Village Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody. It's our regular meeting of July 14th, 2026. It's 4 p.m., our starting time. I'm going to call the meeting to order, and we'll have the clerk call roll the members, please.

Council Member Greenberg.

Present.

Council Member McDonald.

Present.

Council Member Meyer.

Present.

Vice Mayor Furman. Here. Mayor Cordino.

I'm here.

Mayor, a quorum is present. At this time, a motion would be in order to allow Councilmember Meyer to participate virtually.

Does anybody want to make that motion? I'll make it. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, Mr. Meyer, welcome. Where are you today?

Thank you. I'm in Salzburg.

Salzburg. I love it. That's a shame. We're in Pinecrest. But we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance anyway. Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Let's move to the first item of business. That's our consent agenda. Does anybody want to pull anything off our consent agenda? All right, tab five. Anybody else? I have a question about the minutes. Okay, minutes. Do you want to pull the minutes?

Can we pull the minutes or we just make a correction?

Pull the minutes and we'll talk about them. Okay. Okay, and anybody else want to pull anything? Okay, does anybody on the public want to speak on any of the un-polled items from the consent agenda? Now would be the time. Seeing none, we will move past that. Do we have a motion on the consent agenda of the non-polled things? I'll move. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, aye. Aye. All right, great. Anybody opposed? All right, that passes. All right, tab one. Ken, you have a minute issue?

Yeah, over in, I know you guys are gonna love talking about this, but page two of six, when it talks about the custom bench that we approved, and the wording got changed to a design feature. Let's be fair, it's a custom bench, and I don't know why it got stricken as that got stricken and put it as a design feature.

I know that when we moved on the motion, because I think it was my amendment to the motion, it was done as a, that's what we voted on.

So we did vote on it.

I thought so.

That's what I read, as a design feature, more than a bench.

It was a direction that council that could change it from a bench to a design feature. That was.

So there you have it. OK. OK. Does anybody want to speak on the design feature, or the bench, the mega sidewalk, or whatever we're calling it? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on that item. We'll go to a motion. Oh, yeah. Let's adopt the minutes. Ken, you want to make a motion? Motion to approve. OK. Anybody want to second, Kerry? I'll second. All right. All in favor of adopting the minutes, say aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. OK. Tab 5.

I just want to close. I spoke to the manager. There appears to be a, speaking of what we're calling things here, this is, it references Howard Drive, but this is not actually about the Howard Drive bridge. This is about Chattanooga Field. It's 124th.

124th Bridge. So that's a, it was my error. So we're doing repairs to the bridge on 124th now.

So that could be a problem. So a motion to amend the item to substitute on 124th Street for wherever it says Howard Drive would be in order.

All right. Anybody want to speak on that? Seeing none, we'll open and close the public hearing. OK, so motion?

Move.

All right, motion. Second. McDonald and Fairman.

And the motion as amended? Yes. Yes, to 124th Street.

All right, all in favor? Aye. Okay, motion passes. All right, agenda and order of business. Does anybody mind if we move tab 14 up to right after the special presentations? Peter England from the EDC is here, and I promised him we would do a presentation on that. Anybody mind? All right, that being done. Okay, good. Uh, special presentations, Palmetto. Middle council member Meyer.

So, my name is on this item, but it came as a request from a board member, Louisa Santos to give the Palmetto middle or time during this today's council meeting. So, with that, I'll just let the middle school association take the word from here on.

Anybody here for that?

Okay, come on up.

If you could please state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Sturgis. I'm representing the Palmetto Middle PTSA. I understood, though, that Ms. Luisa Santos' office are the people who are going to speak on this, and I believe she's down here planning parking. So I don't know if you can pass this.

Yeah, we'll hold it off until...

I think she would be best to present.

Okay, good. We'll move on to tab 14 next. But first, let me just say that I wanted to congratulate Ms. Shannon Del Prado as our mayor elect. She'll be taking over in November. Congratulations. Couldn't be more proud of you. And so I just wanted to say hello to her. She's in the room tonight watching again. Thank you. Okay, let's go to tab 14 real quick before the special presentations. Tab 14, that is, Ms. Clark, will you go ahead and...

It's a resolution of the Village of Pinecrest, Florida, expressing support for the Economic Development Council of South Miami-Dade and its 2026 South Miami-Dade Competitive Assessment, authorizing the village manager to communicate the support to regional partners, providing for an effective date.

All right. So we work with the Economic Development Council of South Miami-Dade, and they did a competitive assessment for South Dade. And Peter England from the EDC is here. Peter, would you like to do a brief presentation so the council can figure out what you did and see if we want to support?

I will keep it very brief. All right. Mayor, members of council, manager, mayor to me, I'm Peter England. I reside at 7620 Southwest 171st Street in Palmetto Bay. I'm also the Chief Strategy Officer with the Economic Development Council of South Miami-Dade. We recently, with the help of the Metropolitan Center and FIU, concluded a competitive analysis of South Miami-Dade County and have come to the point where we're ready to implement this strategy. plan for uh planned economic growth in south lambie dade county we've had a meeting with your manager very successful meeting with the manager and council member mcdonald and we look forward to continuing to work with you in the partnership that we enjoyed in the past thank you very much if you have any questions i'd be happy to try to answer them all right thank you okay any questions for mr england

Any questions on the resolution? Does anybody want to speak in the public on this tab 14 resolution?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Do we have a motion? I'll move. Do we have a second? Second. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Aye. All right. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. All right. No presentation just yet. Let's go to tab two.

Let's go to tab six Okay, that's an or this is for second reading of an ordinance of the village of Pinecrest, Florida Comprehensively amending chapter 30 land development regulations of the village court of ordinances including article 2 decision making and a mystery administrative bodies article 3 development approval procedures article 4 and zoning district regulations, Article 5, additional regulations, Article 6, environmental regulations, Article 7, signs, and Article 9, rules of construction and definitions, providing for amendment and adoption, providing for inclusion in the Village of Pinecrest Code ordinances, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. This was deferred from May 5th and June 11th, 2026, Mayor.

Who wants that? I'll take it, Mr. Mayor.

Fire away. So before you...

This is second reading, right? I defer to everybody else on the campus. Any questions from council?

Just for clarification, so the papers that were handed to us, those.

Fine, that's the final consideration.

But were those the same things that were handed to us last, were those, did we see those changes prior, last month?

We discussed those changes there last month.

Okay, so there's no. No changes to the changes. I remember it differently, I just, of course. It was two months ago. Which is why I'm asking if we discussed it. But no, so there's no additional changes?

There are no additional changes. restrictive, in which case we're not able to adopt at this juncture because of the SB180 limitation.

And those were also?

Those have all been removed.

But we were told about them. In other words, were there any additional removals? That's a weird way to word it, but any additional removals?

There were.

I guess I'd like to know what was removed since last time, just so we're aware. If they're not legal under Florida law, There's nothing we can do about it, but it would be good if we could know that.

Do you, by chance, have that? OK. Can we briefly defer for a second so I can go pull that up in my office, the last edit? Sure. OK. So move on to the next item, and then I'll give you two seconds, and I'll come back with that.

We ready for our presentation? The special presentation for the PTAs?

I believe that the people from Louisa Sanderson's office are stuck downstairs. They can't get out of home to work capacity.

We'll get them a police escort. We're going to send down the police chief to take special care of the dangerous PTA people coming up here to cause trouble. All right, then. So what do you think we want to do next? There's pink lemonade over there. How about tab six? How about tab seven? We can't do that. How about tab eight? Who wants to do tab eight? Youth Governance Day. Manager's not here. This is all hers. Should we just go write the plan of the month? Yeah, let's do the plan of the month, please. It's my favorite part of the meeting.

Today you have grass, right? Today we're talking about grass in front of us. And there'll be a flyer if anybody wants to get this. There's a couple grasses there that look really nice in the landscape. We have right in front of the mayor's dwarf acahatchee grass, and either side of that is pink muley grass, which is the very brilliantly pink seed pods that come out. And then on the side of that is the cord grass, which does well in damp areas, pond, by waterways and ponds and things like that. Plus at the bottom of this, they'll talk about a number of other grasses, and there's one at the bottom called bristle basket grass, which I don't have an example, but it does great in shady areas. So areas underneath trees and whatnot that you can't get anything to grow, the basket grass does really well. Any of you council members are willing to take a grass home? Oh, I'm taking one.

I'm taking the faint one.

And whatever you're going to take home, we'll go to the Parks Department, and they'll find a good place to plant it.

All right.

Perfect. Good one.

That's all you got. That's all I got. I just have a question. Please. So this grass of the month stuff, you've been doing this for a while? Plant of the month stuff. Plant of the month stuff. This month it's grass. Oh, OK.

Very cool. Grass is a plant out here. Just in case. OK. All right. Okey-dokey. So what about tab 13? Anybody want to do 13? Ms. Clark?

A resolution of the Village Bank, West Florida, determining the proposed military for fiscal year 26-27. All right, never mind. Not 13. Let's hold off on 13.

Let's do 15. TAP 15? Yeah, let's do TAP 15.

Okay, a resolution of the Village of Pinecrest, Florida authorizing the village manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Bowman Consulting Group, LTD, for the transportation assessment study, providing for an effective date. This is also the manager's meeting.

Okay, good. So we're pretty much out of time.

Let's just take a minute.

You want to do YAC? Yeah, let's do the YAC. Youth governance, no. Go, Mr. Fairman. Where is that?

Yeah.

I gotta find it myself. Okay, confirmation of the chapter 12. Is that it?

The list of the members is on the dais, Mayor. Okay. And it's, yeah, just basically requiring your confirmation.

All right, does anybody disapprove of any of these children on this list?

One of them's room is a complete mess and hasn't cleaned her room in weeks. OK, I would ground her. I don't want to disapprove of the child.

Oh, just the mess of the room. Just the mess of the room. You want to name names?

No.

OK.

I'd like to make one comment on the act. All right. I'm very excited that we're going to have 20 young people from the village participate in this. I'm even more impressed by what happened behind the scenes. This past year, a lot of the Yak students wanted to clarify the rules about membership and getting into Yak. They wanted it not to be an automatic, just because you were in one year that you automatically got in the next year. They wanted interviews done. And that's a good thing, because in the past, we've had some issues with stuff not being turned in, and maybe people getting on YAC that maybe shouldn't have been on YAC, but this year we had a case where two returning members, for one reason or another, did not apply properly, and therefore were not allowed in the YAC this year. And the most impressive thing was they really wanted to be in YAC, but they put the organization before themselves and understood the importance of the rules and timelines, And they graciously agreed to, again, put the organization before themselves. So very, very, very impressive. Two young members of our community and a great group of 20 kids coming in. So I'm looking forward to the upcoming year.

OK, great. Thank you. You're doing a wonderful job with that. So you should be commended. Excellent work. Glad to have you doing it. All right, so that's the yak. Ms. Manager, you're back? Yes, I'm back, Mr. Mayor. Where did we leave off? Which one are we? Oh, tab six. Do we have to vote on this? Do we need to vote on that, or are we just okay with a...

Consensus.

Consensus. Anybody? Right, so we have consensus. OK, go back to six.

OK, so to answer the question, anything that is in this document that has a double underline or a double strikethrough are the things that were changed from the first reading to now second reading.

Anything in the handout or in the? Both. OK.

So anything you see with double underline or double strikethrough are things that occurred between last first reading. You wanted to go through those?

I mean, it doesn't need to be for my sake. If anybody else wants to, sure, but I don't wanna delay the meeting.

Any other questions from the council?

A couple. Number one, on page 49 of 130, paragraph G, it talks about encroachment of a hedge onto the sidewalk. And maybe Esther can speak to this. Do we also want to say or the right-of-way line? 49 and 130. What paragraph? G at the bottom. Okay.

That section is specific to fences. So I don't know that you want to have right-of-way in that section. I know what you're saying about the... the encroachment, but it would, if it has to do with right of way, it's a different subsection.

Is that your final answer? That's my final answer. Okay, that's your final answer. Anything else?

I do have a question about the bike parking. Let me get to that. I don't know this, the bike parking. Oh, I'm sorry, page 77 and 78. I'll get to the easy one on page 78. And this hearkens me back to when the county made provisions for mandatory bike racks on commercial property. Item E, signage. I just don't see any point in telling people they need to put up signs to show that the bike rack's a bike rack.

It's pretty self-explanatory, right?

I know it's a little thing, but it's just one more sign up that somebody's got to pay for, that somebody's got to maintain. And I don't see a need for it. Also, I think for right now, the number of bike racks being requested is a little bit on the high side. I would prefer to have something like five to 50 spaces require two bike racks, 50 to 100 require four, 100 to 200 require six, 200 to 500.

Where is this? It's on page 77.

Page 77. I'm thinking about Sunnyland and some of these shopping centers that we have that have several different owners and and they're gonna be putting up quite a few bike racks. And I don't know, I mean, I'd like to start a little smaller scale, see that they're getting used, and then advance it from there. Plus, there is another requirement that it has to be near the entrance to the building, and that can get a little tricky about who's gonna make that determination on where they should be located. and that would be in item two, or under C, item two, and item one as well. Bicycle parking space shall be located near the entrances to the building.

If you're looking at Sunnyland South, as you just stated, we have a number of different owners of that parcel, and there are entrances all the way along, starting with Sergio's at one end and Milam's at the other.

The arbiter of where they would go is staff, because we're the ones that review for these things. And as far as the number of You know, rack or bicycle parking spaces that's up to council.

I think this was this pulled from the county.

Chad, are you on the call? I think Chad's on the call.

No, hi, everybody. Good afternoon. This was proposed by staff. I don't know if it came from the county, but this was an original proposal from from staff.

I put error on the side of caution for more bicycle parking than less. So I'm good with the way it is. Anybody else?

I agree. I think there's been a lack of bicycle parking. We build shared use paths. We try to encourage people to ride bicycles to the shopping area. And if you do and you don't have a place to park and lock your bike, you're not going to do it. Right.

I actually think the concern is that Vice Mayor Laidout is well founded. I mean, if there's not much of a will to change it, I'm fine with it. But I think it's a fair concern. I would be happy to see how this plays out maybe at a smaller number, but I don't feel overwhelmingly strongly if that's not clear.

Mr Meyer, how do you feel?

Sorry, but I had a bad connection. So, is this on the topic of the bike racks or on another topic?

There is a proposal to limit the number of bicycle parking spaces out there. So, if your connections bad, I bet I can guess. Yeah, we're I could guess for you. You probably want to keep it the same and not lower it.

Well, I don't see a drawback to this, quite frankly. I mean, the cities that have done this in other parts of America have benefited from an increased level of pedestrian and bike traffic of local residents attending their local commercial districts. And as one of those residents that likes to visit our US-1 establishments, I usually and often struggle to find places to park my bike safely. And at times I have to park it in places where it's not visible and I worry about it's, you know, that it might be taken away, et cetera. So, I think in the end, everyone's going to benefit from this. I frankly don't see any drawbacks to moving forward with the. With this aspect of our. Land use regulations as is currently.

All right, so we'll keep it the same, it seems like. I mean, it's only 16 bicycle spots per 1,000 parking spaces, so it's not many. It ain't killing anyway. Anything else, Mr. Fairman?

The second one that he had questions about was subsection E, the one about the signage and markings.

Right.

Whether or not we need to have that.

That's E. All bicycle parking spaces shall be posted with a permanent and properly maintained above ground sign.

And his position is? You obviously went, you know, a bike rack is a bike rack is a bike rack. Do you need to have signs to show that these are bike racks?

Tell somebody that's a bike rack. I don't think so either. Okay.

Good. You can ask council member Meyer. Is it, he can't find a place to park his bike because he doesn't see the sign or the parking or the bike racks, the physical, there are no bike racks.

Once you have a rack, you probably don't need a sign.

And this is kind of, he made my point, which is a little bit, there are problems. There are no bike racks or, very few in the village. So to tell, say, Sunnyland that they're going to put a string of, I don't know, 20-some, 30-some along their storefront sidewalks is a lot. A lot right now where they don't have any. Should we start off with these numbers or should we start a little bit smaller and give our commercial property places to properly place them, check out their usage, and if Council Member Meyer goes back and he can't find a spot because all the bike racks are being used, then we got a great problem and we up the number of them.

I disagree, Vice Mayor. I think if we're going to do it, this isn't... Like 16 for 500 to 1,000 parking spaces. Well, we don't even have that. But the thing is, we don't have them now. It's 16 what? Bicycle. Bicycles, yeah.

16 bicycles, not bike racks. It's like one bicycle rack. One bicycle. Because there's 16 slots in a bicycle rack problem. This isn't like concrete. No, that's settled. We're settled on that one. Okay, anything else?

Are we going to take out the signage? You're fine with taking out the signage for the bike racks and just having the bike racks required?

I believe the people of Pinecrest can distinguish a bike rack from not a bike rack.

Okay, so we'll delete subsection E, in which case F becomes E. So we'll strike everything in subsection E and then strike F will now become E. Fine with me. Okay.

F can be whatever you want. Okay. Anything else?

just have a question clarification question if you don't mind um i believe we had a lengthy conversation this is related to the um building um that will be uh well the us uh the um hosp you know building yeah i believe that where the former macy's furniture macy's store used to be that's going to go up and we had a lengthy conversation about um You know, ensuring that we have limited open parking spaces visible from us 1 and rather. That we would be asking them to have, um, underground parking enough so that we can repurpose some of the. Ground level parking and replace asphalt for trees, et cetera, and improve the disability. He was wanting to our village. What is what's been the outcome of that request? And is that being reflected on on this new version of the land use regulations?

Chad, do you want to answer that question or do you want me to answer?

Well, I'll just caution 1st, that that plan is still being reviewed by staff and. you know, the specifics of it will come before the council in a quasi judicial hearing. So I don't know how much detail we should get into the project itself. Um, I know that the, um, I've heard that the submittal so far does have some underground parking, but I have not seen it. As far as the code amendment tonight, Yossi, do you want to introduce the language that we've been working on parking? Sure.

The code amendments that would impact specifically the University of Miami facility is one of the handouts that was on Council Deus. And specifically, what we are looking at is, and this was vetted, by the way, by our traffic, or the engineer that reviews the parking uses, and they are in agreement with the language that we are offering to council now, which would provide for one space for every, 200 square feet of gross floor area or fractional part thereof. That is applicable to any medical or dental office. But for facilities that are 50,000 square feet or more in gross area, the staff can grant an administrative waiver of up to 10% from the total amount of required parking based upon the submittal of a parking utilization study. from a licensed engineer. The other language that was changed specifically that impacts that facility is on the first paragraph that you see before you where it talks about allowing for the deduction of square footage for things like mechanical rooms, utility rooms, stairwells, and elevator. elevator shafts. So when they do the calculation for these larger facilities, we would be removing the square footage that is attributed to these types of facilities, which I think in the UM case where it represents more than, I want to say 19,000 square feet or something like that of that building. is either an elevator shaft or mechanical room or utility, something like for IT back of the room that doesn't really have any people.

And that's not unique to us.

This is industry standard. No. We're just expanding it a bit because the language we had presently only provided for exclusion of like restroom facilities, employee break rooms, and walk-in freezers, which we just expanded that to include the mechanical rooms, utility rooms, stairwells, and elevator shafts.

Okay, any other questions from the council?

One more on page 90 of 130. Just curious, Chad probably has an answer for this, but the artificial turf, not counting as green space, artificial turf, what's stricken is artificial turf shall not be counted or considered as required natural green space. Thank goodness, but was that stricken just because it was redundant?

It is redundant. Because in our green space definition.

They still have to comply with that.

They still have to comply with that. Correct.

That's correct.

Anything else? OK. Does anybody want to speak on this from the public? Any of the applicants? You guys good with this?

Sir, Mayor?

Mr. Mayor, members of the council, good evening. Javier Fernandez for the record, opposite 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1205. I just wanted to affirm our support for, I guess, reverting back to the language in Section 522R. I believe that leaves the language as it was or exists in the code today for shared parking. We'll continue to try to work with our neighbor to find an accommodation that works for all parties there and hopefully result in some spaces being re-tenanted. I did just want to suggest to the council with respect to lines 12 and 13, so this is page 126, the revised standards for health and fitness studios and the existing standard for instructional studios. Many of the uses that are contemplated in line 12 are included in the definition of line 13. And so we just suggest that maybe those two categories be collapsed and allow those uses, whether it's a yoga studio or a fitness and health establishment, to be parked at a ratio of one space per 180.

What page again?

I believe it's page 126.

I think it's page 68.

Sorry, my apologies.

68.

I'm in the wrong side.

I'm talking about the table.

The table, my apologies, yeah.

The table on page 68 of 130 has items 8 through 14, and I believe the suggestion is combining sections 12 and 13, which currently have different parking space requirements for instructional studios such as dance and karate establishments with the health and fitness section which requires one space for each 180 square feet.

Sam, I apologize. The reference to the definition is on page 126 through 127. and that if you look, it could encapsulate a yoga studio, which would also be potentially captured under the use classification on line 12. So it just seemed that we should just consolidate and simplify that for the benefit of commercial users. Those are my only comments. Again, thank you to all of you and your staff and city attorney for your help throughout this process.

Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Penn?

You know, when one lawyer gets up, we all have to get up.

I know, but we have to suffer through it.

Graham Penberg, Howard L. Fernandez, Larkin, Tappan, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. As to Mr. Fernandez's suggestion, we have absolutely no issue with that as long as the number is the new number, which is the 180 square feet for active space. Just briefly on that, as your package reflects, that number, the 180 square feet, has been vetted significantly by your transportation engineer. We've done studies on eight separate locations that all support that number, and it actually shows that it's a conservative number. We have no objection to Mr. Fernandez's suggestion, and we would ask you to otherwise adopt it as written. Thank you so much. Okay.

Mr. Proctor. Thank you. You're welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jerry Proctor, attorney for University of Miami General Counsel's Office. We, too, support the changes that have been presented by the manager. really get us to about the same place, which is to recognize that a large medical facility requires less parking on a proportional square foot basis than a small medical facility. And this gets us to that place. The concerns along the way, the reason for the last minute, there are concerns that your consultant raised about safeguards, questions about case-by-case operation, because every medical facility is different than the next one. And there are safeguards now in the proposal that require us to make certain submittals that we frankly were going to make anyway. But it requires us, it requires anyone, in our shoes to present operational factors and present them if we're asking for a waiver for independent review by a traffic engineer. And to do that before we appear in front of the council with our site plan. That's an extra step. It's a safeguard that was suggested by staff and the consultant. And we have no problem with it. I want to congratulate. the staff, and the council for taking these items on. Your vision plan four years ago called for a look at parking requirements and where they are excessive to make a good faith attempt to reduce them. That's what's happening. It's very clear in your vision plan update in the resolution that was adopted by council. and I appreciate your following through on it. Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate that. We're nothing if not courageous when it comes to parking a bicycle.

Mr. Mayor, if I may real quick, also just wanted to bring to the council's attention that the other handout has to do with the changes to the sign code that facilitated the two signs on the same street that we talked about also with the UN folks. And we provided that information to you, but we've sorted all of that out where it wouldn't even have to come to council. It's just as a matter of course, if they wanted to do them both on one side, there would be just rules of how they would get to that point.

Got it. Anybody else from the public want to speak on this? All right, Ms. Clerk, there's hopefully nobody online that wants to talk about this.

Let me come. No, Mayor, at the moment, no. No, nobody?

All right, so we'll close the public hearing. Any further debate? Not? Do we have a motion?

What about that, the combining 12 and 13, as was suggested on the instructional studio, such as dance?

Oh, do we want to do that? I see no reason why not to.

Chad? Are you there still?

I didn't see any issue with that. It's a policy decision from your guys from a legal perspective. I'm fine with it.

I think the question was what Mayor Fernandez mentioned was that there might be like yoga in a health and fitness establishment. So he just thought they both kind of belong together.

Yeah, I think in the Definition of health and fitness on page 1. 26, and I think that was the reference it says an establishment that's providing instruction establish containing high tendency uses, including yoga. So, I think it's. You know, it's within that that overall definition.

So, so number 12 is number just strictly. Dealing with dance karate. Dance and karate, that's it? Everything else would fall under health and fitness establishments?

Right. Or instructional studios.

Instructional studios would be specific. Oh, because what he was saying is that it could potentially just be an instructional facility for yoga.

Yeah, there seems to be some overlap between the two. They are similar. I think that it makes sense. I guess you just got to Make sure that there's I think what The mayor mayor finance saying was about the overlap between the 2.

So, how do we deal with it? Do we just add yoga to number 12 and move on? Or do you think we should combine the 2? Because it's definitely different amount of.

Like, I mean, it's definitely a different parking standard. Um, I mean, I'm not. A parking excerpt, but those uses. Seems similar, but I mean, I don't know if maybe someone from the staff. Want to, um. one to maybe speak as to that, but it seems as if there's definitely a difference in parking demand for sure.

Ms. Janice? Pat Janice, Acting Planning Director. I would concur that those two should be one, and it would make it less confusing for anybody applying for parking and also staff.

All right. Less confusing is good.

The issue, though, is that One of them is one space per 100, and the other one is one space per 180. So that's a big difference. So I would argue the opposite. I would argue that we should just add yoga to number 12 and be more conservative that way.

However you wish.

Well, it's up to council.

What's your recommendation?

Maybe the attorneys can chime in. And Mayor Fernandez too.

Again, obviously our preference is that everything is at 180. Adding yoga to the 12 would be the opposite of what the definition of health and fitness is already. Because yoga is within health and fitness as defined in the draft. So therefore, it should be a number 13. What the mayor is suggesting is that, for clarity's sake, and I understand what Pat's point of view, too, is that the difference between a karate studio and a yoga studio and a health and fitness club are not different enough to justify them being a separate category. That's the policy decision within your discretion, but definitely yoga should not move into 12. It would have to stay in 13. Sorry.

But that's, um, Graham, you're suggest that's only because the definition of yoga yoga is within the definition of health and fitness, which is in 13. Correct yes.

So, and it's appropriate for health and fitness definition under our opinion. So the request from the.

from the outside zoning lawyers was to put them all in the category with a lower standard with the one space per 180 feet. That makes sense.

All right, which part of this makes sense? Let me know. Can we just keep it the same?

The argument or what they're proffering is that we would. Who? Mayor Fernandez is proffering that we would go to.

Graham doesn't like that idea.

Well, they're proffering that everything be put to the one for every 180 square feet standard, which is less restrictive than the one for every 100 square feet, which currently is what we have for dance and karate. So staff has always interpreted the dance Studios very more intensive because you get a lot of kids or People coming all at one time for those classes, which is why those have one for every hundred Square feet one parking space for every hundred So it's up to you if you want to be more restrictive or if you rather Loosen it up and if you want to loosen it up, then yes, put it to one for every 180. I

But like a Pilates class, a yoga class would have the same sort of thing, right? People all showing up at one time for an hour-long class and then leave.

It's more on the number of people in a given class. I think dance classes tend to have a lot more participants in a given time, just tradition. Right, Pat, would you say, or what's been our experience?

I would say my screening question. I would say like your spinning classes, your Zumba and all that are the same as a dance class.

Okay, so one for 180. That is correct, yeah. Okay, one for 180, which is what Mayor Fernandez recommended.

And you're good with that? Yes. Okay, does anybody have a problem with that? No. Okay, make it so.

So combining 12 and 13? Correct. Okay, and then all the numbers will be changed accordingly?

To 13. All right. We'll come back and unscrew this up in a couple of years. All right. Anybody else want to comment on this? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing like we already did. Do we have a vote? Motion? I'll move. Second. All right. Motion is second.

And the motion is to adopt as amended, including the four amendments regarding dance studios.

All right. Ms. Clerk?

Council Member Greenberg? Yes. Council Member McDonald? Yes. Council Member Meyer? Yes.

Yes.

Vice mayor, yes, yes.

Motion is approved ordinances. Okay. Perfect. Do we are we ready for the presentation? Thank you.

I believe so. And Mr mayor, I'll introduce that topic on behalf of the, um, and I'll provide a little bit of context as to why I'm doing that now versus, uh. Um, which is not necessarily in line with with how I introduced the topic earlier. So, um. As part of our strategic plan, we have wording that expresses our support for public schools and specifically in support of exploring private public partnerships that would help improve the field conditions at some of our public schools. And specifically, we've been focusing presentation. Yeah, we've been focusing those conversations on the Palmetto school fields. Um. The manager has taken the lead on exploring this in coordination, especially with Louisa Santos office, because it is a public private partnership that we're exploring. There's also been conversations with the premier soccer club that has approximately 4 to 500 families signed up as part of the club that live in pine crest. And that would be potentially interested in renting out the field amongst other organizations. Should the field conditions improve and should there be substantial levels of investments put into the improvement of those fields? I would like to let the manager update the Council on the progress of those conversations. And then following that update, I believe that PTSA, Palmetto Middle PTSA is present. To express their support for this for this exploratory effort as well. And so we should grant them time to speak on behalf of the, uh, after the managers provided the context and the update report on how conversations have been going forward so far. So, if the manager wouldn't mind.

Okay, so just to give counsel an update, we, um, during strategic planning council did, um, asked me to, um. contact the school board to see if there would be any opportunity to partner with them on the Palmetto Middle School field. We've had multiple meetings with different folks at the school board. School board member Santos has also been very active in these discussions and to facilitate these discussions. Long and short of it, the school board is amenable to a partnership But they are, because of just school board needs elsewhere that are more pressing than updating a field, they as an organization are not inclined to carry the debt for something like this. And they're asking if there's going to be a partnership that we do it similarly to how other cities do it, which is the debt is carried on the books of the municipality. The school board allows us to use the field after hours and program the fields and keep the revenues that are generated from the rentals of these facilities. And we have similar arrangements with them already. So I have seen... draft joint use agreements that we've already worked through several drafts with staff and the attorneys. The issue now is timing of everything. I know that we have folks here from both Pinecrest Premier as well as PTA. They wanted to speak to council in anticipation of our budget hearing and meetings, the workshops that we're gonna have in August because workshops don't allow for public input. So I think that's really what's coming before you. But also, I did receive project estimates and a conceptual design of how this would be laid out that we can also have available to council when we get into budget. Budget workshop, but that's where we're really at is is at this point, whether or not, when we get into budget. Discussions whether or not the timing for counsel on moving forward with this project.

All right, thank you.

Who's up and with that, I'll let the come up to the podium.

Hello, everyone. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion earlier. As I mentioned, my name is Jennifer Sturgis. I am the newly elected president of the Palmetto Middle School PTSA. I'm happy to be here today. We have several other members of our PTSA, other parents, grandparents and our brand new and fabulous principal is also here in support of this project. Um, I just briefly wanted to say, um, we've spoken with council member Meyer. Um, we've spoken with, um, uh, school board member Santos's, uh, staff and school board member Santos herself. We've learned a lot. about this project. We are aware of it because there is a similar use agreement in place in the current time. It's our position that this is a win for the village, of course, because your involvement would help expand access to parks and recreational spaces. for the village residents. Children in the neighborhood are walking over, participating in all the sports and activities that happen, as the manager mentioned, after school hours and on the weekends. And it's also our position in representing the PTSA and the parents at our school and families that it's a win for our fabulous neighborhood traditional middle school. We are exactly that, right? We are not a magnet school. We are your traditional neighborhood school, and we're proud of that. We offer everything for everyone who wants to be a part of our school. And an upgrade to the field, which it desperately needs at this point, would serve our students, many of whom, most of whom are residents as well, during school hours and in all of their extracurricular activities that they participate in, those fields if any of you follow what's happening at Palmetto Middle School we excel in all of these athletics that we participate in and these are happening at our school it serves as a great opportunity for these students to become leaders it serves as a great opportunity for us to showcase what's so fabulous at our school we are constantly trying to recruit and compete against the other schooling options and the use of this field the upgrades to these facilities would help us in in serving that need and desire to continue recruiting on behalf of palmetto middle school so um With that said, I know that we have, um, someone from council member or, um, school board member Santos's office here. And we also have maybe one or two other parents who might want to say something. I can share that. Um, principal Valero, who just left, she recently retired, was fully in support of this. Um, we had been through many walkthroughs and whatnot, um, at the school. And in our transition to our new principal, Ms. Millian Valdez, I know that she's learned about the project, understands the importance of it, is also very much in support of it. So I can speak on behalf of both of them that they are excited and hopeful that this idea and project can become a reality at our school. So I'm going to turn it over quickly. Thank you for having me.

Hello, I'm Johanna Ralston-Cox. I'm the chief of staff for Luisa Santos and she could not be here today so I just came to share that exactly as Ms. Sergis says, she is fully in support of this project and really thanks the village for considering it and also thank you so much Ms. Galliano, thank you, for everything you've done as well to coordinate with the school board as well on this.

All right, thank you. Any questions from the council?

Mr. Mayor, I was going to, if it's okay with you, invite one more person to speak. If Prime Minister Premier Manny can come up.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good evening. It's good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members. Before I begin, I'd like to recognize school board members Luisa Santos and thank her for taking her time to meet with me and her willingness to explore this opportunity. Her commitment to finding innovative ways to strengthen our public schools and better serve the students of our community is greatly appreciated. I look forward to continuing to work alongside her, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and the Village of Pinecrest to make this vision a reality. My name is Manuel Escobio. I stand before you not only as a resident of Pinecrest, but also as president of Pinecrest Premier Soccer Club, a local 501c3 nonprofit organization. Every member of our board of directors lives in Pinecrest because we're deeply invested in the future of this community. I'm joined this evening by Maura Lamar, who serves as general manager for the club. Tonight I'm asking for your support for a project that's much larger in soccer. Throughout my professional career, two individuals have profoundly influenced the way I approach difficult decisions. Warren Buffett and his late partner Charlie Munger. One of Charlie Munger's most enduring principles was the practice of inversion. When confronted with a difficult problem, he would encourage us not only to ask, how do we succeed, but also to invert the question and ask, how do we fail? Applying that principle here, we should certainly consider the tremendous benefits of modernizing the athletic facilities at Palmetto Middle School. But we should also ask ourselves a more important question. What happens if we do nothing? If we choose not to act, the status quo is unlikely to remain static. Competing schools, both public and charter, will continue investing in modern campuses and athletic facilities while Pinecrest risks falling further behind. Families evaluating where to educate their children increasingly consider the overall student experience, including the quality of school facilities. As the gap widens, enrollment pressures may increase, attracting and retaining exceptional teachers and staff may become more difficult. Community pride may diminish, and we will have missed a rare opportunity to create a shared public asset that benefits students, residents, and generations to come. The greatest risk before us is not that we undertake an ambitious project. The greatest risk is that we fail to act while every community around us continues moving forward. Strong public schools are the foundations of strong communities. They attract families, sustain property values, foster civic pride, and shape how a community is perceived by those considering making it their home. When we invest in our schools, we're investing in the long-term vitality and competitiveness of Hinkers itself. Across Miami-Dade County, communities that recognize the modern athletic facilities are no longer a luxury. They're an essential part of attracting families, supporting students, and creating vibrant public spaces. South Miami, Coral Gables, Key Biscayne, and numerous Miami-Dade County public schools have all invested in modern athletic facilities and have become valuable community assets. Pinecrest should not be left behind. Palmetto Middle School is an outstanding public school with a proud history, but first impressions matter. When families compare schools today, facilities influence perceptions. Modernizing this campus would give students a first-class athletic environment during school hours while creating an asset the entire community can enjoy after school. This project is also an opportunity to show an effective public-private partnership can work, and Pinecrest Premier is uniquely positioned to be that partner. For more than two decades, our nonprofit has been a pillar of this community. Today, we proudly serve more than 2,000 young athletes and their families, making us one of the largest youth soccer organizations in South Florida and the largest youth organization in Pinecrest. Every weekend, our fields bring together thousands of parents, grandparents, volunteers, coaches, and children who share a common purpose. helping young people grow into successful adults. Several years ago, Pinecrest Premier participated in a competitive request for proposals process in RFP. Our proposal received the highest evaluation score by a significant margin because of the strength of our vision, our leadership, our partnership, our financial stewardship, and our unwavering commitment to serving this community. We accepted that responsibility because we believed we could help make youth sports and Pinecrest even stronger. Yet despite earning that distinction, the additional access to quality fields that many anticipated has never materialized. The great obstacle to fulfilling our mission has never been a lack of volunteers, coaches, or families. It has been the shortage of quality athletic facilities. That is precisely the gap this project would close. Every afternoon, We have images that our general manager is sharing that shows the current conditions of what Palmetto Middle currently looks like. This is where our rec program is currently at. We have over 700 members. It's in our rec program. It's that run from U4 through U7. And that obviously is far from optimal. It's every afternoon hundreds of young people step onto our fields. They learn teamwork before they learn tactics. They learn resilience after losing a difficult match. They learn discipline, humility, accountability, and perseverance, the qualities that shape successful adults, engaged citizens, and future leaders. While many Merkleers continue their athletic careers in college, what makes us most proud is that more than 95% pursue higher education. Pinecrest Premier's mission has never been simply to develop exceptional soccer players. It has always been to develop exceptional people who become exemplary citizens. Every organization is ultimately defined by one thing, its ability to decide how its limited resources are allocated to its most pressing needs. That is true in business and it's true in local government. Priorities are a choice, and tonight I'm asking the council to choose wisely. We're all aware the village recently completed the purchase of a Leyla Mas property, and I have seen the additional renderings that are generally beautiful. But as a resident of Piper's for nearly 30 years, I'll be honest with you. I do not use the park and I do not feel it. My family's quality of life depends on it. Council members, opportunities like this do not come often. These are moments in public service when elected leaders have the chance to make decisions whose benefits extend well beyond a single budget cycle or even a single generation. I believe this is one of those moments. This project will strengthen one of our community's premier public schools, beautify one of Pinecrest's most visible public campuses, expand recreational opportunities for thousands of families, encourage healthier lifestyles, reinforce the desirability of our community, and create a lasting legacy for generations to come. I respectfully ask that you support moving this project forward and work collaboratively with Miami-Dade Public County Schools, Pinecrest Premier Soccer Club, and our community to make it a reality. I began this evening with Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger because they understand that truly consequential decisions require us to think beyond the immediate and focus on the long term. In business, we often say that the greatest investments are those whose returns compound over time. The same is true of investments in our children, our schools, and our community. The measure of great leadership is not whether we solve today's problems, but whether we have the vision to prevent tomorrows. And the courage to seize opportunities whose greatest rewards may not be realized for years to come. Let us choose progress over complacency, partnership over hesitation, and legacy over convenience. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration.

Thank you very much. Any questions from the council?

I would just ask if we could get copies of that Those documents, if you have them electronically, if you could send them through the clerk, that would be great. Thank you. Thanks.

All right, thank you all very much.

And just if I briefly, because the schools are here, I'm going to talk. Just not on the subject, I just want to, with Ms. Ralston-Cox here and the representatives from Palmetto Middle, I just want to use the opportunity to thank you all for everything you do for the school and for the community and to welcome Ms. Milian Valdez, who will undoubtedly get tired of me at the EAC next year. But it's great to have you all. Here, the incoming president of PTA, the outgoing. So many of you, Shapiro, good to have you back at Palmetto Middle. But thank you for all you do for our schools and our community. Thank you all as well. I could have gone on more about school things, but I won't. You did a great job.

I was quick. Well, thank you.

The buzzer worked.

The buzzer worked. The shock, the dog collar, yeah. Thank you.

Keep pushing that button. So we'll get more details on this in our work up to the budget as far as... Theoretically, yes.

Yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. I have one other thing to say. Yeah. Listening to the gentleman, your presentation, which was well done, it reminded me way back when my kids were... small, I actually coached soccer. And we used the Palmetto Elementary over to the space that's right next to 124th Street, which was then wide open. This was back in, I think, the early 80s. And I was asked to coach. And I never played soccer, but I got the rule book out. And I figured it out. I used to tell the kids, just take it that way. Anyway, I had a woman come up to me and said, boy, you're such a good coach. She never played soccer either. I said, if you only knew.

But anyway. Then they're done. And I think that field's planted with native plant of the month grass. It looks like it.

You can't play soccer there anymore. All the varieties of grass. And the ankle buster.

All right. Thank you all very much. Let's go to reports and recommendations. Village council. Did the plant of the month. Village manager. Communicated council. What do you got? Anybody got any questions for the Communicated Council?

Were you going to do the native plant?

We did that already in your absence.

You can do it again, though. You want to do it again?

No, no, no, that's fine. You want to find out which one you want to take home? No, no, no, let's go. All right. Any questions for the Communicated Council? Any questions for the Communicated Council? I see none. Tab 8, what's used governance day? Anybody? We got to do anything on that?

Mr. Mayor, I.

the speed limit change? I never want to talk about speed limit change, but you're bringing up all the greatest things. I think the village manager has an update on it. Oh, you were talking about, you were answering the manager. Do you want to do the roof thing while we're at it?

You want to do the roof thing?

Didn't we put the speed limit to bed already?

So the update is the county's legal department is still reviewing the letter that we sent advising them that we wanted to update the speed limits on the arterial roads. So jury is still out and being discussed by legal department. Okay. The youth governance day update. There's a letter that's included in your packet. I don't know if you have any questions. I do not.

Okay.

Um, and then we have the submission of the capital and operating budget. But before I get into that, can we, just go on to the fine mitigation request. I know that there was an attorney here representing that individual. I think they were gonna ask for a deferral of the item, or are you gonna go ahead and?

Sorry, hi, Amanda Corcan, office is at 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800. My client had emergency, is not gonna be able to be here today. I'm ready to make a presentation without him, but to the extent that you'd like to hear from him personally, then we are willing to defer.

Anybody? Anybody care? I mean, you're here. You might as well go as far as I'm concerned.

I'm ready.

All right. Fire away. You want to do that one? Good.

Do you want to do that now?

Yeah, let's do it. Okay.

As I stated, I'm Amanda Clark-Hann. I'm here on a mitigation request for 6285 Southwest 98th Street. Okay. This is a property that was bought out of foreclosure. I don't know if you want to hear from your staff first or from me first.

Typically, the applicant speaks first, and then the staff will respond. OK. Let's do a doc.

OK. This was a property that was bought out of foreclosure. It had a history of violations, including unsecured pools, stagnant pool conditions, a bunch of other small ones, and then also a big one for unpermitted work. Previous owners had done unpermitted building work, violations dating back to 2020. When my client bought the property in foreclosure, it was through an auction. And he did not take title until August 7, 2025. So you're looking at basically violations from 2020 for unpermitted work accruing through 2025. He takes title in August 7 of 2025. He went to review the property. looked at the house and said, you know what? It's going to be way too much to deal with this unpermitted work. The property has been derelict for a number of years in the village of Pinecrest. So it's an eyesore for the neighborhood. And he said, you know what? We'll demolish the house. We'll take care of the pool. We'll take care of all the stagnant conditions. And they did so immediately. They immediately reached out to the village, immediately applied for the building permit to demolish the property, immediately took care of the stagnant conditions. The pool had already been secured by that time. But he did act with all due diligence after he obtained title through foreclosure. Right now, the fines are in the amount of, together with costs and interest, like $587,000, because they all go back to 2020. I submitted a request to mitigate for costs plus a good faith contribution of $25,000 to the village of Pinecrest, and the reason is he does plan to build his residence there. He is investing in the community. The property was derelict, and I think there is a public policy in favor of encouraging people to take these properties and deal with them to the benefit of the neighborhood. So he did immediately do all the things necessary to take care of this property. Right now it's cleared. and ready for, you know, he's going to be filing plans to do a single family residence at the property. So my respectful request is for the fines to be reduced to $25,000 plus costs. One of the basis, if you want to think about numbers of where that number comes from, If you look at when he acquired title to the property, August 7, 2025, till the time that the property was demolished, completely demolished, permit closed, and everything like that, the total amount of fines that had accrued during his time of ownership to get the demolition done and everything like that, $33,419 total. That includes costs. But obviously during that time, it took quite a while to get a permit from the village of Pinecrest to get the demolition. So the $25,000 is reasonably based on what a fine would be for the time that he had control of the property. And I have spoken, our client has worked with with the village to really take care of this immediately for the benefit of the village. So we would respectfully request that consideration. I'm here to answer any questions. I also have the general contractor here to the extent that you have any questions about the violations or the condition of the house, the demolition or anything like that, they are available. And then otherwise I defer to staff and answer questions.

For the record, my name is Esther Cabrera. I'm the Co-Compliance Supervisor for the Village of Pinecrest. Being brought before you today is a request for mitigation of fines for the property located at 6285 Southwest 99th Street by the current owner, which is Carbonell LLC. Each case being presented owes an excess of fines of $100,000, and as per Division 2-150, the Village Council has the authority to consider this mitigation request. I'm gonna go ahead and just issue, I'm gonna repeat a little bit of what Amanda Quirk had said, just we're all on the record. Currently the property owner, the property has an outstanding balance of $587,313.79. Each case has been broken down in the memorandum submitted on July 1st for your consideration, which is in your packet. A quick history, this property does go back as of November 20th, November of 2020. The first violation that was issued if it's on page two of the memorandum, it was for a interior renovation. This interior renovation was brought into compliance by Carbonel LLC through the demolition process, which was done on June 4th of 2026. As you can see there, there's a breakdown of all the hard cost owed. On May 7th of 2021, Lavender Diving Group, who was the owner at that time, sold the property to Strength Capital. Strength Capital at that time incurred the violation cost from the previous owner and also incurred two different code violations. One had to do with the swimming pool and the other had to do, the swimming pool stagnation and the other one had to do with the gates leading into the swimming pool not being self-closing, self-latching. As you see, that documentation will show you individually how much each fine could accrue to, including the hard cost. On May 5th of 2022, the property was sold to 6285 Southwest 90th Street, LLC. All violations and penalties and hard costs were transferred through the sale to these individuals. Cases under ownership of this property were mitigated at the special magistrate meeting. On July 11th of 2023, the property was sold to Yellow Pine LLC, and all violations, penalties, and hard costs were transferred through the sale of the property. The cases under this ownership were mitigated by the special magistrate. On April 11th of 2024, Carbonell LLC was awarded the property through a foreclosure bid. On April 12th, 2024, Carbonell LLC contacted Village of Pinecrest to address outstanding compliance violations. On May 9th, there was a legal freeze that was placed as the previous owner, which was Yellow Pine LLC, filed an objection of the sale and shortly thereafter, a bankruptcy. The certificate of title could not be issued to Carbonell LLC until the review process was complete. The freeze began on May 9th and ended on August 7th of 2025. The legal freeze at this time no longer Carbonell LLC to access the property, so the village did continue to maintain the property. On August 7th of 2025, Carbonell did receive the certificate of title. On August 8th, they had made contact with the village to start addressing all outstanding violations. As you can see, I've put two tables together for your consideration. One is the table without the freeze, which with the penalties would accrue daily until time of compliance. for each individual case. I've also addressed it as by interest, daily fines, totals, so you have numbers every which way. And then I also did the table with the freeze for your consideration, which would be that during the time that Carbonell owned the property and they could not gain access due to the legal freeze, I removed those as daily penalties just in case that was a consideration for mitigation for you to consider at that point, holding the fines not against them since they did not have access to the property. On December 1st of 2025, the Special Magistrate considered a request for mitigation involving nine cases. Each was assessed an amount of less than 100,000. Following the consideration of the request, the Special Magistrate reduced those fines from 60,852 to 20,933, and those violations were paid by Carbon LLC. At this point, I do not have any further information to provide unless you have any questions for me.

Do we have questions? So they already paid a fine.

They did pay a fine at the special magistrate.

And that was for?

Multiple violations, abandoned vehicles, overgrown conditions.

Not under their ownership, though?

No. Every case that was under their ownership, the carbonyl, they rectified it within.

So they paid a total of what, $29,000? $29,000. Yes. $29,000, okay.

So they ended up paying 20,933.86. That was the reduced amount, and the amount that was reduced was 60,852.86.

but those were other cases other than these three.

Yeah, those were all fines that were under 100,000 and the special magistrate has the authority to mitigate for those.

So now they're here and they want to settle this thing, pay the hard costs of 3,148.08 and basically a fine of 25,000.

That is what they're recommending.

And what's the staff's recommendation?

for us to figure it out.

Well, I already could figure it out. What do you want? I'd accept that offer and settle this and move on because they didn't, it seems to me like they've come... Well, let me finish. I mean, what I've heard, what I've read, they just took over the property a year ago. All of this stuff goes back to, what, five years, six years ago? Right.

They're the third owner.

Yeah, third owner, whatever. Here we are. They've already taken care of $20,000 in fines, and they're willing to pay the hard costs and make another payment. I say, let's accept that and move on. That would be my vote.

Any thoughts? I don't disagree with you. I mean, they've only got, there's only $3,100 in hard cost total to this whole thing. And that includes staff time? Time? Yes.

I do have some questions, if I may.

Yes, you may.

Thank you. Yes, I'm still awake. I'm still awake. In case you were counting me out. I'm even more awake now that Spain has beaten France in the World Cup. That makes me happier. But that's just my personal preference. Okay, so...

Hang on. He just interjected. What was the final score?

2-0. 2-0.

Okay, so... You get to pick both teams that are in the finals. Hang on a minute. If you're Argentinian, you don't get to be a Spain fan. You get one.

No, no, no. It's just that I prefer to play against Spain in the final.

Oh, you're counting the chickens. I see, I see.

Okay, so the questions I have are... I have two questions. So one is related to the acquisition price for the property. So how much did the... Did Carbonell LLC pay in foreclosure for the property? Can you clarify what that amount is? That's question number one. And number two, because maybe you have answers to both. Number two is, what was the appraised value of the property at the time that Carbonell acquired it in foreclosure?

I can attest that the property was sold at auction for $2,107,200. Esther, can you speak into the microphone, please? For $2,107,200. Okay, so $2.1 million. Right. That was what the offer was and that Carbonell bidded and they won the bid.

Excellent. Thank you. And what was the appraised value of the property at the time that they won the bid for the acquisition?

I can give you an estimate.

Now, remember, at this point, the house is no longer there and demolished. But according to, I went on to a couple websites with the real estate websites, and it looked like it was running at around between low $4 million to about $450 million. 400 low 4 million to mid 4 million in between there.

Okay. All right. Let's just take low 4 million and round it up, round it up to 4 million. Cause that proves my point. When you're buying a property in foreclosure, you're, you know, you're going at it with risk number one, and you're assuming the risk and the value of that risk is the difference in value to 1.9 million, right? The 2.1 versus the 4 million. Um, And so you're taking that risk. You're assuming that this property is going to come with some surprises that you don't know what they will be. But in exchange for that, you're paying for almost half the value or the appraised value or the market value of the property at that time. Well, you know, if in a minute, I don't know if you may respond, but I just want to I want to close down my thoughts. At the time that there's an offer, a request for bids for offers for the property, and any potential suitor, any potential buyer will look at this property, will assess its value, will estimate that it's at $4 million. I would imagine, at least that's the diligence I would do, and even though I'm not an expert in this, I would look at what the value is for that property. Okay, $4 million. And if I had known at that time that the village was going a few years later or a year later was going to just basically remove all outstanding debts on the property that are owed to the village. I might have considered at that time to also offer and make an offer for the property. Right. In fact, there could have been many other potential buyers for the property. If all of them had known at that time that a year later, the village was going to basically withdraw all outstanding debts on the property. So the fact that we're even considering to do that now is potentially unfair to any other potential buyers a year ago that would have considered this property for an acquisition. That's where I'm coming to. I'm not really looking at this whether, you know, and thinking, okay, it's $400,000 fair or it's $587,000 fair. I'm looking at this from a business perspective. You're buying a property in foreclosure. You know that it's coming at risk. You're buying it under the assumption that there are some debts outstanding. In fact, if you had done your research at that time, you would have known what the amount of the debt is because that's public record. And yet you're still moving forward and you're moving forward with the acquisition because you know that $2.1 million is a good deal. It's half the value of the property at that time. So I think this is, you know, the fact that we're even considering lowering this debt is us trying to influence in what was actually a business decision. And for that reason alone, you know, we could potentially discuss whether it should be the table without the freeze or the table with freeze. I think that's a valid argument. We could talk about that. But I don't think it is... It would be disrespectful of even how the market works if we later come in and withdraw the debt on this property. And it would be unfair, as I've said, to any potential buyers at that time that would have otherwise considered to place a bid on the property as well.

If I may respond. Let me have the attorney, Amanda, you want to respond to that? Please. And then we'll go back. Hi.

This is Amanda Hand for the record responding. The assessed value in 2024 when the house was on the property was $2,791,000. The bid was at 2.1. He spent about three to $400,000 in subsequent litigation afterwards, challenging the bid between a couple of banks and a couple of previous owners. That's why there was a delay in taking title. And then he had to spend over 100 to demolish the house. So we're in it for about 2.75, which is what the assessed value was in 2024. So I respectfully request that the village, when you consider when you consider encouraging people to take title of these derelict properties, the property was, you know, a disgusting pool, unpermitted work and all kinds of things for six years until now. And so he took care of it immediately upon taking title. I think that that that that should be considered as encouraging people to turn the properties over in the village.

Okay.

Mr. Berman, Mr. Cabrera, first of all, thank you very much for the way you presented and all the history of it. We had a similar case for this not very long ago. Same situation, the property sold once or twice and then purchased. These fines are all baked into the purchase price of these properties. So I see no reason to discount now at this point to waive all these fees. I mean, whoever it's been purchased, what, three times with all these fines attached to it? So that's got to be. I don't know. I've never bought a house in foreclosure, so I don't know. Do you not know that there's $300,000 worth of fines attached to it?

He did not know.

He did not know?

No.

How could you not know? How do you not know?

Because he bought it at a foreclosure auction. He said, look, I did not know that there was $500,000 in fines.

OK, so that would be his fault. What I would, what I do agree with The fact that he jumped right on this, I do like the idea of going with the table with the freeze, the $407,000. Because it appears he bought it, immediately contacted the village, started doing something. Then this legal matter came up about ownership. He didn't have title to the house. You don't want to give him a discount? I think at that point, going with the 407 would be very appropriate. But I would not waive the fees any further than that because, again, it's baked into what he paid for the house.

The only fines that accrued on the property while he had control of it is $33,419. Understood.

I understood. He came in and did a great job trying to button everything up. That's fine. that liability.

It is true. However, there is an incentive for the village to incentivize people to buy these properties, demolish the house, secure the pool, clean up the landscaping, and build a nice new house.

Right. And that's why we should waive the $180,000.

What's your proposal then?

To go with the $407,991.23.

And your rationale is that everybody knows that these fines are there. And when you bid on the house, you bid on it with those in mind.

You can make a gamble that you'll get them waived. But that's a gamble.

Well, I have a question then. I'm sorry.

I don't see how anybody doesn't know that this fine exists on the property. And when you don't know, it's their mistake. You're going to defer to him?

No, I mean, I remember my previous term on this council, we had a lot of these kinds of, a lot, a number of these situations. And we'd have our fines on a daily basis running up, sort of on paper. I don't recall. Maybe Mitch can answer. These fines, are they liens on the property? Are they actually liens? Are they liens? Yes, we lien the property. OK. So when in foreclosure, and this property has gone through a number of iterations.

We're generally a claimant in those foreclosure cases for our liens so that to the extent there is excess revenue from the foreclosure sale, we would get paid out of that. In this case, apparently, we got nothing out of the foreclosure sale because it was below the amount of the prime judgment.

Well, it was not.

So if we weren't listed, that means the, pardon? I'm sorry.

Everything stands as it is.

All the fines and everything.

Yes, okay, I get it.

But that does go to the notice issue.

I'm sorry?

That does go to the notice issue because the village was not part of the foreclosure action.

Okay, that was where I was coming from. If we were not listed and somebody takes property under foreclosure and is not aware of these liens that go back five or six years.

So you have two agencies.

Well, okay, but let me finish my thought was or is You know if this were the original property owner who allowed the property to to lay fallow and all that that's one thing and but I don't think which is why I thought and what council has said, and what I remember from other incidents, Joe, Mr. Mayor, that we had similar type things where we had these enormous fines, and then somebody came in and purchased and did what we wanted, cleaned up the property. We looked at them as sort of on paper, a number, but then said, okay, let's resolve this for the new person. These aren't supposed to be punitive, and there is some public policy involved in, okay, somebody buys property, I'm not, we're not, I don't think we should be here in second guessing somebody's business decision, but at the end of the day, he purchased property, he finds out there are liens, he's made an effort to pay costs and I guess now total of 25, almost $50,000 in fines. I would say we as Pinecrest are, shouldn't be in a matter, in a, It shouldn't be our intention to be punitive with people who didn't incur the violations. So my view is to accept this offer and move on with it. Let the person come in, build this house, do whatever, and move on with it. That would be my view. We haven't been damaged. We've got paper violations, and that's what they are. That's all they are. They're paper. Well, Ms.

Manager?

The people that lived around there were damaged, not by them in particular, but just because of the ongoing violations for over six years. So there is that issue.

No, they're not here. I get that, but there's no way to quantify that other than, yeah, you don't want to live next to a place like that.

To your point, I think that the fines are supposed to be, that code compliance, the primary goal is compliance, right? Not punishment.

I don't want to speak over you, Vice Mayor, but I agree with you. I mean, I think, look, honestly, I don't find this one particularly close. I would be willing to go with the whole thing, but I'm okay with the 407 that the Vice Mayor proposed, and I'll tell you why. These fines, yeah, but yeah. I mean, these fines are not, I don't view it as punitive. I appreciate the comments from Councilman McDonald, but I don't view it as punitive. I view these as essential to our neighborhoods. They were neighbors who were affected. These things have to be upheld. They're critical to the quality of life in the village. And I understand this wasn't, this LLC was not the owner at that time, but they bought it, whether they knew it or not, they certainly should have known it or could have known it. And when you buy a property in foreclosure, anybody who knows or should know that there is a serious risk that there are violations, especially from everything we can tell, you look at the property and you could tell it was in violation. This wasn't some latent thing buried somewhere in the records. This was a property that was in total disrepair. You know, they, with all due respect, the notion that, well, we want to incentivize people. We don't need to incentivize people to buy in Pinecrest. People are salivating to buy these properties and flip them and sell them for all sorts of other money. And that's, God bless them. I mean, that's their prerogative. And I don't know what this entity is doing with it or not doing with it, but to me, They knew or should have known what they were buying. This is a large amount of money. And it was a great discount. I respect them. And the reason I'm OK to go with the substantial reduction, I mean, the reduction that Vice Mayor Fehrman is suggesting is $180,000, which I don't think we need to do. But I'm OK with it. But again, I don't think it's about incentivizing people because what they're doing is getting under market a home in a beautiful part of Pinecrest that they can either live in and enjoy or flip for some astronomical number. So and they're going to get all sorts of other benefits from living there. Heck, they may not have to pay taxes. But I think, to me, this is not, and I appreciate the arguments of counsel, and I appreciate the advocacy. This isn't that. But to me, I would uphold the full amount, but I'm fine with, I'm OK with, let me not use that word. I'm perfectly comfortable with the reduction that the vice mayor proposed in this one.

OK, interesting. I don't know if I remember correctly. If Councilmember Huckammer were here, she would be kicking both you and I under the table on this one, because I think we hammered those guys in the past.

Did we really? I seem to remember making decisions, though, where we sort of, OK, let's move on and make and make a deal.

That's true, but usually there are a little different circumstances. But we just had a case right before you came on, Jim, that it was a six-figure, and it was the same sort of thing. They had purchased a house. knowing that those fines were there and then wanted them relieved from those fines.

And if they knew it, that's one thing. I'm hearing that your guy didn't know it.

No. They had to know it.

Well, again, here's what I'm seeing. I'm just looking at this. We're looking at whatever it is, $400,000. I don't want to say, well, she's a lawyer. You're a lawyer. If I get hit, I'm the owner, and I get hit with this, and I didn't know anything about it, there's enough money at stake here to drag us all into court and sue us over it. I mean, not that we have to. I'm just saying, is there an issue of notice? My whole point is on this kind of thing, let's settle it with a number that satisfies us and move on, and that's all I'm saying. Got it. And whether it's $50,000 or whatever.

Well, this is where I would, with Council Member Greenberg's point, Once he did own it outright, he took care of it. And apparently, if I'm to believe what I read here, there was a point in time where he could do nothing to the property, even though it was up in the air with a title dispute. So we're relieving them of that time frame of those fines accumulated. So that's where I'm thinking, does he deserve? That's something he maybe had no control of. They came up, and he did get right on it once that time passed.

I mean, I just want to, I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I don't believe there's a plausible, the concern that you raised, Council Member McDonnell, is about notice and whether there's a risk to us is fair. I don't think there's a plausible notice claim. I find it unfathomable. But to me, and I don't know, maybe this is a question for Mitch or for somebody, I don't If there's a risk that the homeowner is going to look at this and say, I didn't have notice. I'll see you in court. Well, I don't want to mitigate this thing. I mean, I would do the mitigation to 407. If we're going to give them the benefit of their quick work and put it down to 407, I mean, I don't know if there's a way to do that on a condition that we're not going to be in court.

Yeah, you can condition it on receiving a release.

Yeah, I mean, I would do that. I mean, I don't, I would, if we can do that legally, sure. I mean, I would have a mitigation condition on a release. I don't want to mitigate $180,000.

No, if they're going to challenge, they should challenge the whole amount, not a mitigated amount. So yes, if you want to condition mitigation on receiving a release of claims from the owner,

Yeah, I mean, I would want to do that. And again, I'm not trying to make this adversarial, but I'm not hearing that from, this isn't, they're not up there waving the saber and saying that, but if there is any risk, sure, if we're going to mitigate $180,000, I would suggest we do it on the condition of a release.

And I would be supportive of that.

Okay, well, I get the lay of the land. Do we need a public comment on this?

Yes.

Okay, so with that, if you all don't mind, I'll open the floor for public comment. Mr. Sanchez, welcome back. Hey, how's it going, guys?

Ralph Sanchez, 8360 Southwest 135th Street, Pinecrest, Florida, 33156. I'd like to follow up on what Council Meyer said, Vice Mayor Fairman, Councilman Jerry Greenberg. First, the property owner in this case is a corporation. It's not a young family that didn't know what they were doing, went for a foreclosure. It's a sophisticated client who knew or should have known of the fines. I don't think any of the fines should be waived. They bought this property at about a $2 million discount. So they already got the windfall. The fines are about $400,000, $500,000. So even if they pay the full amount, it would be $2.6 million. Subtract that from $4 million, they're still saving, what, $1.4 million. So that's all I have to say to that. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Anybody else from the public want to comment on it? Mr. Spicer. Welcome back, Harry. Yes, thank you very much.

Harry Spicer, 1001 Southwest 70th Avenue. Just one question. I don't understand. Why... warrant the liens reported. If I'm hearing it correctly, how could somebody not know that there's a lien on the property? I don't get it. Either the attorneys are incompetent or someone is not doing their job on the city's part, but this sounds bewildering to me. I don't understand what's going on.

That is the $587,000 question.

Yeah, that's the question. Why are we, I mean, it's either there or it isn't there. I'm startled to hear an attorney say, we didn't know. I'm going to respond to that.

That's all I can say. You managed to insult both parties, so Ms. Manager, why don't you respond to that?

I'm going to respond to that because It's not our issue. We record every lien with the county. So whoever foreclosed on the property did not notice it correctly. The onus is not on the village to do that. It's all recorded in the county record, these liens.

But this isn't a question and answer period except for us. So, okay, so anybody else from the public want to comment on this? Ms. Clark, anybody online?

I just wanted to make sure that the record is on. Hold on, hold on. I thought he, no one on there.

He can't invite you.

I'm the only person who can invite you. Now you know that.

I knew that before because she raised her hand. I'm going to go through the process. Anybody online wants to?

making sure that the record reflects that the assessed value of the property in 2024 with the house on it was 2791 so it's not four million dollars and you know we're not talking about the windfall that i think maybe is in some lines here so we're at 2.1 on the bid uh about 300 000 in you know to clear title uh through the litigation with the banks and things like that and and about 150 on the demo so we're in for like 2.55 okay all right so with that we'll close

of this, any more debate or does somebody want to make a motion?

Mr. Mayor, I have one question for Mitch so I understand before I make a motion. So what Council Member Greenberg was talking about, there's some provision we put about

rate of 407 do we like a time time frame on when we would receive the money or is it another type of commitment you can put all of those conditions on i would suggest that you um you know you provide a 30-day period if that's acceptable to the requester and also condition it on receiving

Okay.

General release.

Okay, so we're at that point where- So I would like to make the motion to

to levy the fine at $407,991.23 based on the following conditions that it's paid within 30 days and that there is a release of claims acceptable to the village attorney.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. All right, any final debate on that? All right, Mr. Clerk.

Council Member Greenberg? Yes. Council Member McDonald? No. Council Member Meyer?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Furman? Yes. Mayor Cordino?

No.

Motion is approved.

All right. Thank you all very much on that. Do we have this thing, parking analysis for fitness and medical centers? Did we already go over that? We went over it. Okay, so that's done. That's done.

Red light cameras? Red light cameras, yes.

Anybody care about that? Yes. Well, the chief's here.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council.

Good evening, sir.

I was instructed, if you all recall, a few meetings ago, we approved moving forward with the red light cameras on the 67th Avenue corridor. I was instructed to study if any of our other interior signalized intersections may also be deserving of such cameras. I commissioned the study. you should have the results in your packets. Based on the study, based on the results, my recommendations are to remove two from the 67th Avenue corridor, relocate them to other intersections, and if it is the will of this council, move forward with the intersections on my memo, which is 112 and 72, 104 and 72, 120 and 77, 128 and 77, and 132 and 77. All these intersections showed considerable violations of red light runners, not to include right turns, just straight through and left turns. The reason I asked you, I would recommend to remove the 67 and 124 and 120 and 67 because the study showed those were relatively low risk intersections in the original 67th Avenue corridor.

Questions? I have one. Sir? So on the 77th Avenue streets, is it mostly the 77th Avenue that the cars are running, the reds? Or is it the cross streets? What have you got here? 120, 128, and 132nd?

I don't have it broken down by the actual direction. If need be, I can break it down even further, but that's...

It would be the same answer then for 112 and 104? Correct. Okay, got it.

Anybody else?

I just had a question. I think this is great. And I, of course, defer to the chief's recommendation on this. In the earlier iteration, it was all on Ludlum. So I know that to the extent the word was shared about this, it would be, hey, we're putting cameras in on Ludlum. Obviously, this changes it a bit, but is the plan, can you just remind me what the plan is when these are deployed? Is there gonna be an announcement, hey, we're putting cameras here?

Yes, it requires a public information campaign. It requires a 30-day warning period. So there will be general knowledge of this. We have not yet moved forward with the contract on 67th Avenue because if there was any interest in expanding it, it would be all part of the same contract. We would have to go back to the vendor and rework some of the terms. So that's why we're here today to decide what direction you guys want to go.

I have a feeling you'll figure it out pretty quick. Yeah, when you get the note. But will this have a substantial cost change?

It's cost neutral to the village. That clause still remains. I think it's great.

I have a question if I'm sorry.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Then we'll let the chairman go since he's in the room.

I have a question for the chief. Um. As you did the studies on these other intersections, did you study the ones on 67th that had been originally studied by the vendor?

In the original study that prompted us to move forward with the 67th Avenue, we have that data. We didn't do another study on 67th Avenue.

But your staff, it is the village that did the studies on these other new intersections?

I'm sorry, can you repeat it? I didn't hear you.

who did the study on these additional intersections? Was it us or the vendor?

No, the vendor does the study. They put out cameras, temporary cameras, on all these intersections. They let the data run for a 12-hour period, and then they report back how many violations were witnessed in the 12-hour period.

But it was done at our request?

At our request, correct.

Okay, all right. Thank you. Thanks for clarifying.

Mr. Pearman? So back in our February meeting when we approved these, it was for five red light cameras. It was... From my remembrance of it is basically a trial that we were gonna check out the red light cameras, see how effective they would be on 67th Avenue. At that time, there were two of the intersections that they classified as tier three, which were less of a problem intersections than the other ones, the two that you have mentioned. The discussion became should we look at other intersections to take those two and spread this out around the village a little bit more rather than having everything on 67th Avenue. So sure enough, we have two intersections, both on 112th Street, 72nd Avenue and 77th Avenue, which could take the place of those. So my belief is we should just stick to the five cameras that we originally approved in February. but take two of those in the tier three category and move them to this 112 and 72nd, yeah, 112 and 72nd, 112 and 77, and let's see how effective they are, what the public reaction is. Again, if we're gonna do these things, I'm gonna expect that these red light violations will decrease in number. If they're not decreasing in number, then what are we doing? We're not really making our streets any safer. cameras originally intended in February and change the two locations and then see how this all works.

Everybody spoken? I'm inclined to go with what the chief says. So what do we want to do? We got to do something. We got to come to at least a consensus. Well, we're just going to put them everywhere then? No, I think anywhere there's a problem, I guess. Well, I don't know if we've looked at every intersection. Well, we haven't, but the ones we've looked at where there's a problem, he's recommending. I mean, I don't know how you... ignore a life safety issue like that.

And we're hearing the chief say, based on the experience of the police department, this is where we should move them to because they haven't, the results where they currently are haven't demonstrated the need, so he's giving us a recommendation to move them. I think we should listen to the chief's recommendation.

Just for clarification, they are not up yet on 67th Avenue. This is just based on study numbers.

Okay. And if they don't, I guess what we're saying is we find out that there is not an issue there. What's it matter? We just keep them up.

Well, we had approved five.

Yeah, but it doesn't cost us anything.

I know, but it's still more cameras, more infrastructure at these intersections. There's other lit intersections we're not taking care of. I think it's an overreach. That's just my personal opinion. We approve five. We saw that there's, we looked into others to see if we should spread that out instead of keeping on 67th Avenue. We found two good intersections that above all the others qualify. Let's just move the two and keep it at five and get it started and see how it affects the traffic. Again, last year, 39 tickets were issued for running red lights in the village of Pinecrest. So how big of a problem is it?

Why would you argue with preventing people from, not preventing them, but fining them for running red lights? It's like speeding through the schools. Right. Listen, I agree. It's OK to speed through a school zone. But there is a toll for that. And that's what this is. Go ahead and run as many red lights as you want. But there's a fine for it. Because it's unsafe.

Right. And we could. It's deadly. And at the same time, we were talking about lowering the speed limits when we decided on the five red light cameras. And I'm not a fan of red light cameras. But it is a safety issue. And we're showing that there's a lot of people running these red lights. So you're right. I mean, we could. we could put cameras everywhere in the village and make it maybe safer, but look at us one, not a huge reduction in red light running, but a good bit of revenue coming into the village. But I don't know if it's made it a lot safer.

All right. So who's in favor of the chief's recommendation? I guess that's the question.

I am so I have a question for, you know. Generally speaking, I agree this is a safety matter and as such, if we have a solution recommended by the chief to address the safety matter, we should before and support it. And that's my opinion. I, you know. I'm curious if the chief has any data or any insights as to whether these types of deployments, these types of cameras do actually impact the number of red lights that drivers run. Because we're not going to be the first village that installs them. So what are the statistics? What does the data prove or show in other deployments, other cities that have implemented these? And what sort of reduction have they seen in reckless driving?

Here's the best way I can answer that question. Our current red light cameras are on US 1. US 1, three lane highway, people that traverse US 1 are not only local, but they're coming from all over the place. While what we're looking at here are interior cameras, which would generally be much more local than US-1. If we compare it to the speed enforcement cameras at the schools, that had a huge impact on slowing people down. Our year-over-year violations issued at the schools for the speed decreased significantly, which meant people who got tickets in year one are not getting tickets in year two, because not that they're not driving anymore, but they know to slow down. So that is the ultimate goal here. I guess time will tell. I don't have any hard data in other municipalities, but that is my general belief that, yes, I believe we will see a similar pattern if we put these on the interior roads in Pinecrest.

All right. So the question was, who agrees with the chief's recommendation? I've got one. Ariel's got two.

Me.

Three, four. OK. So we don't need to vote. That's the consensus, right? Is that all you need, Mitch? We don't need a voting on this?

Yeah, I think that the staff can act based on the sense of council. Excellent.

All righty, then. So what's next?

However, in an abundance of caution, open it for public comment.

OK, in an abundance of caution, even though we're not voting. All right, does anybody want to comment on this? Open to the public? Seeing none. Seeing none. We'll close the public hearing. Nobody online, I'm assuming? or nobody online cares, that's fine. All right, submission of the budget. That's different than tab 13?

Did you want to leave the budget for the last thing?

Is that not?

I haven't done the budget yet. So we can go on to the resolutions and then circle back.

Okay, let's do tab 15 then.

Okay.

That's the last one.

That was a resolution of the Village of Pinecrest, Florida authorizing the village manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Bowman Consulting Group, LTD, for the transportation assessment study providing for an effective date.

All right. Whose baby is that?

That's my baby. So... We've had a couple years worth of discussion during strategic planning on the idea of establishing a transportation assessment fee to augment what we get from local option gas taxes for the purposes of maintaining our you know, road infrastructure, a right-of-way infrastructure. Right now, we get about 400 and, I want to say 430,000 from the local option gas taxes, which in today's economic climate is, you know, basically worthless in terms of trying to resurface our roadways. We have made a lot of headway with our drainage projects and our potable water projects to resurface some of the interior residential areas. But in a general sense, when you look at the condition of the pavement throughout the village, the areas that are worse off are obviously the ones that are traversed mostly with most traffic, which would be the arterial railway. So in furtherance of establishing a funding source that's dedicated similarly to the stormwater utility fee that we have, which is specific just for drainage improvements. My recommendation, and council has considered this, and it is part of my overall recommendation in the budget, is that we would consider establishing the transportation assessment fee. But before you do any of that or even actually implement something or consider the vote, we would have to do a study. which is what I have before you right now, that would look at it and give you a recommendation of how we might go about establishing something like this. So this is the first step. We would obviously, if we were to go forward with this approach, we would have to have public hearings and all that. But the first step in doing this is doing the actual study that establishes the individual benefit to the properties and why we would be charging X, Y, Z. So they would develop a formula and base it on X, Y, Z. And then we would come back to council with all of that with the consultant presenting to council for your consideration.

All right. Any questions? This is for like an impact fee type of thing, right?

It's an assessment fee. So it's a special assessment. And it's specific to only things that would be for maintenance or things that we would be building in the public right-of-way. Just because our transportation fund, you know, the local option gas taxes that we get... Assessment on the homes? It's an assessment on the homes. Okay. It's a special assessment fee, similar to what we did, like, for the potable water.

Got it. All right. Understood. It's not an impact fee like a developer comes in. No. It would be on the property.

On properties.

Like the stormwater. Right.

Like the stormwater fee. Correct.

Okay. Any questions from us? Just a comment.

I mean, I think I support doing the study. I think we'll have time once we have the study to make decisions about what to do with it. But I think we need the information. This goes to the point that it's that from, I guess, a number of us have been beating, but about we need to be concerned about what happens. Look, this may be something we need to do anyway, but especially something we need to be concerned about what happens if this ridiculous expansion of the homestead exemption passes. And there's still a very real chance, even though all of its proponents, the rats, have fled the ship because they realize it's an absurd idea. But nonetheless, there's still a very good chance that this nonsense passes, which means we're going to have to be prepared. to fund basic functions of the village. And this is one of those, a very viable way to consider doing it. In the end, especially if the homestead exemption expands so dramatically, it's not even going to be something that, people will still come out ahead in the village potentially, depending on what these numbers are. But it's, I very much appreciate the manager bringing this forward because it's the responsible thing to do, to study all these options. And so I support it and I think it's, I look forward to seeing what we learn.

Okay, anybody from the public want to comment on this? Mr. Spicer?

Short and sweet.

I fully agree. Got to have the data, got to have the information. You need to make good, wise decisions. I fully support it.

All right, thank you. Anybody else? All right, seeing none, we'll close the public comment period. Do we have a motion? I'll move. All right. Second. Motion to favor? Okay, second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, motion passes unanimously. Excellent, all right.

Mr. Mayor, I have one more thing that's not on the agenda that I wanted to bring to council and ask for approval. We have, council had approved the award to the lowest bidder for the raised crosswalk project. Raised crosswalk project is part of the bond issuance that we already did two years ago, I have a deadline of October by which we have to build the raised crosswalks. The lowest bidder has bailed out. And the second low bidder has agreed to take on the project. The additional cost to the village is $66,574. So I would recommend that we go forward with the second low bidder at the full amount of $874. And so that we can go ahead and start the construction and make the deadline for the bond, the use of the bond proceeds, which have to be effectuated before the end of October. Since we're not meeting in August, I brought this to you. This is the last minute thing. We literally found this out last Friday, which is why I'm bringing this to you on days.

Is this based on the changes?

This is based on changes of the scope. The revised low bid, which was the second low bidder, was Metro. And we would be awarding, the cost is still $66,574 more than the low bid that we had awarded previously. What's the total cost? Total cost, $812,102. And what was Metro's original bid? Don't know the answer to that question.

I'd like to know. Again, we're talking about... Let me see. You guys know how I feel about getting too fancy with some of these things. These race crosswalks should be fairly straightforward. Some concrete, some asphalt, some markings. And we're making them into something fancy that's costing us a lot of money. I'd kind of like to know where Metro was and what their... and what they're taking off of their bid to do the simplified version that we talked about.

What's fancy about it?

pavers, concrete, colored concrete, regular concrete, asphalt, traffic markings. I mean, I understand.

How many locations are they going in?

I think it's five or six.

I believe it's five along all the cross streets on Kendall Drive. This is for the shared use? For the shared use.

In fact, Jim, you sent us a great video that showed elevated crosswalks. I think it was in Canada. I think it was in Canada that you sent us.

No, it hasn't been in Canada. It could have been Houston.

Well, you might have seen it. I don't think you took the video. I think you just shared it. The original.

You're right. I did. I sent it to you when it was in Houston. You've never been to Canada? No, not recently. OK, I was going to say. You said Houston. OK. traffic down, especially when they're turning in and out of the streets. It's a safety issue for people on bicycles.

That's why we want to do it. I noticed in that video that you sent, they were very basic. They were still quite functional and they worked.

I have the amount. The original amount was bid at $9,770.42. They dropped it to $8,112.102. So it got cheaper?

Well, because it got simpler.

Right, we changed the scope and fixed it a little bit.

See, it got cheaper. We were heading in the right direction, correct. We were heading in the right direction.

Who can complain about that?

And what's the reason why you're suggesting we do it now and not at the September meeting? Is it a?

It's a timing issue because we need time to construct it. We have to spend the money by no later than October 31st.

So what's the alternative? To not do it? Right? You don't spend the money. What are you going to do? Give it back?

You have to give the money back, yeah.

You have to give it back. The whole idea. It's not our money.

Yeah. Correct. OK, so. The idea is a good one, a race crosswalk. It's a safety issue. Right.

The issue is that the low bidder just pulled out, so it's a matter of going to the next low bidder and awarding.

But that's what you'd do anyway, wouldn't you?

We normally would do that, but I need council approval because it exceeds my purchasing authority.

Because the original bid was how much?

The original bid was $745,000.

It was $66,000 less than the new low bid.

Well, no, the second, let me say. What's the second, yeah, what's the next one? Okay, the original bidder, which was SC Contractors, bid for $745,528. The second low bidder was Metro Express for $977,042. SC Contractors has pulled out. They don't want to do the project.

That was the lowest bidder.

So the next low bidder was Metro Express. And they have revised their bid because we've changed the scope. We've simplified the scope. And their revised number is now $812,000.

which is 66,500 roughly above what the low bidder originally was, which was a 745.

So less than 10%. Yes. Okay.

I got no problem with it. I think it's not our money. We'd have to give it back to whomever gave it to us. And this is exactly the process that we'll be going through anyway. When the low bidder pulls out, you pick the next low bidder. They revise their bid because we value engineering. We got a price that's less than, it's 8% higher than we did before, which is not necessarily significant. And if we don't spend the money. We have to return it. We're going to return it. And we got to vote on this anyway to give you authorization. So if we don't do it now, we don't even vote on it now, we're likely to have to give the money back because there's no way we can get through construction by the end of September. Right.

So construction has to be done, or just? Construction, we have to have spent the money. Did you spend it? And what's, the money is from, I just wanna make sure I understand, the money is from?

It's budgeted, it's in the, it was in the.

But who's it from?

Bond, bond proceeds. Bank loan proceeds, because that was a bank loan, it wasn't a bond that we issued a couple years ago. It's part of that bond that we did for phase two of Coral Pine Park.

So it is our money, though. It's our money. It's not like it's a grant that we then get back. No, no, no.

It's just that if you don't spend it by a certain time, we have to then send it back because we have to spend it within two years of the bond or the money coming in.

I guess the question is we're committed to the project in the first place. We're spending 8% more money. Is that the reason not to do the project? whether you vote on it now or you vote on it whenever, is that the reason to risk the project? I say no. Same project. We all were committed to it. It's 8% more now. TODD BANDUCCI- Right.

We need to do it. We would have approved it if we didn't have that other low bid that bailed. And we would have paid more. We would have still paid more.

We would have just authorized a little bit before because we were committed to the project. And this will be the first raised sidewalk.

I think that's a great, a crosswalk rather. I think it's a good step in the right direction to see how these work because I can see application in the future in this town of having raised crosswalks for safety, life safety issue for walkers and bicycles.

Okay, so does somebody want to make a motion? I will. Motion to accept the second bidder. Anybody want to second it? Second.

I'll second.

All right, chairman got it. Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Aye. Nope, unanimous. All right, what's next? Budget. All right. Pass the gavel.

I'm good with taking a five-minute recess.

Well, now that everybody's walked out, we have to.

I got to go, too. All right.

Okay.

Very much, very much awake. There's a Mozart concert where they have dancing, ballet. I went there years ago. I can't remember the name of it. It's a touristy thing, but it's great.

Is it at the Mirabelle Gardens? Does that ring a bell?

I'm back. I'm back.

Oh, you made it? Ariel, you made it back. I made it. I made it back.

We don't know how long the break is.

My wife made sure that I was muted when I went to the bathroom.

No fun, like the naked gun. Remember when he goes in?

All right, let's bring it back to order.

Priscilla's not here, so now she can't.

Can't what? Can't what?

Oh, it's on. Yeah, but I need you to do the... Gotta get the words off the screen. And put up a PowerPoint.

Oh, yes. Okay. Everyone's back. Right.

Okay. This is everybody's favorite thing. We're back. The only reason we're here.