Town Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, today is Tuesday, July 28th, 7.09 p.m., calling today's meeting into order. Madam Clerk, if you'll take the roll, please.

Yes, Mayor. Mayor Danziger?

Present.

Vice Mayor Bermudez? She's absent. Commissioner Travani?

Here.

Commissioner Valdostegui?

Here.

Commissioner Weingart? Present. Mayor, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Major. If you'll lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. All right. Item 2A, presentation of the fiscal year 2027 budget and proposed operating millage rate. Mr. Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. If I can have our budget manager come up. We've prepared a quick We prepared a presentation for you on the budget, but a quick summary or what the staff is requesting tonight is about selling setting the millage rate cap or ceiling. This is where the commission during your September budget hearings will not be able to go above. Staff is currently recommending keeping it flat at 3.883 for that ceiling, but we have the presentation for you. Andrea, if you can come up, please.

Okay.

Okay, I'm gonna start with a quick recap on the budget principles. So the principles are to ensure compliance with policies, statutes, and contractual obligations of the town. It supports building and maintaining infrastructure for the community in the long term. It establishes spending authorization, safeguards reserves to stay financially sound. So when our audits are done, we have a good financial basis and we come up with a clean opinion on our audits. And the budget should be transparent, affordable and sustainable. The elements of the budget are it's a financial document used to project future revenues and expenses for a fiscal year time period. It's a roadmap to carry out the Town Commission's objectives and strategies. Revenues are based on property appraiser values and the millage rate and our state and local estimates for the general fund. Expenditures are based on specific needs and services. We try to maintain reserves and funding for our capital program and the fiscal year starts on October 1st of every year and ends on September 30th. of the budget calendar. Today is our meeting to discuss the millage rate to advertise on the trim notice. That'll be a cap. That's today's meeting. Then on August 4th, by August 4th, we need to provide the information to the property appraiser so that can be advertised on the trim notice, which goes out around mid-August, mid-August to the 20-something of August. We have a first public hearing on the budget and the millage rate for September 8th at 5.01 p.m. and the second and final hearing on September 22nd at 5.01. The Towns budget is based on several funds. The components are the general fund, which is the general government operations. We have special revenue funds, which is the recreation and culture. We have the building services and transportation. We have a capital projects fund. Enterprise funds, which is our water sewer funds, our stormwater funds, solid waste, and parking. And then we have an internal service fund, which is called fleet management fund, which we use to maintain and replace our vehicles. Tonight we'll be discussing basically the general fund. So revenues from the general fund are mainly, we're projecting 27 million in revenues. Our revenues are mainly from ad valorem taxes. That's 78% and then we have franchise fees and some other intergovernmental revenues. Our budget is based on 24.8 million in projected expenditures. The majority of it goes to public safety. then general government and parks and recreation and physical environment and we have 11% going to transfer to enterprise funds. The proposed budget that you have would return 2.4 million to general fund reserves. Operating expenditures are 21.5 and 3.1 million would go to transfer to the enterprise funds. These are the components of our general fund revenue in dollar value. As you can see, it's mainly 21 million would be from ad valorem revenues. I just found out we would not be using any fund balance to balance the budget and we would have an excess which we would return to reserves. This is, the chart is the same as basically the first slide that we went through where 70% of our revenues for the general fund are made up of ad valorem revenues. Then our expenditures. These are expenditures in dollar values. You can see between public safety and general government, that's the major portion of what our general fund expenditures are. we would be transferring out $3,065,000. Two and a half million would be to provide funding for a sewer project or sewer projects, I'm sorry, stormwater projects that we need to work on. And then a balance of 565, 565,000 would be to balance the water and sewer fund. until we complete our rate studies. Okay, so we have a funding policy in place and based on the funding policy, the amount that we would need to fund or we would, it's a target, we're striving to fund a target for 2027 would be approximately $12.6 million for committed reserves for operations and maintenance. Then we have a hurricane and disaster reserve a budget stabilization reserve and a capital reserve. Those combined we would for fiscal 2027 be at 12.6 million which means we would increase those reserves by $1.4 million. The balances of returning to unassigned fund balance would be $958,000. We've budgeted that we would have total return to reserves of 2,382,111. And that's based on a millage rate of 3.8743. Which is a little lower than the current millage rate. for property values and millage rates. So we had a small jump of 6.2% increase in our property values. That's mainly attributable to the existing properties, not new construction. You'll see the same information, this is over what properties the increases are and you can see it's mainly driven by the condominium buildings, any property that's in the condominium buildings. Okay, the just value and the taxable value. So the just value is basically, it's kind of like market value. And then we have what's called taxable value, so that's after homesteaded properties and only the 10% increase on non-homesteaded properties. So for the taxable value, for just value, you see that the condominiums are 59% of the value. But when it comes to their taxable value, they end up being 67% of our tax roll. And the single family section is 25% of the just value, which is sort of like a market value. But when it comes to factoring in homesteads, that percentage goes down to 19%. Those are taxable values and the millage rates, so you see over 10 years how the millage rate has come down. So we've gone all the way from 4.8, we're currently at 3.8830, and the budget is based on 3.8743. And then where do your property, your tax dollars go? So 21% goes to Surfside, 36% goes to the school board, and 40% of your property taxes go to Dade County, 4% goes to state funding. So the majority of your taxes go to the school board and Dade County, and only 21% ends up going to Surfside. And we go to the millage rates and the ad valorem tax revenue. So we are currently at an adopted rate of 3.8830. We prepared the budget based on a rate of 3.8743. And our rollback rate is 3.5221. And you'll see the revenues that are generated by those different rates. Our current rate would generate 1.967 million. The proposed budget was prepared based on an increase of 1.919, almost 1.92, and the rollback rate would mean no increase in taxes. The various rates depend on voting, the voting that's required. So if we were voting for the 3.8830, we would need a unanimous vote. The proposed rate of 3.8743, we would need four votes of the governing body, and the rollback rate would require three votes, which is a majority vote. So today we're going to determine what the cap will be for the trim notice. And once you advertise that on the trim notice, it's really setting the ceiling, you can't go down. So you could go down afterwards, but you can't go up. Go above that rate. It's just based on the budget was prepared based on a 10% tax increase over the rollback rate. And then this is just how much each millage rate is worth. So every millage, one millage is worth $5.454 million of revenue. I think that's it, okay. Tonight staff is only seeking guidance on a millage cap. The recommended millage cap is at the existing millage rate of 3.8830 mills, although we are building the budget on a millage rate of 3.8743. I think that's the last slide.

All right, thank you, Andrea. Any questions? All right, could we get a motion on the table before we open up public comment?

We're making a motion for public comment, yes?

No, could we get a motion for the item?

To move to proceed here.

Yeah.

So moved.

What's the motion?

A motion to proceed with the rate. I believe we could get this to 3.8743 as our cap. I just wanted feedback from town staff if that's something that we feel we could meet.

Commissioner, yeah, you can set the cap at 38743 should you wish. We always recommend going a little bit above that simply because we're maintaining a flat millage rate so that you have flexibility in discussion. As you start getting into your meetings in September, if you're talking about more projects or different level of service or anything like that, if you do not have any wiggle room because you set the millage too low, then you're not going to be able to kind of move. So although staff is building the budget at a lower millage rate than what's existing, for the ceiling, we recommend at least keeping it flat so that you have that buffer. You're talking about how much is it? It was about $50,000. Okay. So $50,000, if you want to set it at the $38743, that's what we're building the budget at anyways. You'll be fine with that. I would just recommend whatever cap you have, just realize that you will not be able to go above it. The good thing is that Surfside's in a really good financial position. In other places, during the special hearings, commissioners would ask, well, we want this and we want more of this and we want more of that. And my response is, do you want to raise the millage? Because there was no room. But you guys are in a really good, healthy position. So setting it at where we're building the budget is perfectly fine.

Okay, with that I'm comfortable Pushing us to be fiscally responsible and to drive at that and cap there I think it's a good start for a new commission and I Make a motion to proceed with three point eight seven four.

Okay You put in seven four three just for three point eight seven four three, okay All right, I'll second it. We'll open it up to public comment and we'll come back to this. First speaker, Commissioner Reichardt.

I set the green light. There you go.

Marianne, my shy 9, 2, 2, 5 Collins Avenue, um, surf side. So unless there's something I'm not aware of, I recommend keeping it at the 3.8, 8, 3. Oh, thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Uh, Michael Kurukin.

Michael Carrick in 9365 Abbott. So must be nice to be flush with all this cash. Just to put it in perspective, the first budget I worked on in 2010 for the fiscal year 2011, The total revenue from ad valorem taxes was $5 million. Now it's $20 million. There was a good graph over there. So you saw the high millage rate actually brought in very little amount of money back then. The total amount of resort tax revenue in 2011 was a whopping $250,000. Now it's, I think, up $6 million, something like that. So anyway, my point is I sent everyone an email. I know that you're not going to go with line by line tonight. So please take it if you have any questions about the depth of information that I provided. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me. A couple of points. I want to make sure that everyone understands that the There's liabilities associated with increasing the headcount. I know this particular budget still has that COO or chief of staff position. I think you guys eliminated that already. I don't know if you did or not, but I think you should. There's also a lot of clarity that's needed around the new building for the building department. I also wanted to point out that the building services department might be ripe for outsourcing based on the fluctuating and variable workload over the next five years or so. I don't know if that's smart to actually bring in full-time people for all of that because when you bring in full-time, as everyone knows, there's a lot more liabilities associated with that. So again, I'm not gonna get into too many details here. I support the 3.8743, thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Zomper.

Jeff Zomper, 8827 Emerson. The budget is bloated, but that's not your fault. It's a situation that has developed over at least 10 years. It's not unusual for when money comes in, when additional money comes in to spend it. What I recommend is, because it's not going to be able to be done between now and September when you have to approve a budget, is that a deep dive be done on the budget with each of the departments. I don't know whether you'd want to use the budget committee for something like that, or whether you'd like to hire an outside consultant to sit down and go through line item by line item, find out what exactly is done in operations of each department, because Surfside has not grown. We're still a mile square. We're still close to the same population as it has been for the last 10 years. There are many things that have increased in cost. Pension, health care, salaries have had to increase because of inflation. but not to the extent that if you look at the budget numbers from 10 years ago and look at them now, that you can say that there is not bloat and excess in the budget. So I think you need to take a hard look at it. Have somebody take a hard look at it because you don't have the time to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Zomper. You spoke already. I'll give you a minute because you didn't use your full three.

I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I just also wanted to point out a couple of things I've pointed out previously for my extra one minute. Thank you very much. One, don't forget that the Municipal Parking Fund does have a parking trust fund by law under section 9077 and I still reiterate the need to do an audit of that because I've tallied at least $331,000 that is as of yet unaccounted for. So that's something that I still hope that you guys take into consideration. And also regarding the drop in the overall budget by about $5 million, you can confirm this with the town manager, but my understanding is that this is because of some of the capital project offsets, like $6.5 million, for example. So please double check on that. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, thank you, everybody, for your comments, for your feedback. Mr. Zomper, from what I hear, you won't be on the Budget Committee in August. We don't have quorum yet. We would love to have your eyes on it this month, but thanks for your input. Tonight, I'm just gonna remind everybody, tonight is just about setting the cap, right? This is, we are going to spend the next two months still going through this budget. There's still a lot to look at, but we wanna set our cap tonight. That's a requirement that we have to do. We want to be responsible and not limit ourselves. So that's all we're here to do tonight. So we have a motion. Unless there's a need for further discussion, we can call the roll.

Yeah. I VERY MUCH SHARE COMMISSIONER WEINGART'S GOAL OF GETTING TO A NUMBER LIKE 3.8743, BUT I DO, YOU KNOW, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, WHICH WAS ALSO MADE BY COMMISSIONER MEYERSHEID, JUST HAVING DONE THIS BEFORE, YOU JUST NEVER KNOW. Voting tonight to lower the taxes versus voting in September makes absolutely no difference in what anybody ever pays. I want to make sure that's clear. All of this is effective next year. So it's just a question of whether we leave ourselves that bit of wiggle room. But I would rather us say, agree that we want to get to 3.8743 in September and make that a goal. The budget is, in fact, built on that goal, so it shouldn't be too hard. But I think just out of prudence, you never know. Nothing really is gained tonight by lowering the millage rate except I don't know, it seems to me a little bit more of just a show to say that we lowered taxes, but I want to do it anyway. I just want to do it in September. So I think we should go with the manager's recommendation and stick with the current rate for the trim notice. Again, I have every intention of getting to 3.8743 at the next meeting. It doesn't make a practical difference.

Yeah, just... SEGUE TO WHAT COMMISSIONER BALDOSTIG WAS SAYING. I MEAN, I TEND TO SORT OF TRY TO GIVE MYSELF the ability to decide what I want to do based on what could be reasonable from a millage standpoint, which would be keeping the same rate. I don't know if... We're gonna get to a practical, I don't think, actually, we're not gonna get to any practical advantage if we're gonna set a lower millage rate tonight. FROM NOW IN SEPTEMBER, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT MANY THINGS DURING OUR BUDGET WORKSHOP, RIGHT? LIKE WE WANT TO DO THIS, WE WANT TO DO THAT. AND THINGS THAT ULTIMATELY ARE GOING TO BE VETTED BY THE COMMUNITY. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT. SO THAT THE IDEA IS NOT TO WASTE Money, absolutely not. We want to lower taxes as much as possible. But at the same time, we want to listen to the community and give the services that the community think that we should have in Surfside. So that's why if we want to do that and we keep thinking about that, then maybe leaving 3.883 would give us an extra 50K, which is not a lot, but still a little bit of wiggle room. I don't feel strongly about it. I mean, at the end of the day, with this commission, we're going to settle for 3.8743. Like I said, it's just 50K. It doesn't change it that much. However, you know, the final decision is going to be in September, so it's just the limit now.

Just want to say I've seen this commission spend almost three hundred thousand dollars with less of a discussion and we're talking about fifty thousand dollars So this is boggling my mind. I don't know if there's another purpose. I Just want to say when two years ago. We were at fifteen million dollars expending close to sixteen We're at twenty one now the town is asking for that is a lot of growth in two years So I am NOT passing a three point eight seven budget I expect us to bring a lot lower because there's yes there's a lot of revenue coming in but unless we can articulate during my time with that 15 million we built three parks we did the dune resiliency we did project after project after project so i think there's a lot of room and again we have two months to figure out where this money is going and how a lot of these departments i don't know how many of you have gone light item by light item yet in the budget and how i don't want to use bloat is the wrong word but how those but numbers have exceeded in the last two years. And I ran on fiscal responsibility and I'm going to be there. So to say that I'm just gonna adopt the same number as last year is completely wrong. And I don't know why, again, why we're going in circles on less than a percentage of a point. So.

No, it's just an opinion.

If I may, my suggestion was that we informally agree among ourselves that the goal is to get it down, which we all agree. We all want to be the politician who cuts taxes. Nobody's disagreeing about that. It's just, you know, to the mayor's question, because he's asking what is the reason. The reason is that our fundamental goal here should be prudence, not... sort of a sound bite tomorrow. And just in the interest of prudence, nothing is lost by staying with the current tax rate Some scenario is foreclosed, and I just think our obligation is to be the most prudent tonight. Then in September, we can all cut taxes, and we can say we cut taxes. So I would opt for, again, because I don't feel this proposal was really considered, we informally agree that that's where we're going to go. But then we still vote for the current rate just to give the staff and everybody wiggle room.

So there's a great line. A dream becomes a goal when action is taken towards its achievement. And the best time to start doing something better is now. So this isn't for a sound bite. If I need a sound bite, I'll create one. Everyone's on the, I know we're on the record.

I know everyone could hear it. But this is about setting the precedent.

This is our first budget. And we've heard from town staff that we're in a good place here and MY MOTION WAS TO GET INTO ACTION RIGHT AWAY BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST A SMALL AMOUNT BUT THAT'S ONE STEP AND THAT SETS THE PRESENT OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

We need four votes to pass on the three, or three, to pass on the three.

No, no, no, that's entirely different. That's when you get. That's in September. That's in September. Oh, okay. For tonight, you need a majority to set the millage rate. That's all you're doing.

Okay, yeah. I mean, I don't know. It's 50K. Yes.

Commissioner Villasegui?

Again, I share the goal of lowering the taxes, but I feel tonight we need to be prudent, so no.

Commissioner Weingart?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Wendmerge? I don't have a mic.

Yes, it's a yes.

Mayor Danziger?

Yes.

Mayor, the motion carries.

All right, can we get a, Madam Clerk, can we get some batteries, please?

Yes, I apologize. I don't know why.

I think it needs a charge.

It needs to be charged. This is the new one.

Yeah.

No, don't worry. You guys want to be quiet tonight.

You're right.

All right, moving on to item 3A, approval and revised drawing of the scope of the Champlain Tower South CTS Memorial. Madam Clerk, if you read the title of the resolution to the record, please.

Yes, Mayor. A resolution of the Town Commission on the Town of Surfside, Florida, approving of revised drawings and scope of work for the Champlain Tower South Memorial, authorizing the Town Manager to negotiate and finalize a contract for construction with Shift Construction and Development, Inc. for the project provided for implementation and provided for an effective date. Item 3A.

Thank you. Mr. Manager, if you'll introduce the item, please.

yes mayor thank you very much um is there is there a motion um i was going to let him introduce it quickly two minutes make a motion sorry go ahead oh no problem my mistake um mayor so in march um or prior to march we received a um we put out a a bid and we received a total project cost for for the memorial of over five million dollars With regards to the voter referendums, that would have required a voter referendum either now in August or November. The commission directed staff to look at the project and see if we can get it below the threshold and the total budgeted amount is 3.55 million. staff and our consultant, Keith Engineering, which we have present here, who will walk you through the presentation, was able to take a look at the project and identify certain aspects of the project that we can split up in construction phases. So what is before you tonight is for the substantial contracts in its substantial form for approval with SHIFT. We're gonna give you the update, and then staff does need direction, maybe separately from the contractor altogether, however you wanna handle it, Mayor, with regards to the image on the wall itself. During the memorial, I had The memorial event in June, there were those attending who put me aside for at least a good five to 10 minutes talking about how the image was not appropriate. The families did discuss this during their designs. The image that is there is being is what their recommendation is. And I believe several families or members of the community have also reached out to some of you on the commission as well. And so seeing and hearing a lot, I just wanted to make sure that whatever we move forward with is what the commission wishes to move forward with. So I'm asking you for direction on that as well. With that, if I can have Craig Echeverria from Keith to just kind of walk us through to show what the overall update on what we've phased for this phase of the construction project is.

First again Presentations, I'm just gonna get a motion on the table and then we'll proceed That works would like yeah and also I just want to reiterate some of the history because I think on June 24th some Articles were put out with some misinformation, which is that this Commission value engineered this project delayed the project I think there was a referendum referendum item and I forget which month it was exactly but it was last year which in the residents voted to restrict the commission from spending and i believe it was five percent of the ad valorem revenue which equated to roughly three and a half million i'm going to say um of the proposed budget without a referendum comes the memorial at seven and a half million which exceeds that amount which would require the commission goes to the referendum by the residents Obviously that would, A, delay the project, B, you run the risk of the residents saying we don't want this project and there goes the entire memorial we've been building for five years. So the commission, the previous commission, went out and had Keith value engineer this down to an amount that the commission can authorized without referendum so that's what we have here today as a manager stated the image yes i get it was pushed by one or two family members i've been hearing a lot about it it's extremely i mean as a resident it's it's it's traumatic to see a site where so many people lie dead a lot of the first responders a lot of the residents a lot of family members feel the same way so It was a proposal for an additional, this image has become iconic for this event. It signifies multiple things, including the continuation of life, the infinity sign that is built in there. It was an entire different aspect, and that became the vision. So what we have here tonight is a revised plan conforming to hopefully value it engineered down to the price that we can approve here tonight with revised design. So I would ask for a motion to approve this. with the revised design.

I'll make the motion to approve and proceed with this project that's so important. And I committed to family members that I've talked with that we're going to get that done in our commission. So I asked for fellow commissioner support there in moving this along expeditiously. Also motion to approve The revised image of love lives on. It's a beautiful message. It's a hand from below connecting to a hand from above that's remembering the past, showing the future. So I make a motion to approve this.

All right.

We'll second it. All right. Let's hear the updates.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Greg Chavarria. I'm Vice President with Keith. It's been a pleasure working on this project with the town and stakeholders. Just wanted to give you an update on what the manager mentioned. Also, you've described it very well, Mayor, all the different activities and events that took place and how everything just resulted in This version this latest iteration of the design some of the major modifications that were made were to fit the project into a budget that could be adopted by the Commission and also that could fit. the efforts needed for the contractor to do. What was done was this area here on the eastern side of the proposed memorial was scaled down so that this area now becomes more of a green space area. And also there were some scaled down areas as well as far as some attributes that were, again, tailored so that it could meet the project budget. Nevertheless, what you see before you is a rendering of the wall where it would commemorate or memorialize the victims, as well as a waterfall feature that would show an image in the background, and also a lot of landscape that would provide the the experience that was established by stakeholders of this design throughout the process. Nevertheless, at the end it shows how the entrance from the western side towards the eastern side would look with some of the remnants that came from the building itself and those will remain as part of the design. This is now also a eastern look from the western side. As to how the memorial will look, as you can see, the area that has been modified now shows a view and a perspective to the ocean. And right now we are in the final stages of attaining all permits. And this has been our latest iteration update for the Surfside Memorial.

Thank you, Craig. And for the commission, because I know we received an email from residents, I think today or yesterday, Keith and the team has walked the site with Miami-Dade Fire, Miami-Dade County, to make sure that there's sufficient room to go through and any other concerns that Miami-Dade Fire may have and we are good to go. We're submitting the final response to their comments by the end of the week and once they have that, we should get a pretty quick turnaround for approval as we've already addressed everything in the field with them.

Thank you. That's the whole thing? Yeah. Okay, so I had a bit of a question because I was checking this over today. Item number, I can't even see. Item number six, I think it is.

Number six, this area?

Or maybe it's number one. Can you scroll down?

So this is the, on the east, on the western side, there's a memorial signage. And then item number six, we will have, these are points where we will have certain debris, debris that comes from the site itself.

Craig, can you scroll down so that they can see the column again of what that looks like? I think it's there, right? This one's a good one. Or even at nighttime, if you want to show it.

You have two separate things. You have an item for a column and then you have an item for debris. So what I saw when I read that is a pile of debris, which we're seeing now on the.

So right. So these are all these are the columns that you see. And then inside of the columns are the chunks of the various debris that is currently across the street from from the site. So it's meant to memorialize actual pieces in the columns as a feature that will also have light in there.

Okay, but it's not a pile like we're seeing in the veterans park right now.

No, no, it would be broken down to fit the area.

Because if you go back to the map, there was another item for the pillars. Yeah, you have two as a pillar feature and then six is debris, so...

Yeah if I made some clarity just to it so so the 6 this area here's and here and here these and over here and towards the end these are small debris that we will blend in with the landscape debris that was preserved from the site and that was a feature that was requested throughout the process we have a photo of what that looks like because we're looking at a pillar right so you're telling me it's 2 separate things. Yes, but I don't have that on this. I don't have this here. And it's basically positioning a piece of debris in those areas with the landscape.

So, I mean, judging on the faces of the crowd and the feedback that we got from when they moved the debris to the tennis center was people can't drive up Collins anymore. They can't look at this. This is their home. This is their life. And what you're doing is you're putting a piece of someone's home in the grass in front of them. And so, I mean, again, I don't want to judge it yet before I've seen what it looks like, but I've seen nothing of what that is supposed to be. Is that a nice rock that has been put into the gardening? Is it a giant... Again, is it what we're seeing now in the tennis center, which is extremely... disturbing to a lot again i want to thank you you've been on this for the last five years of us uh... through a couple commissions and that's it's a very difficult position you guys were in and i think you did a great job of managing all the feedback input so spare with us a little longer and rooms there uh... has just one uh... clarify something

So I can look for that, what that would look like. I just have to, I need some time where I can send that to the manager thereafter.

yeah um that's not even a feature that that i remember even seeing in any of the plans or anything so we can definitely bring that back um to the commission and if the commission decides that's not a type of feature that's just debris that we wouldn't use or place because that's more of a gardening type of feature it's a hardscape more than anything so that wouldn't stop the whole project it wouldn't cause like a complete redesign of anything okay

It's just positioning of debris.

I would just ask again before it gets placed or if there's something we can see on that first.

Are we requesting an amendment or a amended motion? Meaning we can't approve something that we can't see.

Kind of a problem.

But we do want to move a project along. Yes. We don't have any photo of that?

I just need a few minutes to see what I could find.

In the meantime, through the mayor, may I ask some questions of the manager and the attorney? I'm confused about a few things. If we approve a design tonight, does it still go to the P&Z under the recently adopted law that major design elements go to the P&Z?

No, sir. Again, the design isn't changing, and this was all done and approved prior to that occurring. The only thing that we've done...

Prior to what occurring? Prior to the legislation?

To the April ordinance. The only thing that we've done is taken a look at the phase construction project to get it under the budget. We haven't changed the design. We haven't done anything with regards to the overall design of the project.

All right. And is there any my understanding and you can please correct me if I'm wrong. The Memorial Committee hasn't weighed in on the project at all since not not since the April meeting or whichever meeting it was that. Correct. Approved the scale back project. OK. Third question through the mayor for the attorney. What is the current status of those spending limits from the referendum? Because when we've talked recently about the Collins water main, I've gotten the impression from the attorney that the intention is to hold that referendum to be illegal. I haven't been totally convinced by that, but that's my understanding of where the attorney's advice has been leaning. So doesn't that create an opportunity then for us to discuss the project as originally designed, including the canopy and the other feature that was taken out in March or April, which I think was the concrete benches? I mean, if we're going to be not hemmed in by the referendum spending limits when it comes to the water main, why are they hemming us in now on the memorial project. I'm not quite sure what the different approaches, why we have two different approaches to the two different projects.

The answer is I don't know who you mean they. Who's hemming you in?

Oh, no, I'm just saying we, the reason why this was, the project was scaled back was to fit underneath the spending cap. So if the spending cap is no longer, in your opinion, law, then shouldn't we be considering the full project that was before us originally that went out to bid?

Yeah, you're going to the motivation as to why there's been a modification and whether you just want to re-examine.

The should question is for the commission, but the legal question is, I mean, is it your opinion that we're not bound by the referendum spending path?

That is where I'm headed. I haven't come to that final conclusion yet, but that is the direction that I'm headed in, which is that the... unanimous vote provision as well as the 60% provision were not properly placed before the voters. But that's the direction. that we're headed in, I haven't come to that conclusion. So as of tonight, you're still, my advice is that you're still bound by that provision.

We are, okay. As of this evening. But right, but we might not be a month from now.

It may not be, if you want to put this off, you can.

I mean, all right, well, those are my questions. I mean, are we having discussion then? I mean, I would like to...

THOSE ANSWERS ARE HELPFUL FOR THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO BRING UP PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THE PRESENTATION OVER FOR NOW?

OKAY.

NO, WE CAN DO PUBLIC COMMENT WHILE YOU'RE CHECKING IF YOU HAVE A FEW MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. WHERE'S MY SPEAKER CARDS? IT'S BARBARA COHEN. YOU'RE SURE? OKAY. I'LL COME BACK TO YOU AT THE END.

George Kouselis, 9225 Collins Avenue. First, Mr. Mayor, your description of the timeline and culpability in where we are is exactly accurate. This commission didn't get us here. But I'm gonna talk about probably something very dull to most people here, but the construction contract. I've gone through it, I go through construction contracts all the time. There's some weird things in here which I mean, if the contractor's fine with it, but it looks like this thing was drafted many months ago, not by our current attorneys. And there's just some things that strike me as odd. You have liquidated damages that apply to the contractor, but you don't have a waiver of consequential damages. Typically, when you have liquidated damages, you also have a waiver of consequential damages. The difference between them is a consequential damage is a direct cost. I wasn't able to open. I lost so many thousands of dollars of business a day. You owe me for that. Or I rented a tent for a big grand opening, and I didn't get that. Liquidated, you just apply a number. um so that's not in there so the contractors kind of on the hook for both because you don't have it and when you go into that's in 2.3 and when you go further down into 8.6 that's where the waiver of consequential damages portion Paragraph is and it's really only waiver of the contractors Consequential damages so they can't go after the town for a loss of profit or a loss of this or a lot for the loss of that You usually have consequential damages for both parties and that's not in there and And then finally, and this is an important part of any construction contract, you have this what's usually called a continuing performance clause in a contract. And what it does is the beauty of construction contracts, as opposed to most contracts, is everything goes to hell during construction. And the contract is designed to manage that, right? According to the terms of a regular contract, People would be in default by the second day both parties, but not so in a construction contract there are changers there all these mechanisms in place and If you let me run just a few seconds over So typically what you say is if we have a dispute over the change order for the new bathroom that was added and The contractor is still obligated to perform the work while the dispute goes on, and the owner is obligated to keep paying while the dispute is going on. Here you only have continuing performance on the part of the contractor. Again, it's kind of an uneven thing. I'm surprised any contractor would agree to it. If they have, that's fine. But this was written by an earlier attorney, I presume. And so I would recommend going through this very carefully and seeing, you know, wringing out things like this. Thank you.

Thank you, George. Commissioner, my side.

Mary Ann Mushite, 9225 Collins Avenue. So this is the first view of the revised memorial. And I see life through trees and fountain. But I just wish it would reflect more of a positive view of hope and life for the future. versus the sadness and tragedy of the past. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Barbara Cohen, last chance? No? Okay. Passed. All right, let's close public comment and go back to the commission. Is Keith ready? Did you find anything or not yet?

Do not have with me a rendering that would show or depict that. What I can say is, I believe in prior presentations that we submitted, we did show how that would look. And basically just to describe is pieces of debris that are similar to, like the manager mentioned, hardscape, that will be positioned around some landscape. And so that was something that was very, very well described in the past. But apologies, I don't have that rendering with me right now.

No problem.

Yes, would you have that?

Sandra, did the 60% go to P&Z?

Yes, it went August 28th, 2025. That's what I'm looking for, actually.

Help me here, Greg. Thank you. Is it in here?

It's in the other.

no this one doesn't have it so this this uh came on a different rendering we we can we can um mayor commission again that's that's hardscape we can go back um and tomorrow email you all um what the rendering would look like And then that's something that during construction or prior to construction starting, if the commission wants to give certain direction on that, we can adjust. That doesn't stop the project.

Would you mind, sorry, Mr. Echeverria, could you leave that file open? I want to make reference to it in a moment.

Or this one.

The 60%. Oh, the 60%.

Yes.

All right, so just just to clarify to the motion maker if you're willing to amend it to exclude I guess item six until such time it can be reviewed and added I

I see a number of sixes throughout. That's all the same item? The same feature?

I see six throughout the... Yeah, these are the sections where that hardscape would be placed.

Okay, but...

If we're able to proceed with the overall project and isolate this component for further direction, then I'll amend my motion as such.

That's the second, I agree.

The pending motion is to move forward with the alternative design and to direct the attorneys and manager to negotiate the terms of a final contract. That's the pending motion that's there.

Okay, with that, you could still review the contract given the concern that was brought up.

Okay, so this plan here, I'm not sure that this is in the revised drawings. Is this in the revised packet that's been approved by Schiff?

Yes. Okay. The positioning of the hardscape, yes.

Okay, and so within there, contract and within the scope of what you're awarding tonight is this this specification if you will that at those locations there will be the placement of certain debris right yes that's what six yes okay um you can go ahead on the motion um if you want to place a further directive, separate and apart from the contract, that the Commission would like to have input in the materials that are being placed at each of these debris locations. then we can do that separate from the contract. You don't want to pull out this from the contract. It's part of the contract. It's part of what's being bid. He's including these items as placing these things there. If you want to select the individual pieces that you'd like to do, do that separate from the follow-up motion.

We don't want to select the individual pieces. We want to know what this is.

There's no image of what we're approving here tonight.

It says debris, the feedback and again, this started a year ago when they moved on it.

So then you can approve this project with a modification that remove the debris from the approved plans.

Why don't we leave the debris, analyze the alternative, we can still do a change order if it's gonna be a change order or just swap the materials at no cost.

Yes.

But right now, they have in their contract the cost of the placement. If you take it out, they're going to add it later. It's going to cost more. For sure.

Again, we've asked to bring it back to the council. If we come back and we say we don't like this, you take it off the contract. Right now, the contract at, let's say, whatever, $3.550 million is approved. That's what's approved tonight. And if we decide we don't want to move forward with debris because it's traumatic.

Then it's a change of order and there should be a reduction.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's what I said, yeah. But we're not approving the design.

No, no, no, not approving the design, it's just the contract. You're approving the plans that are in the

We're approving the contract with the plans with the stipulation that the artwork on the wall changes and that 6 comes back to the commission to see what it is okay for that yeah is actually in for no problem right got it.

So there's a that's the intent of the motion right yes, there's a pending motion perfect you can call the question and so we can call to vote. Yes.

So approve it.

Mayor, do you want to go forward and call the question? Just call the roll.

Could we have some discussion though? Sorry, my questions were preliminary to discussion and it's- Okay. Yeah. Unless you want to call the roll, but yeah. No, I mean, sorry, there's a lot I have to say. This represents a major, major departure from the memorial as planned before.

Which your commission did, by the way. Please allow me, please allow me to make. No, no, Gerardo, please be clear about what you're saying. Your commission designed this, right?

We're approving it tonight.

I know, I know, but I need. Please say that.

In the past two years plus, the memorial committee, and they're the ones I want to put front and center, not the commission. And please, I have the floor. It's not appropriate.

Which you took without us.

Look, I have the floor.

Do you want to play this game, Gerardo?

I want to make a comment because I haven't had a chance to make a comment.

So make your comment accurate, please. That's all I'm asking you to do, or we're going to move on from discussion, and we're going to vote, and we're all going to go home in five minutes.

I'm not saying anything inaccurate. I'm saying that this design represents a major departure from the previous design, and we need to be very clear about that. There was a two-year process, not led by the commission, but led by the Memorial Committee, that resulted in that design. I want to say, for the benefit of especially the two commissioners who are new, because I know the Planning and Zoning Board had something to do with this, I think the members of the Memorial Committee will be extremely upset with this decision, extremely. There's a general aesthetic principle that came out of years of planning. And it started with mood boards in this very room over two years ago. They wanted the memorial to be a little bit challenging. They weren't looking for just hopeful. They wanted it to be a sign that something horrible had gone wrong here. And that wasn't the commission's decision. That came from the committee through many, many open meetings of the committee. I just want everyone to appreciate. This is why I feel the need to put this on the record, because this is a dramatic, dramatic change of direction from what the committee considered. The decision to have debris, the decision even to have that image, came from that vision, which was not a one-off thing. And it certainly wasn't from the commission. So in the interest of accuracy, I need to make that clear. I think this decision about the wall art in particular is really taking us in, again, not just in a different direction, but here I'm making a different point, in the wrong direction. I would ask the motion maker and the commission, I think the wall art should go back to the Memorial Committee and it should go back to PNZ for comment. And I wanna, you know, here I'm expressing my own opinion. With all due respect to the manager or to whoever came up with this image of the two hands and the Love Lives On script, it's schmaltz. It looks like the kind of wall art that you might buy at Target. The cursive script of Love Lives On looks like those live, laugh, love scripts. designs that are already kind of a joke uh... it really it really lowers the design quality of the of the memorial and i'm just saying that i i think uh... please before we approve this a design professional should look at it the pnz board should look at it and i think the memorial committee should look at it because it's it really is a step in the wrong direction these two hands touching it looks extremely cheesy. And I think that's not, I mean, it's not an image worth engraving in stone. It's not timeless. It looks outdated. It looks cheap. And I don't say that lightly. I really think we're going in the wrong direction. The reason why I asked Mr. Echeverry to bring back the 60% design is because they actually had a pretty elegant design there of a kind of abstract, that's it right there, an abstract version of the building. And the Memorial Committee thought they didn't want that. But this is much, much, much better than the Love Lives On. Much better. And that's just my opinion. But I have a feeling that if you took this to PNZ and you took this to Memorial Committee, they would pick that over this. Um, so I really hope we still have time and we, I think we should get an opinion from all those, those parties that are, that are interested. I think the love lives on is terrible. I don't want to, I'm not going to belabor the point. You may, you might disagree, but, but from, I don't think any serious artist or designer would approve of this. And again, it looks like something from target. Um, the other thing is, I don't really understand the logic of how we got here. If we're expecting that we're going to be no longer subject to the spending cap in a month's time, then why not consider the entire project with the canopy, which was really the central design feature of the whole thing that took years to come up with? Why not have that? So I think this should come back to us in August after it goes to PNZ and after it goes to the Memorial Committee. May I make one other point? I think it's important about process.

I need you to land the plane and hurry up already.

All right. I understand that both the manager and the mayor have been hearing from people who have strong views. But the Memorial Committee met in public, and those people need to express their views in public. Otherwise, it's kind of like a sort of hearsay. And I'm not comfortable with rejecting the open, deliberative decision of the committee in favor of privately delivered remarks to the mayor and the manager. That's not right. This was always meant to be an open design process. And I don't know who's saying that they're traumatized, but they need to say it in public. This is too important to make a decision in this kind of hearsay manner. And so, again, I think we're going in the wrong direction and we're doing it through the wrong process.

So first of all, I think you heard from your own residents right here. But I get it. You're entitled to your opinion, and we have ours. And the Memorial Committee, which I put together five years ago, they were input. And we hear their input, but we're building with resident money an item for the residents, for the town of Surfside to remember. We are not building something for three family members that provide input. We hear it, and we took it under consideration, and I would say a large, this entire thing was pretty much designed with their input. But there's certain elements that offended others. There's certain elements that are just not what we are looking for as a community. And we're the ones that live here. We're the ones that have to see it every time we walk to the beach, Gerardo. Okay? So you're entitled to your opinion. We've heard it. We're moving on. We're not going to be the commission that comes here tonight and continues to further delay a process that's now been five years in the making.

I'm not interested in delaying, but could we have a consultation on the wall art, please? I'd ask Commissioner Weingart to get that feedback. This is going to be an embarrassment to the town if we go ahead with this.

I've heard you, and you've asked me a number of times to change my motions, and I've extended the olive branch a number of times now out of good grace, but I haven't seen that done. And it returned. But you're definitely entitled to your opinion. I find it very interesting. There's so much talk from the Memorial Committee and from vocal family members that this hasn't gotten done. Yet when we try to make movement, we get into this paralysis from analysis you know, cycle, and just going in circles, well, it could be better, it could be better. I mean, a picture of the building collapsing is ridiculous, and that should absolutely not be out there. And there's a proposed beautiful love lives on message, as I shared earlier, and my motion stands, and I committed to family members that came over to me and said, why don't we have this yet? as if it's our fault and we're just, you know, elected in March, we're three months in. And I said we're going to be the commission that's going to move it forward. I can't answer for what happened in the past. So I'm moving forward.

We did find a rendering of those hardscapes, if you'd like to look. This again was a while ago. But the idea is to have hardscape throughout the landscape. THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.

THAT LOOKS LIKE DEBRIS AGAIN. I SEE REBARS STICKING OUT OF THE STONES. THIS LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AT THE TENNIS CENTER. I'M ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THAT. THAT'S SOMEONE'S HOME RIGHT THERE. SOMEBODY DIED ON THAT THING. I'M NOT PUTTING THAT IN THE GARDEN FOR EVERYBODY TO LOOK AT AND WALK PAST. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT WILL NOT WALK INTO THE CITY THAT HAVE LIVED HERE, HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. So I would ask the motion maker to take out number six from the design.

I did that previously. So I amended my motion.

All right. So we can value it down further if required, but we're not looking to maintain that visual.

All right, Madam Clerk, call the roll, please. Do I have a question? So this design of the two hands is coming from where? Like who did that?

This has been the symbol of it for the last five years.

Yeah, this is the image that is on the temporary banners that have all the names that have been on the site. It's also been used in the flyers and whatnot. I don't know where the original image came from, but the towns used it for many years.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is like the complete thing, like with the, is it, because I don't remember if the writing is on that image or not. Is it on that image?

I believe so.

It is, okay.

I believe.

Madam Clerk.

Call the roll. Call the roll. Commissioner Willis-Fahey?

Yeah.

No.

Commissioner Weingart?

Yes.

Commissioner Travani?

So this is, I'm gonna make my comment before voting. This, we said this is not gonna go back in front of the P&Z or the committee, right?

They've already seen it. Huh? They've already seen it. This design has been approved and done in the last commission. What we are doing now is just approving the contract. You're talking about the image, the P&Z did not see that image, no, but they saw this memorial.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and I'm talking about the image and the debris. Yeah, I don't feel comfortable voting yes, just because this went through a process, and I'm okay with something that comes out of a process. I'm less okay with us coming back at the end and doing modification without the input of the people, so I'm gonna vote no.

Just remember, you're on the record now for voting no for a memorial, that's all. So whatever process is not fitting in your head properly, it'll always be on record that you said no to a memorial. Something that the families have waited five years, something this community is waiting to heal and move on to the next chapter of our community. You guys want to say no, that's fine. True, but... All right, let's, the comments we made. Let's continue, Madam Clerk. You made a comment to what I said, so I can respond to that. I'm going to vote too. This is not, debate is over, debate is over. The question has been called. Madam Clerk, let's finish this up, please.

Vice Mayor McMurray? Absolutely yes, I'm very glad to vote yes for this. It's been five years and absolutely yes, thank you. Mayor Denzinger?

Yes, and I also find it curious, this is a public meeting, it's been noticed over a week, there's not one family member here, so we're gonna say yes.

Mayor, the motion carries.

Thank you, motion to adjourn.

For what? To spend that amount of money on whatever resolution was passed. Mayor, no, the budget was already approved by the previous commission back in March. Prior to the law.

This is just the contract terms.

Motion to adjourn?

Second. All in favor?