Town Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes, they're dancing or president. I say up a mighty. Come a shot of money here. Come a show and us to the president on zoom. Come a show I got here may have a quorum.

Thank you. Chief if you'll let us lead a please in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you chief of the on to item to to a precision modification ordinance 2024 one 7, 7, 9, amending article 7, I'm going to say a code of ethics and clerk if you'll read the title of the ordinance into the record, please.

Yes, Mayor. An ordinance of the Town Commission on the Town of Searcy Floor repealing ordinance number 2024-1779, and it's entirely relating to the Town Code of Ethics, providing for range statement of the Town Code to its previous version, providing for servability, providing for codification and inclusion in the code, providing for conflicts, providing for implementation, and providing for an effective date. Item 2A.

Thank you. Can I get a motion to approve as amended? So moved. Second. All right. Public comment. Ms. Salzaura, two minutes, please.

I think I have three minutes.

Two minutes, please.

I believe it says I have three minutes on each item here. This is an ordinance. These are important ordinances, and we have three minutes. Can we ask the town attorney if the rule is that I have two minutes or three minutes? I believe it's three minutes.

This is your time, so again.

Point of order.

It's three minutes. That's the rule. The public doesn't make a point of order.

So one of the commissioners can make a point of order. I think the residents are entitled to three minutes under the current statute.

Okay, so. Point of order, could the attorney please clarify the time?

Go to the mayor. I think our rules provide you have up to three minutes, not three minutes guaranteed, up to three minutes.

For an ordinance, I believe it's three minutes.

No, it's reasonable opportunity to be heard. Two minutes is fine. You have up to three minutes under our rules.

Okay, well, I'd like to make a request for having up to three minutes, for having three minutes.

Mrs. Salazar, please, you have a minute and 24 seconds. Okay.

Uh, let the record reflect that I object. All right.

You do not write the record.

I actually, every resident writes the record. FYI, this is the record. The public is the public record. Okay. That's exactly who writes the record. You don't get to rewrite history, which is what this is about. You're making up facts. You're spreading those lies to your fellow commissioners and you're getting them to vote under false pretenses, which is what's happening here. And I feel bad for them getting taken down the sewers with you. Okay? Again, nobody changes regulations, reporting, and codes and reporting standards unless they're looking to exploit it. Okay? As he walks out the door to grab a free snack on our taxpayer dime. Okay? Come back and enjoy your free snack. All right? Not everybody is... In a normal private business, you have to have reporting standards. In a normal private situation, you have to explain why you're using company money for and come back with a report of what you did with it. That's what's expected. Taxpayers deserve the same. This is not your money. This is our money. I don't think you understand that. I work hard for the money. Everyone who cannot be at this meeting is out making money to pay for you to sit here and make meetings and have rules to alienate them and to enrich yourself. And that's not okay. So do not pass rules in the middle of the day when no one can be here that are going to allow you to raid the town kitty and not allow residents to even come here and comment and participate.

Thank you, Mrs. Salzheimer. You're welcome. Mitchell Kinzer, two minutes, please.

Mitchell Kinzer, 8834 Carlisle Avenue. First of all, I think it's terrible that you're restricting people to two minutes. It keeps up with my mentioning and everybody else's criticism of too much power, changing the rules. Section 166 talks about ordinances, how much time you have to give them, how much time for approval. I think in goodwill, we're violating all of that. I think that what's going on today shows what people have been criticizing you for, and that is trying to stuff 12 tons of information into an 8-ton bag. It doesn't work. It's not good. This is the first time in the 71 years I've lived in this town that I feel embarrassed to say I live in Surfside. As far as the getting rid of the other... discussion of the other items that you lumped together. That's totally ridiculous. In the 22 years that I was on the commission, we didn't need our own offices. There was always available space if we had to meet with somebody. Most of us worked full time, and it was a volunteer job. And you knew that when you took this position, that it shouldn't impose upon your families or your work, or your profession. I agree with all the former speakers that form criticism. I think most of the people, David spoke about the people he sees in town. David knows I pretty much walk every day. I literally see hundreds of people on the beach. The public is not happy, and I know that there's public people that are looking for recalls and other things to deal with this type of

Thank you, Mr. Kinzer. Salida Krasner, two minutes please.

Thank you, Mr. Dancer. So we are going here, again, trying to change, establish rules of the three minus two, two quick points censoring us. And yes, he is trying to make us lose control and lose power of our voices, even though he is sitting down in there, in that chair, for all of us. And I said he because he said, oh, you are doing this for me. I don't see teamwork here, and I don't see any one of our commissioners being in a team. I all you see is two yes, Mr. Yes, Mr. Yes, whatever. And I see two contendants because Mr. Bermudez is making clear that it's us against you. Instead, all of us are here for you residents. And that is disappointing. To be censoring. to short the timing and to laugh of residents, well, it tells you and expose the lack of ethic of Mr. Dancer and Mr. Bengui. So if we are here and we were respecting respect and we were respecting that the will of us, the residents, be considered, it should be considered. that there will be respect. No, we don't want that Mr. Dancer does his personal reviews. And no, Mr. Penguin, this is not a homework like in high school where you go and study for your own. There is some revision. There is some research. And Mr. Beward, I really appreciate that when you put the signs, I love suicide, be realistic. Because every time that Mr. Dancer, you do something, you say yes. But I don't see any analysis. And you see all because of this, of this, we are going to say yes. So absolutely, should we respect the right to talk of the residents?

Thank you, Mrs. Krenzer. All right, no other speaker cards on this item. Closing public comment. Moving on to commission discussion. Who would like to start?

I would like to start.

I think Commissioner Weingart has already moved forward, so.

Ladies and gentlemen, I love Surfside. I love Surfside so much, and thank you for reminding me how much I love it, that when we sat here just a few weeks ago and we heard the town manager's report, the state of affairs that we walked into and what got done in the past two years, Um, I realized just how much there is to get done and we've really, that's why we're moving and we're moving pretty quickly. Um, I sat for hours, hours before getting involved with this, going through many matters, people questioning, you know, Oh, you know, you agree on this item? Well, yeah. And that's why I'm up here. Um, and I fully support, and I shared this on the day. So I'm going to say it on the record. I had respect and I have respect for our mayor. who sits as a mayor, who carries a tremendous burden. There are plenty of people that spend a whole lot of their time trying to bash him. I saw what went on his last time around while he was getting real stuff done in town, and there were people that have caused our town tens of millions of dollars of loss because of the attempts to delay progress. Okay, I'm here, I'm committed, you could shoot all your threats of ethics, you're gonna spend a lot of money because you won't find anything. I'm here because I'm committed to what I'm doing and I'm not gonna back down and I'm not gonna be afraid of any threats. Threats are not gonna change how I'm gonna vote up here. I saw the state of affairs. I also saw what got done prior and I saw the nasty stuff that was done by, it's only five to 10 people on next door. Okay. Don't go on if you want to have a happy life. Okay. Meet your neighbors on the street. There are really nice people in town. There are a few really dark souls that spend a lot of time on next door trying to bash progress. We're going to make progress happen here. You're not going to stop. Now, to address the attendance issue, people concerned that if we hold a meeting at this hour, the 28th of July, check your calendars, check through your notices, there was a meeting right here regarding some very important budget matters that we're handling. 7 p.m., not 11 a.m., not 12. There were fewer people in the room than now, I believe. Half of it was my family that came to support because they saw the time I'm giving to this. And thank you for coming again.

That's all I want to share. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Valdes-Degue.

All right. So, you know, I believe we're discussing an ethics ordinance. And I, you know, I said earlier, you don't repeal an ethics ordinance unless you're looking to do unethical things. A good starting point here. Look at the 2024 ordinance that's being repealed. Look at it in your agendas. The third whereas clause says why that ordinance was passed. It was passed in the interest of good government. If you look at the whereas clauses for the new ordinance that's being proposed today, you won't find any reason given. Even the spin doctors at the town attorney's law firm couldn't come up with a good reason why you would get rid of financial reporting requirements that require you to say who in the town is giving you money. It's not clear why you would get rid of a provision like that. And Mayor Danziger says it's personal to have ethics laws. I actually think it's the other way around. When you have openness, when you tell people who you're meeting with, where your money comes from, That makes it impersonal. Because if you don't have those things, if you don't have the disclosure requirement, you're basically saying to everybody, hey, trust me. And that's what makes it unreasonably personal. When you have disclosure requirements like this law created, that makes it impersonal. This law also limits the ability of commissioners to profit from the decisions that they make. I know that during Mayor Danziger's term, a lot of people were concerned because Vice Mayor Rose voted on a lot of zoning laws that could foreseeably make money for his construction firm. And that was a problem for a lot of people in town. I had a lot of voters tell me that they felt that created an unfair situation. We addressed that. We're repealing that, why? How is that in the interest of the town to make it easier for commissioners to profit off their decisions? How is it in the interest of the town to make it easier for commissioners to hide where their money comes from? If you have a client in the town who's paying you, right now you're required to reveal that every six months, thanks to this law. And I'm proud to have sponsored this law. Look at the whereas clauses for this one, folks. There's not one good reason to make it easier for people to hide their money. There's not one good reason to make it easier for people to profit from being on the commission. I mean, think about this. This is not progress, to Commissioner Weingart's point. This has nothing to do with progress in the town. This has to do with creating impersonal good government that is open. And I'll say it once again. It's the politicians who say, you don't need to know. Trust me. You don't need to know who paid for my trip to Dubai. You don't need to know where I make my money. You don't need to know, you know, where I'm going to make my money two years from now. Those are the people who are making it personal because they're bringing themselves into the picture. Disclosure requirements are what allow government to function properly. And I just can't believe that we're going to go backwards on this. It's... Again, look at the whereas clauses, and I challenge you to come up with a good public reason for doing this.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner.

Well, I made my comments earlier, so yeah, I don't have anything else to add. I appreciate that. Thanks, Mayor.

All right. I want to be very clear. This law was the anti-Jeff Rose law, right? Some of the background on this is, again, it's extremely vague. It was written by the same people that landed us in major lawsuits without thought. This was written by the same people that pushed back when there was a referendum to try to bring clarity and transparency into where commissioners live, right? The same people that got up here opposing this and yell about ethics were the same people opposing a referendum item requiring transparency into where commissioners live in this town. because they knew who that would affect. So again, it's very hypocritical of the speakers that get up that are screaming about ethics. But to your point, everything that Commissioner Valdestegui has brought up is already written. It's written in the Miami-Dade County Code of Ethics. It's written by the State of Florida Code of Ethics. Those are things that we follow. You are not allowed to make money on anything that you ARE DIRECTLY DOING HERE. WE ALL LIVE IN THE CITY AND WE WE ALL LIVE IN THE CITY AND WE ALL BENEFIT FROM THE DECISIONS ALL BENEFIT FROM THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE UP HERE. THAT ARE MADE UP HERE. THE WAY THE CODE WAS WRITTEN WAS THE WAY THE CODE WAS WRITTEN WAS EXTREMELY VAGUE. EXTREMELY VAGUE. IT CAN GET EVERYONE INTO ALL IT CAN GET EVERYONE INTO ALL KINDS OF TROUBLE IF NOBODY KINDS OF TROUBLE IF NOBODY REALIZES YOU CAN'T BE A REALTOR IN REALIZES YOU CAN'T BE A REALTOR IN THIS TOWN ANYMORE IF YOU'RE A THIS TOWN ANYMORE IF YOU'RE A COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER. FOR INDEFINITELY, THERE'S NO FOR INDEFINITELY, THERE'S NO YEARS If I'm trying to sell a house to somebody, it is so vague and so convoluted. And again, I know where this vote is going up here. It's very clear. But I'm trying to talk to the residents and understand what this is. And the requirement for twice a year for us to file a thing with the city, again, it's going after Jeff Rose. We already have to file every year with the county, with the state. There's a Form 1, Form 6, whatever it is. All of that is public. So where we work and where we're getting our money is all public. We file it when we run, and we have to file it every year by January. So this is excessive. This was created, again, out of animosity. This was created on a personal level. And our ethics should not be created by local politicians with vendettas. We should be following what the county sets forth. And by the way, they update that every time there's a case. Every time there's an issue, we get new laws. And those are the laws we should be following, not politicians with vendettas. So I think it's pretty clear. Madam Clerk, let's call the roll.

Commissioner Trelawney?

So this is just 2A, right?

This is 2A, yes.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, I'm gonna vote no just because I don't, like I would have liked to see like an Excel table or a Word file with a comparison side by side on what's excessive and what's redundant, what could be kept. I didn't see that, so I'm gonna vote no.

Commissioner Valdostegui?

These disclosure requirements are stronger than the ones in existing law. That's why we need this. This is making it easier for people to hide money. No.

Commissioner Weingart?

Yeah, no need to hide anything. And I believe the state, the county and state code of ethics address the standards for elected officials. Therefore, vote yes.

Vice Mayor Van Merge? I'm voting yes. Mayor Danziger?

I'm going to vote, but before I do, I want to address the comment by the commissioner. This doesn't make it easier to hide money. The form that we are required to fill out and file with the state every year, the form one is the exact same form that you created here, except with the town of Surfside logo. So again, all that, excuse me, please don't talk over me. This is the exact same form. It requires where you're getting your money and which houses. Look at a form one, look at the form that was created for Surfside. It's the same thing with a different logo on it. So to sit here and say that we're trying to hide money and revenue is inaccurate and it's not true. So, yes.

Mayor, the motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to item 2B, rescission modification ordinance 2024-1782, amending section 2-206, public participation. Madam Clerk, if you'll read the title of the ordinance into the record, please.

An ordinance of the Town Commission on the Town of Surfside, Florida, amended the Town of Surfside Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Administration, Article 6, Rules of Procedures for Town Meetings, Section 2-206, Public Participation, Rule 7.02, Citizens' Presentations, Public Hearings, Rule 7.04, Addressing Commission Manners, Time, and Rule 7.05, Decorum, Providing for Codification and Inclusion in the Code, Providing for Surveyability, Providing for Conflicts, and Providing for an Effective Date, Item 2B.

Thank you. Can I get a motion to pass the ordinance as drafted?

So moved.

Second. All right, public comment, two minutes. Ms. Salazar, please.

Eliana Salazar, 9317 Bay Drive. I really, I think when you ran and you said you were gonna bring calm and not chaos, this is the opposite of that. What you're doing is bringing out the old Danziger dictator move, and if you look at Section 2, 206 B, public hearings. You have crossed out residents' abilities to speak on many items, consent agenda, ordinances, resolutions, proclamations, town manager, attorney reports, unfinished business, new business, mayor, commissioner, staff, communications. You're limiting the way that residents can participate in these meetings. If you wanted to just sit around and make decisions on your own, that's called the mafia, and you can do it in the back room of a bar in town, go to Flanagan's. This is a public commission meeting where the public is invited and legally able to participate. What you're doing here is restricting that. If this passes, I promise you this will be on the ballot. I will go door to door getting signatures to put this back on the ballot because residents will not stand for being silenced. You're making this so easy. All you had to do, nobody comes to these meetings. Your kids are here. Congratulations. You got your spouses and your kids to show up. Okay. That is wonderful. Residents are not here. Why? Because you have these meetings where no one can go. Even when you have the meeting at night, no one shows up. Your meetings are not running long. People aren't talking too long. You're not running over. You're getting through your whole agenda. There is no legitimate reason to constrict public participation. You're looking at each other. other to forget how you're going to vote, there's absolutely no legitimate reason to pass this today. You ran, you each sat up there during the debate, and you know what? We're going to take the sound bite. I'm an editor, I'm a producer. We'll take the sound bite of you sitting up here at the debate saying you're going to listen and you're going to welcome the public to participate. Put everyone's sign on my lawn. I want to talk to everyone. I love everyone. I love, love, love. I love, I love Surfside. Well, you need to listen to residents speaking. Okay? We're going to take that and splice it with your no vote. You telling residents you're not welcome to speak here. You have two minutes. Shut up. Sit down. Okay? See how that goes over with your following. Even your own kids will lose respect for you. Stand up for residents' ability to speak and to have their First Amendment rights protected. Because when they come for everyone else, in the end, there's no one left to talk to you. And as Jews, we should appreciate that and understand that. Right now, you're passing laws because you love the guy in the big seat. What if you don't like the guy? What if you don't like the guy in the big seat?

Thank you so much.

Okay, you're very welcome. It's a pleasure doing business with you.

All right. Michael Karroukin, two minutes, please.

Michael Karroukin, 93-65. This is the, amending the 1782 item, correct? Correct. Yes, correct. So I just want to make sure I read this correctly because my specific issue with this item amongst many others, but I wanted to focus on why you as commissioners would be willing to give up your authority to overrule of the actions of the chair, if you disagree. The issue is that under the current ordinance, the public benefit of the current ordinance, because the mayor, if he refuses to recognize a speaker, cuts off someone, removes a speaker, prohibits questions, prohibits discussion, as you just heard, a majority of the commission can at present at least override the mayor and allow those things to occur. The existing ordinance expressly allows commission majority overrides for discussion, question, removal of speakers. Why would you want to give up that authority as an elected official? Because there might be a day where you're not happy with the mayor or the person that sits in the mayor's seat or some of the actions. I think that as an elected official, you don't want to cede that authority to the chair, and that's some of what I tried to explain in my earlier email. I know that some of the other items about limiting public ability to speak, and that I think is gonna be addressed in item 2E as well, so I'll speak on that later. But the issue, just to kind of give another example, well, I think you got the point. I just think that you, You need to think very carefully about giving up the power that you have. You may need it someday. Don't just centralize it into one person because that, of course, leads down that autocratic path that we know all of us are trying to avoid and would not like to have happen in other countries as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Salidad Barrija. Seems like you changed your last name since the last time you came up.

Thank you, Mrs. Low Dancer. Well, we have to remember that Mr. Dancer was abusing his powers, and also Mr. Rose. were put a person in jail, right? What these young men did, talk, stand up for our rights, participate, volunteer for years, not for just that time, to be argumentative related that any policy to cancel of the ethics was a personal vendetta. I will just ask him, what vendetta if you abuse your power? What ethics? And now, to keep the quorum. What the quorum? When he forced a resident to be taken out with the police forces, abusing our beautiful police forces against residents? That's exactly what you are here for? That's what Ms. Bemingwer and Ms. Vigot, are you being here for that? Because I haven't here inquired any explanation. It was very well known he was making business. He was the only main contractor. More than 10 properties were having his business. Is this a vendetta? No. That was a code of ethics. And to come here and talk and speak and take the right of our First Amendment is the most important value that we have. We haven't even passed this law and he already removed the time. It's a personal vendetta from Mr. Dancer and all of you when you approve it. This is a vendetta against us, the residents, that we have the right to be here because your family members is not a quorum. You need to ask yourself why residents are not here and then you will have the real answer because you are loaning yourself to abuse the power and to limit the residents for the right to speak, to limit it now without even being approved. Two minutes for speaking when we were having the right to speak three minutes. Where are you for us? You are not there for you or for Mr. Denzer. You are here for us.

Thank you, Mr. President. Wrap it up.

For us. So then I appeal to your good conscience if there is something there, not leave just to Mr. Trevani or to Mr. Giraldo Valdostegui that responsibility. Thank you, Mrs. President. He was here. The limitation of this time is not even yet. And he wants to enforce something that we have the right to.

Please have a seat. Thank you. Mr. Kinzer, two minutes, please.

Mitchell Kinzer, 8834 Carlisle. I happen to agree with most of the things that the criticism is directed to this commission. I do feel like I'm wasting my time here today because I kind of feel like I'm at a kangaroo court where everything is going to be pushed down everybody's throat by a three to two vote. I feel that taking away the commission's authority to override the mayor on any procedure is ridiculous. I believe it violates Robert's rules of procedure. It also, to me, is ridiculous to give anybody that kind of power. Things were raised before about using the public space here in the town. I don't think, Mr. Mayor, that you have a job or anything that requires you to be outside of the town hall. That's why people blamed you for practically living in town hall. The 22 years I was on the commission, all the commissioners got by without having to have an office in town hall. I think that you're pushing the limits I think that this is all about you and not about the residents and the well-being of the town. It's very disgusting to be up here and listen to this. To me, I feel terrible that the residents of this town have to see this. And again, you're the one that's creating the chaos that's ramming this down our throats and defying what common sense is. and logic does. I also object very strongly to the reason that we can't speak for three minutes. I'm not going to be redundant and repeat what other people say. It's obvious from your actions that what they say is pretty much 100% correct.

Thank you, Mr. Kinzer. Uh, I believe those are the, all the items for this item, all the speakers for this item. So at this point I'll be shutting public comment and moving on to commission discussion. Is there anybody that wants to open this first?

Yeah, I can go. Um, all right. So. I have a few issues with this proposed modification. First of all, yeah, I think that to Mr. Karukin's point, I would like to keep Robert's rules. In place, meaning that if there is something that we as a commission disagree of what you may be doing as a as a mayor, we need to have this ability to to speak up because. That keeps the checks and balances that that we need to keep. I do understand that. Again, this may be potentially less efficient, but I think it's the idea of preserving so to speak, the democracy and the Robert's Rules is more important than efficiency in this case. Then using words like impertinent and the proposed modifications, that is very vague. It is true. Us as elected officials, we have to accept as part of our job description that we have to take the heat. I mean, it is what it is. It's politics. Emotions run high, and people have strong opinions on things, and that's okay. At least I'm okay with that. People may think all sorts of things of the way that I conduct business up here and may be very unhappy, but they could be impertinent too when they make their comments. I think that us as leaders, we have to be able to absorb that. Me personally, after being on a job site when the concrete doesn't show up and you have 100 people there ready to pour and everybody's screaming at each other because this concrete doesn't show up, I'm pretty much used to that. So it's kind of okay. And then, yeah, the... ability to speak at every agenda item so we've had this conversation in the past and i think we should keep it because um we we saw we we tried that for a few months now i i don't think that it really created an issue or it's public participation people can think of something oh yeah i didn't think about it so now that we're talking about this idea and again there's few people at the meeting so why I mean, I don't think it's pragmatic to actually, I don't think it creates a big benefit to get rid of that from an efficiency standpoint. It's just a big damage from a democracy standpoint. Thank you, Commissioner.

I would like to speak.

All right.

Right, I'm happy to talk on this topic. I am an expert on the First Amendment. I was a professor of constitutional law for 13 years. I wrote one of the changes that I think is really important here to rule 7.5, the decorum rule. I put in the words incendiary or threatening as the standard for when you could be cut off. And I took out impertinent and slanderous for the very reason that Commissioner Trevani was referring to. The word impertinent can mean rude, but it can also mean not relevant. The word slanderous involves a determination of fact that the chair is not in a position to make, certainly not on the fly. So those standards, in my expert opinion, are unconstitutionally vague. And we are one lawsuit away from trouble if Mayor Danziger were to do the kind of thing that he did in his previous term as mayor. And here I can just speak from experience. I was cut off at a meeting at April 2023 by Mayor Danziger, I guess for being impertinent. Because at that meeting, the commission was voting on a change to the building code that would have resulted in a major financial windfall for DMACC at the time. And I raised the question about who had paid for the trip to Dubai, and I was forced to stop speaking because it was impertinent. I was calm. I was not rude in any way. But I was threatened with ejection. And at the time, we had a chief of police who would throw people out. Today, I'm pretty confident that Chief Press wouldn't do that. But Chief Press isn't going to be with us after this week, and we don't know who ultimately will take his role. And I think we have to be very scared in Surfside about retaliation and ejection from meetings if we go back to the old Rule 705. um i don't i i completely agree with what vice mayor kerrigan said that uh why would the commission give up a right to question the chair's decision uh when it comes to something like ejection you know a lot of people got ejected from meetings you know my friend miss saifi did i got shut down it was a common uh problem um and i do say again this is another situation where we change the law so that we could keep things the way they were. Surf siders were used to being able to speak at meetings and they lost that right functionally, practically during the 2022 to 24 commission. So we passed a law to protect, to reinstate the status quo, to protect our first amendment rights. I think this commission right now has a First Amendment problem. I think what happened to me in the last meeting when I was denied the right to speak raises issues. I think there are other problems. I think you're going to see more and more of it. Why are we taking away First Amendment protections from our residents? Again, you don't do these things unless you, you don't take away the protection unless you're planning to do something that hurts free speech. We can make plenty of progress, you know, to Commissioner Weingart's point, but we should do it together through dialogue where people have a chance to raise ideas, where people have a chance to correct the facts. It happened to me in the last meeting. I was trying to correct the facts and I got shut out. How hard that must be for a resident who doesn't have the opportunities to speak that I have as a commissioner. I've been that resident. I've been the resident who gets shut down. So I hear you, Ms. Salzauer, Ms. Krasner. I know what it's like to have your rights curtailed, and that's why I wrote this change into the law. It protects us from lawsuits. I'll simply mention the town is facing a First Amendment civil rights lawsuit right now. I don't want more of them.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. White, got any comments?

Yeah, just briefly. When we chose to run for this position, we could have qualified as a mayoral candidate or a commissioner candidate. And running as mayor has its own ticket, its own set of responsibilities as chair and sitting as a commissioner. We all have equal vote. We're not losing our vote, but there is importance to the structure and leadership, and that's why our charter has a mayoral seat and a chair. It's important that meetings have order. It's important that there, and everyone may not like how that order is, but it's important that there be a leader there. I did not run, I was not looking for that responsibility, so I chose to run as a commissioner. And had I felt I was the right person for that at the time and ready to take on that responsibility and be the spokesperson of the town and the chair of the meetings and carry a lot of responsibility, I would have ran on that ticket. So it's just important to distinguish. I'm getting messages. I know some people feel we're taking away our own power. I'm not looking to run this meeting. I participate in the meeting. So I don't feel I'm losing anything. And one more thing, as far as community involvement, citizen involvement, this is simply referring to the bringing in a commissioner allowing a citizen's presentation. That's not the two minutes or three minutes discussion. This is a separate item if you look over in the underlying section of A. Thank you, Commissioner.

Vice Mayor, any comments?

All right, so I'm going to address

A couple of things. First of all, nobody's taking away anyone's First Amendment rights. Everybody has the right to speak. But this is a meeting and has a process as well, right? It's not a free where everybody can come and scream fire or accuse people of crimes they didn't commit without any sort of proof. And that's accusatory. That's defamation. There's laws that we follow up here. And yes, we volunteered for this role, and we expect a certain amount of heat, so to speak. But we don't also have to be abused and sit up here and do that. I HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT ROLE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE UP HERE, OKAY? AND I RAN FOR THAT ROLE AND I WAS ELECTED INTO THAT ROLE, AND THAT ROLE IS TO BE THE CHAIR. AND THE BIG PORTION OF THE CHAIR, WHICH, AGAIN, IS NOT SOMETHING I ENJOY, BUT IT IS TO MANAGE THE TIME UP HERE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE EFFICIENT. MY JOB IS TO ENSURE THAT WE GET THROUGH AN AGENDA. SO WHEN I GET 50 SPEAKER CARDS BY THE SAME FIVE PEOPLE, SOMETIMES I HAVE TO REDUCE IT FROM THREE MINUTES TO TWO MINUTES BECAUSE WE GET IT. YOU'RE UPSET, YOU DON'T LIKE IT, AND WE CAN HEAR THAT. BUT THE JOB IS TO GET US OUT AT A CERTAIN TIME, TO GET THINGS DONE. AND TO COMMISSIONER TRIVANA'S POINT, WE HAVE HAD THE ITEM NINES IN OUR AGENDA FOR OVER THREE MONTHS CARRYING OVER AND WE HAVE NEVER DISCUSSED THAT. WE HAVEN'T MOVED FORWARD AS A COMMISSION. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN OUR PROJECTS DONE AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE COME HERE TO DELAY BECAUSE WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO SPEAK FOR 20 MINUTES STRAIGHT. ALL THAT IS STOPPING NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO SILENCE ANYONE BUT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO MAKE US EFFICIENT AND I HAVE TO between allowing everyone to say whatever they want versus actually doing the job we were elected to do. Now, public participation doesn't start and end in this room. Email us, text us, call us, stop us in public. You have every right to speak to us. We are not hidden. This isn't US Congress. We are readily accessible as we walk down the street or the beach. You can make your comments and your things shared. But this is not a community engagement discussion. This is a commission discussion. We've said this before. Because of Sunshine, this is our discussion. You could talk to us whenever you want, the members of the public. we as a commission can only talk up here we have a job to do in in one meeting we have agenda items that have never been covered so again i have to address that every time and that's my role to balance that's not something that i took that's not something that changed in the code that is something by charter article 2 section 9 okay in our charter where the mayor has responsibilities whether you like it or not this is not a democracy in the sense where everybody can control the meeting. Somebody has to have that role. I ran for it, and I was elected to that role, whether you like me or not. I do want to address some misinformation that was spreading around by people here, which, again, this doesn't limit your input. There were three sections that are covered in this ordinance. Number one is 702, citizen's presentation. A citizen's presentation is very different than citizen's discussion. A citizen's presentation allows for a commissioner to sponsor a resident to get up and speak for an unlimited amount of time with a slideshow and do whatever they want and present to the commission. which is very nice, but what happened was is that we started having one commissioner who would bring up a politician and a former mayor every month after month to do a presentation, and it politicized the item. And so all we did was put in a stipulation that you get one. And if you want to keep coming back, you need the majority vote of the commission. It wasn't locked in the chair. This way we can get our job done. And that was taken out because, again, people want to politicize and turn this into an opportunity. We can get one commissioner up here who's disgruntled because it's a four to one vote on everything, decides he's going to delay us by bringing presentations every day. So it created a process. It does not limit public input on any of the items. THE SECOND THING THAT HAS CHANGED IS PUBLIC HEARINGS. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT A COMMISSION MEETING. OKAY? A PUBLIC HEARING IS A HEARING THAT IS NOTIFIED. USUALLY THE COMMISSION SITS DOWN IN REGARDS TO A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. IT IS A HEARING THAT IS LEGALLY NOTIFIED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT. AND THIS ALLOWS THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THIS ORDINANCE TO THIS RULE 702B SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THAT. THAT AT A PUBLIC HEARING EVERY RESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK. THAT HASN'T CHANGED. WHAT THE COMMISSION AND THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT PROFESSIONALS DID HERE IS ADD EVERY ITEM ON AN AGENDA INTO THIS. SO NUMBER ONE IT DOESN'T BELONG IN HERE. Number two, it's ridiculous what was added here. A consent agenda, a town attorney report, a town manager report. Again, this is not a back and forth discussion with the residents. You get to speak on items that affect you. We hear you and then we have a discussion. That's what this is. And again, you will get to speak on every item as written on the agenda. Every ordinance, every resolution, every discussion item, you get to speak. But it doesn't belong in public hearings. This is a public hearing section. I recommend that the people actually look at the attachments. And lastly, again, people are upset about the process. Mitchell Kinzer gets up, Kerouken gets up. All these laws existed on the books while they were in office. And the law said that the chair controls the meeting, as per our charter. But then this last commission goes ahead and changes it and says, you know what, we're a utopia, where every commission gets to decide and make decisions on how the meeting is run. And that's not how it works. There is first amongst equals. There is a role that somebody went for, and this is the role that I have. And it's a responsibility I have as well. And this doesn't get to go back and forth because everybody thinks they're in control. You want to control the meeting, run for the seat. Otherwise, you have input on a vote, an equal vote as my own. But I do have a different role. I've said this before. I have a whole section in the charter specifically for me and what my role is. And this is aligned with the charter. This is the laws that existed for years before this last commission came in before us. And so all we're doing, again, is a complete rescission and taking that part out. Madam Clerk, let's call the roll on this.

May I say something about that, Mr. Mayor? I'd like to respond to that.

No, I understand you oppose it because you are very... Commissioner, Commissioner.

No, no, no, Commissioner, we're calling the roll. But it's a reversion to practice where people's First Amendment rights were respected until 2022. That's your opinion. Again, that's your opinion, Commissioner.

Commissioner, that is your opinion. And if you want to waste our time and have a personal argument, it doesn't belong up here. Madam Clerk, let's call the roll, please.

Commissioner Villasegui? No. Commissioner Weingart?

Yes.

I'm sure the money no. By 7. Yes, mayor Dan singer, yes, mail motion carries.

Thank you moving on time to see rescission modification ordinance 20 25179 5 replacing section 2 dash 2, 6, a chapter 2 article 2 reserved with section 2 dash 2, 6 commission usage of office in town hall and clerk if you read the title of the ordinance into the record, please.

An ordinance of the Town Commission of the Town of Surryside, Florida, repealing ordinance number 2025-1795, and it's entirely relating to commissioners' usage of office in Town Hall, providing for servability, providing for codification and inclusion in the code, providing for conflicts, providing for implementation, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. Can we get a motion to approve as drafted?

So moved.

Second. Mrs. Salzhauer, two minutes, please.

Thank you for those amazing sound bites. You are the first among equals. This is not a democracy. These are the most incredible campaign, that's the most incredible campaign speech you've ever given. And I hope our residents heard that. You live in Surfside. It's not a democracy. Your mayor is a first among equals, okay? So get in line with King Danziger. That's how it's gonna be around here. Okay, you just had your rights taken away residents and the other two commissioners. I'm not even gonna waste my time talking to them since apparently the fix was in since long before this meeting began. Okay, in your big 24 hour of deep research getting on board. What's happening right now is this is, and I already know you're gonna vote for it. So waste the time that I'm standing up here because the king wants his kingdom. This building, I know you all thought it was a taxpayer owned property. It is not. It says Mayor Danziger, King Danziger's layer, his castle. And he wants his castle back. He wants his corner office. In 90 years, 90 years of Surfside's history, there's been one mayor who took over a giant corner office, redecorated it, spent thousands of dollars on a big town seal to put behind him, spent taxpayer dollars to make state of the town addresses and videos, campaign materials, and called it, oh, communication. That was the man sitting up here trying to do that again. When you are in town hall, You already have office space, as Commissioner Trevani already said. You want to meet with a resident, come on in. There's an office space. Meet in the conference room. Have a talk. You don't need an office with a seal and a wet bar, because that's what was going on. There was a wet bar. Come on in. Welcoming in every dignitary from everyone into the office. Have a drink. And again, that was a violation, by the way, on top of things. The gift of a bottle of liquor. Let's share a drink. Let's make deals here. That's not what's happening. When you're in town hall, you're evading public record. You never needed this rule because in the past, okay, if you had to communicate with the manager, if you had to communicate with the town attorney, if you had to communicate with the town clerk, you had to either pick up the phone or you had to send an email that created a public record. If you're right in the room where it happens, you just walk over and say, wink, wink, I need you to arrest someone for me. I need you to teach this kid a lesson. I need you to shut her up. I need an investigation. And that's what happens under this roof when that man has an office. So don't do it again because you already saw where it landed you and it will land you again in court.

Thank you. Michael Kerrigan, two minutes, please.

Michael Kerrigan, 9365 Abbott. Just a real question, point of clarification on this. Are you asking for offices for everyone, or is it one shared office? And how would that work? Obviously, there's limited space in this building with an ever expanding staff. So have you considered that staff will end up getting. Moved around to make space for what really is a voluntary position. that in a manager-commissioned form of government, you should be just letting the staff be running the show and not have the influence of an elected official's presence in the building at all times. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

At this point, closing public comment, moving on to commission.

Mayor, my apologies. I thought there's another question.

Solita Kranzer.

Thank you, Mr. . In your administration, your former administration, you decided to have here a big office. You do not have a job, mister? Anyone of you do have a job? You were even demanding a salary. Why we have to pay for that if you, when you sign for this job, you sign for a different thing? You sign for volunteering here. And now, you can make your general voice. I am saying this, I am saying that. No, we are not your children if you talk like that to them. No, we are not anyone of your subordinates. We are here to ask you, perform well. When you try to do things closed doors, okay, there is no public records. There is no public records means there is nothing nothing for us. You have done this as circus. But here, source sites are residents, not your monkeys. We want transparency. And when you were talking here about to work in a team that you were giving a very nice definition the other day, You fail to say, and that's exactly what I do not respect, because when you say, I decided, I decided, and three people are just decided, there is no team. No, you should not have hit an office and start working behind us, because that's exactly what you represent. You cannot keep on limiting our speaker. Our First Amendment, this is a democracy whether, as you said, you like it or you do not. You were there because of democracy, and you have to adhere because of democracy. When you fail to us in democracy you are failing to any constitutional rights and to our rights as a residence of the United States of America suicide to have the respect for the transparency. Where is the transparency? Where Mr. Town Attorney have to do with this? You have to give us that transparency. Everybody needs to give us the confidence that we have representatives that they respect.

Please have a seat, thank you. I love it, it's the same people that scream about the First Amendment get up here and yell for keep going after hours, right? Is anyone being thrown out, is anyone, no. There is a time limit, everybody gets that same time limit and we move on. All right, opening up to commission discussion. Is there anybody that wants to start? Yeah, I'll hop right in. Which one is it?

2C. No, I'm sorry. I'm asking the public. Thank you for the mic. First of all, I'd like to recognize the former honorary junior mayor that's sitting here. Thank you for your continued dedication. And to respond to the comments about my children and family participating, that's commendable. That's not a derogatory point, so I'm not quite understanding that one. Which one is it? Is there a public record created when we meet people out and about? or when we walk into a municipal building with cameras and lots of audience and lots of coming and going where everyone's welcome, it's an open door here, right? Which one is it? I'm flabbergasted to hear people saying you work too hard, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your service to this town. And on behalf of the majority of people in this town that voted for Mr. Mayor and for the commission here, right? Thank you for your service. Okay. I'M JUST SHOCKED TO HEAR STOP WORKING SO HARD FOR OUR TOWN. LET IT DRAG OUT FOR YEARS. LET NO DECISIONS HAPPEN. PUT MORE CUFFS ON OUR HANDS SO WE CAN'T GET THINGS DONE UP HERE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER TROVANI. BACK TO MR. KARUKIN'S QUESTION. HOW DOES THIS WORK? I don't have the time to look at all the details. So is it like each one of us has got an office or how is this going to work?

There's two offices. If you want the use of an office, there's an office for you.

So there's office for the mayor. Let me be clear.

This is a rescission on the restriction. This restriction made it an offense where you can be recalled and you're violating all kinds of statutes that were made up. This is a rescission on a restriction. You don't have to take an office. If the mayor, like the previous mayor, has no interest in being involved in the town and wants to run for governor, he doesn't have to take an office. If you want to be involved and actually hold meetings, you'll set up meetings. but there's not five offices in this building so the way it was set up previously was it was an office for the mayor and an office for the commission we had one commissioner that showed up uh for a week at a time and would reserve it that was her prerogative but it's how you want to use it and what you want to give to this town if you don't want to do anything and maybe you want to have a meeting at starbucks again your prerogative if you want to meet with a dignitary or somebody where that job requires a little bit more to show respect for our own town and our own process then you can then you have that option but it's an option it's a follow-up question so then the way it works is that so the mayor is going to get an office we have a shared office is that what it is or again it's not written in the book anywhere but that's that's the way the manager set it up last time practically that's the way the manager set it up last time okay Again, you're a commission, we consider and have this discussion at a different time. Today's discussion is removing the restriction. You can't even have this discussion if there's a restriction right now.

True, but removing this restriction has some practical consequences, and I'm trying to understand the practical consequences. So, yeah, the...

Assuming two of you are going to vote no on the office, I wouldn't know why you would want access to the office afterwards. So let's see if it becomes an issue.

But if it's, okay, if we're going to vote no, and let's say that no passes, we still have an office that is going to be a space that we can use as needed. Not necessarily. No, because I didn't do meetings here.

You have a conference room where you can reserve with the town, assuming that the town is not using the conference room, and then you can do that, just like anyone else here. Or you can have a dedicated space as an elected official to meet someone that is designed in a different way rather than a public space.

Yeah, I'm confused because, like I said, I did have some meetings here, and there was an office that was available, so...

Yeah. And one day I was having, I mean, I wanted to have a meeting, but the conference was taken. The budget lady was there. So I couldn't meet. I had to basically go into Sandra's office and have a meeting there. No, I want to meet with somebody. Let's have a shared office for all the members of the commission. Whoever they want to meet, let them meet there. Let's have a space for everybody to share. I don't understand what's the, what is the big deal? We don't get paid. We're working voluntarily for the benefit of the town. I don't understand why not having a dedicated space so we can just go and use it whenever we have a meeting.

Yeah, and actually, like I said, that's exactly what I was trying to understand. Now, this office has a floor plan, so the town hall has a floor plan. There's many offices. So I really wanted to understand what's going to happen next. Like, okay, what are the two offices that could be dedicated to this? If we repeal this ordinance, I'd like to have a plan on how we're going to – use better or do a better use of the of the of the tunnel yeah I'm not per se against it but it's just that I you know I'd like to have a plan I'm just saying that's tomorrow's problems today is there's a restriction so to even have a conversation about what the plan is is pointless right now as of today

Yeah, but we could have done the 2 things at the same time that's what you repeat and then what is this ordinance chain and one is a discussion on policy very 2 different things right you're not everything has to be locked into an ordinance we can sit and as a majority of the Commission direct the town manager to do and set it up any other way, but we can have that Commission that discussion while there is a restriction in place in our box. I'd like to serve of the study spoke up.

No, I have not spoken on this topic. I think respectfully though, I think the Vice Mayor currently and Commissioner Weingart last time when he spoke, I think they are misunderstanding what's going on here with this issue. It's not about whether you have meeting space. The issue here is about preserving the manager commission form of government. In our current system, the idea is the legislators are supposed to leave the building and turn over the management of the town to professionals like Charles Press and Mario Diaz. The ethics case that Commissioner Salzhauer mentioned earlier that's pending about the mayor involves events that happened when he's in the building all the time and he got criticized by a parody email. And then the parody email was investigated criminally. Town attorney, town communications staff falsely accused the speaker of committing crimes. And all of this happens when you have elected officials in town hall. It creates a huge temptation for those individuals to restrict speech, to direct the staff to their own benefit. The point of keeping us out of town hall on a regular basis is so that you can protect the commission manager form of government. And I want to make that clear. We're in a difficult situation here. Again, this is a case where we changed the rules because the practices became something unprecedented. Commissioner Sousower also mentioned this video that the mayor made, the state of the town address. It was a $5,000 commercial that ran the night before the March 2024 election, the night before. I did a public records request How was this approved? How did the town manager approve this? There were no records at all. I'm guessing what happened is that since the mayor was in town hall nine to five every day, he just directed then town manager Gomez to do this. This is not about having a space to meet. There's always a space to meet. And I hear what the vice mayor said, but I'm not sure that that's really what, I don't think she really sees what this ordinance is about. It's about preserving the right distinction between the elected officials who have a limited role and the professional management that directs the staff. That is the essence of our form of government. And I'm afraid that we're giving this up right now. We're setting the stage for a situation where elected officials move in. And if you're not sure about why we do that, I just want to say the commission manager form of government was adopted after the massive corruption in American cities in the 1800s. You know, Boss Tweed and the like. It was a modern invention to make sure that politicians don't abuse their offices. As part of that, I think we should limit the amount of time that we all spend in town hall. We can certainly take meetings here. We can certainly come here when we have specific business to do. But the danger is when you start melding the elected officials and the manager and you have no separation of powers and no accountability. It can be something as simple as if we abuse the photocopier or the printer for personal gain, who is supervising that? You may think that's a minor concern, but if like a town employee did something inappropriate with town resources, they would get exposed. There's a check on that. If you have the elected officials who hire the manager in town hall with access to all the town resources, there is no check on that. And again, this is not personal. It is about creating the right impersonal structures that allow good government to flourish.

our commission form of government our commission manager form of government there's no reason for an elected official to be inside of town hall all right thank you commissioner that's not hard work thank you all right so i'm gonna again i kind of spoke on this item this rescinds uh restriction that was in place um how any elected official chooses to do their job provided it is their job is their business and how much time they want to give to this town is their prerogative and to sit and go after someone because they took the time to meet with whether it's companies, residents, dignitaries to further the job that they were elected to is their business. And you sit up here and again, you slander, right? You make accusations. I did this and I directed town staff. There is no proof to that because it doesn't exist. I've never interacted with staff without going first through the manager. And that was and you can ask staff that worked here that all, by the way, quit under your administration, not mine. Go to each director and ask them if I ever went directly to them and asked them anything. Where are they now? I wonder. But I had that respect and I would go through the manager because I want to create a safe environment for them because it's not my role, even when it came to informational purposes, which is my right. I went through a manager first. Specifically, you're talking about the events that Mrs. Salazar is accusing the town and myself of. I wasn't in an office when that happened. I was in Tallahassee. That happened at like 9, 10 o'clock at night after a commission meeting. So again, this is slander. Please do not talk over me or I will mute you, okay? If you cannot be an adult, I'm going to have to mute you, Commissioner. Again, none of these things happen the way you're describing them. To sit up here and make these accusations is all they are. It's a personal attack, and again, I appreciate you showing the rest of the community that this is personal and not about our laws. The State of the Town video, the offices, All of this, and by the way, we discussed this back in the day when we did these, they all exist in other cities. Every city, every municipality does a state of the town. It is communication with your residents. And again, it is a responsibility of the mayor as the elected face and the representative of the town to do this. That is the role I ran for. That's the role described in our charter. That's something that I initiated. And instead of getting saying, thank you, Mr. Mayor, for creating a state of the town and advising us on every project that has been completed or that is in production, or that is coming up, you make that like it's something bad. Like it was some sort of personal thing that, excuse me, do not talk over me. You make it as if it's something that, when I spend hours away from my family, that I'm getting some sort of personal benefit. I'm not aware of any salary I get when I'm in this building yet. So there is nothing personal, only dedication to this town. And you can keep saying what you want, but again, it's accusatory. There is no fact, there is no basis behind any of it. And so at that point, we're gonna call the motion.

Commissioner Weingart?

Yes.

Commissioner Travani?

Yeah, again, there's a risk of, please, there's a risk of not knowing what's going to come up next if we repeal that and we don't have something that clarifies what you want to achieve, so I'm going to say no.

Commissioner Velostegui?

No.

Vice Mayor Van Mergeen? Yes, Mayor Danziger.

Yes, and I'm curious if that means the two of you won't ever reserve the office either, right? I guess we'll see after a second reading. All right, moving on to item, thank you, Madam Clerk. Moving on to item 2D, rescission modification of ordinance 2025-1789, amending chapter 34 and creating section 34-1, sand removal or digging on the dune or beach. Madam Clerk, if you'll read the title of the ordinance into the record, please.

And so the town commission it and also say for repeat an ordinance number 2025 1789 and it's entirely related relating to some removal or digging on the dunes or beach providing for server ability, providing for codification and inclusion in the code, providing for conflicts, providing for implementation and providing for an effective date.

Item 2 D. Thank you, Madam clerk. Can I please get a motion to, um, approve as drafted?

So moved.

Second. Moving on to public comment, item 2D, Ms. Salazar. Two minutes, please.

Eliana Salazar, 9317 Bay Drive. I just want to point out that on the last point, Mr. Master Manipulator, Commissioner Girardo was talking about the parody email police investigation, not about the arrest of my son, both of which you had a hand in, but he was talking about particularly the police investigation into the parody email. You were in the building. We have the text. We have the emails. We have the video. You were here. You were hands-on that entire time, and that will be decided by the Ethics Department next month. I look forward to that. I also want to point out how rich it is that you just insulted Mr. Burkett for running for governor when five minutes after you got... your ass voted out of this building, you ran for Miami-Dade County Mayor. Remember that? Five minutes later, and you got beat so badly, you got like 1% of the vote. It was probably the most embarrassing campaign I'd ever seen. So for someone who turned their back on the town one minute afterwards, also, we didn't see you in town hall for two years. It was actually a beautiful, blessed time, but you were so interested in the town that you stuck around. You will know that for... 20 years since I've lived in this town, whether I'm behind the dais, here, not on a board, on a board, I'm here. Because that's what caring about the town means. Not just when I get to be a first among equals. These are your words. I'm a first among equal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The narcissism is off the hook here. We need to add into the code an allowance for therapy, for psychoanalysis to get to the deep-rooted issues going on here. Now for the sand digging. I want you to say with a straight face that it's OK for children to die on the beach. This is a reasonable ordinance that says don't dig more than 18 inches. should be one of your children or grandchildren that gets buried. And yes, the parents were right there. And you don't think the parents regret that, but they didn't know. The same way you see sneaker waves on the West Coast, I didn't even know what that was. A sneaker wave is you're walking along the beach and a big wave comes in and all of a sudden your whole family's dead. You don't know. You wouldn't know these things. The tourists that come here don't know that when you dig in the sand, it creates a deadly environment where in a matter of seconds, you could die, your children could die. This happens. Just because it didn't happen to you and you don't know anyone it happened to, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So shame on you. There's a special place in hell for people who vote to rescind this one.

Thank you, Mrs. Salisauer. Mrs. Krasner, two minutes, please.

Do you need an update?

If you want to talk, you can do it. If not, just let me talk.

Commissioners, if you are parents, you may know that...

Excuse me. Name and address for the record. Thank you. You have parents, if you are, right? Well, welcome to the city of Surfside. where our mayor, our mayor, yes, our mayor, Mr. Dessinger, was having his children in the pool one time, just being elected official, and they were without supervision. A librarian has to approach him. Guess what? The parent was there. But you don't need more than maybe a couple of seconds to have the life of your children in danger. No matter if you want to police your children, maybe, as Miss Ben Merkley. No. This is not for police our children. This is because we are a human beings of nature. To override something that is to protect, and you are also against that, is shocking. And to make Mr. Dessinger, every time, a personal attack, then you are with a very thin skin and you maybe are in the wrong position. These type of things are for our children when you are gonna understand that this is a teamwork. This is an effort to protect the life, not to be policing parents or to questioning the parents because as I said, you just need two seconds. And drowning is one of those. Ms. Beningray. And as I said, Sloan Modestinger was having his children once, and this is not a slander. He was having unsupervised ride in the pool.

Thank you, Mrs. Krasner. Please have a seat. David Karp, 2D.

David Karp, 9341 Collins Avenue. I'd just like to make a recommendation for this motion. I was in favor when it was passed, but it couldn't be enforced. I spoke to many lifeguards and they said they cannot enforce it, they cannot watch it, they're watching the ocean. They're watching the riptides, so there's no way they can enforce. I walk every day along the beach, and there are big holes there, but the patrol stays at the top part. of the beach. And so they really cannot see it because of the slant. So, um, I do, uh, appreciate the former commission doing this. Um, I don't think it needs to be repealed, but I do think that, uh, um, the commission should look into, um, watching it better because it is not being watched and a child could be, uh, fallen in and it could still collapse. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Karp. All right, seeing no other speaker cards, closing public comment, moving on to commission discussion. Who would like to start?

I haven't started in a while. I can't see who's moved, but I would like to.

All right, go ahead.

Because, again, I think the framing of the law really matters. And earlier, the vice mayor said, you know, this is a one in a billion thing and that people were afraid to play on the beach or afraid to dig holes. I think we need to be very sober here and look at the data. In between the meetings, I looked online. It happens that Professor Stephen Leatherman of FIU, who's like, you know, Dr. Beach, Professor Beach, has written about this. And he said that in one decade from 1997 to 2007, 31 people died from suffocation by sand holes at the beach. Another 21 were so seriously injured that they needed CPR. This is a thing that happens and people are poorly educated about it. Having a law is one way to educate people and potentially to save lives. I can't for the life of me understand why we would repeal this. If anything, Mr. Karp's comments suggest that we should just be enforcing the law a little bit better. To the Vice Mayor's point earlier in the previous meeting, Ordinary digging with a shovel and a pail by a small child is not going to create the problem. The ordinance is about much bigger holes than that. Once they start to be two feet wide, it creates the danger that somebody falls in. And when they fall in, it triggers a collapse of the sand sometimes that can drown and kill a person. And even if it were only one in a billion, and it's much more than that, to those one parents, that is... the end of the world. I really didn't appreciate it earlier when the mayor made reference to my own childlessness in discussing this item. I may not have my own children, but there are children who I love like family, and I care about every child in the town. And again, I can't imagine why we would repeal a law that is put in to protect people, that is a response to an actual death that happened in 2024, a few miles up the coast in Lauderdale by the sea. What are we doing? Why? What right is this protecting? I mean, this really, for the life of me, I can't understand the reason for this repeal.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Trevani? I'll let others speak before I

No, I'm still thinking comments now.

Oh, okay. I want to acknowledge the concern and not disregard the terrible tragedy that happened that's being mentioned here as part of the original drafting. However, as we've heard from the crowd and others, and I spend a good deal of time on the beach with our children, is that it's not enforced, it cannot be enforced, and truthfully, I appreciate the comments. I appreciate the comments of Mr. Karp and others. There are other ways of accomplishing this. And, you know, unfortunately, there are much more cases, many more cases of drowning in the ocean constantly. It's constantly in the news and in swimming pools. Yet we do not find people for swimming in the ocean or in pools. So it's clear there are other ways of handling it. I'm committed to education. I am saying it now on public record, will do my own part in sharing education and communications to the community in emails and social media, reminding them of beach safety and being involved in their children's activity. It's something I could improve on myself. I'll share that. I'm not the one to determine whether it's an 18-inch hole or a 24-inch hole that's going to collapse. I'm not an engineer. I'm not going to get involved because truthfully that's not what's going to save children. It's communication. It's education like we want to do with many other things in town. So I'm committed to that, and I'm saying it on public record now that I'll do my part there. But I don't think fining people for digging a hole is going to save their lives.

Thank you.

A question. So what is the reasoning behind your request to repeal this, Mr. Mayor?

I'll speak when I'm ready. You'll hear it.

Yeah, I know, because I'm still thinking about it. That's why I wanted to.

Again, if you read the warehouse clauses, it's overly broad, right? All of that is written in there in what was in the agenda. It's, again, an overly broad law that affects the daily life of every single person that goes to the beach. And I'm going to get into it in more detail when I speak. But this affects how your kids, if they can dig a sandcastle, if they can create a sandcastle, if they can create a moat, if they can bury their feet, all of that would make it illegal. All of the things that already exist. Now, again, these are daily activities of beachgoers that we have restricted now. You can't take sand off the beach. Doesn't distinguish between commercial, residential, a home. If a child takes a bucket of sand home, you violated the law and you're getting a fine if someone catches you or someone tells on you, because that's what usually happens in this town. There was no thought put into this. And I guess I'll speak. This was created by people, and again, Gerardo, you are extremely hostile. I never said you didn't have, that you're childless. I said you've never raised kids. You have never watched kids in a playground. You have never watched kids walk on the street and to make sure they don't walk. How do you know that? Because you don't have kids, that's why. You... Tina, Charlie has never raised a child. You don't know what it means to take a child to an environment that could be dangerous to watch them. So to create an environment in the town of Surfside where a child can't do what is normal activity for anyone, is is preposterous and that's where i'm getting at now i want to give you some statistics that the commissioner spoke about we have forty thousand deaths on average per year in a car accident we have four thousand five hundred on average people that drown in the u.s. a year we have not restricted cars we have not restricted people from swimming from the ocean i feel like we should be addressing that first from nineteen ninety seven to two thousand seven there were fifty two deaths from whole collapses on the beach and that includes commercial too that puts on average of three per year So you want to restrict daily activity and what is normal beach activity because three people die a year within the US. I think we should stop people from swimming in the ocean. 4,500 people die a year with that. Where does this end? This concept of if it could just save one life is preposterous because there's freedoms, there's responsibilities as parents, there's responsibilities as individuals, and that comes into play too. Our role as administrators to protect the safety from one person that might affect another. And that's not it. And that's it. That's not for me to dictate what is safe for you. It's not for me to tell you what is safe for you. You do you as long as you're not affecting the neighbor next to you. And that's why I'm bringing this forward, and I hope that's clear. Look at the law, look as it's passed. Again, there is no distinguish, there is no distinction between a kid on the beach or some company that is coming to remove sand, which by the way, there's already laws about. This is not our beach, this is a state beach. The safety and regulations are controlled by the state. We have very minimal, Input in specifically regards to public health and safety that was used to do a beach share ordinance that we were about to get sued. Another thing I had to fix because that was overbroad. You cannot be overbroad. It is not our beach. It is not for us to dictate how people play in the beach. And when you have laws like this, again, created by a commission and lawyers that put us into tens of millions of lawsuits, it needs to be repealed.

Okay. All right. That's clear. So I'd be okay with addressing the overreach and above everything, I'm not okay with having ordinances that cannot be enforced or that we're not enforcing. To me, back to Mr. Karp's point, it's pointless. I'LL BE OKAY WITH REPEALING THIS IF WE CAN FIND A WAY BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE COULD BE SOME CONSENSUS ON ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF BEACH SAFETY. SO MAYBE ADD A DISCUSSION ITEM IN THE NEXT MEETINGS WHERE WE CAN JUST FOCUS ON THAT ISSUE. AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THIS AGENDA AT 5 P.M. I DIDN'T GO THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS. So can we have that, can we decide that we want to have this conversation maybe at a later meeting when we just focus on this beach safety issue?

I'm going to remind you, any commissioner can put any item on the discussion.

No, I just wanted to see if there is a consensus, if you guys are amenable to that.

I'm open to every conversation. I'm open to every single thing that we're repealing now to start a conversation if that's what you want.

Okay.

But again, provided you vote no on the item, you can't bring it back. Just remember that for a period of three months. Now, if you want to talk about beach safety and regulations, you're going to have to back it. You're going to have to confirm with our attorneys that we have the capacity to pass certain ordinances and we have the capacity to enforce them. Otherwise, we're creating a process of selection enforcement based on somebody who decides to call on his neighbor because he doesn't like the hole he's digging. Again, these are all things to consider at a later date. Any comment?

Yeah, maybe we should. I agree with Commissioner Trovani. I mean, I've been going to the beach for many, many years with my kids, and just digging a hole of 18 inches, it's a ridiculous depth. It's not. You need to create a danger. You need to dig a hole of like three to five feet at least, not two feet. I did some research. the only town that really took some type of, that was for Lowther Hill. Yes, I was doing some research. Yeah, Lauderdale-by-the-Sea is the only city that did, but there is no other cities doing anything about it. It just doesn't make sense. It's like basically not allowing kids to play in the beach. You're telling me you're digging a hole with a tractor five, you know, five feet, fine, but two feet, a feet and a half? We're talking 18 inches, I think it's a feet and a half. It's ridiculous, come on. I mean, this is dictatorship, really, to put that law.

All right, thank you. Madam Clerk, let's call the roll, please.

Commissioner Trevani?

Yes.

Commissioner Villastegui?

No.

Commissioner Weingart?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Van Merge?

Yes.

Mayor Danziger?

Yes.

Mayor, the motion carries.

All right. Item 2E, I'll make a motion to lay it on the table since it was addressed already in 2B. The amendments that are presented in 2E were already put into 2B. This makes this item redundant. All right, if you look at 2B in the resolution that we approved, the same lines that are underlined are the same ones that were done in 2E. Each one of these items addresses a specific ordinance that was adopted. However, 2B already covers 2E, so it's redundant. Mr. Krookin, I need you to sit down, please. Thank you.

Are we calling a motion?

I called a motion already. There's a second. Sorry, I missed that. The item is laid on the table because it's redundant.

So moved.

All right, there'll be public comment for the item. Madam Clerk.

Commissioner Valdosta?

No.

Commissioner Weingart?

Yes.

Commissioner Travani?

We are not discussing the item. We don't have to have public comment on an item that is not being discussed. And I'm taking it off the agenda because it was already discussed in a previous item. I can't do that if 2B wasn't approved yet. Please don't school me on how to run the meeting, thank you. 2EB was approved, that makes 2E redundant. Again, I drafted them, I know what they look like. It's the same item that is underlined, thank you.

Commissioner Trawani?

We're not passing this ordinance, it's going away. No.

Vice Mayor Vimerge? Hold on, I'm a little confused.

All right, if you look at Ordinance 2B, look towards the end, let me try to get it in front of me.

Yes, Madam Attorney, can you explain to me?

Yes, through the mayor, Mr. Mayor, may I? Yes, so this exact provision is already addressed in the ordinance 2B. It's being amended, that same section in ordinance 2B. So it's redundant, as the mayor mentioned. It's already addressed in the other ordinance.

Any changes that we are discussing to, I think it's Rule 705, has already been addressed in 2B. We discussed it. We approved the changes. It's the exact same changes to the exact same item we all spoke about. This item is not being brought forward to the Commission and doesn't require public comment because we are not discussing it. It is being laid on the table because it is redundant and not required. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Van Merge? Yes. Mayor Danziger?

Yes.

Mayor, the motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to item 2F. I'm not following the logic that you don't understand. This item was discussed in 2B. That's on you. That's not an us thing. There is no reason for this commission, excuse me, there's no reason for this commission to discuss an item that was discussed and voted on. This is redundant. It is not necessary, sir. Thank you. Item 2F. And we're decision modification of the ordinance 2026 1804 amending chapter 90. Zoning article 2 of the code to require planning and zoning board advice on municipal projects man clerk to read the title of the ordinance please into the record.

An ordinance of the town commission of the town of Surfside, Florida, repealing ordinance number 2026-1804, and it's entirely relating to planning and zoning board powers, providing for reinstatement of the town code to its previous version, providing for serverability, providing for codification and inclusion in the code, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. Can I get a motion to approve as drafted?

So moved.

Second. Opening a public comment on 2F. Mrs. Salazar, two minutes, please.

I need, okay, LAO saws our 9317 Bay Drive. What I just witnessed was absolutely despicable. You put two separate items on the agenda addressing separate parts of that ordinance. When Mr. Karukan spoke up originally on the first item, he said he had other comments that he would reserve for II-E. He said that and he saved that time for that. He came up to talk about it and you decided you weren't gonna talk about it. This is a bait and switch. You could do this on any agenda item. You could cram things into one and say, well, now it's redundant, we don't have to talk about it. You're a master manipulator, and watching this is so upsetting. And I think when the rest of your commissioners watch this meeting, especially Commissioner Ben-Murray and Mr. Weingart, when you watch this, you will be horrified at how badly manipulated you are. You're in the hands of a narcissist, manipulator, dictator, as Commissioner Vestaldi has just shown us. So let's go to 2F. F is what I give you as mayor. That's your score so far, a big fat F. What we're going to do now is we're going to have to put this on the ballot as a charter amendment for residents to protect their own speech and rights to participate. Because we've just seen that you at the helm is a dictatorship. You've not changed one iota. And this goes to item 2F, so let me bring it back to that. You think that you're like the designer of the whole town. You don't want to even have to defer to the planning and zoning board about things. Major projects in town, there's a process. You don't want to work in government, go work in the private area. You don't need to work in government. Government is slow by definition because there are checks and balances, because there are grifters and people can't be trusted. Okay? And it's proven time and time and again. All right? We wouldn't have the federal prosecutors and ethics busy all day long if everyone could be trusted. Just trust me. I'm not going to move in town hall and give directions to break laws. Just trust me. I'm just going to talk about town business on my trips. Just trust me. Okay, famous last words. We don't trust your taste. I don't trust your taste in your ill-fitting clothing. You think I want to trust your taste on buildings in town? You're Don Johnson in the toddler section of the clothing department, okay? As you walk around at every single event, showcasing yourself on social media like you're a prima donna. I'm sorry you were neglected as a child. I'm sorry you didn't have professional success, but it's not at the expense of Surfside residents.

Thank you. Yeah, good luck to you. Mr. Kinzer.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Mitchell Kinzer, 8834 Carlisle. I'm very disgusted with what's going on here today. The business of the town is not to be arguments. And people's opinions are one thing. But to sit here and to purposely answer somebody in a derogatory method and tone of speech, I don't think it's required. The last item that you went through and kind of bundled these all together, you were talking about occupation of the town hall. There's a big difference between the word occupation and the word use. We always were able as commissioners to use the town hall. We didn't have to occupy it. One of the definitions of occupation is like when a military goes in and forces the people to live under their rule. And I'm starting to believe we're getting there. The town hall wasn't this big. It expanded because it needed more office space. And we were able to do that by getting rid of the water tower that used to exist in the middle of the town hall. Most people don't know we had that and we were able to increase the office space in the building by 50% not to create office space for the commission, but to create office space for the expanded use of the government. And I'm sure government will expand during your terms and you'll need that space. There's also, um, A reason why you set times for meetings and not call them at the last minute, so that people know what's going to be discussed can research it and they can set their agendas up to be at the meetings and my last point and I don't mean to run over, even though I disagree with that is that. The business of the commission is to be done at the meetings, not at the town hall. The business of the town is to be conducted at the town meetings where public notice is given, where things are mentioned to people, and people can come out and participate in government. Everybody that voted for you has an equal right to speak. Even those people that didn't vote for you have a right to speak. And your interpretation of law shouldn't be argued with other people. The law is the law, and you should not be a dictator.

Thank you. Mrs. Krasner, two minutes, please.

So once again, we are hitting this hitting agenda personally.

Soledad, please tell your name and address.

Soledad Kresner, 8840 Garland Avenue.

Mr. Wingut, I have to applaud you.

You were a very good soldier when you said, thank you for your service. So that means that you have witnessed every time that he is working so hard, especially when you have your Mussolini dictator next to you. So just be aware that to have private conversations and things, there are some restrictions by the law. And you are here for us, OK? Just remember, that's the position. We were talking and we have been talking and the entire agenda is, I feel like it's a scam. Just Mr. Dessinger was giving explanation just in the past, like right now I don't know what he's going to call it, but he was talking about the dead people, but the dead people he couldn't even remember that we were having here, a light in violations on 4th of July full of, and that There were, in a year, nine deaths. And Florida is the one that has one of the highest rates. And there were just 36 people. But that statistic, he couldn't even mention it. But he was mentioning that there were just two deaths by the sun. But he couldn't do, and neither Mr. Diaz could do anything for our residents. When the 4th of July, everybody were here in danger, as per the documentations of the lighting, government said. And everybody had enough with the words that they town manager sitting set here. And he never disclosed that the lighting was here less than four miles, as per public records.

But, well, that's what I feel is scam.

Because everything on subject has been with which agenda? For governing better? You don't repeal First Amendment. You don't repeal democracy. You don't repeal the rights to express. You don't do double private O when I wrote it. You don't repeal teamwork. What are we doing here? This is a show. Where is the decorum that he is claiming? Why he is always blaming the past, the past, the past? But his administration cost us a lot of money. How much, I wonder? Just him, himself, and Mr. Rose. And to talk about slander, he's slandering us. He's trying to make us feel guilty for having the last and past administration. What is that?

Thank you, Mrs. Kennedy.

What is that? What provisions are here? Michael Kerouken.

Michael Kerouken, 9365 Abbott. I think you can imagine my... uh... frustration i've been very professional and respectful with all of you uh... and i'm not sure of the full meaning of putting something on the table but i did do you really want to go on record approving laws that stifles healthy debate or the ability of residents to air their opinions or grievances to their elected officials on any given agenda item, because that's what one of the items on today's agenda would do, is prevent people from speaking their minds on all of these agenda items. You're taking that right away. You talk about other countries. I did not think that you would be in favor of a type of government that prevents public comment. I know you know that that does happen in other countries, but let's not allow that to here. If I can ask a question about the repeal of Ordinance 1803, I would like to, if possible through the chair, uh, to find out if putting on the table means that 1803 is being, uh, uh, will still get repealed or if it's going to move forward in another meeting, uh, because, uh, 1803, uh, is not the same as what you said, combining it with 1782. Uh, there are distinct differences that, and as I said, I was going, I did announce to you that I was planning on having some public comments for that item, but now you suppress my ability to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Crook and Mr. Christmas.

George Kouselis, 9225 Collins Avenue.

Mayor, thank you for your responses to this item in the earlier session. I want to continue that dialogue with the hope of persuading you and your colleagues to reconsider. So the planning board, when it did finally get to review the the memorial, it was done at the insistence of Vice Mayor Paul at the time. The rest of her commission, or at least three of them, were dead against it. And that's because commissions frequently have political agendas. They wanted to get this thing done. They didn't want interference. They didn't want to look like they were subverting the committee, the family's committee. But Vice Mayor Paul at the time was adamant that how can this be moving forward without their input? So it was really just a courtesy and it was far too late to have an impact. If it had been, if they had been involved along, it might have proceeded differently and more swiftly and perhaps a better solution, one that the town could have afforded without the hiccup of this past March and April. As to your comments that This would slow down the process. I don't think so. It really adds a month and maybe not even a month. Because it's a recommendation, the notification requirements between one and the other aren't as severe in preparing a report as you might have between quasi-judicial items. So a last Thursday of the month recommendation can easily proceed to the next, the second Tuesday of a commission meeting. I think it's a very minor thing and it's a useful thing. And it helps, it makes your job easier And it probably makes the process no longer, and it does make it better. So please reconsider this. If anything, strike out the word or replace the word significant in there. If you're worried that this gets overly meddlesome in trashcan selection or something, just get rid of that. That was something actually the commissioner on screen had advocated. But please keep the remainder of this ordinance intact. Thank you.

Thank you, George. All right, seeing no other speaker cards, closing public comment, opening for commission discussion. Who would like to start?

I sponsored the first ordinance, so if I can explain a little bit what it's for, I'd be happy to start. You know, a lot of places that do serious construction like towns or universities have on staff like a town architect or university architect who ensures that the design meets a certain quality and also that it's a consistent design language across the institution. If you step outside the town hall right now, if we had had time to actually prepare properly for this meeting, like I would have liked to, I would have shown some pictures of the streetlights and the signs on 93rd Street. You have these modern white pedestrian lights, which I really like a lot, that have one design language. And then you have these black signs that are traditional style with finials, stop signs and such, that speak a completely different design language. And it's a terrible hodgepodge in one place. I get worried. I feel like this is something we should be able to agree on. And I'm reaching out here to Commissioner Weingott in his talk of progress. I want this commission to build good new stuff in the town. But in order to do that, we really need to make sure that we're doing it professionally. And really, we need help when it comes to design and taste. Some of that is structural, and Mr. Kouselis made reference to that earlier, that by the time this gets to the commission, it's kind of too late to make design choices. But we have to be very honest. Some of it is just expertise and taste that we don't have collectively, and this is not about anyone individually. If we're going to have new street signs, if we're going to have major new... public works in town, there should be a method by which that goes to the PNZ so you can at least get the benefit of that expert opinion if we don't have a town architect or somebody who can really do the professional job. And right now, Surfside, it's a mishmash. It's not just 93rd Street. None of that matches the street lighting on Harding. Everything that we do is ad hoc and designed in the moment. And if we're going to be building stuff, we should at least try to make it coherent and good. We have experts on the planning and zoning board. That's in fact, we're required to put experts on the board. Why wouldn't we make use of them? And as you know, Mr. Kusla said, it's only slows down the process maybe a month. But you know, it's terrible to build something ugly and ill considered and then have to live with that for much longer. Again, if you care about progress in the town, Let's do it, but let's do it the right way. Let's get good design advice from the experts who are already serving the town on PNZ.

Thank you.

I already mentioned earlier my opinion on this. So I agree with Mr. Koestler's comments and, you know, having been on the Planning and Zoning Board, I mean, it's an expertise that we have. I understand that we want to move quick on things and projects. but we should still use the resources that we have and maybe find other ways to move faster. Yeah, so. Thank you.

So I appreciate the comments and I'll tell you of all of them here and sitting down, this one took me for a longer consideration and really going back and forth on it. I recognize that there are experts and we're not cutting that out. We're simply reinstating how it was previously. So there are experts in different fields and us sitting up here, we're not necessarily expert in every field. We just represent a combination of five of us and our distinct experiences and set of skills. THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE IT'S MORE THAN A MONTH WHEN THINGS GO BACK TO BOARD. IT GOES BACK AND FORTH AND THEN A DISCUSSION AND A FIRST READING OR FORGET THE READINGS BUT A PROCESS AND MANY TIMES THAT COULD EXTEND IT BY MONTHS, NOT MONTH. This is simply going back to where it was up until the last commission. So I want to obviously continue leaning to the Planning and Zoning Board and there will be a liaison from the commission for that and to be able to involve them in projects, but to be restricted that it has to go through that process, I'm not in support of. So again, the P&Z is there for the purpose they serve and the commission should have a liaison as such, as I do for the Resort Tax Board, and the Commission here could lean to them if the need arises, regardless of this reinstatement of what was. Thank you, Commissioner.

I mean, I agree with Mr. Kuzlos. I 100% agree with David. So this is my question. If we as a commission, we decide to build something, we still have to go and apply for permits and go through the building department. It's not that, okay, let's do it and that's it. We still have to follow protocol and do everything according to What do you mean? We don't have a, we should go to the building department and they approve it and they give us, you know, advice or how does it work?

There's two different things. Like the building department deals with code and I'm planning on zoning board deals with, um, design with the design.

Okay.

Per se. Yeah.

Okay.

That was my question.

There is no design review for public commissioner.

Please.

I'm the only one who can't speak.

No, you can't speak until you recognize you had your turn and now the Vice Mayor is speaking, right?

I'm just asking questions so I can have my mind clear in my ideas. But 100% I agree with what David, Mr. Commissioner Wingott said.

All right, so first of all, I want to address a couple of comments which extremely, again, off course about taking away people's rights. I want to highlight the irony of the same five people getting up on the last, every item for the last couple hours claiming that their rights are being taken away and yet they've spoken freely on every single one. The commission, again, this is about the commission should be able to, and I disagree in the sense that if, yes, the commission has a political objective, like sometimes they have to act on it, right? And I can get, you know, before an election they wanted to pass something and they rush it through, it is what it is that's the politics of it but at the same time i'm against the restrictions right like i i agree with the process and i'm going to get into the second um this item was again thrown in for second reading in april when a minority of this commission two commissioners and a mayor whose term had expired decided to pass a second reading ordinance on an item That's why we're rescinding it. We're coming back. I am willing to have a thoughtful conversation on it. I think we have shown together up here that we're committed to public participation, to community input. We've created additional boards and committees because we want that engagement. We want the engagement of our board, specifically planning and zoning when it comes to projects. EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, GEORGE, I QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, GEORGE, I HOPE WE CAN RELY ON YOU TO HELP HOPE WE CAN RELY ON YOU TO HELP US SHIFT THIS BUT THIS LAW WAS US SHIFT THIS BUT THIS LAW WAS CREATED IN A VACUUM AS WELL. CREATED IN A VACUUM AS WELL. SO I AM FULLY COMMITTED TO, SO I AM FULLY COMMITTED TO, AGAIN, REVISITING THIS ITEM AGAIN, REVISITING THIS ITEM ONCE WE REMOVE A RESTRICTION ONCE WE REMOVE A RESTRICTION AND REALLY ARTICULATE WHAT IT AND REALLY ARTICULATE WHAT IT IS BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO PUT IS BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO PUT CERTAIN CHECKS AND BALANCES IN ENGAGED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS LAW. I THINK THIS LAW WAS PASSED I THINK THIS LAW WAS PASSED QUICKLY IN A VACUUM AGAIN. QUICKLY IN A VACUUM AGAIN. AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN COUNT ON AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN COUNT ON YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH THIS AND YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH THIS AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING TO DECIDE, OKAY, WHEN DO WE DECIDE, OKAY, WHEN DO WE ENGAGE PNZ IN CERTAIN PROJECTS? ENGAGE PNZ IN CERTAIN PROJECTS? WHEN SHOULD IT BE A REQUIREMENT? WHEN SHOULD IT BE A REQUIREMENT? WHEN IS IT JUST THEIR INPUT? WHEN IS IT JUST THEIR INPUT? BECAUSE, AGAIN, Let's make sure that we are building things for the town. And again, I'm committed to bringing this back if it's done in a thoughtful process with what I at least consider experts in the field. And just again, as of now, we almost saw what happened in the last month where a project that we were trying to move forward after five years was delayed some more because people thought they found the loophole in the code. And that's where I stand on it. Again, it's against the way it's written as is rescinded, not against the idea of it. Madam Clerk, let's call the roll, please.

Commissioner Wangut?

Yes.

Commissioner Trevani?

So ideally I would like to see what's proposed before repealing this, but I have a feeling that this is, that the commission's gonna repeal this anyway. So I'm just gonna vote yes, but just to show the support to the idea of revisiting this in a short time. I mean, I know that we have a lot of stuff that we gotta go through. Let's come up with something better. Yeah, I'm open to that, but let's make it happen soon, because otherwise we have a vacuum that is gonna be open for too long, in my opinion.

Commissioner Villastegui?

Yeah, I just think we could modify the current ordinance rather than repeal it, so no.

Vice Mayor Merge?

Yes, I agree with Commissioner Trojan.

Mayor Denzinger.

Yes and again I want to reiterate that I'm extremely open and I hope that we can engage you know our experts. We've got very very very well respected architects on our board. We have Mr. Chris Lewis that hopefully will stay engaged and I think we can create something that we will all feel that the experts have drafted I'm not an expert in engineering instruction, but we can define again where this comes into play and where it doesn't quite, you know, that's something we can all agree on. So I definitely am committed to bring it back. And with that, I'll vote yes to repeal an ordinance again that was created in a vacuum. Thank you. Before we adjourn, did you want to say something? I was going to make a motion. Before we adjourn, just quickly, I just want to. uh... highlight that g press understand this is last week uh... understanding as you're going out to uh... to start a new police department from scratch what i hear which is a challenge and and i think you know you came in under a challenge you you face the challenge or suicide we were at a very uh... Not the best place when you came in. I think you stabilized, and I guess we're appreciative. We are appreciative of what you brought and the stability that you brought, the professionalism, and we wish you a lot of luck, at least from up here on this side, as you move on to the next step and fix the next town. So thank you for your service. Thank you. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye.