City Commission - workshop

July 28th, 2026. If I could ask everyone to please silence their cell phones or put them on vibrate during the meeting so we don't get disrupted, that would be great. So please check those cell phones. Appreciate it. Let's go ahead and call the roll.

Hi, Mayor.

Hi.

Commissioner Fezzik? Here. Commissioner Perkins? Here. Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton? Commissioner Smith?

Here.

Vice Mayor Fournier? Here.

Here.

Mayor Hardin. Here. If I can ask everyone to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Thank you. I get a motion approving the agenda as printed.

So moved. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you for that. Let me recognize Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton coming in. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. That takes us up to our regular agenda. Item number one, continued discussion and consideration of the recommended operating budget for fiscal year 2027, including the proposed millage rates and the fire assessment fees and the five-year capital improvement plan. I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Waters.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Commission. For the record, I'm Joshua Waters, the City's Budget Director. Last week, we held quite a long budget workshop, last Monday on the 20th. There were a number of items that the Commission requested some follow-up on, which staff provided last week. There was additional follow-up that went out earlier today at the request of another Commissioner. So the information has been provided to the Commission. I'll go over a few slides, a few high-level slides, just to highlight the items that we need consensus on. As a reminder, the city has to report to the Broward County property appraiser early next week on the proposed millage rates, as well as the proposed fire assessment fee that will be included in the trim notice. So there is a hard deadline that we have from the state to provide that to the property appraiser. So this afternoon, the three main objectives for the workshop will be to seek consensus from the city commission on these three items. The recommended operating and EMS budgets, as well as the millage rates, the fire assessment fees, and the five-year capital improvement plan for FY27 to 31. So we'll talk first about the millage rates. One of the requests that we received last week was to take a look at what it would cost to reduce the operating millage rate by 0.5%, consistent with commission action in the previous two fiscal years. This slide shows the recommended FY2027 millage rates. This is what was proposed by the city manager. In total, the general operating millage rate was 5.2181, and then the aggregate millage rate was 6.1324. To achieve a 0.5% operating millage rate reduction, the millage rate would go, the operating millage rate would go from 5.2181 to 5.1920, and then the aggregate millage rate would also decline from 6.1608 to 6.1063. That's a little less than 1% or a decrease of 0.0284 mils. So to achieve this, we would have to find savings of a little less than $612,000 in the city's general fund operating budget. As you all recall, there were two late-breaking items for the budget this year. One was a million-dollar increase that we have to pay for BSO pensions as a result of a piece of legislation that was signed by the governor over the summer. And then the other one was a $300,000 increase for the crossing guard contract that was also late breaking and was not able to include in the budget. So between those two items, that was $1,300,000 approximately. So any give in the budget that we've been able to find previously has essentially been taken up by those two big items. So in order to do so, we went back and took a look at the operating budgets for the departments. We took a look at increases that were provided year over year. to the departments from 26 to 27, as well as anything that could be delayed or postponed another year. And then we also took a look at the underlying budgets for the departments to see if there were any reductions that could be made without significant service impacts. So the way I'm describing these are essentially the least worst options that we could come up with to provide the commission with capacity to reduce the operating millage rate. So I'll just walk through these. The first item up here is the removal of the drone show from the FY2027 budget. This would result in savings of $152,000. I know there's been some conversation about the ability to really host the drone show, giving parking situation down at the beach with the construction of the different properties down there. So perhaps an idea would be to skip a year for the commission for the drone show, and then you could revisit this in the future to add it back into the budget. The second item on here would be a further reduction in the part-time budget for parks. As you recall, there was a reduction in the recommended budget of $100,000 to the parks budget for part-time, and that is because the parks director was able to find some additional operational savings by streamlining his part-time scheduling. In speaking with the parks director, he's able to realize additional savings with that for a total reduction of $225,000, so this would increase that reduction by $125,000. The next item on here deals with special legal non-departmental account. This was a budget that was included this year at a recommended level of $300,000, and this was based on prior year spending for special legal services. The two primary areas that have required this funding would be for the downtown development, particularly with private financing, and then the other item deals with some environmental legal consulting that the city had to do. Instead of funding it at $300,000, we think we could live with a $200,000 budget for special legal. So we were able to take some funding from that. The next one relates to the CRA. This is an automatic pass-through reduction to the CRA. So as the city's revenues decline, the city's TIF payment to the CRA also goes down automatically. So this reduction of $70,000 just simply results from the lower millage rate. There's a $45,000 reduction for cultural affairs. This would reduce arts programming expenses. The next item on here deals with the lightning detection system. So Parks currently has a lightning detection system in place. Parks was requesting to replace that lightning detection system with a newer one, a more up-to-date one. The current one still is operational, so this item, the $39,000 reduction, would just delay the replacement of that lightning detection system to the future. Marketing, there's a reduction for marketing of $30,000 included on this list. There was a $10,000 reduction that was included in the recommended budget, so this would take that reduction up to $40,000. The next item would be to delay the replacement of beach volleyball nets. This would result in a savings of $25,000. And then the final one would be a reduction to marketing for parks programming. So parks has its own separate marketing budget for its programs. And so this would be a reduction of $25,000 in addition to what was taken. So this would be the options that the commission could take to reach a half percentage millage rate reduction for the operating millage rate. The next item we're going to talk about is the fire assessment program. We went over these slides last week, so I'll just briefly touch on this just to remind the Commission and the public what it is we're talking about today. So the proposed fire assessment fees are increasing for residential properties from $361 to $391 in the proposed budget. That's a $30 increase. And then the increases for commercial, industrial, and institutional properties are just a proportionate increase at that same percentage. This results in an increase in the fire assessment fee revenue, a net increase of $2.548 million. And so this is the proposed rates there. And then just to show what the fire assessment fee coverage ratio is, the city has had a historical policy of trying to reach a 90% coverage ratio with the fire assessment fee revenues, net revenues to eligible expenditures. You'll see that it declined from 23 to 25 as a result of increasing fire expenditures But really maintaining the fire assessment fee rate near the same level And so that ratio declined from 94 percent to 77 percent and then last year the Commission adopted a methodology to start bringing that back up incrementally and so as the fire assessment fee revenues have increased as a result of this increase, but so have the fire, eligible fire expenditures. So that increase, the ratio goes from 81% to 82%. And then after last week's discussion with the commission, there are a few updates to the CIP. And so there are three main updates here. One would add a new senior center landscaping project. This would be $200,000 in funding for FY27 construction. To fund this, we would reduce the citywide park amenities budget from $400,000 to $200,000. The citywide park amenities budget pays for replacement of equipment in citywide parks. Last year, this amount was $200,000. We were just seeking an increase of $200,000 to accelerate some replacement of equipment. So all that would do is just delay some of the replacement of the equipment there. And then the final item would be to move up construction of the Hunter's Manor Pavilion Gazebo from 2031 to 2028. And that's a cost of $250,000. So that accelerates that project. And I've also included with the documents tonight for you guys the full updated... legal size sheets so you can see where the changes occurred, and you'll find those on pages, they're highlighted. They're on pages seven, six, seven, and nine, I believe. So with that, that wraps up my presentation and comments for today, subject to any questions from the commission.

Very good. Thank you for that. Nice presentation. Thank you for the work that you put into the budget, you and the rest of staff, of course. And thank you, Mr. Harrison. I just have one quick question. In those proposed cuts that you came up with, does that result in any job losses?

No.

No. Okay. So nobody's losing their job. Correct. Gotcha. Okay. All right. Let's open it up for discussion. Who'd like to lead off? Anybody? I just led off. How's that? So who wants to follow up? Okay. Okay. Vice?

Sure. I appreciate the work that you did to identify items that can make a difference in the budget without service impacts being felt. And also I believe I heard Commissioner Perkins' frustration at the last meeting about some of the CIP projects being pushed out. So it looks like some of those were addressed in this iteration also. We went through this in detail yesterday when we met, and I'm comfortable with these impacts right now. Thank you.

Very good. Further commission discussion. Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. I only have a couple of things. We got this, the questions, the answers, sorry. We got questions from our answers, or answers to our questions from July 20th. And I had a question about the On page two, it says it was about the salary split, how the budget was going to show the salary split, the city manager's office attributed to the CRA. And because the city manager's review is on our agenda for later tonight, it just struck me as our CRA budget said our city share is $399,022. And that's roughly the salary he has now, correct?

It is. So the only thing included in the FY27 budget versus the current FY26 budget is the COLA, the 3.5% COLA increase that's provided to every employee. We don't assume a merit increase for any of the charter officers in the budget.

Okay, so with the 3.5% COLA, that's with the new salary. So the new salary would be at 453? That would be the current salary plus the 3.5%. That would be the current salary plus 2%.

Right. This would be for next fiscal year.

Okay. Thank you. A couple other things were related to the marketing, which I think you've addressed somewhat here, so it may have actually been fixed since last time. And that was just related to it looked like there was another staff position, or it seemed like there was a huge number. It was like $150-something thousand dollars.

There was one staffer that was moved from cultural affairs to the marketing department. So that was a mid-year change that occurred during FY20, the current fiscal year. And so the budget just reflects the change, essentially moving the money with where the person is going to report.

Okay, great. And then I think the only other question I had related to that was related to our ROCA point, the draw. There seemed to be a jump in some of the, with RocaPoint, how much money we had coming out. There seemed to be a jump in that. Was that related to something in particular?

Which page are you on? Do you recall?

I just made myself notes.

Okay. I know that, you know, it may have been in one of the attachments. Hold on one second.

I just was wondering if we could have an itemized list of what that list entailed. Sure. So basically it just shows that it went up by, like, I think, I mean, it was a pretty big, pretty big, like three and a half times or something like that. It was pretty large.

I'll work with the finance director to get to an itemized list of those.

Great. Yeah, I think it was like related to the municipal muni complex or something like that.

Great.

Thank you.

Sure. Good. Vice Mayor.

Did anyone else have their hand up before I go again?

I didn't see anybody's hand up.

Okay, so there is something that has been in my mind since the meeting last week, and it gets to the point that Commissioner Fezzik just brought up, which is our obligations to Roka Point and how we have been paying for them. So to my colleagues, we don't have the opportunity to talk about this, obviously, unless we're in a meeting that's publicly noticed like this. But there have been $8.1 million that have gone out to Roka Point, separate of the CRA funding that we've paid them since December of 2025. And I think I've been digging into it a bit, and I think we need to talk about this. As some background, I sent a memo to Mr. Berman last week asking for a legal opinion about how we've been spending excess building department revenue. and there was a change in the statute July 1st, and that prompted some of my concern, but the concerns exist prior to the statute change on July 1st. So statute 553.80 lays out a highly regulated process that says building revenue cannot continuously exceed building department expenses. So think of it kind of like equivalent to an enterprise fund here or a piggy bank or a jar where you put money in and it has to go out for very explicit reasons. Essentially building departments can't be profit centers or slush funds. They can only support the operations of the building department. And we have been funding much of the downtown project all of the soft costs to date everything to Roka point That's city related including architects legal fees consulting fees and more with excess building department revenue So I am very concerned with what I've seen that we are one lawsuit away from it with an angry angry resident or contractor from some risk to our city I asked for a legal opinion about the use of the money over the last seven years, and the conclusion was 88 pages of everything is fine, we have no risk. So given we have no risk, I once was up here and was hushed when I talked about building department revenue and it potentially exceeding expenses. So if everything's fine, I don't need to be shushed today. So I think we need to talk about this in the context of the budget. Because it's become pretty obvious to me that there are some questions that need to be answered. So first, we have had significant excess revenue from our building department. The numbers show that we have systematically, year after year, had excess net revenue that is set aside for a major capital project, a municipal complex. And we've done that instead of reducing or refunding fees per the statute. In fiscal year 2019, the statute changed and it went into effect that the city could no longer keep a balance greater than the average operating budget for the previous four fiscal years. One week before that change, the city was on top of this and they passed a resolution to take $9.6 million out of that fund, the building fund, and create a CIP project for construction of a municipal complex. And in the background of that resolution, there's detail about where that money would be spent. There's zero on outside consulting or design, zero for outside professional fees, zero for program administration or design. 100% of that money is in an account called construction, that $9.6 million. THERE WERE NO OTHER ACCOUNTS GIVEN MONEY OR ALLOCATED MONEY BECAUSE PER THE STATUTE LIKELY YOU CANNOT. 100% WENT TO CONSTRUCTION COSTS. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THAT 9.6 MILLION STILL SAT IN OUR BUILDING FUND IN OUR AUDITED FINANCIALS UNTIL 2023 OR YEARS PAST. AND THAT MONEY SAT IN AT LEAST PER THE AUDITED FINANCIALS SAT THERE GIVING US EXCESS CARRY FORWARD four years prior, of $8 to $16 million a year over what the budget was, the average budget. The money didn't begin to be spent until 2025, fiscal year 2025, when the city started using this CIP money earmarked for construction only to pay for outside consulting for the downtown. So five and a half years later, not four years per the statute, in anticipation of someday building this municipal complex, the city had created a piggy bank with a post-it note on it that said municipal complex, no other details. The statute says you cannot carry forward more than four consecutive years. However, we did. Memo interprets the designations of funds as kind of like stopping the clock. Basically, you said, you know, it's four years, and once it's designated, the clock stops. So they could sit there essentially indefinitely. That's how the memo reads. And that's what it did. It sat there for another year and a half before any of the money was expended. It does say, the statute did say that excess funds could be used to construct a building or structure. It must be designated for such a purpose and not carried forward for more than four years. We are now seven years past that 2019 designation of funds. There were two subsequent designations of funds, but we haven't even used the first 9.6. We've spent 8.1. So this opinion you gave me relies on interpretation that the statute is intended for cities to almost create this indefinite savings account, as long as it's labeled a city hall complex in the future. I don't know that a court would agree. But let's all keep in mind there are still no shovels in the ground. There's no construction that has happened. And we've still spent $8.1 million that was earmarked for construction and legally only allowed to be for construction. There's no signs of a building. The memo that Mr. Berman wrote also tries to define construction as broad as I've ever seen. So I don't know what legal framework you relied on when you defined construction, but even in the most broad things that I can find legally, construction is to construct, repair, alter, modify, add, demolish, subtract from, or improve any building or structure. Even when we were dealing with the CCNA contracts, there was a difference between the rules for architectural design and the rules for construction as designated by the state. Architectural design is under Chapter 481, and it's strictly considered a consulting professional service, not construction. And Florida courts and the Attorney General have explicitly distinguished between design and consulting and construction as the physical execution. Our CIP does this every year for every item. We see this. There's other design costs and then construction costs in each item. And that's some of the frustration that we've seen, that there's design and then it's a couple years for construction. So for every CIP project, we had separate line items that meant something. If it said design, it was for design. If it said construction, it was for construction. But somehow with this CIP project, there is no separate line for design, just one for construction. And this money is only allowed to be used for construction, and that is the budget line, that is the line item that it is in in the CIP. Your memo broadly described all the soft costs, everything that has gone on in the downtown thus far that's city-related as applicable as construction costs. THAT CAN BE USED OR FUNDED BY EXCESS BUILDING FUND, BUILDING PERMIT REVENUE. SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE EXPENSES THAT YOU THINK CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION. YOUR DEFINITION OF CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES OUT OF TOWN ARCHITECTS STAYING AT THE BEACH FRONT MARIOTT. IT INCLUDES DINNER AT SOUTH. THANKFULLY THEY NETTED OUT THE 11 DRINKS THAT THEY HAD AT DINNER. WE DIDN'T PAY FOR THOSE. JUST THE DINNER. EARLY MORNING NO FOAM LATES AT STARBUCKS AND HIBACHI DINNERS. I understand that these architects have their travel policies, but this is being funded through our building department excess revenue. It includes legal fees about community benefits funds that never occurred, and it also includes consulting fees for the new Larkin Center. We pay Roka Point monthly a fee that is based on a calculation that includes 10.8 million or so for a new Pat Larkin Center, and this money that is coming out of this consulting fee that includes consulting for a Larkin Center, not a municipal building, not a city hall, is coming out of our building fund excess revenue. I don't know how anyone could be comfortable with those expenses being paid on the back of residents and contractors who are paying for building permits and inspections. They thought they were paying for a permit. And when we hear that people aren't paying for this city hall project, it'll pay for itself, they're already paying for all these soft costs. They already did through their building department fees. You also made it clear that the new statute, which went into effect July 1st, which explicitly prohibits spending money on buildings, even buildings for a building department, is not retroactive and it doesn't apply here, so that we will continue funding things this same way. There's also a cost allocation argument in there. So the building department is about 20% of the project. But we have used, so far, to pay for these costs, 100% of excess building fund revenue, or it's coming 100% from excess building fund revenue. It's not coming 80-20. like it would be if you were just using the 20% allocation for what will be the size of the building department in the new building. At best, there's some ridiculously broad interpretation that soft costs and meals and architectural and design and consulting fees to Roka Point are construction. That fund should still only pay 20%, not 100% of soft costs. Because what concerns me here is, what if that building actually never gets built? With property tax reform, financing costs, financial models that keep sliding out, I don't know if the numbers will ever quite work. And meanwhile, you spent 8.1 and put aside $21 million in total of excess building fund revenue to fund risky soft costs for a project that could sit archived on a shelf. So every interpretation in your memo seemed, from my perspective, to take you out or further out on some kind of ledge where you weren't looking out for the taxpayers of the city. Over the last year, Mr. Berman, I have watched you lose your way over and over siding with city staff and twisting into a pretzel to make them right instead of looking out for the taxpayers of this city. It seems if you're trying to win a popularity contest in City Hall instead of looking out for the residents and their money. So it's pretty simple. If you think of this jar of money and what goes in is building fee revenue and it is only for construction of a building department and it's only good for four years. We now have spent 8.1 of it on soft costs, in thin air basically, things that are pieces of paper, not construction, and it's been seven years, not four years. So like I said, your job is to give legal advice to this commission and to be a fiduciary for the residents here, no matter what the people you are surrounded by think. This job, you shouldn't be influenced by anyone. You are our lawyer. You are our trusted advice on things. And I personally, at this point, think that you're living in some kind of echo chamber on the fourth floor when I read this memo. Sometimes you have to give answers that are unpopular or that people aren't going to like. But I have real concerns about the risk and the exposure our city has. And as we continue in this budget to spend this money on soft costs, for design, not construction, of a city hall, not just a building department, I think that we are, like I said, one lawsuit away from having real challenges. And there have been court cases in other cities. There have been settlements with other cities over this exact situation. So I think you've opened this city to significant legal exposure. I'm concerned about this budget and how we're going to pay for our Roka Point obligations if something comes to fruition here with this. I feel like you flew too close to the sun with this one and kind of your wings have melted. So I don't think I can make a motion because this is just a budget meeting, but if I could, I would make a motion right now to fire you, Mr. Berman.

Thank you. Very good. Mr. Berman, would you have to respond at all to that? The Vice Mayor brought up some serious concerns and allegations. I understand. And it sounds like she just doesn't like your legal advice.

Well, first of all, I haven't opened the city up to anything. I didn't make these expenditures. I wasn't part of the expenditures. I was part of designating the funds back in 2019, preparing the resolution to transfer those funds. They were supposed to be transferred. I think COVID hit. Somehow everything sat, and then after 2023, they were transferred. My opinion in looking at this, number one, is that once the funds had been transferred for use, they were spent. They were in a designated CIP, and this was all done publicly with All information given to every commissioner at the time. I don't even know if you were around at the time. But all of this was done openly by staff. Now, as far as the uses are concerned, there are monthly reports as to the expenses. They're also given to the commission. Now, in terms of my interpretation, my interpretation, I believe, is correct as to certain things. Specifically, once the monies were transferred, they were spent and used for construction. My interpretation that construction doesn't just involve digging shovels in the ground. Construction, if you're going to build something, you need consultants, you need legal fees, you need architects, you need engineers. The soft costs are part of construction. I think it's a valid argument and in the brief period of time i had which was basically this weekend to answer your questions that's the way i feel i i believe construction includes all of these other areas now drinks at the pool and all that i don't have the advantage of having these receipts to take a look at at this point but we can talk about that some more but the the hard cost of construction inclusive of design engineering except for that go toward construction i also In my discussion with staff, the studies were done to determine what portions of the new city hall project were going to utilize that money. And I believe it came up to 24% of the building was supposed to be for the building department attributable toward the expense of the building department that included i believe land acquisition that included everything twenty four percent across the board if they've been exceeded that's something that we're gonna have to talk about but i know that these funds also per the resolution said that these costs can be paid in the uh... resolution approving the development agreement with any and all available funds so that apparently is what has happened in those funds uh... can be moved either moved back or accounted for but again i'm when you say that i've put the city in a position i'm not part of moving money around other than i just described i don't write the checks i don't do the budgets i don't move the things around but everything has been done has been done with transparency And everything that is done is done with monthly or quarterly reports to the commission. I believe my interpretation as to the money was spent once it was transferred and assigned for use. The fact that that project got delayed, nowhere in the statute does it say the building has to be constructed. Construction is a process, and that process has commenced. so that's my interpretation respect your interpretation as well and i'm happy to discuss those with you and if the commission as a whole believes that additional action needs to be taken by staff to make changes in that regard we're willing to do it but i was given a set of facts and asked to opine within forty eight hours on this, this, this, this, this, on materials that I didn't even have. So I gathered them and answered them as responsibly and quickly as possible. I believe the interpretations are legally permissible, that I have said, and if that's not the case, we'll deal with it. That's all. No one's trying to hide anything. No one's trying to make excuses. I'm looking at basically the cards I was handed in the deck and giving you my interpretation. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Commissioner Perkins?

Yes, Vice Mayor, can you share with the other commissioners what you have, what you're reading from? I don't know, but...

There are a couple memos that have been exchanged.

I'm sure that the... As you were talking, I don't remember anything coming to us regarding the Roka Point being paid out of the building fund. Was that the building enterprise fund?

THE BUILDING PERMIT FUND.

I DON'T REMEMBER ANYTHING COMING TO US TO SAY THAT THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE AND REMOVING FUNDS.

IT'S A VERY HIGHLY REGULATED ENTITY. YOU CAN ONLY USE IT FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES TO GO BACK INTO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. YOU CANNOT USE IT FOR GENERAL OPERATING COSTS OR AS A SLUSH FUND OR EVEN AS OF JULY 1ST TO BUILD A BUILDING FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THE MEMO THAT MR. BERMAN SENT OUT SAID THAT EVERYTHING WAS DONE PROPERLY.

Right, I heard what he said. So we're paying RocaPoint from the, based on what you said, from the building fund? Mm-hmm, that is correct. And that started in 2025 based on what you just said, right?

January, no, December 17th, 2024. So fiscal year 2025 was the first payment. But in 2019, five and a half years before that, money was put aside with no with like i said a piggy bank with a post-it note that said future municipal complex but the statute says you can only hold it for four years but just to be clear thank you record straight it's not being paid from the building fund okay so i i do thank you vice mayor for that that information i did not know where the funding was coming from to pay roca point but thank you for that information Yeah, I was curious myself. And so, Mr. Berman, the reason I have that kind of information is not because I get monthly reports. It's because I had to really dig and ask the questions when we went through the budget as to where money was going to figure out how this had been paid for. And in the resolution from 2019, in the backup, Exhibit A, the Capital Improvement Plan Justification Form, there are lines here for outside consulting and design. other professional fees, there's all different line items here. They all have zero money allocated to them. So they are broken down separately here than construction. So your definition is grouping everything into one when they are not. I also want to know how the money went from construction, which is account 65-12, to 65-03, which is a consulting account, because it's been paid out of a consulting account, not a construction account. So I don't know if there's a budget adjustment somewhere, but...

So would Mr. Berman be responsible for moving funds?

No, I'm not saying that anyone's responsible for moving funds, but certainly as our attorney, you are responsible for making sure that we are not getting ourselves in trouble and that we are following the statutes to the letter of the law. And just even the oversight that the money was supposedly earmarked in 2019 but didn't get transferred until four years means that we carried an excess balance of $8 to $16 million in our building department fund, which would have put us in, I think you at least agree with that, Mr. Berman, that that is not in compliance with the statute that says that we can't carry anything beyond the average operating budget of the four years prior.

That's not discussing the money that was already transferred. You're talking about other funds. Is that correct?

It wasn't transferred. It's a thing. It was earmarked, but it wasn't transferred till fiscal year.

It was transferred within the four years back then, but just wasn't all spent within four years. It actually, when it was transferred in 2023, we would have till 2027 to spend those funds. If you believe- And the clock doesn't stop. But let's go back to 2019 and the resolution that was done. And that was done by staff. At the time, there was the knowledge that we were moving forward with this project. There were no identifiable costs for those items that remained zero at the time. That developed as the project eventually got approved years later. So in 2019, there couldn't have been numbers to put in Back then, there was no idea of what those costs would have been. But the idea was to designate the monies knowing the project was coming and to do it lawfully and to put it away for future use. No one knew that there would be delays of several years due to pandemic and due to funding issues and things of that nature, but it's proceeding now. And as far as any transfers that took place, I assume there are monthly reports and annual reports and budgets. And I assume that our four years worth of audits, auditors looked at all this and approved it. So, you know, again, I'm not an audit person. I'm not a finance person. I don't sign off on transfers of funds unless it's within my own budget, which is few and far between. I think I've done two in 30 years. In any event, everyone has answers and can provide you with all the answers to your questions. Nothing was done surreptitiously. Everything was done in the open. If you disagree with the answers or the interpretations, then that's something we can all work on. So you're satisfied. Commissioner Perkins, you still have the floor.

Okay. So I'm just trying to understand. So no authorization from the commissioners is needed? At the time of the transfer of funds?

No.

No?

Okay. No, authorization was needed at the time, not more authorization.

Okay.

And it was all done, and the commission approved it. And there's a full, I sent a link, and that has all the documents, like 88 pages worth of documents and memo to you.

Vice Mayor, I would love for you to share that information that you have with the rest of us.

I'm sure Mr. Berman can do that.

I don't think I can send things around.

The question went that way, not this way. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

I asked her to share the documents that she researched or found her information, and she said you could do that. She could not do that. She cannot send that to us.

I did send you the link to all the documents that I have. You may have more documents in terms of, I don't recall seeing pool parties or whatever it is that you talked about. That's the main one. All those things.

That's the one I want. I didn't say pool party.

Mr. Berman, to put a point on it, the vice mayor can share any documents. You just can't make commentary on it, correct? Correct.

I suppose the problem is with the 88 pages, I couldn't send via an email or PDF. The system couldn't handle it, so I had to open a link.

No, specifically I'm asking, can the vice mayor share these documents she has that she may not have shared with you?

Yeah, I don't recall seeing that. They may have been in that. It's a sunshine question.

Specifically because of sunshine, can she share those documents with the rest of us?

Well, now that it's been discussed publicly, I believe she can. Just don't comment back and forth between one another.

There we go.

Okay.

There we go.

I would prefer the city doesn't. That's fine. Get them to me, and I'll send them out. By the way, I sent out a copy of my response memo to all of you. So you all have their memo, the link, and everything. If you need anything else, just let me know and I'll get it. I don't have these documents. I'll be happy to get them from from budget or for whoever has them or from you. If you have them, obviously you have them.

Yes. And there's still some unanswered questions about budget transfers and how money went from construction into consulting and whether those were authorized or needed authorization. But the statute is very clear about construction. And so clear that they even got rid of that in the last one, in the last version of it in July. So the interpretation of construction, the way that we've been interpreting it here, has me very concerned.

Very good. Commissioner Perkins, you still have the floor.

All right. I'm done for now. Okay.

Commissioner Fessick.

This is going to be a lot to unpack, I think. So first thing is, who did spend the money? Mr. Harrison, I'm just flipping through these things, and I see Ms. Sybil and I see Mr. Harrison's name all over it. So who did spend the money and who authorized the payments?

Who spent the money and who authorized the payments?

I mean, whatever they are, I'm still, I don't know.

This is a lot. I mean, it's which payments and...

We have a list.

Good afternoon, Suzette Sybil, assistant city manager. I am the contract administrator for the master development agreement. So with that, I review all payments and I submit them to the executive assistant, Mr. Harrison's assistant, then it goes to finance for processing.

where do you know what this what do you have a list of what these items are handy or what that you could get to us fairly soon related to what has come out of this account since december of was it 2024. you mean the payments that have come out of the account each of the draw who was paid and for what purchase invoice like basic information who was paid and what for um yes we can provide that to all commissioners Did any, so I'm, when I was, just as I was scrolling here, this, the 2019, so I'm going to kind of, I'm going to sit back for a second because I'm, in my head, I'm doing this rapid fire run through of, this massive file dump that I got last year, last fall. There was a lot of conversations related to RMA, related to the New Downtown Project, related to McNabb, related to all these projects. And I'm flipping through all these emails and all these, in my head, I'm going through all of the email threads that I saw related to Bills and Sundberg when I brought that up. And I know that's special legal, but... There were a lot of these people coming in and out of the conversation, and so I'm just really curious to see if any of those were paid for out of this fund. So I'm going to probably sit with that likely sleeplessly for a little bit until I figure it out. Since this was in 2019, it started in 2019, when the ballot questions came to us or were voted on to come to COMMUNITY IN 2024, NOVEMBER 2024. DID ANY OF THE BALLOT QUESTIONS PROPOSED IN 2024 ALLOW MORE FLUID MOVEMENT OF THESE FUNDS?

I'M NOT SURE I'LL DEFER TO MR. BERMAN TO ANSWER THAT.

THE ANSWER IS NO.

OKAY. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THAT WAS THE CASE. WAS THE MDA CRAFTED SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW FOR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WITHOUT CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL?

I can, I'll answer the question about movement between lines, because I know you had that question. That information was provided to, I don't know if it was just the Vice Mayor or the entire commission.

So I can answer that. Okay. So the city manager has the ability under a couple of different resolutions that have been enacted to move funds between line items of a budget in a department or within a fund. So it says the city manager may transfer funds between any line item of a division and between departments of the same fund. Provided that such transfer transfers shall not exceed the amount set forth in exhibit a which is essentially the the annual appropriating authority for that year's budget Reference by resolutions adopting the annual budget or of estimated expenditures and expenses and receipts and revenue The city manager shall provide the City Commission a report of any and all fund transfers exceeding $10,000 not later than 30 days following the end of each quarter At the request of the Vice Mayor, I went and looked through the budget adjustments that have been made between the line items of Fund 327, which is there are two funds for the building department. There's the building permitting fund, which is the operating fund, and there's the building capital fund, which deals with the capital projects. And that's where this money has been sitting, is in the building capital fund, which is Fund 327. And I found three, I'm aware of three budget adjustment transfers that have been made between the construction line and then the design line. And then those reports were provided to the commission. There were two separate quarterly reports where all three of those transfers were made and they were identified as going for the municipal complex.

Go ahead.

I'll have to look at my report. I believe one may have been the first quarter of this calendar year, and one predates me. So that would have been early 2025, I believe. But I'll be happy to re-forward those reports. But I went and double checked to make sure that they were included in those reports.

I can add some additional clarity if you like. Go ahead. Absolutely. You might answer a question I have while you're here. Yeah. So, you know, as Mr. Waters stated and you've heard this evening, usually, and the Vice Mayor is correct, usually in CIPs, sometimes you have money designated for design and construction. This project started so many years ago. We've been going through a process. Obviously, you've all been along for the ride over the last two years with this project. So what happens is we brought an architect on board, HOK, And we executed a contract for about $6 million. We shared that contract with every member of the commission up here. So that's the bulk of what we've been incurring for costs over the last two years or so. In addition to that, well, let me finish that thought. So once that happened and we knew what that contract was, we had to estimate what we thought the design costs were to get us to public financing, which is really what we were working towards. That didn't pass, so we had to switch gears back to private financing. So a lot of the budget adjustments you saw was in essence transferring funds from construction to design to start that HOK architectural review process and developing the design for City Hall and finalizing those plans. So we did transfers for that. We followed all of the city's policies and processes, working with purchasing, finance, and budget to effect those transfers, all within the approved guidelines of the city. So again, everything was done transparently as it related to that. The other major thing that we were incurring were development fees. As you're all aware, you have a copy of the master development agreement. RocaPoint is managing the project for us, and they're entitled to a 5% development fee of all costs incurred. So what you're really seeing in the draws that we process monthly is we're paying Roca their development fee. It's about $137,000 a month, and then what Roca does is they get invoices from HOK, and then we process pay ROCA and ROCA pays HOK. So it's really a pass-through cost, but that, and then there are some legal fees if we advertise solicitations. There are fees also in the draws because it's a pass-through to the city because it is our project that they're project managing for us. So I did just want to give you a background, and I do explain that in the memorandum that Mr. Berman shared with all of you along the 86-page PDF file. You all have a copy of that, kind of giving a background history of that process to date.

Is there anyone else tacking on fees, so aside from RopePoint, which is likely in our MDA? Are there any other, aside from legal fees, like what do those look like if you were to break it down?

So it's legal fees, advertising fees, it's payments to HOK as the architect, and it's the development fees. Those are the ones that come to mind quickly.

Maybe you can refresh my memory, but when we were sitting here at some point last year, I think, and the city hall design slash garage design came across here, and I pretty much raised a question about why is this on the agenda this way, which I know that you didn't have a hand in, perhaps, because it has to be written a certain way. When I raised concerns about spending money and picking a design and spending money when we had not yet been through the process of approving funds, and I pretty much raised hell that we were picking between option A or B, and if anybody remembers, I chose C, because my concern was I didn't want to spend money that we weren't already authorized to spend. I didn't want to throw money down something until we had agreed on something together. Am I to understand that this money that we're paying, which okay, who design our city hall, design our parking garage, come out of this fund without us essentially being notified until we begged and pleaded the first of this year.

actually i believe you did ask at some point we'd have to go back and look at the videos how i was funding those costs and i did answer that question but just to back up as part of the master development agreement exhibit b-2 b-1 page two it explicitly lists this as a source of funds for funding this and there's actually a footnote that describes it specifically and the approving resolution for the master development agreement also specifically calls out building permit inspection fees in addition to all available revenues but the city to meet its contractual obligations under DMDA.

Okay. Since you are the contract administrator, I understand this all sort of falls on your shoulder because you're doing both jobs, working with the CRA and working with the city. There's... I had four kids, so they're grown up, thank God. But... when they would come home from something and I would ask them a question, and I would say, hey, what happened at whatever it may be? And they told me like 25% of the story, perhaps, and they said, oh, you know, mom, it was on that sheet I gave you. They didn't actually, like, they threw the sheet at me, and they told me it was something, they were telling me a story, they threw the sheet at me, I looked at it, glanced at it, somewhere in the middle of something, probably said something else, and it wasn't until later, I get a phone call from the teacher, Explaining that the second page of that story or the second page was blurred or something or they left that part out of the story for me that's the feeling that I'm getting right now and I think that I Don't know how to react just yet. I just but I but I've been telling you right now that With the reading I have done and the concerns that I have had since day one sitting here related to not just this project, but really just I mean multiple projects within the city and Mr. Harrison, I'm not going to blame you. Mr. Harrison, it is your job to oversee this. It is your job to make sure that we are getting the information. It is your job to communicate with us. And if anybody else knew about this and chose not to raise that point when it was questioned by multiple people up here at various times for various ideas and not very clearly answer that question, that to me is a lie by omission. I mean, it's just basically glazing over what we asked a very specific question and just not getting an answer and burying it in some long document or some thing that we would never have to think to go back through here and flip through page whatever it might be of 200-something pages to go look at a line item. We actually can't see what the detail is. We would never know to look. It's unfair. I have a lot to go through this. This I'm actually, I'm livid. I don't even know. I'm just trying to compose myself long enough to ask some questions, but I glanced at this, and I was like, okay, well, this seems like something. I don't know what it is. I did not realize the extent of what this was, and now that I'm just starting to hear it, if I were a resident of Pompano Beach, I would be so mad right now. I would be so livid, and I apologize to you because we have tried. We have asked the question multiple times, and we're not getting it, not getting the right answer, the clear answer. Vice Mayor, hats off to you for finding this, and unfortunately for finding this, because a lot of things have been happening where the questions have been there, and then we've made it feel like we're the crazy ones. We've somehow, we should just trust everybody. Why should we trust people who are lying to us when we're sitting here asking the questions? And I say lying because, before I get corrected for misinformation, I'm lying because I asked the specific question and I know that it did not get answered. And it did not get answered the way that would be clear for everybody to understand. So I feel like I was lied to. So I'll say it like that. I want to go through this. I think we need way more time with this. So I'm done for now, but I'm going to sit and listen for a second.

Okay. Are we back on the budget yet, or Vice Mayor?

Well, I have a couple quick questions. How do you justify the 10% of the monthly fee that's going to ROCA, the $137,000? 10% of that approximately is calculated based on a new Pat Larkin Center, which has nothing to do with a city hall or a building department. How are you justifying that monthly fee to ROCA for a civic center that is completely unrelated to a building department?

So I'd be happy to answer that for you, Vice Mayor. So twofold. One, as Mr. Berman mentioned earlier, be defined, and I believe that is accurate. Construction is all of the planning, all of the studies, everything to get us to this point. So my justification is that we've incurred all of these costs to plan since 2022 to this point to get this project to fruition. So I'm glad to provide you with any information on what those costs look like, but in my mind, the building inspection fund um is is entitled to pay 24 let's use that percentage because we've hired architects over the years just to make sure that we were allocating the correct percentage to the building permit function and that's the way we did it we also You want me to finish?

You're raising your hands. It's not my question. So let's say you get to your 24%. My question is, how are you paying for 24% of the Pat Larkins Center development costs?

Right, and that's the question I'm trying to answer. So what I'm saying is, we've incurred all these costs before we even got to starting to pay $1. We've had all of these planning costs, all of these assessments of the city hall building, all of those things. So if you were to add up those costs and allocate 24% to that, in my mind, the building fund owes us 24% of that cost out the gate prior to us even executing the MDA agreement. So we've been planning for this project for years. Now we so happen to execute a massive development agreement in June of 2024, but I've tracked all of the planning costs leading up to that point. I'm happy to sit down with you and go over all of that. I don't have a problem with it, but I've documented everything related to this building permit fund.

I have no doubt that it's documented, but that doesn't answer my question. Mr. Berman, the statute very clearly says pay for the construction of a building or structure that houses the building code enforcement agency. How are we paying Roka Point monthly for the development fee associated with their work for Pat Larkin Center of the building fund?

It's construction, and it doesn't have their, I don't know, are they gonna, that's something that staff will have to deal with. It wasn't in that portion.

It's not construction, because if it was construction, it would have stayed in the construction fund. There was a budget adjustment to move it out of construction, actually, and that's my next question. If we know it's not construction, because it's clearly not construction, and we all know that, there's nothing over there, we moved it, or somebody did a budget adjustment and moved it into outside consulting and design, and then paid it out. So it's very clearly there was a movement away from construction towards soft costs. Were you consulted about that and whether that put us in legal jeopardy with the state statute?

I became aware of it when you provided me with the information for my memorandum.

So do you think there is an issue if we take money that's budgeted for construction and we explicitly move it out of that, even though the state statute says construction?

Potentially, but the agreement says that funds can be transferred back and forth for the project, and that's what's being done here.

So this is a piggy bank, like I said, with a post-it note on it that says, saving for big downtown project. And we took money from the building inspection fund, and now we're just using it to pay soft costs for Pat Larkin Center, for traveling architects, and calling that construction. This is like if I have a like a swear jar for my kids and they have to put money in every we all do every time we say a bad word and I told them we'll build a new playground with this right when we get enough money and we get enough money and instead I like remodel the house or something and do a whole remodel like it's not it's adjacent but it's not the same thing that it was earmarked for.

I understand, and I'll have to meet with staff and get their discussion, but it's part of construction of the City Hall complex, and it covers the portion that the building department. As far as Pat Larkin's, that's probably money can be moved around per the resolution, the approving resolution, and I believe that money will be credited back once the financing is completed. taken takes effect. But in any event, if you're not comfortable with what's being done, I would think that the money can be transferred back and other funding sources will have to be arranged.

that's why it's relevant since we're in a budget session here so we have obligations we have to meet and i have real concerns about how we've been meeting some of them and the legal exposure we have so i mean perhaps we need a special meeting to give you time to look into this and have a special meeting to really dig into this and make sure that we're not continuing to put our city in legal jeopardy by spending the money this way i'm happy to come to any meeting that you want to call i'd like to make a motion to have a special meeting on this topic second I believe we only need two votes, right? Special meeting when?

September. Before September?

Before we have to vote on the military in September. Because if we do find that some of this money we've been paying out of this fund, we decide that we shouldn't be, then it impacts the budget.

What specifically would be the topic that you want addressed here, Vice Mayor?

ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS, I THINK.

I WAS ASKING THE VICE MAYOR, COMMISSIONER FESSICK. THANK YOU.

THE CITY'S USE OF BUILDING FUND REVENUE. because mr berman gave you his legal opinion i mean and miss sybil has answered your questions and i'm unsatisfied and i asked a couple additional questions and mr berman is sitting there saying well maybe that gets paid back maybe that cost can't i want a legal definition of construction i didn't see any case law in there about and there are cases where cities have settled for less for these type of situations where the building departments were overcharging

So you just want more research done by Mr. Berman?

I want a special meeting where everyone has all the same information. And yes, there are additional questions to be answered here before I'm comfortable that we don't need to be budgeting for some of these RocaPoint costs that we have to pay. The part of the development fee that's related to a Pat Larkin Center, I just can't get my head around how that could possibly be paid for by building inspection revenue.

Okay, I mean, I just was.

And the fact that you can and don't seem to have any concerns is actually what troubles me.

Well, Vice Mayor, I appreciate your concerns. It's your call on the special meeting. I was just trying to nail down what it is.

Mayor.

Very good. Thank you. Commissioner Fasik, you seconded, I believe, correct?

I did second. I just was going to say, if we're going to do it, I was looking at our schedule, our calendar, and would love to do it either the 7th or the 9th, if possible, because that gives us plenty of time to get all the information. And I would like to get the information before we go on hiatus, if possible, so that we have time during hiatus to go over it and be ready for this meeting. Thank you.

I didn't catch those dates. Those dates? 7th or the 9th?

Monday or Wednesday? I can't do those dates.

7th or 9th of August?

September.

September.

September. Oh, wow.

7th and 8th, that's a Monday or Tuesday.

The 7th is Labor Day, I believe. Oh, is it?

So then the 9th.

That's a Wednesday. We have a meeting on the 8th. We can do it before that.

We can do it before or after that?

Before the meeting.

I'm okay with that. It's your meeting before the meeting. Okay.

Labor Day, that's the city's call list on Monday. On the 8th. We're talking about the 8th. On the 7th. Why don't we get an opinion from the Attorney General on this issue prior to going forward, whether

Perhaps Mr. Berman can ask for that also in advance.

Attorney General is not going to opine on the internal operations of the city. An attorney general opinion is when you have a question of law and they interpret the law. But there are other state agencies that would probably give you an opinion on this. But we need to get together and formulate our position as to the additional questions asked today. And we can decide how to handle that. If it involves refunding money back into various funds, that may be a solution. If it involves... reporting, then we'll do what we have to do. That's all by law.

9 a.m. on... 8th?

Okay, so it's proposed 9 a.m. on September 8th, is that it?

The commission meeting starts at 1.

Right, that'll give us some time to take a break and go to lunch, hopefully. Four hours.

Okay.

What time?

It's a special meeting.

That means we can walk away, have lunch, and come back.

Okay. We're moved and seconded to have a special meeting on the topic of what Mr. Berman presented to respond to.

Building inspection, building permit fund revenue and expenses, like I said.

Mayor, if I may. Yeah, just a second. I was just trying to get everything clear for the record, so Kervin will have everything accurate there. This is a response to what Mr. Berman supplied. Okay. So moved and second. Discussion on the motion. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton.

Thank you. So when we come back, we'll have some opinions as to the legality of moving those funds. And apparently definition of construction within the context of building a project, which in my mind includes design. So and You know, every construction project needs a design, engineering drawings, et cetera, et cetera, before it can proceed. So, I mean, that's a given. So I would hope that prior to the meeting that we'll get some of these opinions and get it figured out, not just two days ahead of time, three days ahead of time. So thank you. Very good. Commissioner Smith.

Also, the 24%, in my mind, the way I look at it is it's 24% of the total project would be the building department's percent. Might be using some of those funds right now, but in the end, it's the 24% total of the project The project and 24% of that was the building department's percentage. Not that it's might be a little lopsided right now because there isn't any department that's out there yet, but I'm looking at the totality of the, the entire project and the 24%. So if we can get justification on that, because in my opinion, I'm thinking of the total, not the EPAT Larkin and all is all going to come in together. So if you can just clarify that for me, I appreciate it. Thanks.

Very good. Vice Mayor.

Yes, and with respect to that, we're using this to front-loading with all of this money effectively. If this building for some reason doesn't happen, something changes, who knows? What risk are we at then that we have spent all this money and we didn't construct anything?

And I would assume it's refunded back into the building account or some other account.

It's been spent. So I don't know how we're not going to claw back from architects who designed a building. So sizing that risk if a building doesn't end up coming out of the ground when we've chosen to front load it using building department revenue.

Well, then I think we have to think positively that it is going to come up. That's what the intent is, to develop.

I tend to think lawyers are supposed to look at situations and manage risk accordingly.

You can't develop anything. You can't build anything assuming it's not going to get built, and then what do we do? You move forward, and you make all best efforts to design, engineer, constructed and fund properly funded. And that's what's being done at this time. If it doesn't come out of the ground, we'll deal with, uh, whatever costs our monies remain, but the cost of the cost, that's the cost of doing business. If you do don't do it, it doesn't get built. Then that's money that I guess we'll, we'll feel bad about, but there's nothing you can do. The intent is to develop and bring the residents home a good project. That's what

I think we have a greater obligation to the residents and contractors who pay building permit fees here than to just feel bad if we spent all their excess revenue on something that doesn't come out of the ground, which is probably why the statute is written to say construction.

All right. Well, it's not all their excess revenue, but we'll talk about it. Thank you.

Well, and on top of which, this is why before anybody decides to end a project midway, you need to consider all the ramifications for that decision. The refund of the building department fees might be the smallest problem we would have. We've got a contract with developers and partners, which breaching that contract is going to be very expensive if someone were to want to cancel this project. That's why what Mr. Berman's talking about is correct. You go forward with the anticipation that the project will be done. Otherwise, you can't do anything. Now, you may not agree with certain things of a project at this point in time, but the project is moving forward. So before anybody decides to cancel something, you need to look at all those types of things, all of the ramifications of canceling something. I don't care if it's the downtown project or if it's a project to pave our streets. Once Weekly has mobilized their forces to pave our streets, if we suddenly said, oops, that asphalt's too expensive, cancel that contract, Weekly's going to get damages for some portion of what they bid. So yeah, there's ramifications for all of these types of things. Commissioner Fessick, go ahead.

Thank you. So I have a little bit here. First of all, just to quickly address what you just said, the project is moving forward, and downtown streets, that would buy rights if we canceled a contract that other people had already, for anything, and they've already invested money, then they could essentially come after us for their funds. So I would want to be careful with some of that. All right, let's start with Pat Larkins. So well before I was sitting here, I was sitting there, and I have heard very loudly on very many occasions, and then even after sitting in this chair, have heard very loudly on very many occasions from very many people in the community, felt very strongly about certain things not happening in relation to their community center. They are very actively used. They want nice things there, upgraded, sure, but they did not want it moved, did not want it torn down. I'm gonna ask this question as simply as I can. When HOK is working on this Pat Larkin Center and there's 24% or whatever it is, what site are they designing the Pat Larkin's project on?

That's a decision that's still evolving based on the six additional community input sessions that are scheduled.

So you mean to tell me that there's not a preferred site right now, and they're just designing a building as professional architects?

Well, it's not HOK. Did you say HOK? Right. There's a new architect that we've engaged. Right now, they're just engaged to do—we sent the contract to all the commissioners. That's studious and meticulous. So we did send that contract out to all the commissioners again It's a three hundred thousand dollar contract and right now they're engaged to go out to the community that we had the first session last Thursday We think we have about six additional sessions less this left This is the most robust outreach that we've done to design a facility given the importance to the community But we are going to be discussing site it's something that they're going to be discussing with the community based on input from everyone and sharing their thoughts and

What are the two or three proposed sites for this location?

So right now, we looked at the existing site. We looked at the site next to the Annie Gillis Park, and we had initially presented a site on the south side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, west of 6th Avenue.

So they have been instructed to pick one of those three. They know the details of one of those three sites.

They're working to gather input based on one of those three sites and what could potentially go there They're working to gather input based on programming size parking all of those parameters and then ultimately they will come to a decision in terms of what? Parameters the community wants to see at that center and they'll bring forward all of that information and we meet with all of the commissioners one-on-one because that design does have to come back to the Commission for approval and

I don't want to, so this is the second time you've mentioned you're going to meet with all of us one-on-one, and at this point in this project, with as much money as involved, and given this, I'm just going to put it on record that I don't want anything to happen where the public doesn't immediately get all the information. I want all of these questions answered in public, and you can provide us all of the information. We will be happy to send you our questions, perhaps in advance if you'd like, but I do not feel comfortable anymore doing things as we've done them before, and I want every question answered in a public forum that is recorded, that is sitting here, that is line item detailed. I am not comfortable with this. Oh, we'll get with you, and then it's our job to determine and to figure it all out based on what we're told, and then we're ultimately the ones that have to be responsible for making sure that the community understands. No, you are. It's your project. You are. You're responsible.

But I do also want to reiterate, we're going to be having six sessions. We want everyone to come out as you can get all as many questions, answers that you'd like to get answered. I just was just pointing out that was another step in the process is to meet with each of you one-on-one similar to like we did for the city hall building. We had a lot of meetings one-on-one. We had workshops. We had all of these things to discuss the project. So, I mean, there's always opportunities for that as well if that's what you do want. But I'm just stating that right now the architects are tasked with having an additional six community input meetings, and everyone is invited to those meetings to ask, get their questions answered.

Thank you. And I just want to make sure that we point out also how much marketing is being spent on those meetings and how much we're paying this new Studio US to show up at these meetings. And like you said, it's a $300,000 contract. I have a problem with that. We need to stop where we are for a second. Pull it back. Figure out what we have going on here. I have a problem with the fact that even since what we've done before. Remember we came in with the new downtown project and we had all those community meetings and there was t-shirts out. There were mailers that went out. It was over $100,000. Stop spending money. We just stop for a second. Let's figure this out before we just keep blowing through our cash that is taxpayer funds. I don't care how you allocate it. This is money. Well, I take directions from the commission, so if you want to stop the project, please make a motion and stop the project. We know how motions go here. So I think the next portion is that I have another question. So, okay. Vice Mayor, did you say it was like 14, or how much was the total of millions? Like, so it was 9.6?

$21 million has been allocated or taken from excess building fund revenue and put aside towards municipal complex.

21 million, and that's been over the past four or five years, seven years?

Started in 2019, and then there were two additional amounts, 5.4 million and a little over 6 million in fiscal year 2024 and 2025.

Believe so And it was and it was designated as construction.

Yes Specifically clear the downtown or as construction in general for the municipal complex municipal buildings It has to it has to house a building department and it has to it can only pay for the building department Okay, that's a lot of money

MONEY. I'M NOT DONE YET. I DON'T KNOW. I WAS JUST TAKING A BREATH. MR. BERMAN, DID YOU SAY THAT MDA WAS IN 2024, WAS IT PAGE SOMETHING, PAGE 1, THE PAGE WITH THE 2024 RELATED TO THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT THIS WAS THE AUTHORIZATION ALSO THAT ALLOWED US TO MOVE THIS MONEY AROUND INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFER

Yeah, the approving resolution for the MDA talks about it.

So the approving resolution that had the actual MDA attached to it?

Yes.

Okay, so this is... I'm gonna breathe for a second. I remember coming to the meetings in 2024 when this was being pitched and floated and talked about, and I've gone through documentation of what presentations looked like that were presented and created by staff and our consultants and i would i would encourage everybody to go to granicus and go back to the june 20th 2024 meeting and go push play there's a joint meeting of the cra and the city commission and go look and listen to how much discussion related to all of what we're talking about and hearing about now and what we've heard about for the past year and a half or so as these costs have continued to accrue and these projects continue to be done, and we keep just hanging it out. I don't think taxpayers were fully informed at that point in time about the details of how much this one resolution and this one master development agreement really impacted it. They were shown a very pretty slideshow the boring stuff if you will stuff that really gets us and holds us whatever you you've heard you've heard here said even tonight multiple times we're obligated we're obligated we're obligated i don't think taxpayers fully understood how obligated they were going to be when that was approved i feel like there's been some serious misinformation if you will by lack of sharing information Who wrote or drafted both the MDA and the resolution as part of this? Was it a team effort because it was city and CRA? I want to know who was part of all that.

I don't know. Mr. Berman, do you want to?

Yeah, an outside council worked on it, CRA council. I worked on it. It was a conglomeration of efforts.

Okay, so outside council, that would be Bills and Sundberg because I know I've talked about that before. Bills and Sundberg. of the firm and was there specific attorneys uh yeah um what's his name i can't think of it attorneys or the firm bills and it's bills in but which which attorneys were we working with um eric singer that's it that's the primary attorney attorney out of tampa no the developers attorneys out of tampa correct i'm not sure where the office is out of miami are there any other

Eric Singer, just one person? Adam, I forgot his last name sometimes, but Eric Singer was the main attorney. There's also Raphael, I don't remember his last name as well. Raphael Katz.

Don't put Raphael in there. Raphael's my neighbor. He's not part of the MDA. Not him. Different Raphael. He's on Parks and Rec in here. That's a different Raphael, I'm sorry. Don't put him on there. Okay, so that was our CRA attorney, so Ms. McKenna. Mr. Berman. And who else? Anybody?

In terms of attorneys?

Well, no, in terms of who was on this team that was talking, that put this, all this, this.

Well, you know, because you brought it up before.

So it's myself, it's RMA, it's CBRE, I think. And the CRA director.

CBRE was on it.

So Nguyen?

That's right, CBRE.

Right, CBRE. I just want to make sure I have a full list of who was doing this. Okay. And you said RMA. So is it both him and Chris or just him?

We had a ton of consultants looking at it with us. Okay. Plus one.

Plus maybe some... Staff. Okay, well that's fine. But the major, like the project team essentially, right? For the main people that were involved in this. How much, and I don't know the full amount because I asked quite a long time ago, and Mr. Waters, maybe you know this, probably because you've been doing the budgeting, so you might know the numbers more than anybody else. How much have we spent with Bills and Sundberg on this project to date?

I don't have those. Sorry, Josh Waters. I don't have those exact expenditures with me this evening.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN WE DO THIS. SO HERE'S MY OTHER RECOMMENDATION THAT I THINK WE ADD TO OUR SEPTEMBER MEETING. I WOULD LIKE ANYBODY WHO HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BASED ON WHAT WE RECEIVE. SO THAT MEANS I'D LIKE TO SEE MS. BUSCHMEISTER HERE, I'D LIKE TO SEE NEWEN HERE, I'D LIKE TO SEE MS. MCKENNA HERE, I'D LIKE TO SEE ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FROM BILL ZUNZUMBERG HERE AT LEAST, SOMEBODY REPRESENTATIVE FROM CBRE, WHOEVER WAS THE MAIN CONTACT. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY LIVE CLOSE OR NOT. If we can at least get them here, that would be great. Because I think there's a lot of questions that a lot of us are going to have. And I don't want to play a game of telephone. I want to be able to just ask a question. That's all I have for now. Thank you.

Does anybody know what bills in whatever they're called, what they bill an hour? Just out of curiosity.

I'm trying to remember.

It was pretty expensive. I don't know what the current rate is at this point because I'm not dealing with them. I don't know if you have any dealings with them.

As does CBRE and all of them. So if we have to pay travel costs to have them here, that's something we can certainly discuss.

We won't take it from the building fund, though.

I know. We won't. Mayor, may I make a comment?

Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Ms. Sybil, do you want to make a comment? Wait, wait, wait. Commissioner Fessick, are you finished?

Well, not really. I think, I mean, I'm a little bit offended, again, that every time that somebody has something to say, it does not need to be corrected, and it does not need to be wrapped in a pretty little bow. You know, look, this is a big deal, and I think that we don't need to placate for the sake of, you know, correcting a record or softening the blow of what this is. I want answers, and I think that's fine, and quite honestly, whatever we're paying them, to out to get the direct answers that we've obviously not gotten before is going to be worth it for the morning and it's going to be worth it to do this because we've already paid god knows how much putting us into this situation so i better get the straight answers from the people who did it and who worked on it rather than play this game of telephone which will never get us the right answer so please do not ever again try to make me feel or anybody of any one of my colleagues up here we don't have a brain of our own, we haven't thought through something, that we don't have something that we would like to see, and don't try to negate or downplay it ever again. I am over and done with being treated like a child when I am a grown-ass adult, and I am not going to put up with any more of your crap. Period. Thank you.

Well, okay. Go ahead, Ms. Schibble.

Yeah, so just a few points. And obviously the legalities, you know, that's something to be debated of Mr. Berman, the lawyers, the Attorney General, that's all fine. I just want to make this statement. Obviously we have an obligation to build a new city hall, right? It's a master development agreement. I fully understand there are people on the commissioners on the dais that do not agree with that decision who may not have been in office at the time. So we've been trying to basically build a city hall. Now the city hall is going to cost I think $90 million between the garage and the city hall itself. So the surplus funds from the building fund, just to be clear, and I get it, there are probably some individual homeowners that pull their own permits, but you have contractors. But I would shudder to estimate that, and we can certainly get the stats from the building department, that the majority of those surplus funds generated over the years came from developers in this city. So we... with all of the information in front of us, made an interpretation and a determination with the legal department that these funds could legally be used for this purpose. And we took those funds, the majority of which I believe come from developers in this city, and we said instead of having to pay 100 million for this city hall, we're gonna take those surplus funds and reduce that price tag to 80 million and go out and finance that $80 million instead of $100, saving the taxpayers over time the 30 years to finance that asset. So I guess I take offense with saying there's an injustice to the taxpayers because at the end of the day, the decision was made to reduce the burden on the taxpayers. And at the time, we're thinking this is a legal decision, of course. We can debate that. We can get the interpretation from the Auditor General. I don't have a problem with any of that. But we've always had the taxpayers in mind. Because if we want, we have a lot of development going on in this city, more than others. And we've seen a surge in permit revenues because of it. And we came up with this decision back in 2019 based on the surplus funds that were allowed to carry forward an average of four years of their expenditure budget. But the building fund, we had a surplus. You're absolutely right. Right about a few weeks before, we had a discussion with Mr. Berman. We knew this municipal complex was planned. And we were about getting ready to issue a solicitation for the project. COVID hit, it sat in the fund, and now we started putting additional funds in to get us to 21 million. On three different occasions, we hired an architect to look at the planning for that building, to estimate the costs. and the allocation to the building permit function for their footprint of occupying that city hall and the parking garage, as well as paying all of the site work needed for ingress and egress for the project. So the intent was there. Leave it to the lawyers to debate legalities. I certainly don't want to refund the funds. I think we're in with reason, and we're doing it legally. And again, that's for the lawyers to decide. But at the end of the day, the best interests of the taxpayers were taken into consideration. So I just want to say that for the record because this is my position. I'm not trying to speak up against Commissioner Fessick or Vice Mayor Forney. I just want to state my position going into this as the face of this process from 2019 forward to the MDA and overseeing that process.

Very good, and thank you for your efforts there. And also, this process was approved by the commission at that time, correct?

Starting back in 2019 or yeah, so back in 2019. We brought the reservoir did it all in the sunshine We brought the resolution forward to the City Commission We had a memorandum discussing we called it innovation district at the time and the intent to construct a new municipal complex We work with the city engineering department that signed off on the estimated cost for it and we allocated a reasonable of 10% to the building department at the time After that, as we were moving forward to the MDA back in 2024, we re-engaged the same architect from 2019 to look at the footprint again and the percentages. We entered into the MDA. We explicitly put in the approving resolution the use of the permit inspection funds for this process. It was actually an exhibit to the MDA as well, and I'm pretty sure I talked about this at PREVIOUS MEETINGS, BUT I CAN GO BACK AND PULL THE MINUTES. I'D LOVE TO DO IT. I ALSO TALKED ABOUT THIS AT ROUND TABLE MEETINGS IN THE COMMUNITY. I LITERALLY HAD THE SCREEN UP WITH ALL OF OUR SOURCES OF FUNDS AND WENT THROUGH EACH LINE ITEM FOR BOTH THE CRE AND THE CITY. We have been transparent. Again, if the interpretation is different today than what we thought going into this, that's where we'll be. If we have to go into fund balance to refund this, we do have fund balance as a city if we have to do it. It just means I'll have to borrow the extra $20 million when we close on the private financing in a few months. And that's what we would do.

But just to be clear, we don't anticipate that happening. Mr. Berman doesn't anticipate that happening. So that's one of those outliers that hopefully will not happen. But yeah, it wasn't some rogue administration, rogue city manager who did this on their own. This, every step of the way, was approved by the city commission via public meetings, discussed openly, complete transparency in an attempt to move this project forward and basically save the taxpayer dollars.

Correct.

Thank you. Further discussion on the motion? Okay, I got Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I hope you're not a body language reading expert, Mayor, because Mr. Berman does not exude confidence to me right now, just so you know. There's a bit of, well, if, so... With all due respect, the speech you just gave on you deciding that most of this excess revenue probably came from developers and so it was OK to do this really bothers me. I didn't say that. It was part of it.

I didn't say it was OK to do it.

Well, it made it better because it would make the cost less for the taxpayer if somehow the burden was on developers. If I'm a developer listening to this, then I'm also upset. I may have overpaid fees or paid for this. And if I'm any resident that had to do an addition to my house, that had to go through multiple inspections to pull a permit or do any work, I'm just as important as the contractor or the developer whose money has been not – You call it transparent, but nobody's been able to follow. No one who is paying their permit fee in City Hall on the third floor thinks that they are going to buy meals for architects designing a City Hall. So I do not agree that it's transparent. So if anyone was overcharged and not refunded per the statute, and instead their money went to doing these soft costs that that are not actually what in the resolution was initially passed in 2019, because it was very clear it was construction and now it's coming out of a different line that's consulting that the money got moved into, not transparently either, then they deserve to know that and they deserve to get their money back. So that's my position on that. Second, you just mentioned the $300,000 for the architect for Larkins. Where is that in the budget?

Where is it, in the budget?

Yeah, how are we paying for that?

That would come from the same funding source. or any other available funding source in the city.

Okay, so the plan is we will get an invoice from ROCA, like the rest of them, and there'll be a pass-through charge for $300,000 for an architect for a new Pat Larkin Center, and we are paying for that using excess building fund revenue.

Right, and what we did is we went back and looked at all the costs we've incurred, planning, et cetera, allocated 24% to the building fund, so they owe us that 24% already out the gate.

would think you do pro rata if if soft costs are even allowed which i think for the statue it's not it's pretty clear but if it was then it should be some pro rata amount so 24 could become out of this and the rest from some other source like i said because if for some reason some catastrophic reason it doesn't happen then everyone's paid their fair share up to this point instead of this we're going to pay back the building department later i don't i don't see any of that in the statute And then Schutzenbowen, whose lawyers are they? They're ROCA's lawyers. Because that's a lot of the other expenses we've been paying with the building fund revenue is for ROCA's lawyers. They pass through all those charges to us also.

And most of the charges we're incurring now is because of private financing, just to make that clear. So I'm just saying.

I didn't ask what it's for. Well, I actually read the invoices, and some of them are for that. Some of them are for community benefits negotiations to the MDA. Some were for Pat Larkin Center stuff. So it's a range of services that are included in Schatz and Bowen's invoices also.

OK. Commissioner Fessick.

This is the last time, I promise. Did I just hear that correctly? We're also paying for RocaPoint's attorneys?

Yes.

All of it?

I don't know if it's all of it. Is it a percentage of it?

Ms. Sybil, why don't you answer the question? Right. I know a lot of people think they know a lot of stuff up here, but you're the person who's actually a subject matter expert.

I was asking for clarification, and I do believe Vice Mayor knows a lot of stuff up here.

But I think she knows a little more.

That's why I'm asking staff. Thank you.

So it's anything to negotiate the master development agreement as well as finalizing all of the lease documents for the private financing.

Okay, and how much have we spent for that?

I don't remember the exact number. I'm sure Mr. Waters can get it for you.

I would like to know that number as well, please. Did I hear you say that we are going to be closing on private financing in a few months? That's correct. Why have we not heard about it until now? Any details?

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Well, I mean, any, well, we've heard about Pat Larkin's You know, it's more than a few months away.

Well, I mean, I do send monthly reports to the commission via email, and in there it does say we're finalizing the lease documents for private financing. Right. That's what the lease documents are.

Aside from just me, or there's the commission, why have we not had as open of a conversation about that with residents? We've done marketing for everything else. I'm not sure. Has a website not been updated, costs or whatever? Hey, this is where we are. We're looking forward to this. This is what our rate looks like. This is the, you know, just an update. Blog stuff.

I don't know.

Information.

That would be helpful, I think, to be transparent, if you will. I thought we were pretty transparent. When public financing failed last year, we were working on private financing. And we certainly, as I spoke about at the last meeting with the Vice Mayor, you're all going to be updated on all the models and all the rates when they're ready. I was still speaking, and I wasn't finished yet. Oh, I didn't know you stopped speaking.

I just took a breath. Okay. Sorry, I didn't notice you taking a breath.

Still sorry.

Okay.

She wasn't talking to you, but go ahead.

That's okay.

Again, I would encourage every resident to really pay attention to this. Because while I believe that everything was done lawfully, it was done where you reported something or you moved funds or whatever it may be. And again, I look forward to learning more about what has done and what the statute says. And that's going to take me some time. I look forward to having a real good conversation about it. Some of the things that I've had, I've experienced since being here, is understanding there's a term that actually some former police officers shared with me. It's called lawfully awful. And it's done above board, quote, unquote, but it's not for the best interest of the people that we serve. Definitely serve somebody, including the people who are making thousands upon thousands upon millions of dollars on this, but don't know that it's the best interest of the people we serve. So I look forward to this meeting. Thank you, Vice Mayor, for bringing this up. And I want to be very clear also moving forward. I have been, in light of recent events at the CRI meeting, I have been paying attention to Through Robert's rules, I've been paying attention to other cities and municipalities. And moving forward, I would appreciate it if we had a little bit more decorum, Mayor, and made sure that we are finished speaking and we do not get spoken down to or get automatically responded to. We can ask questions, and staff has all the time in the world to spend our marketing dollars and get the word out through social media. But we get this time up here to speak together, and I do not want to be interrupted again. Thank you.

Well, thank you. Appreciate that. But I just want to stay for the record, though. When staff has something to educate the commission about, I encourage staff to speak up when they're asked about something and give full explanations, not just a little snippet. I've seen too much of that happen throughout my life where people ask just an overbroad question, and they're looking for one little snippet of information. When they get that, that's all I want. And that's not fair to staff. That's not fair to the public who we serve. And it's also not fair to your colleagues if you try and do that because we're here to learn things also sometimes. So anyway, Mr. Berman, there's a motion on the floor for a special meeting. There's no motion necessary. If it's called by two members, it's called, right? Correct. Okay, so we're having a special meeting September 8th at 9 a.m. for the purpose of discussing the student will be will be right here x for the record discussing expenditures for the downtown as discussed okay so that so that takes care of that topic now let's get back to what mister waters is waiting for uh... He's looking for some consensus on the recommended operating and EMS budgets and millage rates, fire assessment fees, and five-year capital improvement plan, 2027 through 2031. Do we have any more questions, concerns, comments on that? Seeing none, of course we can't really take any action here, but.

So there were, if I might, there are two options on the table for consensus with regard to the millage rate. There's maintaining the operating millage rate at the level you're seeing on the slide here now, which is maintaining the general operating rate at the same level as FY2026. And then there's the option to reduce the operating millage rate by the 0.5%. We just need consensus on which one, which of the two options the commission prefers. There's no formal action on this tonight. We will report this to the property appraiser and this, whatever rate is reflected with the consensus, that's what will be reflected on the resident's trim notices.

Okay. So is anybody, how about just a show of hands, who wants to reduce the millage rate?

Okay.

How's that?

And then the second item is with regard to the fire assessment fee. This is a formal action that you'll take in the meeting this evening, but just to make sure that we have the appropriate resolution in front of the commission at tonight's meeting in, I don't know, 20 minutes? Yeah. Just to make sure that the commission is comfortable with the amount proposed in the budget.

Sure.

One question really professor. Thank you. I just have one question related to that. I saw on the on the on the agenda There was a change with like RV parks Right, please explain that to us because I know that it this it makes sense. I just don't know why they're together. I

Sure. So there was a legal change that the legislature did during this past legislative session, which deals with vacancy rates. So RV parks are treated as commercial property, but we have to include a vacancy credit for the time that I guess the sites are vacant. And so there's a methodology that was created in state law in order for us to implement that. We have to translate that to the resolution for the fire assessment fee. Unlike other types of fees we may have, you have to reenact the fire assessment fee every year. So with regard to that, you have to pass a resolution in order to have a fire assessment fee. So that's why that language was included in the resolution for this evening.

So how does that impact the average RV owner if they're paying taxes on a lot that they maybe own?

It would be up to the RV park. So it's the park itself that owns multiple sites, similar to a mobile home park where they're already included. I think the legal change that was made at the state level just made the RV park kind of mirror the way we treat mobile home parks. Okay.

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure there was clarification.

Sure.

Very good. So how about just a show of hands? Who would be in favor of administration's suggestion on the fire assessment fee of raising it? I mean, it's just a show of hands because we can't take any official action of raising the fire assessment fee as outlined in their proposal. Who's in favor of that? Okay. All right. Got your – Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Thank you for the presentation. All right, then. That ends this meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. So, .

City Commission meeting to order July 28th, 2026 at 6 p.m. If I could ask everyone who's here tonight, we've got a very large crowd. If I could ask everyone to please check your cell phones, put them on vibrate or silent mode so we don't get disrupted by somebody getting a telephone call during the meeting. That would be great. So please check those cell phones. That would be fantastic. Thank you. Mr. Alford, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik. Here. Commissioner Perkins. Here. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton. Here. Commissioner Smith.

Here.

Vice Mayor Fournier.

Here.

Mayor Harton.

Here. Our invocation this evening is going to be given by Pastor Brandon Jones from the Mount Calvary Baptist Church. So can we please stand for the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Good evening, Pastor.

Good evening, Mayor Rex Hardin, to everyone over there. Good evening to you all. Let's pray, family. To the only wise God to whom all glory and honor belongs to you, we bow in humble submission, seeking your wisdom, your guidance, understanding, and peace. We pray not only, Father, for the elected officials who have been chosen to serve this community, But we also Father stand in the gap for the residents of this community. I pray Father that you will allow us to come together on common ground. I pray that as we conduct business on tonight, it will be done in a sense of unity and peace And so, Father, as we prepare to enter into this meeting, I ask that you allow your Holy Spirit to enter into this place so that we may make decisions, allow decisions that will be made to help all of humanity. In Jesus' name, amen.

Amen. 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.

Thank you. All right. Can I get a motion approving the regular city commission meeting minutes of July 14th, 2026? So moved.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Very good. Can we go ahead and we'll move item number 14 directly after number 6. I think there's some folks here who want to speak on 14, so that gets most of the speaking items out of the way. Any other changes to the agenda, Mr. Harrison?

No, sir.

Are you making a motion to do that?

Yes. Second. Yeah, moved and seconded. Do I approve the agenda? Yes. 14 costco with there's far more people here related to costco than there are about 14. i'm sorry what's okay okay moving number 14 after after number six yeah number six okay 14 will be after number six um all in favor say aye no there's a motion can we motion to approve the agenda i have a no a motion to move something in the agenda You don't want to, okay.

Okay, Mayor, I'll make a motion that we move item number 14.

Sure, I'll second.

Right after number six.

I'll second it. Moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion?

I comment.

Sure.

So I have no idea why we're doing that. There is no precedent for moving a review to the beginning of an agenda. There's other important topics on here. And if I think about this one, I don't know where this is coming from, but you didn't think the city manager needed a review and the city manager think it's theatrical. So we have a lot going on here tonight and a really busy agenda. And I think the review should stay where it is on the agenda and where all reviews have been on the agenda since I've been in office. So I do not agree with that.

Call the roll.

Let's call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik?

No.

Commissioner Perkins?

No.

Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Fournier? No. Mayor Hardin?

Yes. Very good. Can I get a motion approving the agenda as printed?

It's printed. So moved. Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. All right. On the consent agenda, we're going to be pulling items number one and three for individual discussion. So one and three will be individually discussed. Item two is eligible for discussion during audience to be heard. All right, that takes us up to our special presentation. Resilient Broward Grant Program Chief Resilience Officer Jennifer Gerardo, Ph.D., will present program details pertaining to the grant opportunity offered by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners with the goal to help accelerate implementation of critical capital improvements vital to flood risk reduction. Good evening. It is great to see you here again. Thank you so much for everything you do for all of us in the county and elsewhere to start with. Bow down to you and your greatness. I mean, you are revered throughout the world, I know, for all you do and the expertise that you have on these types of topics. So thank you for being here, Doctor.

That's a very kind introduction. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, commissioners, city manager for the invitation. I will seek to be quite brief. You gave an incredible introduction, so that'll help. I am here on behalf on behalf of the Broward County Board of County Commissioners to share a recently launched grant program in support of flood risk reduction. And the purpose of being here tonight is just to ensure that all leadership is and senior administrators are familiar with the opportunity. as the call for applications will be opening quite shortly, and there may be some projects of eligibility within the city of Pompano Beach. I think you're all quite familiar. You have been quite generous in hosting a number of presentations on the county resilience plan over the last year and a half. The plan has been focused on flood risk reduction to address exposures that come with rising sea level, rainfall intensification, damages to homes, vehicles, business disruptions, rising costs of insurance, and we know that if we invest in flood risk reduction, we can help mitigate those exposures. With that knowledge, the county commission had funded a countywide resilience plan. Those efforts in developing the program took place over a period of about two years. City staff were actively engaged in that, as well as planners, managers, engineers, consultants from across the county. A number of adaptation strategies were modeled for the purpose of addressing rising flood risk. The kind of bulk of those projects are captured in the banner on the right, acknowledging that seawalls are a significant ongoing need, raising the levels of those seawalls, as well as storage across the community. But in addition, control structures for managing water elevations, pump stations, and upgraded culverts and new installations are going to be significant areas of opportunity for capital investment and the diversity of those projects is represented in the graphic here just showing that all aspects of Broward County all communities Have benefits that we were able to model in this analysis for the city of Pompano Beach the graphic on the left is SHOWS A SCENARIO WHERE WE LOOKED AT SEA LEVEL RISE, RAINFALL AND STORM SURGE. THE GRAPHIC ON THE LEFT SHOWS ANTICIPATED RISING FLOOD RISK WITHOUT ADAPTATION INVESTMENTS AND THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE REDUCTION IN THOSE FLOOD EXPOSURES WITH THE ADAPTATION INVESTMENTS THAT WERE MODELED. AREAS OF DARKER RED ARE HIGHER FLOOD RISK AND YOU CAN SEE THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT SHOWS MUCH OF THAT TO BE MITIGATED. So the county commission was very interested in finding ways to help accelerate investments that communities need, recognizing the majority of areas are incorporated. They're municipal municipal areas that bear the risk and we'll be undertaking a lot of those investments. And while there's a whole slew of projects that can and will necessarily be undertaken, there's an area where we can be much more strategic and accelerated. And that is on that category that I identified of, uh, capital projects that are pumps. culverts, and control structures, investments that can improve conveyance and water management. The modeling showed that if we make these investments in an organized manner as opposed to one-off projects, that we can derive significant economic outcomes that are quite favorable. preservation of property value, reductions in flood insurance, preservation of economic activity, revenues to fund the projects. And those values are shown here, Tier 1 relating to a 2050 time frame, the benefits anticipated, and Tier 2, long-term implementation. There's a big cost associated with which will need to be extended over the next coming decades. It's anticipated that the full is about 9 billion on the public sector side, but we can break that down. And what we have begun to talk about is the capital projects that I just referenced. They average about or estimated to have a dollar value of about a billion dollars. And there's almost another 2 billion that will be needed in the way of coastal pump systems, we anticipate. That's in addition to the storage and seawalls. So the county commission, again, interested in helping to accelerate the projects and the benefits that will be derived, took the action of allocating $20 million outside of the budget process, taking money from reserves to dedicate to a grant program to help support those investments. Those dollars can be used on the three project categories I shared, pumps, control structures, and culverts. And the idea is to provide 25% cost share towards these projects and through leveraging through local dollars and any other grants that the partners may be able to access. If we can achieve a one to five return on that investment in terms of one grant dollar results in $5 in installed infrastructure. The county's interest is trying to maintain this level of support across 15 years. to support 1.5 billion in capital investments over a 15-year timeframe. And with that, we're able to deliver on those capital projects and about 30% of the coastal pumps that we anticipate will be needed. And so this grant program is launching in September. The criteria are shared here. We don't need to go through them. They're available on the website. But this allows your team to be thoughtful about the areas of evaluation in the review process. We'll be assigning this week the point system to help your team prepare. now there is a prioritization for projects that were actually modeled in the plan so for the city of pompano beach we do have a number of projects that were modeled including a pomp and control structure and a lot of other control structures These projects will be given priority, but you may have other projects. Those are eligible as well, so long as they meet the objectives and are consistent with the resilience plan. Our staff's available to respond to those questions. The resilientbrower.com website shows the projects, project details. Team can click on any one of those structures and learn but ultimately those are designed to drop water elevations by about a foot in the area of the basin served. So additional information on the grant opportunity and the timeline is shown here. I remain available for any questions in that process, but the goal would be to work with all of our partners to maximize the benefits of these dollars, deliver on projects that serve the community, celebrate good outcomes that results in renewed funding year after year in order to deliver for the community and the benefits that were modeled. So with that, I conclude the presentation. If you have any questions, but otherwise, thank you for your time.

Very good. Thank you. Any questions from the commission on this? Commissioner Fessick.

I thank you for all that. That's pretty awesome. We love grant money. Um, I, I wanted to go back cause I had, I saw on the very, I think it was the first slide. You mentioned something about seawalls as, as being an, that was one of the first slides I guess.

Maybe here, uh, about, uh, 19, 190 miles of seawalls being recognized or maybe it was the, um, the cost here about seawall improvements, 2.6 billion. Yes.

Does the county have any opportunity or any option to, we've been talking a lot about living seawalls, and I know the city of Fort Lauderdale has undertaken some of this. Has there been any conversation related to that as well?

So the recognition is this is a real critical area of investment. It's also one of the more costly areas. We can see that. Those resources are not in place right now. Uh, the County commission has appreciated that there is a need for an alternative funding source to support these other larger scale, longterm investments. It has been acknowledged that something like a surtax would provide an alternative form of investment. That's not in place at this time. The county is supportive. The living shorelines is a very smart approach to those types, and the living seawalls to those types of projects. But it's recognized that we will need an alternative source of funding in order to support these investments that are clearly of another scale.

Yeah, just the thought behind that, maybe to take it back to the county for another project, would be something like, you know, with raising the seawall height, to be able to have some sort of subsidized cost for residents so that they would choose the living seawall over a traditional seawall and actually, you know, kind of recoup the cost a little bit as an encouragement to raising their seawall.

That's an excellent idea. Thank you. Will do. Thank you for your work.

Thank you. Vice Mayor.

I want to thank you for your work also. This is a very important topic. We spend a lot of time talking about flooding and other issues here in our city that I know are countywide and in the region. So when we see things like we can invest this money and the return on that is lower flood insurance rates and sustainable property values, those are things that we like to see. So, Mr. Harrison, can you please keep us updated as we go through that timeline as to how we're going to pursue these grant opportunities? It looked like August 19th was the beginning of it, but maybe we'll get an update in September on what we're thinking. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Very good. Anything else?

Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Dr. Thank you for all your work, as I said before. Thank you for being here. Very good. All right, that takes us up to, let's see, audience to be heard. Do we have anyone signed up for audience to be heard, Mr. Alfred?

Yes, we certainly do, Mayor. We have about 15 speakers listed, but of the 15 speakers signed up to speak, three of them have listed that they're here to speak on Costco. One is Patrick Burke, followed by Carol Essman, followed by Patricia Richards. So these three speakers listed on their form, they're here to speak on the Costco appeal. The remaining speakers are here on other subject matters.

Okay, yeah, the people who signed up to speak on Costco during audience to be heard, you're not eligible during audience to be heard to speak on Costco. That's an actual agenda item, so you can speak when the agenda item comes up, but not during audience to be heard. So those three speakers, just chill out until the item comes up. Thank you. You can speak on anything except something that's on the agenda. And I am speaking on another item and Costco. Okay, well, just during your time, you can speak on any item that's not on the agenda, so don't speak on Costco. That's all. Until it comes up on the agenda. You can get up and speak on the color of green cheese if you want to. That's fine. But don't speak on Costco until Costco comes up on the agenda. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. People can speak on anything that comes to their mind except what's on the agenda. So, yeah.

Okay.

Let's start calling them.

All right. First speaker, Ann Bosworth, followed by Kenneth Grunson, followed by Wayne Okun.

Very good. Just name and address the record, and please limit your comments to three minutes. Thank you.

Ann Bosworth, 4015 West Palm Air Drive, and I want to talk about what happens to people civic engagement when representation is treated as a secondary act or a second thought. One would expect that the primary job that we want from our city representation is that policies are shaped by lived experience and resident feedback that budgets reflect what people actually need and use and land use decisions should account for neighborhood impacts not just city-wide revenue or abstract planning goals When you treat them as secondary, here's what happens. Policies that look good on paper misfire in practice. Development that maximizes tax base but degrades quality of life. And erosion of trust because people feel heard only during campaigns, during the honeymoon phase of a proposed project. when it's time to get by in not in the government side and the governance side our district has consistently treated as secondary this kind of representation we get spoken to in the sweetheart phase and then after deals are made represented after priorities are already set. That is not representation. That is ritual. It's time to revisit and rethink how this commission is required to work. The spectacle that is in this room where perhaps residents of the communities impacted by things are not able to get a seat because a union bus dropped a bunch of people off, not cool. It's not cool. Residents actually need to shape the agendas, the plans, the budgets as part of aspects of operating our city are actually taking place, not one and done, not just show up and get me to agree to something and then convince everybody that you had a community meeting. A newsletter is not community input. It's not. We have been kind. We have been patient. We have tried really hard to be very, very nice in District 5. I have gone out of my way to be thankful that my current commissioner is not my previous commissioner.

Very good. Thank you. Next speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Ladies and gentlemen, please refrain from clapping. Let the speaker speak, and so we can move through the meeting. Go ahead, sir. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Kenneth Gruneisen. I've lived in Palmetto Beach for most of my life, and I think our beach is one of our greatest, if not our greatest asset here. And the reason I'm here is actually to ask the city commission to take a closer look and how often they can maybe evaluate The present practice of these beach rakers and what their schedule is and how effective they are at cleaning up the trash and seaweed on our beach. These beach rakers are a disturbance to the public and they actually exacerbate the beach erosion. They literally, the money that we spend to rebuild the beach gets raked back down to the ocean again. And it harms these ecosystems, whether it's crabs or sea turtles. There's a lot of damage that's done by these beach rakers. And I think that obviously there's a necessity to this. Obviously they need to get rid of excess sargassum, the seaweed, that's a problem right now. But we really need to look into the effectiveness of this process and how it's scheduled so we you know if you go down there I can go down there any given morning I'm down there a lot on the beach for sunrise and it's every morning seven days a week at sunrise you have a tractor they're not so bad with the diesel noise but I'll tell you what they come by and they blow breeze on you and throw sand at you and get sand in your coffee while you're sitting there watching the sunrise you might have tiktokers doing their tiktok videos enjoying the sunrise sunday morning church groups sitting down there and people sitting there down there trying to meditate and relax and enjoy a sunrise and it's unavoidable because seven days a week at sunrise you've got beach breakers coming by we could maybe think about adjusting that ideally maybe on a saturday or sunday evening after the crowds are gone have them come by in the evening when that trash is sitting there something else might be able to be done on this because it's it's just really at this point i think it's necessary to look at it you can overdo something like if you're a if you brush your teeth too much you can cause your gums to recede and if you wash your car too much you can wash the paint right off of it these beach rakers sometimes come by three four at a time And there's not that much on the beach. And other times, maybe like now, they might argue that you need more of them than you can bring out there. I get it. It's not always predictable how much. But most of what they're raking up is seaweed. And they rebury this trash. You could maybe get environmental groups that are involved with wanting to try to do beach cleanups. And they would volunteer, and a lot of times do, Maybe some people could actually canvas and walk along the beach on one or two mornings out of the week and pick up the cups and things and do that more effectively while I'll sit there and watch three tractors go by and miss the stuff. So this is why I came here tonight. And it's kind of interesting. I'll just add that we should look at where the source of a lot of this trash is. I saw this presentation about the drainage in these seawalls. I'll tell you something. There's occasional accidents where something falls out of somebody's hand or blows out of the boat or something like that. But I've studied it enough to notice that there's a lot of trash that goes right through these drains. People think they throw it in the drain and it's never seen by human eyes again. But all you get is a gully washer and that stuff washes out and the next day you see a ton of it washing up on our beach.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Wayne Oken, followed by Patricia Williams, followed by Carol Covini. Carl Covini.

Pompano's warmest welcome. August 6, you may remember August 6. I don't know if any of you were in on it, but there was a town hall meeting at the Skolnick Center. I sent a couple of emails in reference to that meeting. They were never answered by my commissioner. two of them and one a year ago, so that's three. The commissioner mentioned the word survey. She conducted a survey.

What survey?

The commissioner claimed overwhelming support So I filed a FOIA, FOIA, Freedom of Information Act request. I don't know if you use a different term. It turned out the commissioner had no survey.

No survey.

We were, I don't want to use the word lie, but definitely misled by the fact that was this survey. There's a violation of the law when you claim that you did something and you didn't do it at all and you misled an entire audience of a couple of hundred people. That's very serious. I just cannot comprehend how I voted for a person that would mislead us that way. And I can't comprehend how that person is running for reelection. It wasn't even, there was no form of a survey. There was no, there was just a couple of phone calls that a person received according to her. And so it's not a little survey. It's not any kind of a form of a survey. And What's going to happen later this evening, it's going to turn out to be a violation of the law because a community was not properly informed. Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Again, Pompano's warmest welcome.

Very good. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Patricia.

Mayor? Yes. Just wanted to address the comments that were made by Mr. Okun. May I? Yeah, of course. Mr. Okun did file a public records request to my office, and I attempted to address the matter, got in contact with the commissioner, and made it clear that a A WRITTEN SURVEY WASN'T CONDUCTED, BUT IT WAS INFORMED THAT A VERBAL SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT WHAT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED WITH MR. OAKIN TO A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST THAT HE FILED TO MY OFFICE.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU.

Good evening, everyone. Mr. Mayor, this weekend there was a double funeral. My heart is broken for the families who recently lost their children to gun violence. Every child lost is one too many. And every family deserve our prayers and our support. My concern is that we should not only respond after there's a tragic that captured the attention of the media. We need to be consistent, committed to preventing violence, supporting our youth, and standing up with every family that has experienced this type of pain, not just for some, but for all. The city of Pompano, we need to expand mentoring programs for our youth, after school program, and summer jobs opportunities, partners with schools, churches, local nonprofits, and also law enforcement to prevent violence. increase investments for recreation centers and programs in districts, support neighborhood-based innovation programs, mental health resources for youth and families. We need grief counselors, mental health therapists to hold regular meetings in our community for safety and support from our residents. I believe our community has lost the opportunity in investing in our programs that could have helped our youth and strengthened the districts due to the 3-3 votes. I ask my commissioners to please evaluate every proposal by asking one question. Will this help my community? Will it make it safer? Will it create more opportunities for children and create jobs for the residents? Lighting candles is good, and marching is okay. Sometimes it's meaningful for our community, but at this point, it will make the community feel better for healing. But our responsibility does not end there as leaders. We need to show up, be more tentative in preventing tragics in our community, supporting our families, and making sure that every district, including District 4, has the resources that they deserve. We need to be working every day to prevent the next families from experiencing this type of loss. My name is Patricia Williams. Thank you very much for your time.

Very good. Thank you for the message. Next speaker.

Good evening everyone, I'm Carol Eisman. What I'd like to bring up today is something that I've been looking at and considering for some time. And it has to do with the makeup of the city and the city's boards and commissions. And one of the things that I want to address is the planning and zoning committee. We as residents of this city elect commissioners. And when there are major products, I'm sorry, major developments that are being built, you are the ones that should have the final word on any changes that are coming to that development or the development itself. And that's not the way this is set up. And by the way, because of the way the existing setup exists, we have tonight's issue. The Planning and Zoning Committee should be recommendations, and I know it's not in the city charter. You would have to change it. There are non-elected officials, people that sit on there. We know that they understand planning and zoning, but they make decisions that change major developments. And you never see it. It never comes to the people that we elect. And so changes that are made that are not good, go ahead and get done. And so I would suggest that this commission really take a hard look at looking at changing the way that is done. Furthermore, there should be no conflict of interest regarding planning and zoning. The people that sit on planning and zoning, one, should not be have any ties to any consultants they should not have any ties to any developers that do business and build in the city of pompano and all they should do is make recommendations on major changes i understand minor changes that's fine but major changes and by the way they did make a major change to to the pump that never came to you guys. And that was warehouses that were done, that were not part of the original plan. And you guys never got to see it and to look at it and to say this looks good or not. They made the decision. They are not elected. We elect you. So please take a hard look at making that change.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

Carl Quavini, followed by Wanda Procello, followed by Mike Soberski.

my name is carl cuveri from south coast drive palmer number two uh first our heart goes out to you guys and thank you for speaking up to the deceased community i bet they're proud of you i couldn't have been more proud this happens because some people in this commission like the former commissioner for district 5 will happily use the time the precious time of policemen, these fine gentlemen in uniform, to come and silence owners in their communities, two of which are in this room, a lady that I won't mention, and myself. For hours, they sit there instead of going to policing communities that are in need. And that's why perhaps for District Five, understand there's a commissioner candidate who is from the African American community, and I hope he understands better the priorities. As to conflict of interest to the nice lady who's sitting next to me, I brought this up last year around this time, perhaps in July actually, and this regards Mr. Chairman, the District Five Commissioner, who still hasn't seen the conflict of interest in her being with Palmyra United recommending vendors. Most recently, we understand a vendor came into Palmyra United and then the city contracted him Miller Electric, I understand, for cameras around our neighborhoods. it's not difficult to resign from one position where you could avoid the conflict of interest, which is Palmyra United. And then you can still be on your board and you can still serve us on this commissioner. And this is nothing against the District 5 commissioner, Mr. Chairman. I thank her for reacting to my invitation. I understand the reasons for not coming. I'm still waiting to talk to her. But on the matter of following the law, this is not guidelines by the states from Tallahassee. This is state law, Florida Bill HB 913. You cannot... be in a conflict of interest, especially as an elected official. So will she recuse herself from now on until the end of her term, or perhaps the other term, from voting where there is such conflict because of her capacity as treasurer at Parliament United? We'd like this addressed. We cannot have certain things happening, whether the vice mayor and her predecessor and my successor as president of Parliament number two was in such practices. This has come up last year. It's a newer law, and one year has lapsed, and it seems the commissioner is not willing to abide by this law. If she is, we'd like to know. Thank you.

Very good. Okay, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, please, no applause. Thank you. Next speaker.

Wanda.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Wanda Perquillo. Thank you for letting us speak today. I, along with the lovely people here, are my neighbors, friends, and residents of our home at the Heritage Departmental Station. This building receives millions of dollars in subsidies through the state of Florida. The owner accepted these benefits in exchange for operating the property as affordable housing under state rules. State and local officials generally accept subsidized senior properties to be maintained in a safe condition. Many residents have observed and been confronted with homeless individuals individuals on drugs that are in on our building through the unsecured parking garage, which then allows these individuals to just wander throughout our building. Many of our homes have been attempted to be burglarized. They're loitering on the property. Sleeping outside our doors aren't our common areas. We have witnessed suspected drug activity, prostitution, and having people attempting to enter our apartments again in the middle of the night and sometimes during the day. Many of us feel unsafe in our home, and although it is an apartment complex, let me just say it is our home, and it's been my home for seven years. Our concerns have been brought to management's attention, and management and owners do not address our safety. We have repeatedly called 911 and BSO and Broward Sheriff's Office. They've always arrived promptly, and escort the unauthorized individuals to be removed from the property. They really do a great job. But it's more than they can just handle. But it does not seem to address the core issue of keeping these people off of our property at first. We are asking that the city commissioners, if it is possible to enact an ordinance requiring government subsidized buildings, have security gates at garage entrances. Thank you so much for allowing us to speak. Thank you.

Appreciate the ideas there. I know Commissioner Seagerson-Eaton has been working on that issue as well.

Yes, Mayor. Just a quick moment. Yes, it's really been a horrible situation. I've talked with their attorneys. I've pleaded with them to put a gate in. I've had the PD who are responding to the homeless calls. They really are living in... It's unsafe. There's free and unfettered access into that building. I don't know how it got approved. And I've been working on this for a number of years. And I finally... reached someone who supposedly will inspect the building, although she has not emailed me yet. So there we are. And I'm ready to take it to the press for them not really doing what they're supposed to be doing. It's been very frustrating. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Go ahead, Mr. Skowierski.

Yeah, Mike Skowierski, 1630 Southwest Fifth Avenue. I happen to be bored, so I watch some of the budget meeting. Mark. It would never hold up in a court of law. Construction is construction. I did it for years. So that when Allison has done her homework, knowing what the word construction is, but that wasn't very hard to do. I knew that when I was about five. As for this Roca company, I was unaware that we are paying for these characters, their hotels and their meals. Is this true? That's what came up, correct? So we're paying all this. Well, this has become a cesspool of handing out tens of millions of dollars to this building across the street, which hardly anybody in my district is for, and neither would be in the district at the beach. I can't speak for the other districts, but I don't think most people are for that either. This is a complete waste of money. And as for the Larkins building, I remember the wife came in and wanted the same building. She didn't want it changed. So you just spit in her face. You don't give a crap. This is absolutely ridiculous what goes on here. You don't even honor the poor guy and he's passed away. Now, as for this Choka guy that we're handing out tens of millions of dollars to, 754-234-0898, Mr. Choka, that is my cell phone number. And what I would like you to do is call me up, and I will take you out and show you where I feed the poor in the Northwest area. And you will see what the heck is going on while we're handing you out free money, meals and paying your hotel fees while people are lying on the streets girls faces are getting busted in and I'm out there trying to help people do you think that's fair that we're paying somebody all this money all these people all this money and we have poor people lying on the streets and nobody gives a crap except me and a few hands and a handful of other people do you think that's fair I don't And in closing, this homeless department we have. Okay, so you help this poor girl out a little bit. I'm not going to get into myself. And I'd like to thank Jim, the tree man, you can stand up and clap for him. And Lauren McGee, as the both of them helped me out helping a person get a place to live. I'm not gonna get into all we've done for them. That person has lived in Pompano her whole entire life. Her son, I found out, that's what really hit home, is on the track team at Ely, and it's a big problem for me when I find out that there's a jock either on the street, sleeping in a car, or going from one Airbnb to the next. I didn't have the money, but I made sure I spent it to make sure she got a place to stay. How many of you people would ever do that?

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Appreciate that. Next speaker.

Mary Kowalski. No, no. No, it's limited. Mary, Mary.

I need 20 minutes.

Mary, come on down. Just name an address for the record, please.

Good evening. I'm a resident of Pompano. Obviously, I live at 2710 Northeast 22nd Court. I'm here to talk about the rules at K-9 Corner, which is on the corner of 10th.

Can you pull that microphone down a little bit? Yeah, pull it down. Yeah, sure. Speak into it. There you go.

Is that better?

That's better.

Okay. I'm here to talk about the safety rules at the canine corner, which is the dog park here in Pompano Beach. A lot of us do use the dog park to exercise our animals. Obviously, there's a leash law in Broward, you can't just let your dog run anywhere. So we were very happy and we enjoy the dog park. However, the number of intact dogs, and I'm not talking just male, I'm not talking breed, I'm just talking a number of intact male dogs, or intact dogs, both male and female, that are allowed to come into the park. There's no rule at this moment. They come into the park, and when they encounter a dog that has been fixed, that has its rabies, all the owners have done exactly what they're supposed to do to avoid overpopulation, they give off pheromones that... cause a fixed dog to take as a challenge. Like you have, still have your, if I may say balls, and I don't now, so therefore you're a challenge to me and they react and there's a problem. There's fights, the owners that go there, they love their dogs a lot. So they'll instinctively go in to reach for their dog to avoid it. They get injured. The dogs get injured. And also other dogs from within the dog park come running because they think, oh, it's something that we get to play. And there's fights. The gentleman that sat outside, the park rangers, have a lot of calls for aggressive dog. Well, whether it's the intact dog or the un-intact dog that causes the aggression or that starts the problem, it's not that they're aggressive dogs. It's that they have the intact and the fixed in an unleashed open area, or fenced area, excuse me, fenced area together. And other municipalities have been able to put on their signage, no intact dogs here, or we recommend that you fix your dog if you're going to bring your dog in here. Pompano doesn't. And I'd say at this point, it's the people that do the right thing, that take care of their dogs and go in there, will no longer go because they're unsafe. Thank you.

Thank you. That's a very good point. Mr. Harrison, can you have... Whoever's in charge of the dog park, take a look at that. Okay, thank you. Next speaker.

Mayor, we've reached a 30-minute audit time. Oh, okay.

Remaining speakers will have to be heard at the end of the meeting then.

Okay.

Okay, thank you. That takes us up to our consent agenda. Can I get a motion approving item number two?

So moved. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Except item number one is a resolution.

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Pompano Beach, Florida, supporting the Northeast 10th Street Complete Streets Improvement Project, providing an effective date.

So moved. Second.

Moved and second for discussion. This item was pulled by Commissioner Fessick and Vice Mayor. Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. So I pulled this because I wanted to have staff give an update on what this was specifically for the public. So when you look at it on its face, I don't know if we have the visual, but if we didn't, I've just pulled off what we had on the website. And it's basically putting a median along Northeast 10th Street, which with some landscaping, which in theory sounds great. I don't know when this project was started or when we first had it go on the plan at the moment or when it was first started, I think in light of how the Atlantic and Dixie project has turned out and how other areas with complete streets or these beautification safety projects have worked out, I know on A1A we've had similar that people have come in and had issues with. Being that we have so many more people using this road, and we're near our air park, it's also got the great sidewalks. My concern is not just with putting in some landscaping. My concern is also with potential tax cuts coming down the road, us being able to manage that additionally as a city, but more so lose the opportunity or spend the money a different way where we're putting in grass when we might want to put in or widen the streets as a whole and essentially make that either more of a road in the future, maybe 20 years from now, But by putting in the landscaping, we're going to have an additional cost. And so I just wanted to, you know, like I said, it's great in theory, but in practice it has me concerned. And on top of that, I'm seeing beautiful trees and things like that just north of the park, and we're just removing a bunch of trees from the air park environmentally sensitive land area that we just de-designated because of airstrikes and birds and flight patterns. So there's a little bit of... dichotomy of Decision-making here and I would like to just have the public Be aware of what the plan is and and why?

Mr. Sir, obviously want to review the plan

Sure. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioner John Sparopoulos, City Engineer. So this resolution of support is for a grant application with the MPO for improving, beautifying the corridor, and also making it safer. The proposal is just to really convert those existing striped-out medians to curved landscape islands, similar to what you see on... South Cypress Harbor Drive MLK it's just a traffic calming measure and we we visited with MPO previously and we got their feedback and they ranked this as a high candidate as you know unfortunately we had that fatality several years ago with the rollerblader so that's that's basically is for it's a traffic calming measure and it's a potential for five million dollar grant Very good.

Thank you for that. I'm kind of happy you mentioned Harbor Drive because we just put in some speed humps there, which our medians were not ending up being a traffic calming measure necessarily all by themselves. I would like to make sure that public safety, of course, is important, but I think it's really important that we're also recognizing that not every idea is a great idea when a fire truck, which is also in 10th, might need to get through fast, or an ambulance, get across to the west side of town. When we have planned developments all along, north and south of that, and it ends up being one of the other, essentially one of the cut-throughs for a lot of those neighborhoods, Understand traffic calming to a to an extent and I think listen I love the idea of having a grant money come to You help do projects. We want to have happen in the city My concern is also that once the grant money is gone and the project has been finished We just approved At one of the last meetings 300 it was about three hundred thousand dollars for landscaping maintenance for Atlantic and Dixie the small section Atlantic and Dixie and so my concern is is The grant now may cause us more problems in the future with a narrowed lane. And on top of that, then we will end up costing, we will end up as a city maintaining that property.

I just want to correct record that we're not narrowing the lane. The islands would go exactly where those existing striped pavement markings are.

Correct, and in the event of an emergency, right now, where there's striped pavement, an emergency vehicle would essentially overtake traffic, or if there is traffic, could use that middle lane to an extent to help get where they need to go faster.

Correct.

So that is my concern. It was a problem on A1A. We've had a problem with some of them even being removed after they were put in. So I just wanted to make sure that we were aware that maybe I wanted actually people's input on this because I didn't want to just send agenda forward. Thank you.

Okay, Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I share Commissioner Fezzik's concerns and thoughts on this. This was brought to us once before, I don't know, it was a couple years ago.

2023, correct.

And I remember the first version of it had some kind of real traffic circles or traffic calming in it and then went back to the drawing board. And this is similar to the plan we saw then, but we have a couple more years of data, and it is accurate, I think, to say that this has become a pretty major east-west artery in our city at certain times of day. I sit out there at the fields all the time with the kids, and sometimes it's even hard to get across 10th now. I support the grant application, but with the MPO, you've seen these other projects where it kind of seems like a black box. The design process is a little bit less involved than what we do if it's a city project. So as long as the lanes aren't being narrowed and I think it's okay to apply for the grant, but we really have to keep this one on our radar as to whether we do need to think more about this becoming a major artery and expanding this route east-west in our city versus taking the space and beautifying it. But I do agree that it is... come somewhat unsafe it is one of the few roads in our city that also has curves on it and that's a little uncharacteristic for south florida so the way people drive on this road is scary at times yes and i'd like to let you know that we would be doing the design it would be a reimbursement grant so it wouldn't be the mpo would be the city doing the design that is good to hear do we have any recent traffic study on this road

I'm sure we do.

Can you pull that up and just send us that and maybe the one prior? Sure. I know how traffic has changed on this road, and I want to make sure that we are planning for the future in any work that we do here. And I understand this is just a grant application at this point, so I support that, but this road is very much on my radar. Thank you.

Mayor.

Very good. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Please come forward. Just name and address of the record.

I gave out my phone number the last time also. I'm waiting for your buddy to call me. He won't call. He's a coward. He just wants to collect millions. Do you, Skaworski, 1630 Southwest Fifth Avenue, Pompano. Do you have a diagram of this?

It's in the back up.

Because I don't, let me see. This is simply approving the grant.

It's boilerplate language.

We see what went on on Dixie Highway and Atlantic Boulevard. It's a complete disaster. And I use that street about three or four times a week. Gosh, I don't know. With what usually happens, we all know what goes on on Atlantic and Dixie. It's a complete massacre disaster. Do very, very little. In fact, just pave the street. Just pave it. I don't know, because I don't trust you. I don't know what you're going to do next. Pave the street. That's all. I was the Brazilian girl that died, right, Beth? Yes, I know. I've been at that park longer than he's been up here, okay? So you're probably just better off paving it and not doing much else, because if you do more, who knows what will happen.

Further input from the public. Please come forward.

My name's Danielle Flancha. I live at 820 Northeast 10th Avenue. I run around the path every day with my dogs. A lot of people, I've seen many of you. I do the full 4.5, and I've almost gotten hit by a car on that road. People go way too fast. Allison, I really appreciate what you're saying. I even appreciate you bringing it up. I think that the traffic safety measures are something that should be considered fully.

Very good. Further input from the public? Seeing none, public input closed. Further commission discussion?

Yes, Mayor.

Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton, followed by Commissioner Fessick.

All right, great. Yes, these are standard, like, designs, boilerplate language, really. And as Mr. Sirfafla said, we would be working on the design and then being reimbursed from the NPO, Metropolitan Planning Organization. That road is... is a dangerous road. Curves, the speeds, the challenges of drivers passing, there's room to pass, and they do it. And we had that terrible, terrible fatality a couple of years back. And again, this is like free money. We're going to apply for it. The MPO will pay for it. And there's probably not going to be grass, particularly trees, maybe some shrubbery. which may need to be trimmed once in a while, but not anything super, super challenging or needy once the trees take hold. I just think it's a great idea and it's money that's not coming from our coffers to pay for it. So I'm totally in favor of this, especially for the safety issues. Thank you.

Very good. Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. So like I mentioned, I wanted this to be a topic for public input. So I agree that it's at this point just a grant application. And I'm very happy to understand that we get to have the input to design it as a city and as a community. I do drive this road quite a bit as well. And I would agree that it can be very dangerous if you are walking and a car does try to overtake another one passing on the right into the grass, which I have seen. If at all, maybe I might suggest that rather than putting it forward as a median, maybe instead we put barriers on the sides to protect pedestrians from traffic. So we can do something that's appealing in that manner. I'll leave that to you and your experts, that we also still have the ability for in the thoroughfare. If emergency vehicles need to pass, they can. If we need to police it more, that's on us. But if we need to find a circle or a traffic calming measure at some point, that's fine. We'd like to see the traffic studies. I think ultimately the goal is, what I'm hearing from you anyway, was really about pedestrian safety. And if that's the case, let's focus on the sidewalks and not the medians. Thank you.

Very good. I just have to say I'm 100% behind this. I think it's a great idea. I was part of the original group that got the Medians put in on Cypress Road, South Cypress Road. Some of our streets are speedways just by the design of it. And 10th Street is one of those streets. It is a speedway. And anything we can do to slow traffic down and also to beautify our environment. I can't tell you how many people want a better looking city. And this is an opportunity to have both things take place. It's one, traffic calming with the medians and shrubbery and things of that nature. and two, make it look nicer rather than just a strip of asphalt. That street does get a lot of usage. It's got high speeds. It's dangerous. We need to work on it, and the fact that we've got a grant opportunity through the MPO I think is a great opportunity to move forward. Thank you for bringing it forward, Mr. Soropoulos. Vice Mayor.

Thank you. So Cypress Road is still a speedway. The medians didn't solve speeding on Cypress Road. Cars, especially at night, are routinely flying on Cypress. So is there some latest and greatest traffic calming process from the engineering department that on what it will actually help slow traffic down besides taking lanes out of roads and this also said in the MPO backup it said that lane and elimination projects are not eligible expenses so can you confirm that that is not that is that Center is not considered a lane

Correct, it's not.

And is there some better solution? What you got, John?

I mean, you've got the chicanes, you've got speed tables, you've got roundabouts, you've got landscape medians. Those are typically the traffic calming measures. And some areas are more conducive to one than the other.

This is a unique road because it does have a high volume of east-west traffic traffic. But medians are not the solution necessarily, the traffic calming. It didn't work on Cypress. So thank you.

Well, it helped. It helped on Cypress Road. Thank you. Further discussion? Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik? Yes. Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Mayor Poitier? Yes. Mayor Hardin?

Yes. Item three is a resolution. Resolution of the City Commissioner of the City of Pompano Beach, Florida, directing the City Manager to schedule and facilitate meetings between the City Commission and the three highest-ranked candidates for the position of District Chief for consideration pursuant to the agreement for police services with the Broward Sheriff's Office revining an effective date. So moved.

Second.

Moved and second for discussion. This item was pulled by Commissioner Perkins and Commissioner Fessick. Commissioner Perkins?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. Is there any staff to speak on this? Anyone?

I got it.

Well, Gregory Harris, I think you can do it.

So can you walk me through the process of selecting the three candidates to be our next chief whenever we merge back to our own city of Pompano Beach? The reason I ask that, I know that BSO will select three candidates for us and you will choose from that three. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so I'm just concerned if how does BSO do their selection process? In other words, are they going to choose a colonel? Are they going to choose a lieutenant or a major? How does it work on their end? I'm just trying to understand the entire picture of how it works. However, I do know that your job is basically to choose one of the three.

Yes. So in this new contract, there is a change where one of the three would be from our local force.

Okay.

So that's the first change. And the rest of it is very similar to what we have now. The sheriff has the say-so of submitting three names to me and then we interview them and either select one of those three or asking for three more names.

Okay, so if we do not select those three, is there any possible way we can select outside of any of the... No, the sheriff picks three to be considered, however many times it takes. And he will continue choosing until we select, and that's the way it's written in the contract.

Yes, ma'am, except this resolution here, we would pass that through the city commission prior to the final selection by me.

Okay. Yeah, I... Let me see, can I find it?

Am I explaining this correctly? Yes, yes, yes.

I do understand you very well. I do. What I'm...

I got Mr. Berman down. Do you want to chime in as well? I know you're asking Mr. Harrison questions.

If you wish, Commissioner. I wasn't done, but what I'm concerned about is the final selection. It says here transparency, communication, informed decision-making. I'm just concerned about that portion of it when it comes to our city manager making that type of decision. I know that you are capable of doing it. However, some of the issues and concerns that we've had in the past, basically, you lack pretty much all of those. So I'm very concerned with you doing this in a fair process where we're informed and we know what you're doing and how you're doing it. We're just always left out in the open when you do things and we don't really know what's going on. However, we're supposed to trust you to make this decision.

we know what has happened in the past uh... go ahead mister thank you commissioner for the last at least fifty years the city manager selects the police chief yes i am aware of that it's in the charter it's in the code what came out of this and this came from the last meeting on the first reading of the bso contract where we were asked you know uh... about the selection process and i incorrectly actually said that the commission meets with uh... members of final three and gets to be with them because i was saw the last one and it was with actually the only candidate and i was requested to add this our process to allow for greater transparency you folks the rest of the commission to meet with the three and then communicate with the city manager to have some input with him making his decision that he gets to make so this is just really something that allows additional participation uh... by the commission and our guarantees that should you desire to meet with not just the final selected candidate but you can get in a little earlier meet the final three and share your thoughts with the manager it's really A good thing, I think, in terms of giving you more say and giving you more of a comfort level, and I think that was the communication I received at the last meeting, that you would look for something like this. That's why I wrote it and made it as simple as possible, and hopefully it meets with your approval. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Done for now. Very good. Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. So I had some concerns, and I did email Mr. Berman earlier who did address some of them, but I don't think I hit all of them.

I got a bad batting average today.

I know, sorry. It's not you, though. This one was me. I somehow skipped over, I guess, the realization. So originally I had pulled this because I was thinking that something to do with the BSO contract, if it's something that we wanted to see in that contract as a commission, that it would be alongside the contract, wouldn't be a separate standalone resolution. And I was corrected with that because I was told with the BSO contract it was gonna have to be standalone as opposed to within that contract, because BSO does their thing and we do our own thing. What I missed on that, I always say when I make a mistake, so what I missed on that was that even though we'll have the opportunity to meet the three candidates, the selection would be from our city manager. And that would come to commission for a yay or nay. I think if we are presented with three candidates, I feel like the city manager should definitely have input, absolutely, but I feel like this community should be making a choice as to, or at least have some sort of participation in who is going to lead charge and be able to ask questions or do things. And while I appreciate that it ultimately would fall on the board to make the final decision, that was something that I really had hoped to see within the contract itself and not as a standalone resolution. One of the things I learned from being up here is that resolutions can be overturned by a simple majority. So we can say now, it's great, but if we come in a couple years and things flip and turn, that can also flip and turn and you may not have the oversight that we have heard you wanted. So that is just why my concern was, and I just want to make sure that if we can make it a contract provision, I would love to, if BSO would be open to that and if our city attorney would be open to that. But this was part of the negotiation concept that we were talking about before, and that's where I imagined it would be. That's all. Thank you.

Mr. Berman?

Yes, Commissioner, and I appreciate that concern. Again, this is on the city side of the equation. This is how the city handles a selection. We've met with BSO, we've negotiated, we've fine-tuned to the extent as possible as to how they provide candidates for us and our participation in that. Just like resolutions can change, contracts can also change, too, later on. And, again, this was meant as a positive. This was per request, and I think I've put in writing, you know, what I was asked to do based on the statement that the comfort level that this commission would have if I added it. So thank you. Very good. I'm sorry, Commissioner Fasagusto?

Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item?

Please come forward.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, no applause. Let him speak.

I get another lecture from Mike, I guess.

Mr. Michael Scover. This is the first time I've ever forgotten what I was going to say. 1630 Southwest Fifth Avenue. I... You can all have your input, but I personally hear how some of you talk about the police, and I would prefer to have management deal with hiring higher-ups in the police department. That's about all I have to say. I don't think any of you really have the knowledge to deal with police, and I think they should deal with it, and you should all stay out of it.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, please, no applause. Further input from the public? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion?

I'm sorry, who was that?

Who said mayor?

I did.

Oh, I'm sorry. You said mayor before. So let me go to Commissioner Perkins, then I'll come back to Vice Mayor.

Yes, I'm very concerned about the selection process simply because, like what Mr. Zafirsky just said, I am very aware of what takes place in my district, and so is he, of course, with the homelessness issue. But I need the chief to understand District 4 is a little bit different from the other parts of the city. And I've always said from the very beginning that we need to go back to our own city of Pompano Policing simply because there was a connection when we were the city of Pompano Beach. And I think once we go back, we will see the difference where the instructions are not coming from downtown Fort Lauderdale. So I am very concerned because of the crimes and the different shootings and different things that happen in my district. I would definitely want a chief that understands all of that and know that we're still in the city of Pompano Beach, but there's a lot going on. in my district and I would like to know how can he go about handling such because my issues are different from Commissioner Fessick or Commissioner Smith in some areas. So that's where I'm very, very concerned about when it comes to choosing a chief, somebody that's very communicatable, understands, listen, a people's person, and don't mind connecting with the people. So that's what I'm mostly concerned about and I think, and I've always said, people in the community will talk to police officers if they know them. If they don't know them, they're not going to talk. But if we have that relationship where we're close, you knew the police officer and I know the police officer, you feel more comfortable talking to the police officer, and we don't have that in place at this point right now. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. All right. Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Here Commissioner Perkins concerns here and she's she's right and she says this all the time This is not something she's just saying because we're debating this or there's a contract renewal And I do agree that long term I think our city is big enough complicated enough That it is probably time for us to to have our own police department at some point but in a strategic Long-term way that makes sense with respect to this This is I believe what we asked the city attorney to do because there's really nothing else in the contract to be done So the sheriff already says hey, I'm gonna give you three candidates You get to pick one. So if there's something we need to do on our side to strengthen the Commission's input on it that's not in violation of the charter, I think we'd all be open to suggestions. This was what we asked Mark to do, Mr. Berman to do last meeting, which was to come back and say, let us at least meet the person because there was this comment made that we do get to meet them. And I was told during the last process, we don't get to meet them. So this at least Memorialized that each Commissioner can meet the candidates But the city manager still has the final say and that is in the Charter so I if If a majority of the Commission didn't like any of the candidates is there something that could be done Because we're not then you technically wouldn't be picking a candidate. You'd be saying give me a new round. I

I mayor if we are with your permission yeah the idea here is to provide input and the manager makes a decision but the more information he has from his commission from the commissioners and from the districts and you're out there in your districts you know what the people in your districts want the better decision he can hopefully make that was the idea behind this so you know I I It may not be the end all that everyone here wants, but I think when you look at it, are you better with this or better without this, I think it makes it better and gives you additional opportunities. We can always continue to explore these opportunities. Hopefully we won't be making this decision for many, many years anyway, but assuming that when we do, The idea and the original idea is, you know, it's not supposed to be political. It's supposed to be a professionally made decision to keep it out of politics. But your input, and you indicated the desire for input, this allows it. So is it better or are we better with this or not? I would respectfully recommend that be the consideration at this point.

I agree with you. We are certainly better with it than without it. But I do hear from some of my colleagues that maybe it doesn't go far enough. Is the process... If the city manager rejects all three, we get three new candidates?

Yes. BSO will keep them coming. If if necessary, not that we would ever. Hopefully it won't come to that. It hasn't yet. The last time we did this. But and again, one of your candidates will be from one of your district captains. So, again, these are that's kind of what I'm thinking about here.

Mark, obviously play this out. So what happens if you have a specific person you want? They're not the candidate that's put forth.

Well, you can certainly work with the process and hopefully get a satisfactory result.

I just see how this can create additional issues also. Thank you.

Commissioner Smith?

I just think it's a starting point. And I thank you, Mr. Berman, for listening to us last time at the meeting. And we have an opportunity to be involved. And like you said, it's not the end all. We can revise this in the future. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor.

Very good. Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. Yeah, I agree that it's a starting point, and I'm satisfied with it being a starting point. I would like, I think, if maybe in the future, and I'll just put it on record now, I would like it where maybe we had a scoring system similar like the way we do with private scoring sheets or whatever so that the city manager can then have our input You know through a traditional scoring process similarly we do procurement scoring sheets of some kind So that might just that might be a way to standardize something other than I like this person or I don't like this person, right? It's a it's a way we can go by and merit that as we meet the person and interview them That's all but otherwise it is a step in the right direction.

Thank you further commission discussion Yes, mr. Perkins another note

down the road, a little further down the road, I would like to emphasize again, and we'll probably be talking about this much later, that I would love to see this district chief work for the commission. rather than the city manager, because I think we can build a better relationship with that particular person, and in our different districts, we can work closer with that particular chief. So that's just something further down the road to be considered. Thank you.

All right. The commission discussion. Seeing none, let's call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik. Yes. Commissioner Perkins. Yes. Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes. Vice Mayor Poitier. Yes. Mayor Hartin.

Yes. That takes us up to our regular agenda. Item number four is quasi-judicial in nature. Mr. Berman will discuss the parameters we will use.

Thank you, Mayor. If anyone wishes to testify on item number four, they must be sworn in and may be subject to cross-examination by the City Commission or by interested parties. Individuals who address the City Commission should state his or her name and whether he or she has been sworn. The applicant, this is an appeal, unlike a normal quasi-judicial process that we have, the applicant will make its presentation or introduction first, followed by the city and any other testimony. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the commission will make its consideration. All those who wish to testify on item number four, please stand at this time, raise your right hand, and the city clerk will swear you in.

Do you solemnly, I'm sorry. Okay, take your time. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony or evidence that you're going to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

Very good, Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mayor. This is a little long, but it is necessary. So let's start. Pursuant to Section 155.2424C of the City's Zoning Code, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding where the City Commission will review and appeal in accordance with the standards of the Zoning Code applicable to the Planning and Zoning Board's June 24, 2026 decision denying a major site plan. The City Commission will base and must base its decision solely on the record below established before the Planning and Zoning Board. The appealing party will present its arguments first, identifying the grounds for the appeal and basis for the alleged error in the Planning and Zoning Board's decision. Next, the Development Services staff will respond to the arguments addressing the Department's review and recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board. Either party may call and examine witnesses, introduce evidence or exhibits, cross-examine opposing witnesses, impeach witnesses, and rebut evidence. Interested parties may be sworn and provide relevant testimony, either on behalf of or in opposition to the appeal. Parties shall have the right to cross-examine any person who testifies. So anyone who testifies may be cross-examined, and the applicant has that right. as well as the city. City commission shall have authority to ask questions of any time of anyone present at the proceedings. Formal rules of evidence do not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and govern the proceedings. All relevant evidence shall be admitted if and in the opinion of the city commission is of the type of evidence upon which reasonable persons would normally rely on the conduct of business affairs, regardless of existence of any common law or statutory rules. The commission may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence hearsay evidence may be accepted for the purpose of supplementing or explaining direct evidence only but such hearsay shall not in itself be considered sufficient to support a finding or decision unless the evidence would be admissible over objection and civil actions the party shall have an opportunity to make closing arguments at the conclusion the presentation of all evidence and the city commission shall endeavor to make findings of fact and conclusions city attorney will prepare the necessary and appropriate written order in accordance with the purpose and hearing and findings of the City Commission. Now, to be clear, this matter does not involve any request for a variance or for rezoning. The record will indicate the appellant's proposed use already meets all zoning requirements and land use requirements for the site. This involves an appeal of the proposed site plan decision made before the Planning and Zoning Board and shall be governed strictly pursuant to the standards set forth in Section 155.2407 , governing the approval of a site plan. The 12 criteria are as follows and it must be competent substantial evidence in the record that the development as proposed number one is consistent with the land use designation in the comprehensive plan two complies with applicable district use and intensity and dimensional standards of this code three complies with the this code meaning the zoning code complies with the applicable development standards of the zoning code while not required to comply with sustainable development standards uh... that the uh... complies number four complies with all applicable standards in this code five complies with all requirements and conditions of any prior applicable development orders or prior applicable plans on record six the concurrency review has been completed in accordance with chapter one fifty four of the Code of Ordinances 7 is designed to provide safe, adequate paid vehicular access between buildings within the development and streets are identified as on the Broward County Traffic Waste Plan. 8, complies with hazardous material licensing requirements in the Broward County Wellfield Protection Ordinance. 9, complies with crime prevention, security strengthening, and CPTED standards for neutral natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial reinforcement. I'm almost done here. 10, complies with adopted fire codes and standards per the city code. 9502, 11... considers and mitigates any potential adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands identified by the city's comprehensive plan or Broward County land use plan. And finally, 12, complies with approved transportation corridor study unless in direct conflict with ANOTHER ZONING CODE PROVISION. THESE 12 STANDARDS SET FORTH ARE THE ONLY MATTERS THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD SHOULD HAVE AND THE CITY COMMISSION MAY PROPERLY CONSIDER FOR THE APPEAL OF THE SITE PLAN. IF THEY ARE MET, THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO SUCH APPROVAL. OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS IT'S NOT WHAT WAS PROMISED ARE NOT RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO THE ZONING CODE AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED. finally the city commission show basis decision on the record established below by the planning and zoning board making its decision which was is the decision being appealed that record consists of all documents hearing records and materials related to the decision the city commission may and your job may is that you can modify or reverse the decision of the planning and zoning board in whole or in part only if the commission finds there is competent substantial evidence in the record of clear and demonstrable error in the application of the relevant standards of the zoning code in the proceedings below before the planning and zoning board. Now, at this point, this is quasi-judicial. Everyone up here who's participating on the dais needs to disclose any ex-party communication they may have with any of the parties, including the developer, and the nature of such communication. Please, we'll start at the end, or Mayor, I'll let you do the roll call on that. Okay, well, we'll just start at the end. Commissioner Smith.

I have had conversation with the Cordes Group, on the project and I will be able to listen to the evidence presented today and make my decision upon what I hear today.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

I have had meeting with Zed Smith from the Cordish Group. I have had outreach from the Cordish Group from Corey Long from David Cordish via email and exchanged, yeah, so spoke briefly to Corey Long and exchanged emails with David Cordish. And I also will be able to make my decision today based on the facts that are presented here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I, too, have had ex parte communications with the Cordish Group and his project manager, Corey Long, and a couple other executives there currently and through over the years. And I can make a decision based on the facts that I hear tonight. Thank you.

Very good. Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. I have also had a meeting with Zed Smith. I had a few emails, I believe, from David Cordish, a phone call with Aaron, I forgot his last name, from Harris. Probably a handful of other people who have at least tried to call or kind of get back in touch. I will also be able to make a decision based on what I hear, only competent evidence, and I'll make my decision fairly based on the facts that are presented here. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Perkins.

Thank you, Mayor. I have not met with the Cornish group, but I met with a few of the residents from Palm Air last week, and I've received a few emails. Thank you.

Very good. I've met with folks from the Cornish group. I've also met with folks from Costco. I've spoken with various members of the public. I've also gotten numerous emails both for and against this project. But, of course, I can review it as new evidence. Yes, Mr. Berman. I'm sorry. Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. I also have gotten hundreds of emails from residents and spoken with residents as well. So thank you. SFI.

Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton. Vice Mayor.

So I have a question about that. Because in the minutes in the planning and zoning meeting, it said staff noted that community concerns can be grounds for tabling an item if they relate to aspects not previously evaluated. So I have received hundreds and hundreds of emails on this, and I was looking for some type of staff report that included an evaluation of aspects that may not have been previously evaluated, like what this said here, and I didn't see anything. So because of the rushed nature of this, are we missing or potentially missing a piece of evidence that we should have to do our job here?

that's up to staff basically if they have any such additional information. The evidence you're supposed to review is the evidence presented at the hearing below. I'm not aware that staff opined in any way that you should be looking for additional evidence.

It said it would be grounds for tabling an item if if there's community concerns related to aspects not previously evaluated. My only concern is I don't know what's in many of these emails, so I don't know if it's been previously evaluated.

Well, back on July 23rd, I provided a memorandum to all commissioners requesting that you review the video look at the evidence below so hopefully all the evidence is in there and you've looked at all evidence we can ask staff is there any additional evidence that you have so we should ignore the hundreds of emails we've received or staff should to see it can ignore that you're you're supposed to consider what happened below you can get all these emails it doesn't whether it constitutes competent substantial evidence It does not, basically, but.

My only point is are we missing something because the planning zoning minutes said staff noted community concerns can be grounds for tabling an item if they relate to aspects not previously evaluated. I'm just saying I don't know if anyone's evaluated what's in the emails.

I would respond no because what should be evaluated are the 12 criteria set forth in the zoning code and nothing else.

Okay.

Unless staff has a different opinion. We can hear from staff.

No, Max Williams, Principal Planner Development Services. I would agree with that. I think that the point of this appeal is to evaluate the record that was established at that point in time of the Planning and Zoning Board. The comment that I made at the Zoning Board about grounds for tabling was that there were concerns about traffic, but the applicant had made a sufficient presentation of their traffic findings in accordance with our code requirements as well as based on the nature of the proposed development. So if the board felt that the applicant's presentation did not sufficiently address the concerns that were raised by the community at that meeting, I was advising that they could table for more information only if there was a consideration that not sufficient evidence existed. That problem was solved.