Remarks by Fabiola Stuyvesant
109 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 5
- Play at 2:31:41
“How we decide who is the more qualified, responsible, and responsible, there is a committee, correct me if I'm wrong, that the city manager decides which part of the staff appoint people to that committee. And that committee decides and gives a tabulation to which is the one that they're going to be So in order to actually be transparent, because I do believe that we have a lack of transparency heavily, that tabulation should be at, every time that there is a recommendation, we should know how many people bid, what was the tabulation, what were the prices. Because right now, we could just get…”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:35:41
“I will have to search that. I'm not on top of my head.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 46:01
“Yeah, I have a few. So I want to start with a timeline. This was brought to us as a discussion item back in January 2023, three years ago. And at that moment, it didn't move forward because we were working in the Park and Recreation Master Plan. Am I right? Go ahead, Miss.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 46:27
“So what was the reason back then not to move forward with this project three years ago?”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 46:35
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 49:51
“So also, I saw something. The resolution says that it is allowed to build a playground. However, the contract with FDOT doesn't say that. Actually, it names everything except a playground. And we do need a playground or something like that if this is directed for the children. The resolution said minimal playground equipment, but like I said, in the FDOT-approved use, it doesn't mention the playground. Actually, I think it was taken out.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 50:30
“The resolution says... And the FDOT use agreement doesn't mention.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 51:04
“How can we approve it? We don't have the addendum already of FDOT approved.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 51:21
“And another thing here, it doesn't protect either the Shabbat or the community. Because it says specifically that for any reason, they can terminate this contract within 30 days.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 51:37
“Correct. So precisely. So I do believe completely that we should be building this and that we do need that area and that we need the playground. I just think we are doing this in the wrong process. It should be the responsibility of the city to build it, maintain it, open and close. the rabbi and the community can do a much better use of the money that they're going to be putting to build something that then a different commission, FDOT or whoever, can come and say, you have to vacate in 30 days. So like I said at the very beginning, it's really... It is very unfortunate that if we needed…”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 55:44
“Well, it should be finished long time by now. So like I said, I wish my commission can agree to put this as a priority in our budget to make sure that it gets built as soon as possible, and that the Russian Harvard doesn't have to put any money for it. It has to be by the city. Thank you.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:00:18
“Anyone opposed? No. And by clarification, we have also built a lot under the causeway. What we are doing wrong right now is that we are making the community pay for something that the city should be paying for. And they should not be responsible or liable for this. OK.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:17:42
“Commissioner Stevenson, would you like to say something? Yeah, this is great. This is amazing. I totally support it. My only issue continue being with not having the vendor present. We are giving around $2 million in contract to one vendor. We should be able to congratulate them here for their product. Once again, the process is the problem, not the result. Nothing to do with . So you're doing amazing. So as a best practice, we should be able to have the vendor here in case that we have even any questions about the product that we are giving all this money for. So I am in support of this. I…”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:22:02
“For what I understand here, it's a three-year service agreement, not one year. And because I was reading this, once again, here I am not comfortable with the bidding or lack of bidding process. So we started with this company in 2022, then 2024, 26, and now we are asking for a three-year agreement that will be nine years and no bidding. And one of the reasons that I was reading here for that is due to the familiarity of this company with the software and the hardware, which, by the way, is going to be only growing by year. We are not bidding because we've been working with them. So that means…”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:24:20
“Yeah, but it's not for Luke. I just want to know for the term that we are approving it and the reason not to be bidding this project if we're being with the same company for six years.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:26:58
“Wait, wait, wait. Commissioner, she's got the floor. And then we'll move on. And I totally agree with the process. And it's great. That's what I said. This is not about how they're going to be building it. I'm pretty sure that they are going to be great. And if they've been working with us for so long, It's a testament to how good they must be. Anyway, we're talking about technology, and it's changing by the second. So that's why I said that this was not a question for the product. It's more for the process that we are doing to continue doing this. And that's my point. Right now, we are…”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:28:40
“Correct. And that's the whole thing on my point. I had no doubt that what they do is incredible and it's amazing. And yes, it's hard to ever say no to you guys, ever. It's almost impossible. In this event specifically, I do believe the best practice should be for us to do this agreement for one year, and then if there is no other vendor that can procure the same kind of service, then we're going to continue with them anyway. But if that's not the case, the justification to continue with them is because they've been with us from the very beginning, then I do believe we should be doing…”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:33:22
“If I may, we've been with them for six years already, six. This is a maintenance agreement for three more. So everything is already done and is going to continue. They're going to continue integrating. So to be accurate, we've been with the same company for six years now, and now we are adding three more without even going to the market to find out if there is anything better. So I'm not saying to get into a contract with a company for one year. We've been six years with them. Wait, wait, wait. Can we just listen?”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:36:43
“I do have a question. How much have we made of these vending machines in the last few years?”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:36:54
“Any data. I don't have any data. It says here that because this is income producing, we don't have anything that tells us how much money we're making. So of course, we are going to continue having the service. And if that's the best company to do it, amazing. But I think we are lacking the information at least to compare how much money we're making, at least in the last three years, four years, five years. We have zero data about it.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:38:41
“Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? No. Well, this actually proved the point of the benefits of having bidding process, that we get better companies and better terms. Any other comments? I'll take a motion.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:44:24
“The price quotation that we have is based on a budget between $200 and $300 million. Today, in our workshop, we know that already $175 million were slashed from our budget. bringing us down to less than $200 million. So I guess this quote needs to be re-evaluated, or we have to ask for a new quote, considering that we are not going to be anymore in that threshold between $200 and $300 million, which is the quote that we have right now. Also, it's true, as far as I know, the public portal has not been activated. We're paying for it. And I'm going to read a little bit about the vendors' own…”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:48:42
“Yes. So I am OK, clearly, to continue with. an opening to the public and to the commission, and if possible, to request a demo or a training from the vendor. Just a video is good. I've seen them, but I think more people in this commission should see them, of the capabilities of the software. That's it. Thank you.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:59:50
“Go ahead. So we start this contract in 2023 for an initial net to exceed amount of $50,000.”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:00:06
“a not to exceed amount of $810,000, a jump from $50,000 to $800,000. Once again, then I don't know how anyone with any common sense can justify this. During the budget, only one workshop that we had, they decided, the staff, to cut the four positions that also could help with this, the four inspection positions. We need to consider what is it that we are doing here. If outsourcing is the answer, we should have those numbers in front of us. Probably, we should be hiring. Right now, we are spending $6 million to build a state-of-the-art building department in front of us. And we are outsourcing…”
City Commission · Aug 20, 2026