rentals back to affordable housing. That would be an item that we would be able to support. We further would argue that a program to incentivize culture and arts undertakings to fill the vacant storefronts on Washington Avenue might be an efficacious attempt at reviving it as a commercial corridor, albeit of a different flavor. We oppose the height and the bulk that would be imposed on our neighborhood, that would infringe on our neighborhood. uh there is the possibility under this item of at least one seven-story tall building uh possibly with twice the bulk of moxie or good time on each and every single block thank you next caller is sharon sharon state your name address you have two minutes uh good morning sharon it's two three three eighty eight

There are so many topics on today's agenda that about two minutes is not sufficient. I'm just going my thoughts in a way that covers everything in a general manner. First, I'd like to thank Commissioner Suarez and the other commissioners who voted along with him for making the salary portal public. Having this information is a huge and rare benefit to the residents. Next, I know I am not alone in saying that I am completely disgusted and demoralized right now. Resident taxpayers cover 63 percent of the city's budget. But time and again, we feel like we've passed in consideration behind developed consultants, centers, hotel companies, and its own employees. And despite covering 63 percent of the budget, we can't even in the ocean because it is completely polluted by matter. Even worse when the city, whether it is the elected for the highly city employees, mismanage projects and go over budget, the very first response is to make the residents pay for it. It is not a creative solution to offer a geo bond as an alternative to higher water bills to pay for infrastructure upgrades, just as an example. Both of those options are just different ways of making the taxpayer shoulder most of the financial burden to solve a problem that we did not cause. And again, this is just one example. Time and again, the stakeholders who make a lot of money off of our city, hotel operators, developers, beach concessionaires, tow companies, they get freebies from the city and are never asked to participate in a financially meaningful way. The continued reliance on residents as the city's ATM has got to stop. We have had enough. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much. Our next virtual caller has a phone number ending in 304. Please state your name, address, and you have two minutes. Please unmute yourself. PJ, let's go then to Larry Schaefer.

Larry Schaffer, 233 81st Street. Did the mayor leave the room? He didn't want to hear the people. How can a world-class town have residents and turks are swimming in poop? Why did the state shut down multiple beaches because of poop pollution? Where is the feces? Don't interrupt. Where is the feces coming from, mayor? Is the city of Miami Beach water company polluting its own waters? We have waterfront sewage pumps in many of the sites that are testing poorly. Why has Parkview Canal been polluted for six years or more? Why is the second most polluted place in the U.S. in a world-class town? Why is your backyard, Mayor, with feces? It hits differently. Your backyard is now testing six times higher than the notorious Parkview Canal. Is this what you want from Miami Beach, Dave? All the tourists at the waters, you have 2,500 employees and so much money. Look at the salary you pay the employees, and you expect swimming feces while employees become multimillionaires. Operation Climber was a failure. Well, organizational changes are taking. Where's the water testing lab you promised?

Our next caller is Judith Smigel.

condominium. I'm speaking against the proposed ordinance to double the size of the larger development on Washington Avenue. I know that we all love this fabulous city, but I've also fondly remembered her promises to protect our very special quality of life by not allowing out of state development. We do not want larger and taller buildings. That's not what led to What we do want housing for people that live and work here. I know that there are steps that exist that need to be required, that developers take steps to ensure that places only are able to rent. Now, let's be honest. This is a fragile city. People would love a place to rent, even if it's only $1,530, which is not smart. People would never place near the beach. What's to keep corporations from renting out apartments as opposed to those people? What's to keep groups of people from renting out and sharing it? What's to keep unlicensed districts and renters? Who's going to staff any project to make sure there's no built-in renters? Plus, if you want to live and work on the beach, you may actually need to deposit cash. You're not going to depend on buses to get to work at Mount Sinai. Again, I believe that everybody that's involved with this audience really does have the best of intentions and just want any development to be more thoughtful, to think about the impact on residents. Thousands of people living without parking, for instance, what that's going to do with adjacent very already very limited parking. And thank you.

Thank you. Our next caller is Elba Machado from V&E Group.

Hi, good morning. Good morning. Elba Machado from V&E Hospitality Group. And I'm here in support of item R9G, continuing the food and beverage partnership with Sodexo Live. I'd like to say that for the hospitality industry, the convention center and Sodexo Live are an economic engine for our city. Every successful convention brings visitors who feel hotels, restaurants, shops, and the quality of their experience, including the hospitality and culinary services Sodexo Life provides within the convention center play a role in whether those groups choose Miami Beach again. Yes, please. Also, Sodexo Life's collaborative approach has also led local businesses like ours participate directly in conventions and major events, sharing Miami Beach flavor and culture with thousands of visitors and strengthening our local restaurant community. On a personal note, and for the last four years, V Hospitality Groups particularly has hosted our Employee Appreciation Breakfast at the Convention Center. It's one of the few times each year we get to celebrate our team who make hospitality possible for us. And thanks to Sodexo Life's team and their affordable and practical approach, our employees get the same excellence we work to give our guests. So the finance committee analysis confirms that the renewing the agreement present existing investments avoids unnecessary transition costs and required no additional cost for taxpayer while protecting the city's reputation as a premier destination for meetings and conventions. So on behalf of VA hospitality group, we respectfully urge you to support the administration's recommendation and continue investing in the stability and long-term success of Sodexo Live at the Miami Beach Convention Center. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Our next caller is Wayne Roberts. Go ahead, sir.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I've supported each and every one of you at some point in your career to be a politician. And I've never been so disappointed by a group of people in my 65 years of life. When it comes to budgets, thankfully, the compensation was put out there. And I was shocked that a FIRE EMS employee, several, makes $500,000 last year, and they're running at about a pace based on their last biweekly check to running at $760,026. On top of that, they make hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension payments, medical, use of cars, food. It's over a million dollars if this year's run rate is biweekly for those employees. There are many examples of that across many divisions within the government. You've doubled many salaries in the process in the last two years, which is unfair to the taxpayer, and it's an abuse of our tax system. What's more, we have lost in the county 278,000 residents in the last five years, and it's not because we didn't have enough housing. Clearly, the hundreds of hundreds of FAR increases across the county, has not made an improvement to the residential quality of life, which is the driving factor of where people want to live. FAR is against the policy of humans. It blocks the sun. It pollutes the ocean. It creates a bureaucracy in government. And I urge you, I urge you, ladies and gentlemen, to change direction, change course that is about humans and residents. Thank you very much.

Our next caller is Jeff Burkow.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you, Mr. Clerk, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, Jeff Burkow, 590 Lakeview Drive. This morning, the Commission is considering several items to fund improvements to our critical infrastructure, R7A, B and C, and R9G. I'm part of a group of Lakeview residents advocating for funding for stormwater improvements to address the terrible flooding conditions in the western part of our neighborhood. We want the Commission to agree on an infrastructure funding program that the voters will approve this November. The city's stormwater infrastructure needs are pressing and the critical neighborhood projects need funding, but climate change is not waiting for us. When you evaluate the available alternatives later this morning, please choose a program that has the greatest likelihood of securing voter approval. Because if that vote fails, lenders will stop lending, insurers will stop insuring, property values and our tax base will drop and it will be catastrophic for our city. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next caller is Audrey. State your name and address.

Hi, good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Okay. My name is Audrey Phelan. I'm at 1309 Euclid Avenue. And I'd like to just share that as a community member of the FPNA and also the FPNA subcommittee who's kind of working with the concepts of the Washington Avenue development, I'd just like to say that There really shouldn't be any quote unquote improvements to Washington Avenue, especially south of 17th, that should be made without the input and influence of the FP&A and its subcommittees as these are the residents of that community. And we're very open to all people who live in that community and even people beyond our immediate community. And also, to kind of, I mean, it's obvious, but you know, the sky above is not quote available space. And I understand that developers see a really great community. They see dollar signs and they see a lot of space that they can develop upwards and outwards to the street. And that would, in effect, destroy not only why they're coming there, but it would also destroy the people who live there and work there. And I hope that the commissioners who've shown support of the community over developers, I hope that they continue to support the community and the ones who have supported. I'm sorry, I don't have all their names written down, but there's a lot of you, and it's very, very much appreciated by the community members. And I the mayor for his support. And I think that's all. And I'd like to thank Johan and Jessica for speaking up as well. Thank you very much. Have a good morning.

Thank you. Our next caller is Charlie. Charlie, state your name, address. You have two minutes.

Hi, it's Charlie Fisher. I'm at 635 Euclid. Nice to see you all. I'll speak a little bit more to Washington Avenue later, but I just wanted to bring up three points. They are, one, I think it's interesting that we're discussing the crumbling infrastructure that we currently have and raising taxes and bonds to pay for that infrastructure because it's crumbling. and at the same meeting discussing passing legislation which would encourage huge buildings being built in the very area that our infrastructure is crumbling. It's like we can't have crumbling infrastructure, expect to pay for it, and then lose the character of our neighborhood. We need to fix what we have, not try to add more to it. And the second point I was going to make is we were sold an idea of switching hotel and condo incentives, but what we got was an increase in FAR from two to four along Washington Avenue. It's not the same thing. These are gigantic buildings that are being proposed in a neighborhood that doesn't want it, and with infrastructure that we're currently trying to figure out how to raise money to pay to improve. It feels misguided, and I'm calling to oppose it. I'll speak later to it when the item is called. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next caller has a phone number ending in 304. Please unmute yourself and state your name and address.

Okay, PJ, let's go to the next caller.

Has a screen name of Miami Beach. Go ahead, please.

Good morning to all. My name is Wanda Jamin, 8305 Presby Boulevard. Today I echo the sentiments of my friends and neighbors, especially Sharon Weiss and Larry Schaefer, expressing and stating the dissatisfaction with the way a city is moving. They said it better than me and I feel and think the same way. Please govern with common sense. However, with that said, today I want to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Mayor, thank you for your opening remarks today. Not only was it moving to hear you commemorate America's 250th milestone, I truly love America. But although I'm not Venezuelan, your touching acknowledgement of Venezuela and its people during their ongoing devastating crisis meant the world to me and to many of us here. Bringing such human empathy and global awareness to a local forum was deeply touching. And I am truly grateful for your gesture. God bless America, God bless the people of Venezuela, and God bless the entire world. Thank you.

Thank you, PJ. Let's try 304 again. I appreciate your words. Phone number 304. Okay, this is the third time, so we're going to stop Suttnick right now. There's no one else. Thank you.

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

Mayor, the following items have been separated from the consent agenda. The mayor has separated C7G. These are all on the list that we provided to you. Commissioner Dominguez has separated C7AG. Commissioner Fernandez has separated C2E. Commissioner Mateo Salinas has separated C2E and C7O. And Commissioner Suarez is separating C7C and C7AN. Some announcements to make. On the dais, you have an addendum that was submitted yesterday. It's addendum three. You have the packet in front of you. In the dais, it's C7AS. Evaluate consolidating departments requested by Commissioner Suarez. Also, these are not on your list, okay? R5I is being opened and continued. R5. R5-O is being open and continued. R5-I, open and continued. R5-O, open and continued, both to September 10th meeting. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda excluding the separated items and excluding the addendum items that the mayor will hear after five? So moved. Motion by Commissioner Fernandez. I have a second from Commissioner Suarez. All in favor of the consent agenda excluding separated and addendum items, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, the agenda is approved 7-0, the consent agenda.

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.

R5A is an Orders of the Mayor, City Commissioner, City of Miami Beach, Florida amending Chapter 10 entitled Animals by Repealing Section 10-21 entitled Shore-Based Shark Fishing, Prohibited Definitions, Penalties, and Provisions for Repealer, Survivability, Qualification, and an Effective Date. This is a second reading public hearing. It is item R5A.

I move the item. Second.

Hold on. Okay.

Motion by Commissioner Dominguez. by Commissioner Fernandez. It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom and I see no one in the audience requesting to speak. If there's no discussion, may I call the roll? Call the roll. Commissioner Magazine. Yes. Commissioner Bach. Yes. Commissioner Mateo Salinas.

Yes.

Vice Mayor Dominguez. Yes. Commissioner Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner Suarez. Yes. Mayor Miner. Yes. Motion carries. The item is approved. That was item R5A. R5B. R5B is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commissioner of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Miami Beach Resiliency Code by amending Chapter 2, entitled Administration and Review Procedures, Article 1, entitled Land Use Board, Section 2.1.2, entitled Planning Board, by modifying the published notice requirements for a public hearing to the Planning Board to review approved sale of exchange conveyance or lease of city-owned property. and other matters where the Planning Board makes recommendations to the City Commission by amending Article 5, entitled Rezoning and Development Approval, Section 2.5.1, entitled Change to Zoning District Boundaries Rezoning by Modifying the Published Notice Requirements for a Public Hearing of the Planning Board to Review a Proposed Change to the Zoning District Boundaries of a Parcel or Parcels by Amending Chapter 7, entitled Zoning Districts Regulations, Article 2, entitled District Regulations, Section 7.2.16, entitled GU Government Use District to Modify Section 7.2.16.3, Entitled Development Regulations, GU, by modifying published notice requirements for a public hearing of the City Commission to consider a proposed waiver of development regulations providing for qualification, repealer, servability, and effective date. This is a first reading public hearing. The item requires 5.7's vote. It is item R5B. Commissioner Suarez. Yes.

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

Okay, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. This is an amendment that would allow the city to notice planning board amendments as well as some other minor applications, including GU waivers. on the Miami-Dade County website in lieu of a publication in the Miami Herald. In 2024, the voters of the city approved a charter amendment that allowed for us to notice our public hearings on the Miami-Dade County website instead of the Miami Herald, so we have In 2025, we amended the LDRs to switch that notification for almost all of our public hearings, including the Historic Preservation Board applications, the Design Review Board applications, and the Board of Adjustment applications. In my opinion, this was an oversight, so we're just making this consistent with all of the other public hearings that are noticed by the Planning Department.

With that, I move by item. Second. Call the vote. Motion by Commissioner Suarez. Second was Commissioner Fernandez. Yes. It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom and no one in the audience requesting to speak. Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Suarez. Yes. Commissioner Dominguez.

Yes.

Vice Mayor Dominguez. Commissioner Magazine.

Yes.

Commissioner Mattel Salinas. Yes. Commissioner Fernandez. Yes. Mayor Miner. Yes. Motion carries. This is a first reading. So second reading public hearing is scheduled for October 14th. That was item R5B. R5C.

R5C. Ralph, just why October, not September?

Did I say October? Oh, it's on the land use planning cycle. Got it. R5C. R5C. It's a long one, so.

Sorry.

In order to the Mayor, City Commissioner of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Miami Beach Resiliency Code by amending Chapter 1, entitled General Provisions, at Article 2 thereof, entitled Definitions to Clarify and Re-establish Definition to Address Inconsistencies in the Code, Chapter 2, entitled Administration and Review Procedures, Article 2, entitled General Development Application and Hearing Procedures, Section 2.2.3 thereof, entitled Development Application Submission and Review to Establish Fees for Commission of Warrants to Section 2.2.4, thereof, entitled public hearing to clarify quasi-judicial hearing procedures. Article 4, entitled amendments to comprehensive plan and the text of the land development regulations to clarify procedures for code amendments. Article 5, thereof, entitled rezoning and redevelopment approvals to clarify advertisement requirements for design review board advisory review. Article 12, thereof, entitled issuance of certificate of appropriateness, certificate to dig, certificate of appropriateness for demolition. To clarify that appeals are to a special magistrate section 2.4.1, thereof entitled generally to clarify procedures for amendments chapter 4 entitled landscape requirement Article 1 thereof entitled intent and applicability to clarify that administrative reviews are processed as planning and zoning permits. Article 2 thereof entitled requirements to clarify landscape mitigation fees. Chapter 5 entitled off-street parking. Article 1 thereof entitled in general to clarify interpretation of parking calculations. Chapter 6 entitled signs. Article 1 thereof entitled in general to clarify permitting requirements. Article 3 The relevant title temporary signs to clarify that certain temporary signs do not require permit. Chapter 7 entitled zoning districts and regulations. Article 1 thereof entitled general to all zoning districts to clarify understory level and first finish floor standards and clarify paint permit requirements. Article 2 entitled district regulations. Section 7.2.2 thereof entitled RS1, RS2, RS3, RS4 single family residential districts to clarify accessory use regulations and single family development regulations. Section 7.2.4 thereof, entitled RM1, residential multifamily low intensity. Section 7.2.5 thereof, RM-2, residential multifamily medium intensity. Section 7.2.6 thereof, entitled RM3, residential multifamily high intensity. And Section 7.2.23 thereof, entitled I-1, light industrial district, to clarify permitted uses. And use requirements section 7.2.16 thereof entitled G of government and use district to clarify permitted uses and use requirements. Article 5 thereof entitled supplementary district regulations to clarify a liable height exception, supplementary yard regulations, and supplementary use regulations. Amending the code of the city by amending appendix A fee schedule to establish fees for certificates of use, landscape requirements, and commission warrants. Providing for codification repealer servability on effective date. This is a first reading public hearing. It is a 5-7 vote. It is item R5C.

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.

I'll second. It is a public hearing. I see no one in Zoom and no one in the audience requesting to speak. I have a motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Mayor Miner. May I call the roll? Yes. Vice Mayor Dominguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Mateo Salinas.

Yes.

Commissioner Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner Suarez. Is absent. Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Magazine.

Yes.

Mayor Miner. Yes. Motion carries. The item is approved. Second reading public hearing is October 14th. R5D. R5D is an order from the Mayor, City Commissioner, City of Miami Beach, Florida amending Miami Beach Resiliency Code Chapter 6 entitled Signs Article 3 entitled Temporary Signs Section 6.3.2 thereof entitled Design Standards to Modify Requirements and Regulations Applicable to Construction Signs amending Chapter 7 entitled Zoning Districts and Regulations Article 5 entitled Supplementary District Regulations Section 7.5.1 entitled Generally Supplementary District Regulations. Section 7.5.1.6, they're all entitled vacant and abandoned properties and construction sites. By amending and expanding existing regulations for minimum fence and screening requirements and providing for codification repealers of ability on an effective date. This is a first reading public hearing. It requires 5.7's vote. It is item R5D. Commissioner Magazine.

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 structure. But a lot of times it really, Comes with an unaesthetic appearance for the neighborhood, especially when there's that green mesh that then gets ripped and things like that And what I am proposing is essentially It wouldn't be mandated however, it would give the option of Essentially having the more enhanced maybe you have the correct terminology for it, but more aesthetically pleasing fencing that surrounds a future property or project, think similar to the Convention Center Hotel and the beautiful, Ceramic almost looking fencing or matte fencing that has artistic value and things like that when I walk down Lincoln Road We have an exciting project that will come right next to the church site however, we have this very unfortunate chain fence with this green mesh that just doesn't uphold the standards that I want to see walking down Lincoln Road along some of our beachfront properties where we have these projects that can be years in the making until they get a building permit. I want to give the option of really enhancing that area with more aesthetically appealing and higher-end fencing, which right now is constraining these properties. I think a great example to point out is Lincoln Road, because you can see that every single day we're all trying to work hard. but until they have an actual building permit in place, they're actually constrained about the type of fence that they'd be able to have. I understand the concerns about being able to see through into a vacant lot. That does have some merit. Perhaps we could talk about how we could mitigate those, but Debbie, let me kick it over to you. You can correct all the areas I was likely wrong, and then take it from there.

No, thank you, Mr. Chair. That was a very good explanation. What this ordinance would also do is it would correct the lag that we often see between the time that a property receives a demolition permit and a building permit to construct whatever project is previously approved. So this would address that lag in terms of allowing them to move forward with an artistic graphic construction fence in lieu of the vacant property standards. So this would give them a 12-month period for that. This would also allow renderings of the approved or proposed project for the site to be much larger than they currently are. We had previously considered a rendering of the project to be part of the signage, and this corrects that, because I think a lot of people love to see the renderings. I know I do. People want to kind of look and see what's going in that location. So, yes, we are supportive. The planning board also was supportive of this.

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

For the vacant properties, for the construction site, we always allow the mesh. Okay. This will still, so that's not really changing in terms of the requirements. What this is doing is allowing more artistic graphics. I love that. So, yeah. Good job. Good job, Commissioner Magazine.

Through the Vice Mayor?

Or through the Mayor? Commissioner Boston.

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 that that becomes an issue for homeless and vagrancy concerns and public safety concerns. And so if that is in place before the fence goes up, then, um, the police can go in at the first call and deal with it quickly.

We have a motion.

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.

It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom, no one in the audience requesting to speak. It is item R5D. Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Mattel Salinas.

Yes.

Commissioner Magazine.

Yes.

Commissioner Suarez. Yes. Vice Mayor Dominguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Fernandez.

Yes.

Mayor Miner. Yes. Motion carries. Second reading public hearings scheduled for October 14th.

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.

R5E is an order from the Mayor and City Commissioner of the City of Manatee Beach, Florida, amending Chapter 30 of the Manatee Beach City Code, entitled Code Enforcement, by amending Article 2, entitled Special Magistrate, by amending Section 30-37, entitled Terms of Office Compensation, by amending the compensation of the Special Magistrates, providing for codification, repeal, or servability on an effective date. This is the second reading of public hearing. This is Item R5E. Commissioner Mateo Salinas.

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

Second.

All the vote.

I have a motion by Commissioner Monica Mateo Salinas, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom, no one in the audience requesting to speak. Roll call, Commissioner Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner Mateo Salinas.

Yes.

Mayor Dominguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Bott. Yes. Commissioner Suarez. Yes. Commissioner Magazine. Yes. Mayor Miner. Yes. Mayors say yes? Yes. Item is approved 7-0. That was item R5B. It is approved. Great.

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?

So we are recessing as a commission meeting and convening as the redevelopment agency. There are two items on the RDA this morning. Item one is grant RDA executive director authorization during RDA recess.

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

All in favor? Aye. So we're doing RDA 1, which is joint grant. It's a joint item, but it's a grant RDA executive director authorization during RDA recess. I move the item.

Second.

A motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. All in favor, please say aye. RDA 1. Aye. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, the item is approved 8-0. Now, we have... Yes, got it. Thank you. RDA 2 is approve assignment assumption RDA loans documents Meridian Place Apartments to MDC. Please note that this is a joint item with item C7O, Mayor, and that was separated from the consent agenda, so we may want to hear them both together.

Great.

Let's do that. So this is RDA 2. Welcome, Alba.

Hey, good morning. Alba Tarray, Office of Housing and Community Services. This item asks the board to approve the assignment and the assumption by the Miami-Dade County of the RDA and city loan documents on the Meridian Place Apartments. This is a 34-unit affordable senior housing property at 530 Meridian Avenue in connection with the county's purchase of the property from NBCDC Meridian. The property carries a $1.5 million RDA loan from 2007 and a $2.8 million city home loan from 2011, both with affordability covenants running through September 25th, 2043. And city approval is required because we are a party to those loan documents. This transfer is part of the county's ongoing acquisition of the remaining MBCDC portfolio, the same process we have already approved for the Jefferson Apartments back in 2024. And in exchange, the county will fund needed repairs, assign Royal American Management to operate the property, satisfy several outstanding mortgages, and continue to honor all existing affordability restrictions through 2043. We have Christian Arango, the Executive Director for NBCDC, as well as county staff members, if there's any questions.

Good morning, Mayor. Good morning, Commissioners. By way of introduction, I'm Christian Arango, known as Chris, and I'm very happy to be here. Thank you, Alba. It's been a journey. Hello. Hello, Mayor. How are you? Good.

Good morning.

I WAS STATING EARLIER THAT BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION I'M CHRISTIAN ARANGO. I REPRESENT THE MIAMI BEACH CDC. I HAVE BEEN SINCE DECEMBER OF 2021. IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALBA AND HER STAFF, WE'RE HERE REGARDING THE MATTER SET FORTH. AND I DO OPEN THE AUDIENCE RIGHT NOW FOR ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MERIDIAN PLACE LOCATED AT 530 MERIDIAN AVENUE. AND OTHER QUESTIONS THAT MAY TOUCH ON OR CONCERN THE PORTFOLIO THAT WILL BE EVENTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER SHORT AND SWEET.

NEW SPEAKER WE LIKE THAT.

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

So for NBCDC, they are transferring their portfolio to the county because of issues with maintenance and repairs and trying to keep the portfolio afloat and making sure affordability continues. They are in the process of transferring all of their properties.

Who's they?

Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, NBCDC, which is the agency that Christian Arango represents. They were the chodo of the city for a very long time back in 2007. In 2011, that's where these monies come from. There were funds that were placed from RDA as well as home dollars. So we're a party to this because since they want to do the transfer of the property, we would need to go through the board to get their approval.

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

Maintain these properties. And this one in particular, 530 Meridian.

If I may, through the chair, for further clarification, what this item does is it approves the assignment of mortgage and other loan documents from MVCDC to the county.

Does this save us resources?

The investment has already been placed back with the dollars back in 2011 in RDA funds. So this preserves affordability for this property.

Commissioner Mattias Salinas.

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. First of all, I just wanna make sure that, and I don't wanna, I'm not trying to block this, I'm not trying to hold it up. I'm grateful to the county for stepping in and for taking over this portfolio and for maintaining the affordability of these units. The CDC portfolio was, wasn't it 12 buildings?

The entire portfolio was larger, 14 buildings.

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 that this particular building at 530 Meridian Avenue is a very troublesome building. There was a shooting there three, four months ago where a tenant in the building and a gentleman that was I don't know who the gentleman was, but they got into a verbal altercation. I believe, and I could be wrong on this, and I know the chief is here, I believe the tenant of the building actually shot at the other gentleman. The bullet hit the building next door, their window, Which is a vacant storefront at this moment in time, but of course everyone I happen to live across the street from this building I live at five to five Meridian and everybody on that block knows that I am a commissioner and so Everybody I couldn't walk outside which is okay. I mean, that's what I signed up to do. And I actually love that building and I love those neighbors and you know, Ms. J still lives there. She still reaches out to me. There was another woman who was waking up at four in the morning. So this building is, can be problematic. We love them. We want to keep them there. We want to keep it affordable. But please, I just, I don't know who to reach out to other than Commissioner Lopez. And thankfully, I'm so grateful that you're a representative and we have a good relationship and you're so responsive because you are very responsive. And I remember I, you know, it's, but I just, that building can become problematic. And I just kindly ask that we are aware of this and we stay ahead of this and we address issues that come up.

Specifically to this building and frankly any of the buildings But for the most part the portfolios is works well, and it's in good hands, and it isn't good hands with the county too So those are just my thoughts Commissioner Lopez Thank You mr. Mayor so Thank You Commissioner Mateo Salinas for those comments I was unaware that we were having what I consider to be public safety issues at the building So maybe I would have my county staff address this the ways in which we can ensure that the residents are are secured and that these kind of problems are not taking place in the portfolio units that we are accepting and receiving.

May I respond to the Chair? To the Chair. Alexandro Bolaños, I serve as the asset manager on behalf of Miami-Dade County. So to your point, Commissioner, Meridian Place is a challenge being that we serve 20 units of formerly homeless households. We have a collaboration with the Homeless Trust and the assistance is with the City of Miami Beach Housing Authority. With that said, one of the challenges there is that the average was over leveraged. We have paid over a million dollars in institutional debt to date, and now we're absorbing the additional debt. Furthermore, we've expended a million dollars with the exterior, addressing the watery pit, you know, the water intrusion. We've repainted. The building looks really sexy from the outside. And we've done a lot of cleanup. We've been able to stabilize the occupancy. One of the things that we're doing now is that we are engaging with a consultant on implementing crime prevention through environmental design. So we are assessing the building, looking at all of the areas that we have exposure that are hidden and then coming up with a plan to ensure that we have more vigilance, more eyes on the property remotely and also discourage bad behavior. And one of the things that we also do is that when there's a problem we address it quickly and then that is the reason we have a lot of turnover because we are serving a hard to serve population. The residents in that program are referred. A lot of times we're able to accept maybe one in 10 applications because we do have a resident selection criteria. It is an elderly building. So there are challenges there, but we're very sensitive. But I believe that the event that you're referring to is isolated. I understand it was something with a solicitation of services and so with that said, we are mindful and we will continue to, the county already has invested tons of capital, so we have a lot of skin in the game. So it is in the best interest of everyone that we continue to manage it and keep it in compliance.

Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for Alex. Alex, how many units are in the building?

So there are 34 units in the building, 20 are single room occupancy units, and the 14 remaining are one bedrooms at 60% or below of AMI.

Okay, and I guess I'll make a comment. So I'm experiencing the same problem in buildings both on the mainland and here, where elderly people are living. And then we have reserved a number of units for the homeless population. My elderly residents are telling me that it's not working for them. They don't feel safe. They're not the same kind of people. They don't have the same challenges. that the elderly population have. And now they're really complaining that they don't feel safe. They leave the doors open. I mean, security in particular during the evening hours is important to elderly people. And they've seen that the doors are left open by some of the residents that were homeless. So it's an ongoing problem. And I've continued to say that I think when we house homeless people, we should do so with wraparound services. We should not just provide a home. They have been on the street, many who are suffering from mental illness, and do not have the skill set currently without the help of therapists, and support services that can help them make the transition in a better way that makes everyone safe. So it's an ongoing situation that I'm facing for my elderly residents. And I know, Alex, you've heard this already several times. So maybe you could just comment on what we're trying to do here, because it's important that we do house the formerly homeless. But we need to make sure that they feel like they are making successful and healthy transition without impacting negatively the other residents that don't that weren't formerly homeless so to the chair that may be

SRO program is housing first, so there is no wraparound. Unfortunately, the assistance tied to it is at 30% of AMI. So the rent, the contract rent is 30% AMI. So we don't even have enough, actually the program operates at a deficit. That's why the asset does not sustain without the county support, because it's over leveraged and then the assistance tied to it is not enough to underwrite operating costs. So at this time we cannot even, if we have the desire, employ supportive services, which is what's required. So it would be great if at some point the SRO contract could include enough revenue to employ the supportive housing component. That can be addressed, because that's really the challenge is that it's a housing first, so to the Commissioner's point, someone that came off the street, they're just giving, they're assigned a unit there, and then it's on property management to do the case management, which we don't have that capacity. I understand supportive housing, I'm a proponent of it. Villa Maddie is a supportive housing community, Fernwood is supportive housing. Those are very, Fernwood is very challenging, but you haven't heard anything because it's supportive housing and we've been able to work with HUD to ensure that it has the proper fiscal resources. Meridian doesn't have that avenue because it is a local housing authority contract. But again, we're gonna continue to work and if we're able to, over time, we should continue to see improvement. But to the commissioner's point, it is a difficult blend when you have a homeless population with an elderly housing. If there's no wraparound on site.

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 building are safe, all of them, and safety is their priority as well, and everyone on that block, and we're just mitigating any concerns that come up. So thank you, Commissioner.

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

Yes, yes. Sharzadi Mami, I'm counsel for Miami Beach CDC. I've been working with the CDC for over 10 years now, pro bono, helping the CDC through all of this and then transferring the assets to Miami-Dade County. All of these projects have affordability covenants, this one including. This one has two.

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

It's various types of funding. Your housing department can explain all the various types of funding that the city of Miami Beach has, either from HUD or from the state of Florida. This particular building, it depends on the building. This one has home funding. Home funding is a federal subsidy. It flows down through the states and then to the individual participating jurisdictions. You are a participating jurisdiction, the City of Miami Beach. So you got an allocation of home funds. You get an allocation of home funds really every year. And then those funds go into affordable housing projects.

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 to use the word project, but if this development was not owned by the government, what would happen?

Hold on.

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, we just moved him right in there. Is this a program where you go right from homeless into housing? So there's no in between intermediate steps?

For us, the home dollars that we have...

Very easy question.

Well...

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

The thing is that...

Yes or no?

Well, I... Yes, to a certain degree, because of other funding, not the city's funding. The city of Miami...

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 homeless people that likely didn't originate in Miami Beach and move them into housing. And then they are incompatible from the neighborhood to that working class neighborhood. Talking about shootings there. This is insane.

So I will say, Commissioner, having been an affordable housing attorney and advocate for 25 years now, I teach affordable housing law at the University of Miami. I have for 15 years. I know this area inside and out. And I understand your feeling about the location of the building. And wouldn't it be better to serve another alternative population? I will say that if the building did go market rate, those single working mothers would not be able to afford to live there.

I'm sorry, why?

Because if you go market rate in that area of Miami Beach or in Miami Beach in general, the rents are far too high and people can't afford to live there.

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 course, it's insulting to say a single mother couldn't afford a market rate unit there. That is the type of housing that we're taking offline, and if they can't afford it, it's because we're taking that market rate housing offline. I am a big believer in the most basic economic principle in the world, supply and demand. If you take that supply off market and you give it to a homeless person that last night was on the street, that is why, then the rest of the working class neighborhood housing becomes more expensive. Simple supply and demand, the most basic economic principle that has ever existed in mankind.

How big are these units?

And if I could just respond to that, I think that in terms of... How big are the units?

If I make it to the chair, zero bedrooms and one bedroom. So there are 20 zero bedrooms and 14 one bedrooms. They are small units.

How big?

So they're about 500 square feet.

Commissioner Fernandez.

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 what Commissioner Lopez very well pointed to, the lack of the wraparound services. whether it be the elderly individual or whether it be the formerly homeless individual. It is a segment of population that when you provide them with housing, you need to provide them with the balance of the services. Is there a way Is there a way that perhaps on a temporary basis that we can look at providing for case management? Because we either provide for a certain level of case management on the front end, at the beginning, or eventually they're going to make their way to your office at 777 or or you're gonna end up with situations like those that have been described. So that we can achieve that balance, provide the housing, especially to, when you're talking about 30% of AMI, a lot of times those are the elderly individuals. Now I understand there's also the balance of the formerly on homeless individuals. Can we look at that? Can we look at seeing is there on a temporary basis until the county and maybe we can work with the county through Commissioner Lopez to see if on a more permanent basis we can get wraparound services?

So these placements for the units are made by the Homeless Trust of Miami-Dade County. When we put in our monies, our home dollars and our RDA monies, we didn't have any restrictions on homeless individuals. We only put affordable housing as one of the covenants for us. Now, as they added additional dollars into the project, that's where the attachment of homelessness came in. It was not through the city of Miami Beach. It was through the county.

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?

Many years ago. Can I just speak to the chair? Back in 2014, the agreement was added for the homeless trust component. That is a, it was initially a 10-year term. That has matured. Right now, it's on an annual basis.

on an annual basis, and when does that expire?

It expired in 2024, and we've just done it annually because, again, we're not in a position to ask them to leave without a...

So perhaps this is something that...

But it's annual right now based on appropriation, so this is not dollars that are local. These are dollars that are managed by the Housing Authority of the City of Miami Beach. They receive an appropriation from HUD, and then they're using that to provide the housing, and since the rents are so low, it's just they have the appetite to keep them there.

Through the chair.

The contract rents are very low.

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

The city got dollars in 2011. And we put in home dollars with a 30-year affordability.

Right, but that was for the 30% of AMI.

That was for up to 80% AMI. That was our focus and our intention when we put in the dollars for this project, affordable. Not homeless, affordable. So after they got different funding sources, and that's where the homeless trust piece comes in. But yes, and these units are managed by, well, NBCDC at that point, now with this, the county, But the vouchers in and of itself are the homeless trust and Miami Beach Housing Authority vouchers.

And just to clarify, the 80 to 120% of AMI range, which is what the city of Miami Beach initially funded on this development, is considered workforce housing in the affordable housing industry. So this building was an affordable slash workforce housing building initially. And it is primarily an elderly building because of the small unit size. So the SRO funding came in at a later date and it is not from, it is from the homeless trust.

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 together with the homeless trust and our housing authority to say, okay, here in Miami Beach, what do we have a greater need for? Do we have a greater need to House the formerly homeless population right here in Miami Beach, or does this area need more of the workforce housing or even the elderly housing? What would be the best use of that property? And maybe we can ask the county. and the Housing Authority to look into that before they make a new commitment for the next year. Is that something that you guys can consider?

May I respond? Mr. Mayor, so... Well, I have Commissioner Suarez.

Oh, sorry.

No, no, no worries.

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.

Sorry, Commissioner Suarez. I just want to say I don't understand how up to 80% AMI would ever have been workforce housing.

Between 80% to 120% of AMI is considered workforce housing. Below 80% of AMI is considered affordable housing.

Okay, so is that a Miami beat? In the county, affordable housing is 60% to 120%. And if it's workforce, it's 60% to 140%.

Yes, that's the county designation. There's a HUD designation. So the HUD designation is 80% to 120% of AMI is considered workforce. Below 80%, which is what low income housing tax credit developments are, those are between usually 60% to 80% of AMI. And then we have other HUD programs, such as the ones that are on this property, like HOME, which is 80% is the max.

So I guess to your question, I don't know that anybody who's living in that building is anywhere close to 80% AMI. Most elderly people are not even at 30% AMI. If you look at the new AMI charts, they're at 20% AMI. So the problem that you're going to be facing with the lack of revenues is an elderly person living on Social Security does not get an increase every year. However, the rent is increasing every year. So by the third year, an elderly person actually doesn't have and can't afford to live Miami-Dade. I'm watching it across all 35 of my elderly buildings in my district. So there's one problem because it doesn't generate enough revenue and yet the next problem is the one you have encountered which is the homeless trust. So who knew and how they decide to disperse HOMELESS PEOPLE, IT TO ME IS A PROBLEM ONLY BECAUSE ELDERLY PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT THAN REGULAR. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT CHALLENGES WHEN THEY'RE 80, 85, 90, AND 95 YEARS OLD. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW, NOW THAT I'VE LEARNED THROUGH THIS MEETING THAT WE HAVE AN ANNUAL Contract I guess for all 20 are all 20 units being used by the the homeless trust Yes, am I correct?

So if I may do the chair if I I just want to clarify So the agreement is between the housing authority of City of Miami Beach. The referrals are made through the homeless trust so the instruments between Meridian Place and And the contract are between the property and the housing authority of City of Miami Beach. The referrals are made through the homeless trust. So I just want to make sure for the record. Good clarification. If I may go back in a little bit of history, I can be corrected.

Excuse me. Yes.

I'm done. Thank you.

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

It was developed using home dollars, which is at or below 80% of area median income. So the initial idea was to combine the home dollars and to combine other subsidy from the city of Miami Beach to make this an elderly project.

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

It was the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, which is a nonprofit corporation. It was founded by Dennis Rusk. in the 80s. And the organization took dilapidated buildings all through Miami Beach, particularly South Beach, renovated them and used HUD dollars primarily so that those buildings could be renovated and then rented to individuals that are at or below 80% of area median income. Most of the properties within the portfolio serve elderly individuals and individuals that are at or below either 50% or 60% of AMI.

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

Correct. Correct. That was an additional subsidy through the city of Miami beach housing authority at, but the, but the funding dollars come through the homeless trust and the placement of the residents.

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

Exactly, there's there's a funding amount that subsidizes the and we have no control over those referrals, correct?

I can explain so if I just to go a little bit back so the 2014 the property the ownership at that sponsorship at the time entered into an agreement with the Housing Authority of Miami Beach that gave them the a rental subsidy The rental subsidy was to serve formerly homeless individuals. So the referrals are through the homeless trust. I cannot tell you that the homeless trust has stake in the game. I know that they do the referrals. The funding comes from the housing authority.

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

The housing authority.

The housing authority.

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

Not to our knowledge. It was between the ownership at that time and the housing authority. And it appears that it was done because at that time, that's when there were a lot of challenges fiscally. Those are zero bedroom units, which is a majority of the units. And it appears that it was done in order to be able to rent the units and then have some GUARANTEED REVENUE. THAT'S WHAT IT APPEARS. IT WAS PRETTY MUCH A BAND-AID TO KEEP THE BUILDING, TO STABILIZE THE BUILDING AND ALLOW IT TO THEN SERVE ALSO A NEED.

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 SERIOUS ISSUES IN THE PAST. I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THE HOMELESS TRUST AND COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, YOU'VE SEEN MY CONCERNS WITH MR. BOOK. HE PLAYS WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES AS PONDS. AS WE'VE SEEN in here, in South Beach. So we're very cautious when someone says the homeless trust because it's really run by, in my opinion, someone who has no business running the homeless trust. So is there something, Mr. City Attorney, is there something that we can do where the City of Miami Beach can control who gets placed in there?

Well, at first blush and without having reviewed all of the documents, I believe that the transaction before you today is to transfer ownership from the NBCDC to the county. So I believe that the county, if anybody is in a position to do something to modify the structure there and who is eligible, it would fall to the county to do so.

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, if we don't agree to this assignment, I'm not sure what position that MB CDC is in and whether it would trigger a default and potentially a foreclosure on the property Mike Mike Mike Commissioner Bob Commissioner Suarez, I apologize.

Yeah.

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 this particular building has a lot of Miami-Dade County subsidy as well. So there is an MOU, there's an agreement, a binding agreement between Miami Beach CDC and Miami-Dade County to transfer all of the assets in the portfolio to Miami-Dade County.

So then why do we need this meeting today?

So because you all hold two mortgages on the property, that is the purpose of the meeting. There are two loans that are from the City of Miami Beach Housing Department to this particular property that we're talking about today. So because you have these two mortgages, you as the mortgage holder need to consent. to the sale, it's not really a sale, it's a transfer to Miami-Dade County, and Miami-Dade County assuming those loans. Those loans are not payable loans. They're forgivable loans. There's no debt service.

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

Well, if you approve this, the idea would be that if the issue, as I'm hearing today, are the SRO units, right, the formerly homeless units, Miami-Dade County then, as the owner of the property, would need to decide, do we renew the SRO contract or do we not renew it? The project as a whole...

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.

Well, I would defer that to the city attorney and you know, to the county as well.

You know, conversation could be had with the county to see if they're willing to, eliminate those SRO units, I believe you refer to them as, as part of this transaction. Do you have that authority single-handedly, Commissioner?

Unfortunately, I do not. Our Housing and Community Development Department is under the mayor, and we have a strong mayor, so I'd have to work with her. I'm already struggling with the same issue. of formerly homeless people being put into units where only elderly people live. So I already have a meeting scheduled with the housing and community development team to discuss this very issue. The real issue is I don't know whether the county entered into a contract with the homeless trust to place homeless, formerly homeless people in any unit that is affordable, I guess. Because somebody's funding it. I don't know if the formerly homeless are working. I don't know that, right? What I know is that the elderly have retirement, and they are forced to pay 30% of their revenue stream, whatever it is, whether it's a second job or their retirement. to live in these buildings. So is this a project-based? Is this a Section 8 project-based?

This is not project-based, Section 8.

These are vouchers that the elderly have?

Some of the units, some of the tenants would probably have vouchers. And I can refer to the county more because they know the actual structure of the makeup of the building. But that is actually the reason, and Commissioner Suarez, this goes to your point as well, why these buildings and these subsidies were created. They were created so that the rents would not increase on the elderly population. That's why they have these covenants. The covenants that are recorded against these projects make it so that the rents are only increasing very slightly according to the HUD standards. Up to 7%. So the rents are capped. Right? So they cannot continue to go up, which is why these are, you know, good places for our seniors to live so that they're not concerned with this rapid escalation in rents that we're seeing every place else.

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. This is a national problem. But at the same time, we have other issues. And before we create new homeless families, I think we need to prioritize those folks. Because putting people who are living on the streets without the wraparound services, without psychiatric and medical care, without job training, without all the services, and just putting a roof over their head, we hear from the police department and from Alba's shop time and time again that people they pick up again have places to live, but they are not able to. because of the way they have evolved as adults. And so to me, that is doing a disservice to them, and it's also not making the best, highest use of that real estate. Second of all, I would like to have a real conversation about how the land value of that property exceeds the value of the current building. I am not proposing a live local project there. Do not, anybody, mistake what I'm suggesting. However, we have had an incredibly beautifully designed, very successful project up in North Beach, the Vista Breeze. Did I get the name right? Mm-hmm. And I don't know if it's comparable, but I do know there's all kinds of public and private money that was put into it where it's beautiful, it's secure, it is a place where you can live in dignity, not in a squalid SRO. Listen, a 500 square foot studio for a senior person living on a very fixed income can be a lovely place to live if it is carefully, thoughtfully designed. If the plumbing doesn't leak, if there's working air conditioning, if you have plenty of natural light, if you are soundproofed, it doesn't have to have gold-plated faucets and a 70,000-foot amenity deck. So this live local BS, not interested. But I would like to have a conversation about it, perhaps. And I don't know if the MOU is ironclad. There is no way to get out of it. But it was done in 2012, you said, or 2014? Needs, times, priorities, opportunities were different. So I would like to make a motion to defer so that many of these conversations that we're having up here can be discussed so that we can find a better use for this to help incentivize, encourage, and create housing for workforce housing. Second. Thank you. And it might also have some... housing for people coming off the streets who have shown that they, you know, it might have multiple levels of HUD-mandated AMIs. And that's part of the conversation. But to squander this opportunity with land that we own currently and to turn it over for more of the same, I'm not comfortable with it.

I'm just one clarification. Please, thank you. Sorry, the city of Miami Beach does not own the land. It's the nonprofit organization. The Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, correct. You have two mortgages, so you have two leads.

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's a motion and a second to defer. And with the mayor's permission, I'd like it if you could call the vote.

One more thing.

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.

Correct. You're a lender.

So we've paid for this on the tax?

You paid for it with federal dollars, federal dollars that came to the city of Miami Beach for the purposes of affordable housing.

But we're the principal loan owner, correct?

Yes, correct. You hold the whole debt.

So we don't actually own anything then. We just have a loan on the property.

And both of the loans are forgivable loans. There's no debt service.

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'm going to ask Gisela, who's at the podium.

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.

Just a very quick question. Yes. Would a deed in lieu of foreclosure be an option here, or because of the source of funds, is the natural course simply for the property to go to the county, and then the county to be responsible for what comes next?

We're basically, we are, we hold two mortgages, And each of these mortgages provides that in the event of a sale, that we would be paid. So we have the option of getting paid, or we have the option of assigning and having the county assume these are restrictive covenant, which will require that the property be maintained affordable through 2043. How much are the loans? The city mortgage also has a reversionary provision. We're here discussing the RDA loan, which is $1.5 million. There's a city mortgage that's $2.8 million and something that has a reversionary provision in that mortgage that states that at the end of the affordability period the city has the option of either extending the affordability period further or requiring that the owner transfer the property back to the city. That was done, excuse me, and that's not a common provision, but that was done because those $2,800,000 were used in connection partially with the purchase of the property. So because it was a large amount, and using connection with the purchase of the property, that additional restriction was inserted in the mortgage at that time.

Thank you. I think what I'll do is I'm going to look further into the loan documents to see whether if this is something that the Commission and or the RDA Board at a later date wants to consider, whether a deed in lieu of foreclosure where the city takes back the property, if that's something that the Board has an appetite to do, is an option. But I need to look into that more closely.

Commissioner, oh, I'm sorry. Just just if I could just so everyone understands I did you by the way, you've been very helpful, but I really got to keep this money Just the county the the county holds Mortgages that are that are also senior to the city of Miami Beach So it wouldn't just be as simple as a deed in lieu because the county would have the senior priority on what to do Well, you definitely come across as an expert as you identified Commissioner Mateo Salinas

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 very big issue in our city, everywhere, affordable housing. Okay, I would love to have you, Commissioner Lopez, and anyone, because it's a very, very deep, convoluted issue, and I just want to clear the record on a lot of issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez, we get to see you again at our meeting, so we'll look forward to it. I'm delighted.

Thank you.

We have a motion from Commissioner Bott. Second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Bott to defer to September 10th, seconded originally by Commissioner Fernandez. This is RDA 2. All in favor of deferring it to...

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, so October?

October, yeah.

So the October meeting, I believe it is October 14th. Yep.

Okay, all in agreement?

So we're deferring RDA 2 to October 14, motion by Commissioner Bott, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, this item is deferred via 8-0. May I have the same motion for companion item C-7-0? Moved. Yeah. Okay, so I'll just do an acclamation, both of the joint items.

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.

We'll get through this.

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.

R9G is proposed near agreement with Sodexo Live for Miami Beach Convention Center food beverage services, 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.

Yes, Mayor. This item is a referral to the Finance Committee to discuss the contract and extending the contract on a month-to-month basis through December of this year.

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 nothing going on. Anyway, it's a great service to our residents and I found that it's been challenging to find that balance. So we'll continue to work on that and make sure that's part of the contract when it comes up for a vote.

Mr. Mayor.

Commissioner Fernandez.

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 possible caters so that there can be competition in that part of the contract as well.

There actually has been five.

Five, okay.

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.

Let's call the vote. I have a motion for the referral to the Finance Committee by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Dominguez. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, R9G is referred to FERC. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

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

R5G is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending Chapter 10 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, entitled Animals, by amending Section 10-11, thereof entitled Running at Large Prohibited Exceptions, by providing a grace zone extending from the perimeter of the area designated by the City Manager for the benefit of the owner of an unleashed animal who inadvertently allows his or her animal to stray outside the approved perimeter, and providing for repealer, survivability, codification, and effective date. This is a second reading public hearing. It is item R5G.

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 park isn't fenced. And I move my item.

Motion by Commissioner Suarez. Seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. It is a public hearing. I see someone on Zoom. Joanna? I'm sorry.

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

My concerns are the same as they were before. That park is unique. It is unfenced. But there were so many people that had written me and sent videos of what happens there. So I'm concerned about that. adding leeway for unleashed outside of that particular area. And maybe something to look at for the future would be to fence in that area because there have been dogs that have bitten people and get into fights with other dogs. So it's not an area that's without its issues. But that's my concern.

Tudor.

Commissioner Bhat.

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 issues with dog owners with their dogs off leash, attacking children, attacking cat feeders, attacking other dogs. And we need less chaos, not more of it. So I will be a no on this.

We have a motion. I have a motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. It is a public hearing. I have no one here in the audience requesting to speak. I have three in Zoom. Joanna, please go ahead. Joanna, please unmute yourself. Hello, do you hear me? Yes, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Joanna Berinska, 90 Alpen Road.

Instead of speaking, I have submitted the video to the audiovisual department. I'm asking the mayor for about two minutes, 25 seconds to play a video, if possible. It's called off-leash, thank you.

I'm looking at our communications department.

I'm not... PJ, if you don't have it, let's go to the next one, and we could always go back to it, but let's continue to the next caller.

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.

So let's go to Brian Teasley. And Brian has two callers here, so let's just pick one, PJ, and go with that.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Brian Teasley, 90 Alton Road, Commissioner Magazine. I lived at 8th and Mercer in the village for more than a decade, felt the same way about opportunities in that town as you do. Unfortunately, at the first reading of this proposal, Commissioner Suarez did a bit of a sales job on you and on Mayor Miner and two of the other commissioners. He said something like, I just don't think Fluffy's owner should be given a ticket, a citation for an off-leash dog, if the dog just happens to stray outside for briefly, momentarily, he used those words, and for just chasing a squirrel or a ball or something like that. Now, at the moment, nobody is being given a ticket in that situation. What this proposal actually does, and you need to be very careful about this, it creates an off-leash zone 100 feet around the perimeter of the current off-leash park in which you can have an off-leash dog for up to five minutes. And that's a lot of squirrels and a lot of stray balls. So I went down, I walked around the park, 100 feet around the current park gives you the entirety of the entrance fountains, the walkway along the water, and all the way to the artistic lighthouse that everybody sits around and has picnics around. So if you pass this ordinance, these guys with the Rottweilers, the Dobermans and the other very dangerous dogs are going to walk into the park with the dogs off leash. They're going to wander around. They're going to go to the promenade. They're going to wander over to the lighthouse. And after that time, they're going to look around and they're going to say, oh, there's no park ranger. So five minutes of off-leash time is going to become 10, might become 15. And then finally, when one of the park rangers shows up, they're simply going to leash the dog.

Thank you, sir. Our next caller is Andres Acion.

Good morning, Commissioner. I go to that park with my dog probably two or three times a day. So I'm very familiar with the area. I would say that the idea of the fence is a great idea. Second thing, I've never seen any ranger ever ticket anybody with an off-leash dog before. Ever. So we're going after trying to prevent something that's happened that I don't think has ever happened. I'm curious to know how many citations have been given to people with off-leash dogs. Every single time a ranger comes by and sees, you know, there's several people that run with their dogs off-leash in that area, and whenever a ranger comes by, they tell them something, they leash them. But I don't think that there's ever been a ticket given to anybody with an off-leash dog in that area. So I would just recommend that idea of the fence be implemented for that area and have a nice fence for that dog park. Thank you.

Mayor, that concludes the public hearing portion of this item. Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Bach.

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 about not caring for dogs, having a preference for one type of dog over another, anything like that. It's just a public safety issue. And I would be very supportive of putting a fence in to make a large dog park where you could let your dogs off leash within the dog park without putting anybody else at risk.

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 minutes to collect or to get your dog. So I'm okay to amend that and I think that's perfectly reasonable. Again, this isn't designed to make it an off-leash zone 150 feet from the park. I think this is just to say to any enforcement officer, there's a two-minute grace period. If it just so happens that your dog runs, you're not going to be cited for that. So I'd like to make that amendment from five minutes to two minutes.

We can take care of that.

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.

A motion by Commissioner Suarez as amended with a two-minute grace period, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. Vice Mayor Dominguez?

No.

Commissioner Suarez? Yes. Commissioner Ba?

No.

Commissioner Magazine? Yes. Commissioner Fernandez? Yes. Commissioner Mattel-Salinas?

Yes.

Mayor Miner? Yes. Motion passes. The item is approved. That was item R5G.

R5F.

R5F is an Orders of the Mayor, City Commissioner of the City of Miami Beach, Florida amending Chapter 30 of the Miami Beach City Code entitled Code Enforcement by amending Article 2 entitled Special Magistrate at Section 30-37 thereof entitled Terms of Office Compensation to amend the procedures for establishing the compensation for special magistrates other than the chief special magistrate and providing for repeal or servability applications at an effective date. This is item R5F.

Commissioner Mateo Salinas.

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.

Yeah, and I just wanted to mention that this particular item basically aligns the special magistrates with the chief special magistrate that the manager can currently set the hourly rate for, as you've seen with me in the last six months. My intention would always be to bring that to you for consideration, but this does align the two so they're not different rules.

I move my item.

Second. Call the vote. A motion by Commissioner Mateo Salinas, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom and no one in the audience requesting to speak. Commissioner Bott. Yes. Mayor Dominguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Fernandez? Yes. Commissioner Suarez? Yes. Commissioner Mateo Salinas? Yes. Commissioner Magazine? Yes. Mayor Miner? Mayor? Yes. Thank you. This is item R5F. It is approved 7-0. Second meeting public hearing is scheduled for September 10th.

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

Authorized geobond stormwater moratorium on water sewer rates our 7b is geobond for stormwater only Option 1 our 7c is geobond for stormwater water and sewer option 2 and our 9d is discussed geobond for stormwater capital fund water sewer program and

Welcome, John. Good morning, John Norris, Public Works Director. I'm bringing back the two options that were requested at the last Commission meeting. We had started discussing the GO bond option to fund water and sewer infrastructure and critical infrastructure projects. So we had two options that we were asked to bring forward. One was an all-geo bond option to fund our 10-year capital improvement plan, and the other was a hybrid option. If you remember a few months ago, we came to City Commission to request a rate increase on water, sewer, and stormwater rates. What we've done with the hybrid option is we are requesting a water and sewer rate increase, which was about half of the rate increase. And then we're looking at a geobond option for the stormwater projects associated with the 10-year CIP plan. If we could pull up the presentation, PJ. It's a very short presentation, only a few slides. So what we did, we looked at who are the residents of Miami Beach. 90% of the residents of Miami Beach live in condominiums, not single family homes. So it makes sense to look at the cost to a condominium dwelling resident. We took a sampling of condos throughout the city. Condos have master meters. Each resident is not paying their own water bill. It's split up amongst all the residents. We took the total water bill for a sampling of condos throughout the city and we divided them by the number of units to come up with what is the average expenditure per condo dweller in the city? IN ADDITION, WE CAME UP WITH ASSOCIATED VALUES OF THOSE CONDOS, WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, WHICH IS BASED ON AN INCREASED MILLAGE RATE. SO THE TOTAL EXPENSE WILL BE BASED ON THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. YOU SEE THE FIRST VALUE THERE IS $318,570. THAT IS THE MEDIAN HOME VALUE FOR A HOMESTEADED PROPERTY IN MIAMI BEACH. AND THEN $966,000 $857 is the average homesteaded value in the city. And then we threw in some other values just to put perspective on what the cost difference would be based on the type of, or the value of the home that you owned. So as you can see for the condos, The variance was cheaper for the hybrid option. That option again includes increasing the water and sewer rates, only increasing the stormwater rate by CPI, which is a current ordinance, and then doing a geo bond for the stormwater component of the capital improvement plan. So those two columns of numbers, 1770202 down to 586049, that's the combined utility bill and portion of the property owner's tax bill associated with the GO bond. So on the left-hand column, all the projects will be funded through GO bond. On the right-hand column, only the stormwater projects will be paid for through GO bond. As you would expect, as the property value goes up, the variance gets greater because the weight on the GO bond is greater on those higher value properties. So this is for a condo. You can see in all cases that we sampled, the hybrid option is a cheaper way to go. And by the way, this is an annual cost, not a monthly cost. So you can divide that by 12, and that gives you an idea of what the monthly cost would be. We did that because a tax bill is annual. Then we looked at single-family residential homes. THAT ARE HOMESTEADED. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE SAME MEDIAN VALUE, THE SAME AVERAGE VALUE, AND THE SAME SAMPLE VALUES GIVEN. YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST LINE, THE ALL GEO BOND OPTION IS THE BETTER WAY TO GO AT AN ASSESSED VALUE OF $318,570. There aren't many single family homes with that assessed value in the city. There are some that exist. There are likely houses that were purchased 30, 40, 50 years ago and have been homesteaded since then, so the assessed value has been locked in at a 3% maximum increase. The bulk of the homes are going to fall, I'm sorry, the bulk of the single family homes are gonna fall far above that amount. So you could see in those cases, it's a better option to do the hybrid. This is the original proposed rate adjustment. I just wanted to bring this slide up to put in perspective what we were originally talking about, which has brought us to where we are right now. The average single family home using 5,000 gallons per month currently pays $138 a month Over a 10-year period, that would increase to $231 per month. And you can see the associated adjustments each year. The adjustments start higher and then taper off and go more towards the CPI adjustment. This is a rate increase that we are proposing with the hybrid option. If you remember, I said we're taking away the stormwater rate increase and only doing the water and sewer rate increase, which those are two distinct enterprise funds. It's important to note that these enterprise funds operate like a business. We do not typically receive money from the general fund to fund water, sewer, and stormwater. We receive the revenue from the users, the water bill, and all of our expenses come out of that. That includes our operating expenses and our capital improvements. This shows the original proposed rate adjustment versus the all-geo bond versus the hybrid model. Again, what you can see is for the lowest value, There's a savings for the all geo bond, the 318. That's a single family residential though, so it is very limited. And then as you get up towards the $5 million value, the monthly cost goes up significantly. And I'm gonna open it to any questions that anybody might have.

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, you don't have a specific water meter for each unit, correct? You have a master meter. You divide however many gallons and then you divide by units in there and you have an average per unit. So just to put it into perspective, if you have a household with a median income of 310 or what was on the slide?

A median value of 318,000. 318,000, correct.

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 household, correct, with the median income, and you're using 5,000 gallons a month, which option is more expensive?

Well, it depends on the value of the, the assessed value of the property. So, median and below? Medium below the all-Geo bond would be more advantageous.

Okay.

By how much? That number was $97 annually, so... Over the course? $8 a month?

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

Over the course of that 10 years, and it would be $970 over 10 years. Okay. Actually, I I'm sorry. Let me restate that the numbers we are giving you are for the highest debt service year, which would be 2035 so it actually be Progressive up to that point. So that's not an accurate statement.

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 standing. You know, I want to hear how my colleagues feel about what we potentially could be doing on this because I'm still, I'm not even sure where I stand on this yet. I want to hear from a few others and see how do they wrestle with the idea that the most challenged residents in terms of affordability are going to be Not as, it's going to hurt them more than the ones who aren't challenged financially.

Yeah, if I could, Commissioner. So we used an average. These buildings have one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom units, sometimes four and five bedroom units. That is the best approach that we could take. The lower assessed value units are likely going to be your one bedroom and two bedroom units. And while your usage might be averaging about 3,200 gallons a month, Conventional wisdom would say that the lower assessed value units are going to be smaller with fewer fixtures. So it would actually have less usage. So that would bring that number down. This is the best way we have to come up with it.

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?

There are 18 buildings that were sampled of varying sizes and varying geographic locations and ages as well.

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.

Yes, sir. The the lowest value for were the ones where the all-geo bond worked better. However, again, we have to, if we had a way to prorate that usage, if we had a meter for every condo, this would be a very easy exercise. We don't. We are averaging across the building. I live in a condo building. We have predominantly one-bedroom units in the building. I live in a three bedroom because I have a bunch of kids, but that average is going to be skewed based on the number of bedrooms and number of fixtures per unit. So again, this is just an exercise that we're going to try to come up with overall the best approach to funding the capital improvement plan for all of our residents.

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 in this direction. Apology accepted. And this is where I hope to go with this, right? We're getting so caught up in the weeds about geo bond versus revenue bond and what portion it should be. Let's take a step back and ask what we're trying to achieve. Two primary things. move forward, which we all collectively agree is needed, with critical, critical infrastructure and resiliency projects that have been kicked down the road until this Commission said, enough's enough, we won't be the Commission that keeps kicking it down the road. So that is the number one challenge that our residents face every single storm season, every single summer. We need to be serious about moving forward with these infrastructure and resiliency challenges. The second needle that we need to thread is affordability. We all see our residents are impacted by the increased cost of living, and we're doing everything that we can, evidenced by our budget meeting last Friday, where we sat here for hours and hours and cut millions and millions and millions of dollars of recurring spending. So, instead of getting further caught up in trying to decipher which funding mechanism is best, I think the best way to achieve those two primary objectives is moving forward with critical infrastructure and resiliency and keeping costs low, is we take that list that was given us to the administration that we're essentially thinking about moving forward with now. The total is about what, John? About $775 million in present value? Yes, sir. Right? And we say, we're actually going to pare that down right now. Right? We're only going to move forward with those items that we can all help to define that are mission critical. That being No neighborhood gets favored or benefited, but the projects that we can either move forward with right away or we lose state or federal funding or that we need to do because they are critical, because we have pipes bursting. When I went through this project list with John, there's some projects on here. in part of this number that we're contemplating borrowing for, that have no physical way of being done in the next 10, 12 years. We're borrowing for things like First Street Phase 3 and 4. We're authorizing borrowing. That's not going to get completed within 15 years, if ever. This project list, we would need to implement a new public works and CIP department to undertake all of these in the next 10 years. These are huge undertakings and it is very, very robust. So what I would propose is we scale down the amount that is being proposed by the administration somewhere around what is contemplated under the utility rate for the hybrid option, around $430 million, something along those lines, right? We find the mixture of stormwater and water projects that are mission critical, that total in aggregate to about that $430 million, and we borrow through those how these projects are typically borrowed through utility rate funding. And that saves everybody versus what is being proposed here, poorest and most vulnerable to the richest. And in five years from now, if you come and tell us, you know what, we've been able to make so much progress, it's time that we can be serious about these more ambitious pie-in-the-sky type things, then we can have a renewed discussion around that. But if we're trying to thread the needle of affordability and cost efficiency, I really don't see the need that we need to borrow here $750 or $775 million. We borrow now for only the projects that are mission critical. that we have significant federal and state funding for that we would lose if we don't do, a combination of stormwater neighborhood improvement projects and critical water and stormwater projects. And we travel on the same path that the utility rate portion of the hybrid would have traveled. So in September, we come back for first reading and we say, we're here to authorize, let's call it 400, $450 million that would reflect a much scaled down increase to everybody across the income spectrum. than is being proposed in either the full geobond method or the hybrid method, right? We save $300 million of costs that, regardless of what funding mechanism, would be borne by our residents. So we achieve affordability by really paring down this wish list into nice to have, into really let's fund the meat and potatoes, the things that are very critical right now, and not just right now, but for the next couple of years, give you breathing room to do these projects. Give our residents breathing room so we're not in construction paralysis. And we move forward, and by definition, we've actually achieved significant cost savings versus either one of those options that are being proposed just by the sheer reduction in the total amount that we're borrowing.

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?

No, we would be borrowing as we needed it. So the debt service would not hit until later on certain projects. One concern I have, unless we take, let's say, our first five years of projects and we spread that out over the next 10 years, then I see that we would realize savings. But if we say we're going to do the first five years and we're going to borrow all that money in five years, I'm not a finance guy. but I think the financial hit is still gonna be the same because we're gonna be doing the same thing in five years for that second half of the CIP program. Now if we do spread this out, and I do wanna be clear, we have actually spread this out significantly. When we started this exercise, we looked at, can we deliver these projects in this time period? And we went back and forth and decided, no, we couldn't. So we started just pushing stuff out, pushing stuff out, till we thought it was a manageable, now aggressive, but manageable CIP plan. But I would like maybe Jason to comment on the financial impact of that.

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 authorizing now, but the numbers that we're authorizing are being reflected in what these proposed rates are. So we essentially cap that and say, until we revisit this discussion, you have $400 whatever number we decide on, million dollars of projects that you can borrow to. So by definition, that is a much, much less increase than what we were proposing in either of these two methods.

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 the water rates for decades. And we've, the city has, the city commission before us, commissions before us have not focused on this, so we now have a backlog of projects. And if you could provide a little color on that, and then how long it's taken us to get to where we are today, because my concern, and I'm not, a Pollyanna, I'm not pretending that we're going to get all the projects done in the next 10 years, but to defer decision making on half the projects which affect the entire city for some future commission which may or may not have the stones to do what needs to be done. I'm not really comfortable with that unless you can tell me that that list of lesser than projects really doesn't matter to the residents across the city. I'd like to hear John's answer and the CFO's answer to your earlier question.

Just to clarify, there are CPI increases, right?

Yes, there have been CPI increases, not on the impact fees, but CPI increases have been done as part of an ordinance that was adopted for the water and sewer rates, just not the impact fees, which the Commission corrected a few months ago. I've been working on this since I got here since we met and then two previous public works directors have been working on This rate increase as well. So it's probably two to three years.

I think Jason might be able to expand on that Yeah, I can add a little to that Jason green chief financial officer. I think it probably starts back in 2017 I think when we started the city part of me getting here, you know, we're endeavored on developing its critical needs program and its NIPs and getting those approved. It's been a long, long process. There was a rate ordinance put in place that set rates to be at CPI, but those first, I think, four or five years were set artificially low. And during that timeframe, inflation was higher than that. So I think that the city lost out on inflation by 10%. So the rates would have been 10% higher. Actually, what was interesting in working with the public works team on this is when they looked at the year 2035 and they looked at what the utility rates would be, the average utility bill would be, the new ordinance that is being proposed on just the water and sewer having increased versus the existing was a 10% increase. KIND OF WAS JOKING WITH JOHN WAS THAT IF THEY JUST SET THE CPI BACK IN 17 AND LEFT IT ALONE, WE MIGHT EVEN BE HERE FOR AT LEAST ON THE WATER AND SEWER COMPONENT. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING. AND THEN TO THE ELEMENT OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON NOW, THIS GOES BACK I WANT TO SAY APRIL OF 25. SO, YEAH, IT'S BEEN PROBABLY A YEAR AND A HALF THAT THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS. WE STARTED WITH UTILITY RATES AND THAT WAS KIND OF postponed for a bit utility rates again these were unanimous approval at finance it was postponed it came back to the finance committee utility rates again were were fully endorsed then it was postponed again and then we took a couple different tax based on commission discussion with geo bonds and here we are with a hybrid model that we think is the way to be able to move forward thank you all right i got commissioner fernandez and commissioner suarez

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, NOT JUST UTILITY RATE CHARGES, BUT ALSO WHAT THE ANNUAL G.O. BOND CONVERTED INTO A MONTHLY AMOUNT WOULD BE? YES, SIR. And the figures that you showed there assumed that all those households were consuming about 5,000 gallons per month under every scenario.

For the single-family homes, the condos were an average of 3,200 gallons per month, per unit. Okay.

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?

For the all-geo bond option for a condominium, it was about $1,772. Okay, and for the hybrid option? $1,762, so $9.60 different for a year. So it was about the same? Yes, sir.

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 going to be very burdensome on a lot of people. So help me understand how Commissioner Magazine's proposal could be more beneficial to the city.

So if we're talking about the median household, median assessed value or lower, that would be less beneficial to them. Water and sewer rates are user fees and the storm water fee is a storm water assessment per unit. So you can control your use of water and in return you're controlling your sewer fee as well because that's based on your metered water, but every household is going to have the storm water assessment on it. So as you get lower, just like with your gas bill or your FPNL bill, THE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME TO THE LOWER INCOME IS GOING TO BE GREATER FOR THEIR UTILITIES. AND IF WE GO WITH A UTILITY RATE INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD, IT'S GOING TO GENERALLY AFFECT THE LOWER INCOME PEOPLE AT ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS IT WOULD THE HIGHER INCOME PEOPLE. WHEN WE ADD THE GEO BOND COMPONENT, it does become a little more progressive on the stormwater side. Did that answer your question?

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

Only if you borrow the same amount.

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.

I was just answering that as if we raise utility rates and the stormwater assessment across the board, how it's going to affect the residents. I think that's what the question was. I'm sorry. I'm trying to.

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.

Let me clarify. Any utility rate increase was my point. Just like an FPL bill or a gas bill is going to affect the lower income person more than it would the higher income person.

If I can add to what I think the general point would be, because remember our total capital program for this period I think is about $1.1 billion total. It's partially cash flow funded and partially debt financed. I think with the, I believe with the commissioner's basic proposal, is to not do a geobond and just revisit the entire capital program and say, of the $1.1 billion, which projects would we be moving forward with and which ones would we be, not necessarily canceling, but maybe postponing off into a semi-indefinite future. So if you pared down the program, you would need less.

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.

That was my point. Okay. You know, from the debt standpoint, that's a different answer to that question.

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 are paying right now in the geobond are removed from that. What do you think that does to the people on the lower end of the income threshold, to renters? They are left carrying that burden. of the homesteaded property tax payers that are removed from the system.

I'm going to defer to CFO on that one.

So I just wanted to make sure I understand the question.

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.

Right? I need clarity, if I may.

Yeah.

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?

That is correct, but the legislation does contemplate that the state legislature will adopt rules that would allow municipalities, if they want, to further increase the homestead exemption. Right. So so so it'll be optional.

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.

Yes, Commissioner. If you happen to have a homesteaded property on the very low end of the scale at 250 or lower and the constitutional amendment passes, my understanding of that implementation would be you would pay no property taxes. So it would be free to you. It would be a tax burden shift if that constitutional amendment so happens to pass.

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.

IT WOULD BE AN INCREASE BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY A 50 ALREADY INCLUDED IN THAT 318. SO IT WOULD BE A $200,000 INCREASE. SO THEORETICALLY THAT MEDIAN WOULD SHIFT DOWN.

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 infrastructure resiliency However, I do think that we can pare this down not to eliminate these projects. But the ones that are 15 years in the future, we don't need to authorize borrowing for that now. We can cross that bridge when we get closer to it. We send a message to our residents that we are really only doing the things that are more mission critical, just like we did in our budget process. We are reprioritizing things. We are authorizing things. things that are only the highest priority, and we could define that however you want, right? But we are essentially only authorizing a lower amount to be borrowed. And by definition, that is the best way to save money for our residents, right? We're authorizing less to be borrowed. And what are we giving up? Projects like First Street Phase 3 and 4 that are never going to get done, ever. Okay, they're never going to get done. We're not even at First Street phase one. That is at best. Talk to me honestly, just bluntly. 12 years, 15 years?

If you're asking me through the chair, what we've presented here is a 10-year CIP.

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.

You asked me this question yesterday, and I said that my belief is that we likely wouldn't be able to start three and four for approximately 10 years. But it's part of the 10-year CIP that we're proposing to fund through these rate increases over the next nine years. I think what I'm hearing from you, Commissioner, is you would rather look at a five-year CIP.

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 prudent to sit here and authorize borrowing for projects that I'm not sold, we're going to complete, right? I look out and I see some of our construction projects that are just your typical thing. We don't have any construction project, and this isn't a knock on anybody, it's just how, you know, the city works. that get done on time, in a timely basis. We're having a discussion later on West Avenue to pay a million dollars to a consultant to tell us what, what the heck is going on there for a project that's been talked about for 10 years, it's what, a year and a half, two years over timeline from when we started, which was just like two or three years ago, right? We're sitting here arguing about the borrowing amount for these projects that are so pie in the sky that I'm not going to authorize borrowing that could eventually increase the cost of our residents. For these projects, I'm not convinced are happening in any type of timely fashion. And if you all prove In seven years or in five years, wow, we've zipped our way through these mission-critical projects. It is time to now readdress these more ambitious projects. Then let's have this discussion again. Very simple. I'm not saying we can never have this again. But right now, we pare down our priority list of what we need and borrow, authorize borrowing at a lower amount.

And if I may, Commissioner, again, through the Chair, I am just struggling, I think, a little bit with some of the terminology that we're referring to. I don't necessarily think that we're paring down. I think what we're talking about doing is potentially saying instead of funding the entire 10-year CIP in one ordinance, we're talking about funding a five-year CIP an ordinance now with the ability to revisit it at a future date now what I don't know as we sit here today because we haven't run the numbers is what that looks like from a debt service coverage ratio and a borrowing number and what those rates are so I can't definitively say, I would love to be able to say if you borrow half the money, it's going to be half the cost. But I can't sit here today and say that because I don't think that we have that.

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.

I think there's two things. One, the reason GEO versus utility rates is because through GEO, it's 100% debt financed, where through utility rates, it's a partial PAYGO. So there's some PAYGO cash that's being utilized, and that's why the original $1.2 billion program doesn't borrow nearly that much. But I believe the proposal that Commission Magazine is speaking about is to not have any general obligation debt at all, AND WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS KIND OF DEFER THE WHOLE THING. I WANT TO SAY START FROM SCRATCH, BUT START WITH YOUR CIP AGAIN AND GO THROUGH THE PROJECTS AND PICK WHICH ONES ARE MOVING FORWARD NOW, WHICH ONES ARE DELAYED, WHICH ONES ARE BEING PUSHED OUT, AND THEN ONCE THE COMMISSION SAYS, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT THE LANDSCAPE WOULD LOOK FOR, OUR CIP, Then Public Works would go back with the rate consultant come back with this is what a new set of utility rates for water sewer and stormwater being from a from a utility rate perspective. So it would take a little time.

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 to the bank, but run to the construction site. Bad analogy. But would you not jump up and down for that, that we didn't get everything, but we have certainty for the first time in, what, eight years that we've been discussing these, in 10 years, that we are finally moving forward. It's not at this huge, ambitious amount that we talked about before. But for the first time in 10 years, we're actually moving forward with these critical projects that we all know that we need.

If you told me to come up with $450 million in projects over the next 10 years, I would do that. But then... that would be presented to commission. And if I was to remove projects that I thought were not as critical, I'm gonna focus on the water and sewer projects. And neighborhood improvement projects are by far the low hanging fruit if we're trying to reduce the budget down. So those would probably be the ones that would be cut from the list because we have an obligation to our residents to provide clean water and safely dispose of sewage. Stormwater, we have an obligation, but the projects that we propose, the NIPs, ARE HUGE, HUGE PROJECTS. WE CAN MITIGATE FLOODING IN OTHER WAYS. THAT'S HOW OUR STORMWATER CRITICAL NEEDS PROJECTS WERE DEVELOPED. WE HAD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN THOSE AREAS THAT DIDN'T GO FORWARD, SO NOW WE'RE DOING SMALLER PROJECTS TO SHORE IT UP ESSENTIALLY. SO I THINK THERE IS A CHALLENGE THERE. COMMISSIONER MAGGIE, I SEE YOUR POINT, $450 MILLION. WE COULD TAKE CARE OF A LOT OF CRITICAL NEEDS WITH THAT, BUT THEN Is this body going to be okay with the list that we provide?

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 get done because why would we start them in the first place? But I think what Commissioner Magazine is proposing is basically go back four months to before we implement this moratorium and say, We're going to pick the projects that we think are needed most. And then we're going to raise the water and sewer hike, which we're going to raise the water and sewer rates to fund that, which is why we passed a moratorium in the first place, to prevent that from happening. So I'm a little confused here on why did we even pass a moratorium to begin with if if that's the conversation we're going to have again. And only raising water and sewer rates is, like John, you said, is going to disproportionately affect people who are struggling. Not struggling, but they are going to be affected the most the challenged residents of Miami Beach. And I get it that we, there's a difference between renters and homesteaders, and I am mindful of that. One of your analysis for the condos, and I wanna kind of bring it back to the geobond option versus the hybrid option, because I, for one, am not gonna want to kick the can down the road. I want to get these projects funded. Again, we can always do them in tranches, right, Jason? It's going to, there's going to be stock gaps of where the funding comes from. It's not like we're issuing a check for $800 million all of a sudden. It's going to come in tranches, I'm assuming, correct?

Correct. We would have to come back to commission every time we wanted to borrow.

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 was more beneficial. So if you can come up, please, and give us the reasoning of why. And again, and this is because I believe a building like that size and the full-time resident population is a good representation of full-time residents in Miami Beach. So if you can, John.

Yes, sir. So that building had a little bit higher usage than the average. It was about 4,000 gallons per month versus 3,200 gallons per month. And the value... Average condo value was around three hundred one thousand assessed value. So it would have been a lot of homestead of properties Correct.

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 But you know Who are we going to focus this on where where where is the? sort of share of responsibility going to be placed on is it going to be placed on the people who live here full-time who have large families or to people who are here part-time. So I kind of want to just get everyone back here to the idea that, first of all, I think we should move forward. Ultimately, the voters are going to decide this. And if it gets turned down, then we'll cross that bridge when we get there. So how do we fund this? Is it better through a geobond only? Or is it better through a hybrid model? And I, for one, as a big believer in the geobond only option. And again, I'd love to hear from my colleagues.

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.

We had a water transmission main break.

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 we all of a sudden putting faith in people who may or may not have the same priorities that this body does today? We have talked about this, and I commend my colleagues, because as I've said before, we all care deeply about resolving this in the most equitable and efficacious way possible. But we've talked about this for two years when I was still on the Finance Committee, which Joe chaired then and chairs now. Sorry, Commissioner Magazine chaired then and chaired now. We talked about this in great depth and we understand how serious this is. I am not comfortable deferring this any longer. I think we've gotten I'm gonna make a motion to vote on option one.

Which is option one? The hybrid or?

The hybrid. I'll second that.

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.

Yes, but we would bring back an ordinance, I believe, at the September meeting for the first reading.

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 want to say that for certain you're going to do rate increases for the other projects today? You would need five votes if you defer that until September you would not need five votes to move forward with the geomonde Either one of the options you only need four votes but you would need five if you want to say we're addressing everything at once and

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.

I'm going to defer to John on that, but I think.

Yes, sir, we would have to come back. If the stormwater geo bond did not get approved in referendum, then we wouldn't have to, but it would make sense to revisit the stormwater rate increase at that point.

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?

It is labeled as a critical needs project, so I would say yes. Those are the projects that would probably move forward. As I said before, in my opinion, the neighborhood improvement projects would be the ones that would be deferred long-term.

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.

I want to be clear, though, that if I could jump in here just because I want to be abundantly clear. We have prioritized projects and we have put together a 10-year capital plan. If we're going to start peeling projects off, I would start at year 10 and I would start working backwards from there rather than picking and choosing which project.

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.

AND I ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. LET'S TAKE FIRST STREET OR NORTH SHORE D. THE FIRST PHASE IS REALLY THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. THE PUMP STATION, THE DISSIPATOR, THE OUTFALL, ALL THAT IS BEING INSTALLED FOR THE ENTIRETY. SO WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONTINUITY. FIRST STREET, PHASE 3 AND 4 ARE 90% DESIGNED RIGHT NOW. DESIGNS ARE GOOD FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS ON THE SHELF. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO REVISIT THOSE. SO CONTINUITY IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CIP PLAN. WE HAVE 27 OF THE 57 PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN DESIGN OR DESIGNED. So there are consequences to not fulfilling the entire CIP plan. So it's not quite as simple as just trimming some off.

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

That's the way we've approached design and implementing the CIP plan.

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?

Based on what I said, and that's my opinion, but you're the Commission, you're directing this process, so that would be my recommendation. If you are trying to secure the water and sewer infrastructure for a limited amount of funding, that would be my suggestion.

to get rid of the neighborhood impact projects.

That's not my desire, but if we're trying to get to... No, I understand that.

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 all the time we have 18 new projects, 18 new projects scheduled for North Shore, North Beach Town Center. That doesn't even count the stuff that's further afield or coming down the pike that are still twinkles in people's eyes. You're telling me that we're going to have to wait another 10 years to even contemplate those projects. There is no greater increased density of infrastructure needs going on in this city anywhere than in North Beach right now. And we have money that is planned to be spent as early as 2028, real money, to start working on those things, real money. And you're saying no? Enough, enough of this.

Commissioner, no one's saying no.

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 to be done today. Right, the second option is all through a geobond. I'll call it the Suarez model. And the third option is the magazine model, which is to fund it through the water sewer and put aside the geobond for now pending needs on projects as we go forward years down the road. And Mr. Mayor, if I can.

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?

I THINK YOU WOULD NEED FIVE VOTES TO GO WITH THE HYBRID OPTION.

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 median and the average people, the people who have the lowest property values, who are homesteaded in our city. If the property tax reform were to pass, in essence, those individuals in the lowest bracket of home ownership value, they really won't be feeling the burden as significantly of this general obligation bond.

If you're speaking of homesteaded homeowners, I think you could get to that conclusion, but obviously you mentioned tenants too, but obviously there would be a burden.

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?

Yes. So as we have shown, the average homesteaded pays less than the hybrid and the median does. What was the average again? I'm sorry. The average homesteaded home would pay more under the GO bond model just as the median. So the median and average would pay more under the GO bond model. Jason. MR. Yes. MR. What is the value of the average homeowner? MR. The average homesteaded property is $966,000. MR.

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

MR. $200,000 less. But I think one thing to look at is if everyone goes down by $200,000, at the end of the day you're probably netting the same because everyone will be sharing in that $200,000 decrease. SO IF EVERYONE'S VALUE WENT DOWN BY 200,000, YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF DEBT SERVICE I HAVE TO APPLY TO EVERYBODY. YOU KNOW, IT'S DEFINITELY POSSIBLE THAT EVEN WITH THAT EXEMPTION, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE EVERYONE WOULD SAVE A BIT. BUT I'M SORRY. YOU WOULD HAVE TO REPORTION THOSE DOLLARS. SO ON THE LOWER END YOU WOULD END UP PAYING LESS THEORETICALLY.

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.

CORRECT. AND THE 900 WOULD THEN, JUST WORKING OUT THAT THEORY, THE 966 WOULD GO DOWN TO 750. SO EVERYONE WOULD GO DOWN, SO THE MILLAGE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO GO UP TO COVER THAT. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU MAY END UP PAYING SIMILAR AMOUNTS, BUT WE'D HAVE TO All that's to be determined if that passes. Okay.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions. So if the hybrid geobond is what's chosen, that's a rate increase and then a geobond, IF THE GEO BOND DOESN'T PASS, DOES THE RATE INCREASE COVER WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT COVER? DOES IT COVER WHAT COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE MENTIONED, WHICH IS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS?

IT WOULD ACTUALLY COVER THE WATER AND SEWER, ALL WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS, WATER AND SANITARY SEWER, AND THE WATER AND SEWER COMPONENT OF NEIGHBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT COMBINE ALL OF THEM. then we would have to visit what do we want to do to fund the stormwater portion of some of those combined projects. And then at that point we could discuss the timing of it and address it. So we could have a hybrid of the hybrid if we wanted to. One important thing that we're not discussing here is the health of the utility fund. If we go with an all geo bond model, I COMPARE THIS TO BUYING A CAR THAT'S GOING TO LAST FOR 10 YEARS. WE BUY A CAR WITH THE GEO BOND, BUT WE'RE FINANCING IT FOR 30 YEARS. IN 10 YEARS, WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE 20 MORE YEARS OF DEBT ON THAT WORK THAT WE DID, BUT THAT CAR IS NO GOOD ANYMORE. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER CAR, SO THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS OUR NEXT 10-YEAR CIP PROJECT. But I don't get that analogy.

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?

The project lives for a long time, but we're going to have another 100 years. I know. So maybe it's not the best analogy, but in 10 years, if we don't raise utility rates, In 10 years, we're going to be in the same situation with another 10-year CIP plan, but we're going to be 10 years behind on the debt service through the utility fund, if that makes sense. So we will have to go out for GO bond again or do a very, very significant rate increase to then borrow again or wrap that debt or refinance it.

And then the chart that you showed previously, the lowest burden to the residents is the hybrid?

Based on all of the categories of assessed values and all of the averages that we did, the hybrid model was the best option. And, you know, I do want to point out the discussion that the condos were an average usage. the lower assessed value condos are more than likely the smaller condos with even less usage. So if we were able to dig down into actual usage per unit, we would probably find that those would not be impacted quite as much as what was shown.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

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?

Yes. No. OK.

I shouldn't have asked.

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

phase two right we're running significant delays right I mean the project started officially started when we contracted with the design builder in 2017 so it's been a substantial amount of time for this project right so we're sitting here and you and we're coming up with this narrative that

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'll use the dad joke analogy again. I have a bridge to sell you somewhere. It's just not going to happen. I don't have the faith and confidence that we need to sit here and make these borrowing decisions or authorization decisions now for projects that are slated to start eight years from now. Water capacity on the Julia Tuttle 41st Street for $35 million in 2033. I don't know. Are you telling me we can't revisit that in three years? Didn't we just upgrade that last year?

Did a whole water line project under? We did the sub-aqueous lines at the bridges at Indian Creek.

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 say, okay, let's go through it with phase two of this. I just don't see this pressing need to do an additional $300 million of borrowing authorization for projects. Somebody tell me I'm crazy. I am. that we're going to sit here with a straight face and say this is going to get done. One of the things we've all been frustrated with is the efficiency. Many things in the city happen, and we're placing an awful lot of trust saying, okay, well, all of that is out the window, and we're going to adhere to this 10-year schedule of, I don't know, what, 30 different projects, 50 different projects? 42? Let's just be more realistic here.

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?

That's how it's framed.

Okay, so we don't actually have to borrow the full amount. We would have commission meetings to decide the tranches that are

I will defer to Jason, but I believe you borrow as you need it.

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.

Look if you're asking the question does not identify specific projects. There's not enough words to do that But when the administration comes forward to request the issuance of a bond That would be when they would determine.

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?

So I am recommending in this memo the hybrid option because we were already told not to do any kind of any a purely rate increase on this. From my perspective, the geo bond is the full faith and credit of the city. Anything that we put on the general obligation bond is taking away from our total creditability as a city. And so I would much prefer to see as much as possible go on to the rate side of things and less on the geobond side of things.

Right, but I guess the

RESISTANCE THIS COMMISSION HAD WAS THE DOUBLE DIGITS RATE INCREASE AND THE THIS PROPOSAL AGAIN ALONG WITH THE HIGH REVENUE BUT THIS PROPOSAL AND EVEN UNDER THE MAGAZINE MODEL HAS A SINGLE DIGIT RATE INCREASE SO I WOULD JUST WANT TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR WITH THE COMMISSION THAT IF WE FUND HALF OF THE PROGRAM WE ARE ONLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER HALF OF THE PROGRAM And there is going to be moments where we are going to get into debates as to what's in and what's out.

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?

I think based on my understanding of this commission, I think you're going to want to see a list of projects when you approve the rate increases. But I could be wrong.

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?

Absolutely. I can't do that right at this moment in this meeting, but if you tell me you want to only do rate increases and not consider the geobond, but you only want to fund X number of dollars, we'll go back and we will make a CIP that fits those number of dollars. I think I even said that. in one of the prior discussions that we had on rate increases, that we can absolutely right-size a CIP to a certain dollar figure. What we've provided to you throughout this process is what the full 10-year CIP looks like because we're talking about eight years' worth of rate increases that are needed in order to deliver that.

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 water system to try to reduce the strain. Eventually everything got fixed, and here we are, more than six years later.

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 Bott said, because we saw a reaction from Commissioner Fernandez.

So the problem was uncovered when we had the sanitary sewer break in North Beach that ended up discharging a large amount of sanitary sewage into Parkview Canal. I am not convinced because at this point we have spent a significant amount of money and have significantly repaired that system that it is purely sanitary sewer. And I think that there is also a stormwater component, which is what we have been talking about at committee for the last two years.

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 and what we do in one part of our city is going to affect residents in another part of our city. Our pipes are a bazillion years old and they are in under tremendous duress in this environment. And we are getting more pressure put on them, no pun intended. And so I think we are treading down a perilous path here.