County Commission on 2026-10-06 10:00 AM - Oct 06, 2026

Boisterous behavior, including applause, booing, and cheering is not permitted. Thank you for joining us. The meeting will begin shortly. You guys want to get started? No. Carol, why aren't you sitting back here, Carol? Why don't you sit right there and see what Beam does? See how mad he gets. I would be, yeah. Pardon me? Please. Yes. Can everyone please take their seat? Would everyone please take their seat, please? Would everyone please take their seat? Thank you. Thank you, Senator Gellar. We're going to start. Good morning, everybody. Today is October 6, 2026. Welcome to the Broward County Commission meeting. I'm going to ask everybody to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, and afterwards, please remain standing. And he's got two meetings left here. I'm going to have Beam Furr lead us in our Pledge of Allegiance. Counting down. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States. To the Republic of One Nation. Please remain standing. Ladies and gentlemen, it's customary that we observe a moment in silence in honor of notable people in our community. I'm going to go around the dais to see if you want to acknowledge anybody. Senator? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tomorrow is the third anniversary of the October 7th attacks in Israel, where thousands of people were brutally murdered. And I would ask everybody to keep those people and their survivors in your thoughts. Yeah, thank you, Barrett. I want to recognize an incredible individual, Roy Rogers. Roy is Weston. He was an amazing resident, of course, of the Lighthouse Point he was. And among numerous conservation leadership posts, Roy serves as the Executive Committee of the Florida Conservation Coalition. He was Chair Emeritus of the Florida Chapter of the Nature Conservatory. And the board of, of course, the Florida Earth Foundation and the Everglades Restoration Task Force. He also chaired the Budget Committee of the South Florida Water Management District and served as Vice Chair of the Florida Community's Trust and the Florida Audubon. But everybody knew Roy. Everybody knew his butterflies, butterfly world. And I've never been with a gentleman just so positive, no matter what he faced, health-wise or business-wise or whatever. In Pompano Beach, we were able to name a park after him. We have a celebration of life on November the 22nd at the park at the inlet in Pompano Beach. Most importantly, just pray for his family because he was a, his footprints and his handprints are all over this county. So, God bless you, Roy. Thank you. I'd like to think about him as well. And thank you for mentioning all that stuff. Because with Roy, you know, for a lot of people, you remember them for all that stuff. But you also, for Roy, you remember him for how he made you feel. He always made you feel good. He made everybody feel good. And that's probably the best testament you can, you can have. So, he was, he was a wonderful, he has a wonderful legacy in this county. And all those butterflies and stuff were pretty cool. So, to his family, condolences and thoughts and prayers. Thanks, Roy. Also, Roy, in my early banking days, I had the opportunity of working with them as they were developing Western along with Jim Motta and the others that put so much work out there to show us that building Broward County is not a bad thing. Also, my mother-in-law, I lost her battle with cancer a couple weeks ago. But she's a true example of an open-door policy, caring about people. I think she had the solution to the homeless problem and the hungry. She fed multitudes. She did it with love. She did it with kindness. And she did it for years. Thirty years ago, they say she wouldn't live two weeks longer. Thirty-plus years ago. Two weeks ago, she lost her battle in love and memory. I'm a Jean Jefferson. I'm going to pick up again for Roy Rogers. We really did lose a very special man last week. Roy passed away just days after his 90th birthday. He was a kind, gentle man who cared deeply about people in this community, and he cared about good government. Roy was a visionary. He was a true renaissance man. I had the good fortune to meet Roy shortly after I moved into Weston in 1991. He had been a central figure in the design of Weston, and he had a passion for nature and parks, and it's visible in Weston's open spaces and many, many parks. He also was instrumental in establishing the Parks Foundation of Broward, where he was chair emeritus, and it was really one of his lasting legacies. He was a civic leader and an environmental champion, and I remember his passion for good government. He was a member of the Florida Ethics Commission on Ethics and served as its chairman. He was the founding chairman in 2000, the first year I ran for office, so I got to kind of know him well through that as well. So one of the things that I remember most about him, I called him when we were, when the bill had passed and we were going to, we were putting this Children's Services Council on the ballot 25 years ago. And I went to Roy, I called him, and I said, you know, I'd love you to be involved in this campaign. You know so many people, you can help us so much, and I know you care about kids. And he jumped at the chance. He had a breakfast down at the Sour Club, and most of those people that he invited to the breakfast became part of the steering committee to help with the passage of the Children's Services Council, which, as many of you know, has now brought $2.5 billion worth of services to children in this community. So I see that as a big legacy of his, too. Butterfly World was mentioned as well. He was also hopeful, cheerful. He loved to compliment people, which is unusual, I think, when they had done something good for our community. In addition to all he did for Broward, he had just a tremendous love for his family. They came first. His wife preceded him in death, Mandy. But he has a large and loving family. He is survived by his four children, Roy Jr., Brett, Karen, and John, and their spouses, and 15 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. Our thoughts and prayers go out to this very special man. May his memory be a blessing. I'd like to recognize Anthony Alexander Collins. He was laid to rest this past weekend. Anthony was born in Kingston, Jamaica. He attended St. Andrew Technical High School in Kingston, migrated to the United States in 1999, and then settled in Florida in 2001. He obtained his degree in civil engineering at Florida International University, and then went on to obtain his P.E. certification. He also got a master's in management and leadership in 2024. He was a dedicated, lifelong civil servant and worked partly not only in Jamaica at the National Land Agency, but also when he came to Florida, he worked here at Broward County Parks and Recreation, the city of Palm Bay in Brevard County, the city of Fort Lauderdale, and on two occasions, the city of Miramar. Most recently, Anthony served as the director of public works for the city of Miramar. He leaves behind his mother, Thelma Brown, his beloved wife, Sandra Wright Collins, sister Barbara and his children, Sunil, Kadeem, and Chez, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews, extended family members, and dear friends. May his soul rest in peace. Let us also honor all the brave men and women who have served and continue to serve in our armed forces, both here and abroad, and thank them for their service. So let's pause a moment of silence. Thank you. Please take your seats. Good morning, everybody. One of the first, our breakfast and music was provided by Commissioner Beam Furr. Beam, thank you. Senator Field was for your White Sox. Yeah, I'm a Cub fan. And, but can't be picky nowadays. We have just, we're going to be doing, because of a special Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we're going to be doing one proclamation right now, and I'm going to ask Jamie Rydell to come on down. Jamie was diagnosed at the age of 37, no family history whatsoever, and she's a breast cancer survivor. Her husband, Josh Rydell, is here also, Commissioner from Coconut Creek. Thank you for coming, and let me come on down. He reports breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer among women in the United States, impacting about one in eight women in their lifetime. By the way, one in every two people will get cancer. Out of that, one in every eight women will get breast cancer. Whereas, according to the most recent statistics, an estimated 321,000 women in the United States will be newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2026. And whereas, throughout October, we honor the courage of breast cancer survivors, stand in solidarity with them who are currently having treatment, and remember those who have been lost to the disease. And whereas, the Center for Disease Control recommends women who have an average risk of breast cancer get a mammogram every two years starting at the age of 40, and for high-risk women every year starting at the age of 25 for early detection. Whereas, male breast cancer can occur at any age, however, fewer than 1% of breast cancer diagnoses in the U.S. occur in men. Whereas, the Florida Department of Health, with the support of the Community Partnerships Division funds, provides free or low-cost breast cancer screenings to women ages 40 to 64 years in Broward County who meet program guidelines. And lastly, whereas the Broward County Board of County Commissioners recognize the Community Partnership Division's Health Care Service Section and its community health partners and providers for their dedication to advancing breast care awareness and promoting the benefits of regular health screenings and early detection, now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County, Florida, that the Board hereby designates October 2026 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month in Broward County, Florida. And I'm going to be presenting this to Jamie Riddell. Jamie, thank you. Hold that up. Hold that up. Is this also for her? We're going to come and take any of the breast cancer survivors. Come on down. We're going to take a picture. Ladies, come on down. I don't know who she's getting to come on down, but come on. Let's go over here. Come on. Let's go over here. You got to move. Somebody's got to move. Mayor, just as a point of privilege, I know today we've had a chance to look at the way we've done proclamations before and as now. I'm going to have to say the way, it's so much better the way we had it, proclamations, because what you're having is you're having a chance for everybody to be heard, and I think it does justice to the proclamation more. I think the way that whatever we—I know, I know. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I was saying that today we had a chance to look at the two ways of proclamations, the new way and the old way. I just think it's better the old way. I'm just saying that. And I'm saying that because you're having a chance for people to listen more. Today, we were having a hard time getting people's attention for the first two proclamations, and there was nobody really listening the same way. I'm just saying—it's up to you guys, because I'm not going to be here. But I just think when they were presented, they had a chance to be heard better. I know, Commissioner Davis, you were having a hard time getting people's attention. Yeah, I had a hard time. And not only that, it's not recorded. I mean, people take their time to come all the way down here. And I think that's the least we can do, is to really respect their time, their family come, their visitors, their friends. It's not recorded. There's no decorum. Nobody's calling them up. The meeting hasn't started. They just happen to be here, and you call them up. It's so random. So let me just interject. The mayor has—if you come—as the mayor, if you come to me and say, hey, I'd like to do it after 10, I'm happy to accommodate. So if you're—I, you know, if you want to do it at 930, you're happy to do it at 930. You want to do it at 10, I'm happy. The mayor has discretion. I'm happy to accommodate. Nan, go ahead. No, I don't think that—personally, for me, that doesn't do it. I believe we have to have it when it's on record. People come here. We're honoring them because of something special, who they are, what they've done for this community, and they deserve our attention, and they deserve people to be here to hear it and see what's happened in our community that's to everybody's benefit. So I think we need to change back, and I don't think it's right to have one at 10 and then, you know, another before that's not recorded and that's, you know, the people aren't here for. I mean, I think we should go back to the way we had it and limit the numbers that we have to the three, and, you know, I mean, it worked for many, many years. I think it can work again, and I think it's much better and more respectful for the people who are coming to be recognized. Put somebody on the agenda, and we'll deal with it. How does that sound? Put somebody on the agenda, and we'll take it from there. Let me ask you a question, if I may. Yes, of course. Wasn't it on the agenda? How did we get here? So I think we got here because the same people up here, all of us, were not complying with the three proclamation minimum. So it created the same type of conversation we're having this morning, and we decided to do something, and everybody gave their input. Now, here we are again tackling the same thing. If you do decide that we decide to go back, three is the limit. I mean, no changes, but it's a proclamation. I think it worked fine because I think I would come here for any proclamation, anytime, anywhere, and it is recorded as an archive, not televised. So, again, we're managing ourselves because we can't comply to what was already on the books. Okay. We're going to start by reading the Tuesday morning memo. Would the reading clerk please read the memo? Tuesday agenda memorandum. The following are submitted for your consideration. Consent items are 1 through 26. Public hearing items are 27 through 31. Regular items are 32 through 38. I request the following withdrawals and other modifications to the agenda and note the following additional information. Withdrawals, item 13 is withdrawn. Other modifications, item 37. The board's consideration of the item is based upon the item with the amended motion statement as shown in additional material 37A. Scrivener errors, item 25. The board's consideration of this item is based upon the item with the correction shown on the attached page. Attachment A of Scrivener errors. Move to consent. Item 35. Be moved to consent. Additional material regular meeting. Items 1B through 1F, board appointments. Item 14A, first amendment to settlement agreement submitted by the Public Works Environmental Services Department. Item 14B, letters regarding Alpha 250 properties submitted by the Public Works and Environmental Services Department. Item 14C, memo to the board submitted by the Public Works. and Environmental Services Department. Item 32A, revised explanation of why action is necessary, submitted by Visit Lauderdale. Item 37A, amended motion statement, submitted by Mayor Mark D. Bogan. Additional material public hearing. Item 31A, amended resolution, submitted by Commissioner Lamar P. Fisher. Item 31B, amended resolution, submitted by Commissioner Steve Keller. Item 31C, amended resolution, submitted by Commissioner Steve Keller. Thank you. Um, hold on, one second. Is there any, uh, polls from the public? No, there is not. There's not? Okay, I'm going to go around the dais and see, starting with Commissioner Rogers. Senator Geller? Yes, Mr. Muir, item 21, please. Yep. Um, Lamar? 11, 12, and 14. 11, 12. I'm polling also 14. Um, Vice Mayor? None. 11. 11? None, sir. Thank you, sir. None. And, I'm sorry, any polls from the public? None. None. Great. So, uh, would our county attorney formulate the, the, uh, motion of? The consent agenda are items 1 through 26, minus items 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, and adding to the consent agenda, item 35. Mr. Mayor, I move approval of the consent agenda as read by the county attorney. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Show that passing 9-0. Let's go to the first item that's pulled, number 11. Thank you. Um, this has to do with the changes that we're being required to do, uh, by state law. And I'm, I'm going to be, I'm voting against it. I, you know, I, I just feel like they are asking us to change things that are on a local level we have a, we have decided that are important to this community. The, the way that we've, they don't like the way we've framed it. They don't like the way that we've, we've said it. And we, and whether it's on the, uh, continuum of care board for the homeless, um, they don't, they don't like our categories, uh, whether it's on the climate change task force, they don't like the name of a category. Yeah. And, and for that, they're asking us to be, you know, to, to bow to their wishes. Um, I'm not going to, I'm not going to, I'm voting against it. Um, because I think for this board, I think, I think they're, they're, they're assuming that everybody's just going to kneel. And in this case, I think you have to stand, I think for me, I think you have to stand up on some things. Um, we, you, this community has been a leader in this state on human rights, on civil rights, on, um, all kinds of things. And now we're being asked to backpedal. I don't want to backpedal. And I, and I totally understand that, you know, the state is, but I, I, I hope that after November, things can change that, that, that some of these things get reversed because they are asking us to, um, have a change of conscious, consciousness. And I don't, and I don't think that's what we should be doing. This is a very thoughtful board. It's a thoughtful County. And I don't want to, I don't want us to be backpedaling. I think, I think we've actually gone forward and many counties have followed us in many ways. Um, and I, and I, I would prefer to be out front. It's a better view by far. So I'm, I'm making a, I will, I will be voting against this. Anybody else on number 11? Yeah. Yeah. Um, you may recall, and we had four of these in a few weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago, and, um, I made a statement about all four of them. Uh, but I ended up voting for them, um, because we changed our wording and, uh, in our statute, in our ordinances and, um, to use other words and felt we could still do the things we wanted to do. But this is just a bridge too far for me. State legislature, unfortunately, uh, drafted and passed this bill, Senate Bill 1134. And, uh, which is saying we're being told that we have to abide by state law and, uh, that we need to dismantle, you know, what we're doing here. And when we do 11, when we, if we, if we, if we did this with, with 11, it actually dismantles our commission on the status of women. I've worked closely with this commission, uh, which has played a key role in reviewing the status of women. Uh, we've had these incredible reports every other year to let us know where we are on education and other issues with pay with, with regard, with regard to women. Um, and, um, uh, they have also taken a lead with, uh, the commission on the status of women with our women's history month participation. And I just, uh, cannot, um, I just cannot vote to dismantle this advisory board, uh, which because the state is calling it, you know, is part, it's part of their war on woke. So women make up more than 50% of the population, half the population in this county. And yet we're still engaged in this ongoing struggle of equal rights, equal pay, equal respect, and equal justice. And that is why I have to vote my conscience and I will be voting no on this item. Anybody else on number 11? No? Okay. We can move on. I'm joking. Thank you. Senator Geller. I'll be brief. And Mr. Mayor, I have the utmost respect for Commissioner Furrer and Senator Rich. They are both- That's not what you said yesterday. They are both outstanding elected officials. However, while I understand and sympathize, and I think that everybody here knows that if it was up to the nine people here, that this would fail unanimously. But as both a lawyer and as a long-time elected official, every one of us has raised our hand and sworn to follow the Constitution and laws of the state of Florida. I don't like what the legislature did, but I think we are all obligated to follow the law, and I will follow the law in both the way that we're required to here. I mean, our county attorney might tell Beam he could be removed if he doesn't follow the law. Can you believe that? I think- And Carol's here, so she can just come right up. Okay. Commissioner Rogers? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to add to what my colleagues have said. I will comply with the law. I will support what we are advancing today, but it's not because we don't care, not because we agree with what the impact it will have on our communities around Broward County, and because we know of the impact. So, I just want you to know I'm not pleased. I'm concerned about the impact this law will have on all of us and all of our activities, but I'm supporting the letter of the law. Okay, good. Now we can vote on it. Do I have a motion on number 11? So moved. Second. I have a motion, and I have a second. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Opposed. So, I got two no's, and I got minus, so nine, eight. Seven. So, we got a six, six, four, two against, one on here. Pardon me? Six, six, six, six, six, six, six in favor, two opposed, period. Okay. Is number 12 the same comments, Commissioner? Yeah, you're right. So, for the record, Commissioner Beam-Ferr, Senator, Commissioner Nan-Rich voted against it. Everybody, the other six voted for it, except Commissioner Davis is not present. So, do you want to just stand by the same comments for number 12, or do you want to speak? I'm going to say one other thing. There's a story of when Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Thoreau when he got sent to jail for civil disobedience, and Ralph Waldo Emerson asked Thoreau, what are you doing in there? And Thoreau asked him, what are you doing out there? My comments stand. I have a motion for number 12, do I have a second? Second. I'll go to Commissioner Rogers, second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. So, I got, again, the same, six in favor. The two no's are Commissioner Furr and Senator Commissioner Rich, and Commissioner Davis is not present. Next would be number 13, is that the same comments? Same comments. 13 was withdrawn. Pardon me? 13 was withdrawn. 13 was withdrawn. The next item is number 14. Hold on, hold on one second. For number 14, a couple people. I want to just start with that real quickly, and then I'll hand it off. Coconut Creek is a city in my district. They asked if we can delay the sale. You know, land is valuable. You know, we could be using something for affordable housing. We could be using land for something that where we could decide instead of selling it to somebody and let them decide. And so, they asked me to, and Josh Rydell called me also before this meeting and said, hey, you know, would you please, our city has voted, and asked if we would delay the sale. But that's the only comments I have on 14. Pardon me? Mr. Mary, I would want to do that, unless there's a legal reason we can't. I would make the motion. Is there a legal reason? Well, again, Senator, this came up at one meeting. If our county attorney thinks I'm saying something, I hope that's not legal. You're going to say, you know, Bogan, it's not legal to do that. But that's why I'm always assuming that she's right there listening to what we're saying. I don't know if you need to say that. So, Commissioners, this item is the first step in a proposed sale of the Alpha 250 parcel. We arrive, we are here because under a settlement agreement that the county is a party to, we're required to start the process for sale of the parcel before the middle of October. And so, you know, under that settlement agreement, we are obligated to begin the sale of the parcel. So, you know, I would advise that we move forward with this process in order to remain compliant with our... Is it a violation of the contract to extend the sale? We don't have the unilateral ability to extend the sale. You need approval of all the municipalities involved in the litigation in order to do an extension. Well, we're voting on it right now. We obviously do have the unilateral authority. We might be in violation of something, but we do have the unilateral authority to vote how we want to vote, correct? You have the authority to vote how you would like to vote, right? And so, the reason why the board has to vote on this is because the property, you know, is titled in the county's name. And in order for the county statutorily to do a sale of property, we have to go through the surplus process. So, this is just the process that you go through for sale. It will go to bid. And this comes back to the board again for the final determination of the sale. Yes. Thanks. I think it was 10 years ago, almost just a little over 10 years ago, we, as a board, decided to not to sale the Alpha 250. And we had asked the Arcadis to decide whether or not it was worth having, along with whether or not we could get to 75% recycling, as well as trying to figure out a government authority to do this. This was actually the way the Solid Waste Authority began. It is now, as our county attorney has said, we have run out of extensions. But it doesn't preclude some other things still happening. It is in Pompano. It is zoned. Its land use is for industrial and garbage. I don't think it is zoned, necessarily, for all of the different uses that I think the Solid Waste Authority might want to use. It's one of those things where I think, and I'm throwing it to you, I'm looking at you on this, that Pompano may want to actually decide whether or not this is something that they would like to use for different, whether it's either recycling or different ways of getting rid of waste, because it's one of the very few places in this county that has that land use. Pompano has talked about their contract with waste management ends at the end of this year, if I'm not mistaken. They may want to be looking at having those options right near them, and I think it's worth exploring that. And that's what Coconut Creek is asking. They're asking, are there other options here? Because the Solid Waste Authority is looking for places to have transfer stations, places to do compost, places to do mulching, places to do composting. And this is one of those few places that might be able to be, but we box ourselves into this corner of having to put it out to bid. So we can still put it out to bid and still go through all that stuff. The downside on all this is, of all the cities that were in the Resource Recovery Board, any of them can say no, and it has to go to sale. So is that correct? That's correct, because we'd need an amendment to the entire settlement agreement. But in terms of putting together the sale specifications, right, so this is, again, this is just the beginning of the process. We will be seeking the input of the five mayors who are the kind of primary delegates in this process and with putting together that package and then for the ultimate approval of a potential sale. So there could, you know, work on whatever outcome can be done through that process or through potentially seeking change to the existing agreement. Right, and it wouldn't, you know, any one of those cities can say, you know what, I want the money now. And there may be short-sightedness out there. The long picture is this is probably something good for the county and for Solid Waste Authority and for Pompano and those nearby. But we don't know that yet. So I think there's some, this kind of popped up very quickly. I didn't realize that we had, this had to go out for sale, or I probably would have extended some thoughts to Pompano and a few others. But I think those, Coconut Creek's asking for an extension. I don't know about Pompano. Mayor? Yes, go ahead. So just as far as Pompano Beach is concerned, the city manager had contacted me last week. They have an interest in purchasing the property. So they obviously want to control the property of their own destiny and what they can do for it. My understanding also that ultimately if bids are received, those bids can either be turned down, right, because there might not be enough dollars available. But more importantly, that the county has a first right of refusal. So that's a good thing. That's a good thing. You know, so if this is the first process to get it to bid, I understand Coconut Creek's position. But I surely don't want to violate the agreement that we have with the five, with Weston, Sunrise, Fort Lauderdale. Well, there's two more, but 25 cities. But the five mayors are the ones that are in control in this destiny. So I just want you to know, Pompano is interested in purchasing it. Broward County has the first right of refusal. So I think we can control it. But I want to do what the majority of the board wants to do. But I surely don't want to be in violation of the agreement. And what would be the ramifications of such, I guess, if we violated the agreement? I think we'd have to get back to you with the ramifications. But it could either be cash or, you know, particularly a specific performance. But I can get back to you, Commissioner, with that. But just, you know, Commissioner Fuhrer mentioned that this has come up suddenly. But, you know, the point is that this is the very beginning of the process and kind of the purpose of it is that you see this part. And then there is going to be some leeway between now and the actual sale of the parcel and the process that's going to be, you know, it's going to be posted to the public for bid pursuant to the statutory process for Florida law. And then it comes back to the board to determine if the bid price is adequate and a potential purchase and sale agreement. Right. So it's not today you don't sign off on it and then the property is out for sale. The board will see this and the mayors of those five municipalities have the opportunity to provide input into what that bid packet looks like and also to provide ultimate input into whether or not the sale as proposed. So Anika, to follow up with that, so this is the first step. But as it moves along, is there an opportunity to postpone? Well, there is opportunity. Right. So there is just a longer process. So I said, we have a process for bid. And so, you know, the board and this always is for whomever could pursue the potential for the 20 for an amendment to the settlement agreement, which, as you mentioned, right, we'll need all 25. But I think there's also opportunities in the, you know, under the current provisions of the agreement. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, question. Yep. Just because you're asking, I would like to postpone this for a couple weeks so that we can have this discussion because you're requesting that. So first a question to you, then to county attorney. Would you be okay since this has just come up with like a two-week delay where I hope that our damages would be minimal? I'm going to ask county attorney for that. Or are you asking for a much longer delay? I'm just asking for any type of delay, whatever it could be. That's fine. You know, I'm doing what the city of Coconut Creek has asked me to do as their county commissioner. You know, they're wondering why we're not looking and exploring affordable housing for this property, workforce housing, affordable housing for this property. Why, you know, but all I could do is be the representative and ask for the extension, period. That's it. We don't need to take an hour talking about this. Just looking for an extension. So, Mayor, just, right, so we are obligated to put this, to start the process, and this is just starting the process on, by October 11th. So, you know, our recommendation is to move forward with this, but we can build out that bid, you know, what that bid packet looks like in terms of property. Just like being voted for something that state law says, you know, I understand what you're saying. You could say it 100 more times. We're supposed to move forward. I understand we're supposed to move forward. We could say it again. I'm just saying my position is seeing if we can delay it. If we were to delay this by two weeks. I don't understand what the county attorney is. She doesn't make policy. I'm trying to help. I want, my question is, if we delay this by two weeks, are there any actual damages if it's only two weeks? Can we accommodate the mayor? Okay. There's a determination as to what, you know, we would be in breach right at that point, and so I think it's a determination for the board as to the risk of doing that. Okay. Any other comments on it? I'll move the item. I have a motion to move it. Second? Second. I have a motion to second. All in favor? I got one yes. What are we? I'm unclear because there's been so much discussion. This is item number 14. Item number 14 has to do with the Alpha 250 property. Motion to adopt resolution, you know, so I just have a motion and a second. I have one saying aye. No, this is not to delay it. This is a motion to move it forward. He made a motion. You second it. I have a motion to move it forward. Okay. It's just to move it forward. You voted up or down, you still get what you want. I mean, we just keep complicating the second. Right. It works out. I got a motion. Is there a second? If there's no second, I'm moving it. I got a motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. If that's what you know. Okay. I got two ayes and everybody else. It fails. Number 14 fails. Let's move on to the next one. The next one is number 21. Not everybody knew what they were voting on, clearly. It's pretty clear. Number 14, it's right there. It's right in front of you. Sorry. Just to clarify. Just to clarify. If we don't move it forward, right, we are in breach of the contract. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Unless we can approve it before. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm moving number 21 before I recognize Senator Geller on that. Number 21 has to do with the sheriff and the audit. And then from that, we're going to skip over and go to Lamar. We're going to go to your item number 37. And before we recognize Senator Geller, I just wanted to talk for two minutes regarding the news release issued by the sheriff yesterday. He titled his news release that Sheriff Dr. Gregory Toney suspends all negotiations with the county over the budget. Um, I didn't know there were any negotiations going on. We already passed his budget and, um, I didn't even know he's negotiating. Uh, as far as I'm concerned, sheriff, you're not negotiating. You're not showing up at meetings. You're not talking to us and we already passed the budget. So I don't know what you're suspending. In, in this last paragraph of his press release, it specifically says Broward, the people of Broward County deserve stable government, responsible stewardship of public resources, fairness, and accountability. I certainly agree that we do. So let us audit your budget, sheriff. If you believe in accountability, let us audit your 800 and over $50 million budget so we can have accountability to the people of Broward County. Um, you, you go on to say that no public office is above scrutiny. I agree. We need to audit your budget so you're not above scrutiny. Okay. This is just, we've asked you before about auditing and you've never gotten back to us. Stop bullying us. Stop doing your ridiculous disparaging videos and be professional and come and talk like a professional will come and talk. And, and, and, and that's my position as mayor and as county commissioner. And if you want to add, that's fine. Otherwise we'll go to Senator Geller. Well said. Pardon me? Mr. Mayor. Well said. Thank you. Senator Geller, number 21. Good comments. Well said. Now, on item 21, I have some questions. I didn't want us rushing through this. Uh, county administrator. Uh, and I don't know if these questions are to you or to, uh, Silent Bob, our, our county auditor. Um, but, uh, I'm going to ask them to you if you want a lateral to the auditor, that's fine. It is my understanding that this, uh, audit item 21 deals with, uh, security at the airport, including BSO. Is that correct? In part, yes. Okay. It is my further understanding that there were a number of recommendations both to us and to BSO. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. It is my additional understanding that, uh, I think there were nine to us that we complied with seven fully and the other two partially. Is that correct? So, let me, before I go further, when you said the last question before this one, they were not just to us and BSO. It was for us to work with BSO. So, to clarify that one. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And the ones that were to us, we have either fully complied with all but two and the other two we have partially complied with. Is that correct? There were 30, to clarify, there were 34 total recommendations, 16 have been implemented, one is no longer applicable, um, three were partially implemented, and there are 14 that remain, um, that are not implemented. And those in part mainly because we were unable to reach, uh, resolution or, um, in some instances, cooperation with BSO to comply. Um, I will ask the auditor- Is it fair to say that of the ones that required sheriff cooperation that none of the ones in the audit were complied with? I, I, at this point, I would, uh, defer over to the auditor to, um, it's, it's his report, and I think he might be in a better position to address that. And we also have, um, um, Mr. Gale, airport director, who this was all under, um, to, uh, answer any questions as well. Because we are currently considering transferring, uh, the police and fire at the airport and seaport to the county, I think it important for us to understand whether or not the sheriff completely ignored all of the recommendations of the county auditor. Mr. Melton, could you address that issue? Yes, the, the, the ones that were under the control of the airport of management there were implemented. The ones that were not implemented were because the sheriff did not cooperate or furnish the detailed data. Uh, many of them dealt with the sheriff's failure to provide actual expenses, uh, to compare to the budgeted expenses that were given to the airport. This is not proper stewardship, uh, on, on the part of the sheriff to not provide actual data. Um, there were other non-implemented recommendations dealing with the sheriff, uh, particularly with payouts whereby the airport was billed to pay out for service by deputies at other locations other than the airport. Uh, significant amount of money, uh, in the original audit that was over half a million dollars and there was one unimplemented recommendation that dealt with measurement of service. And that is response times. And that is response times. We had recommended the response times be reported by the sheriff at the 95th percentile. Uh, but instead they refused to do that and kept it at average. And as you know, uh, average, you could have some very good and some very bad, but we really need the 95th percentile to really be able to measure how effective the service is. Thank you. And last question. Were there any other significant findings, uh, pertaining to the non-compliance that you want to bring to our attention? Uh, no, sir. I think that pretty well covers it. I'm done, Mr. Mayor. I just thought it important to point out that as we consider these items that according to our auditor, uh, he asked the sheriff on multiple things and the sheriff did not comply with them. Good. We're going to have a theme of transparency and accountability. Those are the two words I'm hoping to bring out of transparency and accountability because we cannot get that from the sheriff. We're going to move 21. You want to move it? Yeah. I have a motion and a second. I have a motion and second number 21. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Show that passing unanimously. Uh, we're going to go, uh, right now to, um, um, we're going to address a couple items that has to do with the sheriff. I'm going to start with, um, 37, which looks pretty, uh, straightforward, but I want to throw a little wrench into this. Um, this is a motion, a budget resolution within a general fund transferring 5.8 million from reserve, uh, for the consolidated dispatch. And what, uh, Renee, you can help me with this cause I think I spoke to you, but, um, what I wanted to do is from this point on, we're going to condition. I would want to suggest that we condition anytime we give the sheriff money, let's condition it to a, an agreement that he agrees to spend the money based on his representation. So the money is not going to go to some spa. It's not going to go to a cold plunge. It's not going to go to some wellness center. It's going to go to what he's, um, what he's asking for. And I checked with council. I believe that's legal and we could do that for these type of funds, additional funding outside of his core budget. So, um, I would like to, am I amending this motion? That's correct, Mayor. And the Monday, the Tuesday morning memo had already provided that the motion under consideration. Okay. So amending this motion that, that we give him the money he's asking for. So long as he signs an agreement that he's going to use the money for how he represents, it's going to be used. Pretty simple, pretty easy. And, uh, that's the amendment that I'm moving forward with. Question. I gave him the thing. He's moving forward. Uh, go ahead. You want to go around this? Uh, you know, Commissioner Davis. I have a question. Um, and what happens if he does not agree to sign anything? Then I would suggest we don't give it to him. We're not going to give him money if he's not going to agree to be, uh, honest, transparent, accountable. That's what we need. He needs to be on. If he's asking for a dollar for 9-1-1, then agree. It's only going to 9-1-1. He's asking for a dollar for some other thing. He has to agree in writing that that's what it's going for. And, um, so what are the consequences of not giving this money if he decides not to sign? Um, can I ask the administrator? Please, ask our attorney. Well, what are the consequences? What is it going to affect? So, based on the request, um, these funds are for, um, uh, three different, um, categories, if you will, um, within the, um, the sheriff's requested, um, budget for 9-1-1. It is for overtime. Um, it is for actual salaries to implement at 4% retroactivity pay. Um, and then it is for, um, the 21 cadets within the 9-1-1, um, uh, operation. Uh, so, um, arguably, um, that would be a shortfall in the, the contract. Uh, but, you know, again, this is something that is done through a contractual relationship, and I'll use air quotes because there's no actual contract in place. Um, we've only been operating under a term sheet for a number of years, so. So, they just would not get paid? My understanding is that those individuals have already been paid, um, and this would be to, I guess, uh, reimburse or fund BSO. My, we'd have to, I'd have to talk with the county attorney to see if there's any, uh, legal ramifications to that. So, Madam Attorney, are there legal ramifications? Will just get sued? How does that work? Sure. Well, the issue is that we don't really understand the, um, and, and the point of the mayor's request for the motion is that we don't actually fully under, you know, other than the sheriff having asked us for the money, we don't have the background to say, um, where the funds are being used, right? So, we, I can't, we can't say for certain what would happen. And talk about legally. Does he have any legal recourse if we do not give him the money? The sheriff is not entitled to the money for this service, no. Thank you. Any, Commissioner Dean? Tell me you love that idea. I, I, I like the idea a lot. Thank you. Um, so, really, when, when, as I started looking at this, this is for dollars that the sheriff has retroactively promised recently that Michael Ruiz told us about in our workshop last week. Um, I spoke to some of the contract cities because Michael Ruiz had mentioned that some of the contract cities, you know, they may not even be aware of what was going on and they're going to get hit towards the end of their budgets. And at least one of the contract cities that I spoke to, um, has been paying the additional money the entire way through and that money has not been going to the police, uh, to the public safety officers. That sheriff has been, has been holding onto that money and not even doing anything with those dollars so the hardworking men and women who work on the streets weren't even getting paid with the money that they were then taking from another account within the different cities contracts. So I think that all of this, as I look at this, I look at this with a grain of salt because I think the behavior is so childish and, and, and immature from, from what's coming from the sheriff's office. And I have no problem with the rank and file because I think the rank and file work hard, but I'm starting to have a problem with the command staff at some point who just goes along with what's, what's happening there. I mean, the sheriff's not the one who's building spas and, and, and, and, and gilded toilets and, and workout centers that's coming from leadership in the sheriff's office. Doesn't somebody say to somebody at some point, you know, Hey, maybe we shouldn't do something this, or do they get fired if they open their mouth up because they serve at the, at the pleasure of the sheriff? Um, you know, the sheriff could also comply with this dollar. He's, he's had some of this money in his budget that he could just move around. So when the sheriff puts out a news release that he's not going to deal with budget negotiations, this isn't a budget negotiation. He's already blown his budget for this year. And he's asking us now to come back and make this part of the budget whole. This is what we're talking about today and what we have on today's agenda are performance evaluations. And I've never seen another government agency that would net wouldn't would not have the guts and the character to come and defend their performance of the agency. I mean, there are times when we've messed up up here on this, on this day as we've taken votes that aren't great votes. And the sheriff has blasted it all over the Praterra buses are one of them, not a good vote, not our best moment. The half the country got it wrong on that one because we were having federal doc tax dollars shoved down on us. And we, you know, went with these electric buses that now don't work. And now the sheriff has it all over social media that that's the reason why deputies aren't getting paid. It's so disrespectful and it's so untrue that it shocks the conscious. So I'm going to vote for your motion if there's a way to to tie the dollars to make sure they actually go where they're supposed to go. But at this point, I don't even have confidence that they're going to that they're going to do that if they don't if they sign the agreement. If they don't sign the agreement, there's zero we can do about it. Maybe we just don't want to give it. You know, he stopped negotiating. Why are we even giving him any money right now? If somebody says I am stopping negotiations, maybe we are thought is, OK, let's not even move forward on this. I don't know if you guys feel that way. Shouldn't there be somebody here at this podium that should be saying this is what I need the money for, because it's very hard. I go to court. You go to court. And sometimes in small claims court, the judges say you can't cross examine a piece of paper. So have somebody stand here and put their name behind this, that they're actually going to do this. Who's going to sign the checks and who's going to send it? Let somebody, a human being, stand in public and say this is what we need the money for. Not a memo where you hide behind a keyboard and you take out Facebook posts blasting the people you're supposed to be working with. So I'm going to I'm going to mend with more comments from the board. Yeah. I want to I want to I want to amend my own motion just to say let's defer it. Why are we even talking about giving money when someone said publicly I am suspending negotiations? I'm not going to be accountable. I'm not going to be transparent. I'm not going to talk to you. Why are we even talking about giving a lot more money? Are we crazy? Let's let's let's let's. I'm going to re amend this to say I'd like to defer it. Do I got a second on that? Yeah. So you got a motion motion to went indefinitely. Definitely. Okay. Go ahead. Senator Rich. I just want to ask. So. So in in our paper here, it says this item should not be deferred to a subsequent meeting because the amounts are at issue our fiscal year 20 to 2026 funds that are needed for year end closeout. So how do we square with that? So my my thought would be that if you all were to defer this, the sheriff would need to probably balance his budget within the funds that he already has from from this body. And my expectation would be that he likely would just revert five point eight million dollars less back to the county from the general regional pot of money. That would be my guess. I've not spoken to him, but I'm trying to figure out, you know, if you guys don't pass this motion, then he will just have to balance the budget with the funds that are there. Good. There's a motion to defer motion a second. It's been sick. All in favor. All right. All opposed. As have. Thank you. Now we're going to go to item number 36, the nine one one for the sheriff. And by the way, before just want to recognize in the one, two, three, four, five, six rows all the way in the corners. Carol Shum. Carol is going to be our new county commissioner here. And she and and we haven't put her to sleep yet. She's still awake. Thanks for coming, Carol. I think. Thank you, Mayor. We'd like to do is it is obviously I'll introduce the item and then we can maybe have some discussion. But I think there's a couple of folks that are signed up for this mayor to speak. Is that other? OK, that is correct. I would just have you introduce it and then we'll come back. OK. And ultimately, I'd like to make a motion at the end of the day, Mayor. OK. Who's the public speakers that we have on this? I'm going to I'm going to introduce the item. Oh, OK. OK. That's OK. We talked about accountability and transparency and what we talked about the other day at the workshop. I just added management to it, MAT, so management, accountability and transparency. You're spot on, Mayor. And first of all, I want to begin thanking all those folks that serve at 9-1-1. You are the forefront of our public safety. I want to thank each and every one of you what you do every day in and out seven days a week. And we had extension of this pretty much. We talked about this before. But the discussion that we had last Tuesday was pretty extensive on where we are today. Just kind of a quick recap and then we'll talk about it. But we transitioned, of course, to our regional E-9-1-1 system back in 2013. And obviously, the county was a big part of that. And at that time, we gave to the sheriff as a vendor of ours to run the call centers, call-taking and dispatch services at that particular time. And the agreement did expire on 2022 to where we don't have an agreement right now. We have a term sheet, but no agreement. And the sheriff hasn't come forward for that. When we talk about controls and we talk about what, as the county does, and I repeated this, so please forgive me the other day. But we do control and own all three PSAPs. And PSAPs obviously stand for Public Safety Answering Points. People will ask me what that means. We have City of Pines. We have City of Sunrise. We have City of Coconut Creek, which is actually going to be moving in the 1st of 2027 to our Value Adjustment Board meeting. We control software. ORCAT controls the furniture, the computers. So we're already there owning 100% of what the operation is. The 449 employees that exist today would ultimately just come over to the Broward County side. And if you remember correctly, the sheriff came here and said, hey, we're not fully staffed. We can't get folks here to work here. So the commission stepped up and put $4 million into the bank for him. And then ultimately $11.5 million the following year to fully staff 100% of the employees for that. And I think currently right now they only have five vacancies at the end of the day. And we're also funding the overtime. So kind of my comments are that, you know, the 2024 legislative action prevents us from audits. We've talked about that. And no authority. But the BSO in this particular item asks for 27 more positions, which are already 100% filled. A 4% COLA retroactive for the 5.85 we just voted on that. But they're currently utilizing, my understanding, Monica, is 27 cadets too. 21. Excuse me, 21 cadets. So at the end of the day, we did fire rescue. Thank you for their support there. But I also want to ask Monica the following to those who are working every day to rest assured there will be no firings. They'll be just kind of bringing them over, working with the unions, et cetera, to do that. So nobody's going to lose their jobs. Right. It's even a better, easier transition at the end of the day to bring them over more so than fire rescue to take more detail on that. So this is a relatively simple, I think, ask at the end of the day. But again, it goes back to management, accountability and transparency. So I'll let the public speak and then I'll let us speak and then I'll bring me back if you can for a motion to direct it. Okay, thank you. Who do we got first on the list to speak? There are two members for item 36. The first is Chris Nelson. Chris Nelson. Is there a Chris Nelson here? I think he's new to our commission here. Hey, good morning, commissioners. And I would say that the 9-1-1 people, the rank and file, would probably be very happy to be under this commission rather than Sheriff Tony. Because how do we even know when he says, I want money for this? How do we even know it's going to them? And I know, I know he's watching right now. He says he's too busy to come in, but he sits and he watches these commission meetings. Why isn't he here to talk about his 9-1-1 operators? Okay? He sits behind his desk and he watches these and he's already concocting his next video. I don't know if you've seen his videos, but I went to his Facebook and it's like, what is this? He's got videos of him doing karate chops. And he kind of, somebody commented that he looks like Billy Blanks. Remember Taibo? He's got the, he's like, ah, ah. And it's like endurance and strength. And it's all self-promotion. And that's tax dollars. That's going to him doing his little videos at his gym talking about how great he is. And then he's also got, I want to know how much he's spending on this. And I hope Blazing Goalie is watching because, you know, you care about government efficiency. Talk about this. He is paying somebody to do Hollywood style videos attacking you guys. He won't show up, didn't show up to the budget meeting, but he makes these videos attacking you guys. And he hires like the voiceover guy that does the voiceovers for like Hollywood movies. It's like in a world where Sheriff Tony is not getting money from the Broward Commission. And, and like, I'm like, like, are you serious with it? Like this, this could be like a, like, like, is this guy serious? It's, it's very immature. And what, what Commissioner Yudin pointed out that he is now saying that I will not negotiate anymore. And it's like, you weren't even here to negotiate to begin with. So I already know he's going to go on after this meeting. And after the story runs, he's going to go on social media. He's going to, he's going to call, he's probably fuming right now, watching this. He's going to be calling his production team to come in and, and make another move. These things cost money, like 20, 30,000. Some of these things can cost a lot of money, but we can't audit him. We don't know how this money is being spent. I love what you're saying, Commissioner Bogan. And look, let's not forget that this is a man who did not disclose a murder he was involved with when he was a teenager. The fact that he had prior arrests, driver's license suspensions, traffic citations, and a prior LSD hallucinogen use while on the job charge. Okay. He was, he was, he was on LSD or something. And he would not even be sheriff if he had disclosed these things. And an ethics report came back. And for some reason, the governor didn't decide to remove them. But let's not forget about who we're dealing with here. Thanks. The next speaker is Carl Kahn. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Actually, my name is Steven Corson. I'm talking for Carl. I'm a 54 year resident of Broward County. I've been, I'm 58 years old. My family been living in Broward County for all that time. Anyway, I am a 911 operator. I've been a 911 operator since 2001. I was actually with Broward County first coming in as the Broward County Fire Rescue. I just want to talk to you about the human element about Broward Sheriff's Office and the dispatchers themselves. I'm not going to go two or four just to let you know about how it's not as easy as just going from taking, wearing a different uniform, wearing a different polo shirt or whatever. It's all about the members themselves, the people themselves, where I think you need to consider that. I'm also part of the FOPE. I've met with several of you before. With the FOPE, the union is a, it's going to be disruptive as well. Just to let you know, there are different elements too and not just the changing of uniforms. Thank you very much. Oh, one more thing. I apologize. If you do change over, and it's not going to be a temporary thing while Sheriff Tony is in office, it will be a permit thing way after he's in office. Thank you. Sir, thank you for what you do. Thank you for everything you do. You're welcome, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Public Speaker? That was all. I'm going to bring it back to Commissioner Fisher. Thank you so much. I'd like to make a motion to direct the county administration to develop and present a plan for future board consideration to transition E911 operator services from the Broward Sheriff's Office to the county, including preparing and negotiating any necessary contracts or amendments with affected municipalities, collective bargaining units, and I want to make sure that the gentleman understands that we'll be working with the unions, state and federal agencies regarding criminal justice information services, and other third parties and identifying and taking additional actions that may be necessary to ensure continuity and to avoid interruption of E911 operator services with a target transition date of October 1st, 2027. Thank you. The motion is second on number 36. Senator Gellar? Question. Commissioner Fisher, I agree in principle with what you're trying to do. My one question is, when at the airport and seaport, when we were looking at doing this, we commissioned a study to see, you know, how, if we could do this, how effective it would be, et cetera. I would certainly be in favor of doing that. I'm not sure that I'm ready to vote to commit to do this. I understand that your motion is only asking county administration to come back with us. I would feel somewhat more comfortable if we hired an expert first just to, like we did with airport and seaport, to see, you know, whether or not, you know, what the impacts and effects would be. You know, do you have any reaction to that? I mean, I kind of would like to hear, you know, expert opinions. Well, I think, first of all, I think you'll see this item at the next commission meeting to be able to vote on it, so it won't be a 30-day lag like the other one did, so it'll be coming up in the future. But this is not rocket science. We, as the gentleman said, we were operating as Broward County. Previously, this gentleman worked for Broward County, and it was tamed over as a vendor to BSO. So it's nothing unusual we have not done before. I don't agree with the study. I think studies just continue to delay something that I think is necessary at this particular time. Again, to be talking about management, accountability, and transparency, I understand your opinion, but I think this is by the most easiest transition we'll have at the end of the day compared to fire rescue and also port and airport. But that's up to you, sir. You have more expertise in this than I do. You've studied it. I'll follow your lead on it. Thank you. Commissioner Furr. Thank you. I'm all for taking a good look at it, but I'm a little hesitant as well because I think I'd like to hear from Fitch, who did all the Fitch reports. I know when we first got here, he had examined the dispatch ad nauseum and had lots of suggestions on it. And what I've watched is through the 11 years I've been here, I was always getting phone calls because it just wasn't up to where those cities that had moved, it hadn't gotten better. I haven't gotten any phone calls lately, which is I'm glad, and I don't know if anybody else has, but I haven't gotten any phone calls for about a year. And so I'm like, okay, finally, it's actually kind of working. And so part of me is saying, oh, okay, I don't want to mess that up. And I kind of want to make sure that we're not blowing it up again just to go through that. So that's my concern. I imagine you probably haven't been getting phone calls either, and you probably did before. Actually, I've gotten obviously phone calls in support of this item. Okay, okay. They're wanting that transition to happen more expeditiously than I even thought they were going to. So I actually have received zero feedback and negativity at all. Okay. And I haven't heard one way or the other on that. What I'm talking about is the people who didn't get dispatched, it didn't happen quick enough. That's what I'm talking about. So I'm more than willing to kind of go forward and just see where this goes a little bit. Because I think we could run it well, but I want to hear how we're going to do it. You know, that I haven't heard yet. I haven't heard the details. Okay, next meeting. Okay, okay. Thank you. Moving down the dais, I just want to add one thing with Senator Geller and Commissioner Furr. It would be really great to explore and talk, but Sheriff's not talking to us. Sheriff's not negotiating. Sheriff suspends even before he's suspended. Sheriff, if you're watching, all you've got to do is come and talk. We've had some great lunches, Sheriff, but you just don't want to talk and just talk and negotiate with us. But again, how do you, I'm going to support Commissioner, you know, Fisher on his item. And I hope everyone does because we deserve three things. We deserve accountability, transparency, and we deserve somebody that will come and talk to us and answer questions. And if somebody's not going to be available to answer questions, then we need to go somewhere else so we can have an expert oversee it that we can deal with. Next, down the line, Mr. Yudin. So I see my friend Tracy in the back, Tracy Jackson. And he and I and maybe Brett and some people from Coral Springs back in the day sat through grueling hours of MSD hearings when they talked about a lot of the different things with dispatch. And the one thing that I always that I that I left with was and when when they came and said they needed more money because they needed more people. It was like the first time that they had come to ask us about that. We gave them the dollars and those dollars were there. But there are multiple studies that were done by that MSD commission and multiple reports where they talked to the dispatchers and they talked to the people that were there. And it went way beyond money. So the way that that worked and Commissioner Fisher mentioned it, but I'll mention it just a little more basic. If you plug it in, it's ours. If it breathes, the sheriff was responsible for managing it. That's how the contract and that's what they said at all those meetings. And I can tell you the people that were there that were operating, they had no clue what the structure was. They didn't feel like they received the right training from management there. They didn't feel valued. They didn't feel appreciated. It was more than a couple of dollars to get some more people there when they told us that. Now we've given them the dollars to get the people there. This is something that can be managed if it's done with proper management techniques. And that was always something that stood with me at that. So I would support seeing a plan if there's a better way to manage this. And if it's better for public safety and there's a better way to manage it, I'm happy to support it. And like I said, the sheriff should be here talking about this or he should have his team from 9-1-1 here. I get most of my 9-1-1 and that information from Tracy Jackson, from Brett and his crew, and from the people in Coral Springs. I've toured their PSAP. I've seen their management. I've seen what their leadership does. The Coral Springs group was managing head and shoulders above what Sheriff Tony was managing. Mr. Davis. Thank you. I guess my only question would be if administration has already or will, before it's brought back to us, speak with the affected cities. And, you know, what is their take on it? Because I think there are three separate locations that do 9-1-1. And so could a city decide, you know what, I don't want to be with the county. I want to go to another city that's doing that work. So I'm going to ask Mr. Ruiz to come in to the podium. So from the perspective of a regionalized system, the cities that are currently engaged in it do it under that structure. So I think what you may be alluding to maybe is something that came up, I think, on our one-on-one discussion about whether or not those cities that might have contracts with the sheriff for their police service, that would maybe be a little bit different than the actual dispatch and call taking. Because that's under ILAs through the county. But Mr. Ruiz, if you can clarify. Certainly. So there are three locations for the regional public safety answering point. They really operate as one PSAP. All three have leases. We have no concerns about our long-term relationship at those locations. So if the board were to choose a transition over to us, it's really only transitioning the personnel. Those leases would still be in place. The equipment would still be in place. And no physical space would be impacted. If the concern of yours is are the cities as a whole, since essentially every city in Broward County takes advantage of the regional system, even if they're not part of the regional system, there are still interactions with them. Have they provided feedback? Do they have any concerns? As of yet, they have not advised us that they have any concerns. We have not been told of that yet. We would be doing more conversation, more outreach with every single city, unlike fire rescue, which was a little bit more limited. This is essentially all of them. So we would make sure that we would continue to do that communication between now and whatever decision point the board might have and see if there are any concerns. Monica did mention the regional interlocal agreement, which we have with all of them, that sort of binds us all together. I suspect that they view this as a county sheriff issue. And so long as the protocols, the people, the technology did not change, therefore the performance remains the same or better, I would suspect that they wouldn't have any great concern. Great. Thank you for the clarification. Yes. Okay, great. Do I have a motion? Number 36. Do I have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said you're ready. You want to speak? Go ahead. Go ahead. You don't need to go through me. Just talk to Monica. All right. Can you tell me what you envision as the organizational chart and how you include the cities? I heard Michael mention that you guys would have conversation with the cities so they know things are okay, nothing will change. But I'm just trying to envision your department. Where do you see this falling? This new, it's not new, but it's new. So, given that this board has already voted to return fire rescue back to the county, I would envision creating a public safety department that would include both fire rescue and 911 should this board engage in wanting to pursue that as well to come back to the county. And then there would be, we would formalize a structure at that point. So that's, this is the first conversation y'all are having about 911 about bringing that potentially back to the county. So, by next meeting, we'll have a better idea of what that might look like should you guys decide to go forward with that. But as far as personnel, we certainly would welcome every single employee that is part of that system to come over to the county and we would work with the unions or the union, the two unions, obviously the fire rescue and 911 to integrate, you know, into our workforce. Okay. Can you share with me, everyone else seem to have the answer. Can you share, when you say communicate with staffers, how are you proposing to do that to tell them that they will be comfortable here with the Broward County as opposed to where they might be and how are we going to be proposing to communicate with the union? Because they are critical. Absolutely. We would, you know, certainly do that after your vote. You know, they're not our employees. At this moment. So, I think as a courtesy, we don't, you know, have a habit of going over to other jurisdictions and speaking to others until you all have decided to take that action. But there can certainly be some informal conversations with union leadership at such appropriate time when you guys take that decision under consideration. Are we ready to vote? We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Rich. On item number 36. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Show that passing unanimously. Let's go on. Let's go on to the aviation number 32. So, Mark Gale can get out of here. Reading Clerk. Item 32. Motion to approve first amendment to the technology products agreement between Broward County and Simpleview LLC as assigned to Granicus LLC for website design and hosting services for visit Lauderdale Airport and Seaport. Extending the agreement by three years until November 18, 2029. No member of the public has signed up to speak on the item. Do I have a motion? Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. 38 was an item I had that had to do with moving the reorg meeting from November 17 to April 1, 2027. I'm sure you'd want to support that but it was a joke. And I was trying to be funny and but April 1st April fools but we don't have time so I'm going to just let's just we're going to abandon that move on. Sorry bad sense of humor. And Nan did you think it was for real? Oh good okay. I'm trying to get you Nan. Let's go do the public hearing. Public hearing. He was ready. Okay number 27. The public hearing on item 27 is now open. Item 27 is a motion to adopt resolution granting renewal of a non-exclusive unrestricted port vessel. Oily Waste Removal Services Franchise to Crystal Clean LOC for a new five year term. No member of the public has signed up to speak on the item. Do I have a motion? I have a motion and I have a motion second on item 27. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Show that passing unanimously. 28. The public hearing on item 28 is now open. Item 28 is a motion to enact ordinance adopting county land use plan text amendments PCT 26-4 through PCT 26-8 regarding Broward. Next. No member of the public has signed up to speak on the item. I have a motion and a? Second. Second. All in favor? Move approval with the amendments. With the amendments. Okay. I have a motion to move approval with the amendments on number 28. Do I have a second? Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Show that passing unanimously with the amendment. Number 29. The public hearing on item 29 is now open. Item 29 is a motion to enact ordinance pertaining to claims against or by the county's admitting section 1-51.3 of the county code of ordinances regarding delegated settlement authorities. No member of the public has signed up to speak on the item. Move approval. I have a motion and a? Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Show that passing 29 unanimously. Number 30. The public hearing on item 30 is now open. Item 30 is a motion to enact ordinance pertaining to to towing and immobilization services amending chapters eight and a half and 20 of the county code of ordinances. No member of the public has signed up to speak on the item. No. It says sponsored by Mayor Mark Bogan. I was given this by the industry. I see Keith Polyakov here and I put it on. I think there's been some amendments to it. Mayor, do you want to take them together? Item 30 and 31. Okay. Sure. If I can. 30, 30. Can we only read 31? Our final public hearing item is item 31. Item 31 is a motion to adopt resolution pertaining to to towing and mobilization services amending section 40.50 of the county administrative code. Two members of the public have signed up to speak on the item. Who's that? We have James Jennings and Mr. and Mrs. Y representing Sunshine State Towing Association. Okay. You want to call up the first person? James Jennings. Mr. Mayor. I think 30 has no amendments. I would move item 30. Hold on. Can we move 30 without 31? Yes. Yes. Okay. Hold on sir. When I had read it before. Is there a level one background screening with this? So the change, the amendment that's being made here implements level one background screening for anyone who's involved in the tow. But is it involved with 30 or is it 31? In 30. It is with 30. Yes. The ordinance is the part that imposes a level one background screening. Thank you. Okay. I got a motion on 30. Do I have a second? Can I understand 30, please? Because I have some questions on the rate changes and all of that. Does that involve 30 or 31? 31 is the rate changes. So item 30 is amending the ordinance that implements level one background checks and also a category of severely damaged electrical vehicle. And then the fees are all addressed in 31. Thank you. So I have a motion and a second. Second. And a second on 30. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Show 30 passing unanimously. Let's go to 31. 31 there's amendment. Do you want to let the, we'll let the public speak first and then we'll bring it back? Come on up. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the commission. Keith Polykoff here on behalf of the Sunshine State Towing Association. I did sign up as well. We haven't been before you actually since 2007. So it's almost been 10 years before you last. I just did a quick average of the cost of gasoline between 2007 and 2026. The average rate of diesel fuel was $2.92 average between that time period. And today we're facing $6.29 per gallon for diesel fuel. Just to show you the difference. We're very aware of the economic realities across the county. And those economic realities impact the towing association as well. Most of the towing companies, the larger ones, are struggling to stay afloat with single digit margins. These tow trucks now, the standard tow truck is $44,000 just the cost of insurance. And the vehicles are only getting four to six miles per gallon. We're here to seek a few modifications to the regulations. We appreciate the approval of item 30. It's been great working with staff. Again, we haven't been here in 10 years on this. The only things that we're seeking different from where staff was is that, I don't think they disagree with the first part. Currently, the rate for the CPI, which is on the transportation index, not cost of living index, and there's a major difference. The transportation index has not moved in years. In fact, it was a negative movement last year. What we're seeking on that is that the county look to the rate in June and then set that, and then that rate takes effect in October. Currently, that rate is looked at in January and takes effect in October, and that nine-month period is severe for the towing industry. So all we're asking is to shift the date because you all are on a fiscal year. And the second thing that we're asking is the fuel surcharge. You all did a fuel surcharge as it relates to taxi cabs. We're appreciative of that. We would like the same fuel rate surcharge, but based on diesel fuel. And basically, what we're asking is when gas exceeds $5, when diesel fuel exceeds $5 a gallon, today, again, it's $6.29, but the 10-year average is $2.92, that we get a one-time fuel increase for Class A and Class B tows, which are the smaller tows, of $15 per tow, and $25 for the corporate tows, which are the giant tow trucks that tow the Goodyear blimp and otherwise. We did agree to the annual level one background check. We truly appreciate that. We think it's best for all of our county to have tow drivers with that background check. It costs about $100 per tow driver, but we're happy to hit that cost. We appreciate the approval with the amendment. Thank you, Keith. The next speaker is James Jenning. Now I need glasses. When I was here 10 years ago, I didn't need glasses. So good morning, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Keith just took all my talking points. So I just want to say hello. I just want to reiterate that, you know, the reason that we're here in front of you today is obviously because of what's going on with the economy, what has been going on, the costs that we're facing, and they're facing all the residents of Broward County. We understand that. All the residents and all the small businesses, everything from groceries to utilities to gasoline, and in our case, diesel fuel, which Keith hit on. You know, the diesel fuel back in 2020, we were paying $2.50 a gallon. Today, two weeks ago, fuel was up to $6.43 a gallon. And it's just hitting our bottom line severely. You know, when you're dealing with companies, and a lot of the smaller tow companies in this county, they're not all the 20-truck outfits or the 30-truck outfits. A lot of the towers in this county are companies with three, four, and five trucks. And there's diesel fuel costs that are rising 50% to 100% for them. It's really affecting a lot of them. And our storage situations, obviously everyone knows what real estate is in Broward County today. You know, when we were here back 10 years ago, we could lease an acre of land for $8,000. That's in the city of Pompano Beach, Ryan. We could lease an acre to store vehicles on for $8,000 to $10,000. Today, that's $16,000 to $18,000 to lease that same piece of property that we have to store these vehicles on. And that leads back to the electric vehicles. We're trying to keep up with safety recommendations that have been put out by the government, the state fire chiefs associations that say that these vehicles need to be stored. They need to be stored with a 50-foot perimeter around them to keep them segregated from other vehicles, 50 feet away from any structures, you know, our buildings and our offices. So to do that, we have to, you know, we're not allowed, we can't put as many vehicles on an acre as we could before when you compare electric vehicles to other vehicles. So we're having to build bumpers or build bunkers for these electric vehicles so that if they do catch fire, which has happened in our facilities, that they don't cause other vehicles to catch fire and burn down or even burn down our facilities. So those are just some of the points. Basically, it's just, you know, we're being hit hard the same as everyone else, everyone that's going to the grocery stores and everyone that has to put gasoline or electricity in their vehicles. So, and I just want to say real quickly that what you did for the proclamation for the, for breast cancer, when you had everyone come up here and all the ladies come up from the audience, all the effective people that come up, that was fantastic. That was really a great thing to see and I'm really glad I was here today to see that. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you. I'm bringing it back. Do we want to go? No, let Commissioner Davis start and we'll go around. Yeah. I do have some discussions regardless of whether it's the amendment or not. You got 30 seconds. I'm joking. It's going to be longer than that. So let me, let me start off here. The issue is, and again, this is to do with 31, correct? We finished 30. So the issue is not whether towing companies such as yourself have legitimate operating costs. The issue is whether the county has sufficient evidence to justify each proposed additional mechanism for increasing what consumers pay, particularly when non-consensual towing often involves a consumer who did not choose the towing company or the price. A reasonable policy approach is to recommend documented cost evidence, proportionality, and clear explanation of why the existing annual adjustment mechanism is insufficient before adding multiple new rate escalation mechanisms. Now, as was mentioned before, that the county already has a transportation index adjustment mechanism. Over the years, there's been increases, automatic increases that are given to the industry. So this is something, and I have some questions for staff, but I'll continue first before that. Because you're looking to increase the 3% ceiling to 5% when the 3% has been working quite efficiently. So the 5% ceiling itself would produce a relatively modest additional amount to the current $175 for a regular vehicle, Class A tow. But the larger policy concern is that the higher ceiling would operate alongside the separate fuel charge and the EV surcharge. So it's compounding charges. When a consumer voluntarily hires a towing company, the consumer can generally compare providers and prices. However, in a non-consensual toll, the consumer does not select the service or negotiate the price. Government maximum rates, therefore, have a consumer protection function. The county, we have to be very careful when it comes to creating layered charges for a service that a consumer was required to purchase, rather than voluntarily selecting. When it comes to the EV storage surcharge, from what I read, the proposed surcharge is a 300% increase. And again, how that's calculated, I don't know. You know, we have to see how many EVs were towed in Broward during maybe the most recent year. How many required special handling or special storage? What additional equipment is actually required? What additional labor and training is documented? What additional insurance or facility costs are documented? What is the average incremental cost per EV tow storage event? Why does a documented incremental cost support a 300% surcharge rather than a lower cost-based amount? It is reasonable to recognize legitimate incremental EV costs. If they are demonstrated, it is not reasonable to assume that a large percentage surcharge is justified without a documented cost methodology. Now, let's go to the diesel fuel surcharge. This proposal will add $15 for Class A and B vehicles, $25 for C and D vehicles, when diesel exceeds $4 per gallon. So the question is, why is $4 per gallon the appropriate trigger? What actual fuel cost data supports $15 for Class AB and $25 for Class CD? Why should the fuel cost be handled through a separate surcharge rather than the existing annual adjustment mechanism? How frequently could the surcharge be triggered or applied? Is the surcharge tied to an objective fuel index? If so, which index and why? Again, the county should avoid creating a mechanism that allows ordinary operating cost fluctuations to be passed directly to consumers on top of an annual rate adjustment without a demonstrated methodology. Finally, I want to be clear that I recognize that towing companies are businesses with real operating costs. And I'm not opposed to reasonable compensation for legitimate increases in those costs. But I believe our responsibility on this commission is also to the residents who, in a non-consensual tow, did not again choose the towing company or negotiate the price. Broward already has an annual transportation index mechanism and it seems to have been working over the years. The bottom line is, before approving a higher annual ceiling plus separate EV and diesel surcharges, the commission should require a transparent cost analysis showing what each charge is intended to recover, what the actual incremental cost is, and why the existing CPI transportation index mechanism does not already address the underlying costs. And questions for staff through the mayor and through our administrator. I have a few questions. Did I ask you or? Yes. Okay. I was just going to ask Mr. Vialpanda, just as the commissioner has questions, if you can answer, please. All right. So what is the documented cost basis for increasing the CPI ceiling from 3% to 5%? Is that something that you've looked at with the towing industry? No, actually. And how in the past has this 3% worked in their benefit? Yes. Essentially, from the time that they were last year in 2018, the tow rate for a Class A back then was $1.25 in 2018. And diesel was $3 a gallon. Today, that same tow is $1.75. So it automatically increased in eight years by $50. And the maximum distance that they can tow a vehicle is 10 miles, which means two gallons of fuel would be used. Back then, those two gallons of fuel would have cost $6. Today, the same two gallons of fuel would cost $12. So their fuel costs went up $6. But the amount they get per tow went up $50. Obviously, they had other increased costs. But the reason why, and they're one of the only industries that does get an automatic CPI increase every year, was to compensate them for their increased costs. And the code did do that by increasing just that one tow by $50. And just so you know, because of the automatic increases over those eight years, the same tow in Miami-Dade, which generally has more expensive costs than we do, is only $145. Whereas in Broward, it automatically already increased to $175 if you made zero changes today. Right. So they're benefiting the county to the south. You know, cost of living is high everywhere across South Florida. So here we are starting at $125 in just a few years. We've taken into account this commission, took into account the escalating costs of the industry. And so we're now at $175. Okay. Now, you mentioned about the cost difference as far as the increase in diesel fuel. Asking for $15 extra when really we're talking about a $6 difference for the distance that they have to travel. It wouldn't be $15. The increase would actually be $6. And so there's no method to these arbitrary numbers. Now, I know I'm trying to speak to the director, but I see he's been occupied over there. Mr. Vialpondo. The time for them to be talking to you would have been before now. Understood. So what I was trying to understand that the $25 fuel surcharge that the industry is asking for doesn't seem to add up based on the fuel costs. Right. Essentially, in 2018 it was $3 a gallon. Today it's roughly $6 a gallon. And the maximum private property non-consent tow distance under state law is 10 miles. And so you're looking at, you know, they mentioned that average fuel consumption is about five miles per gallon, assuming worst case scenario for one of these vehicles. So that would be two gallons of diesel, which would cost them even at double an extra $6. And they're, you know, again, asking for $25 for the, you know, again, there's some conflation between private property non-consent and police directed. You know, there's no distinction really made in the amendments about those different types of tows. We as staff primarily regulate the private property non-consent tows, you know, somebody who, you know, maybe goes to the bar and parks incorrectly and then gets towed. And those are generally more expensive, whereas the police directed are handled under police contracts. But at any rate, the way that the ordinance is written, yeah, they would be getting $25 for what's essentially a $6 increase. So, yes, so that's astronomical, especially now when things are so hard for everybody. And with my experience, what I've seen is that, you know, the simple resident may, for example, go into an HOA and not even understand all the HOA rules. And before you know it, their car is towed because there's not enough parking for visitors. Those are the people that are going to be hit with these additional costs. And in terms of the EV towing percentage, staff, how is that calculated? Have you looked at this 300%? Essentially, the way you look at the EV surcharge is that, as far as I know, no one else has such a thing. Certainly Miami-Dade and Palm Beach don't. I believe they went to the state to see if they would institute it, and I believe the state did not. Essentially, for the tows that we regulate, which is the non-consent private property tows, generally those tows would be functioning vehicles because people drove them there and parked illegally. We don't get into the police-directed as much when you might see an accident vehicle. So, essentially, there are some rules they have to comply with if the vehicle happens to be damaged. Essentially, what would happen, though, is if they just charged somebody an EV storage surcharge, because I deal with the complaints, right? Somebody would have to, A, know they weren't supposed to be charged it because their vehicle wasn't damaged. And if they were incorrectly charged it, they would then have to know to call a complaint. And then if we investigated, then we could say, oh, was your vehicle damaged? It wasn't. Okay, you shouldn't have gotten charged that surcharge. It would put the burden on the consumer to know that they don't just automatically get charged this because they happen to be driving an EV. And the way the code is written, it does not discriminate between a private property tow where the vehicle would be generally undamaged and a police-directed tow where it's possible it was in an accident. And then maybe just because it was in an accident, for example, I drive an EV, my battery was not damaged. But, you know, it could be damaged. And it would be very difficult to determine whether or not the charge was correctly applied. All right, so that's problematic. Lenny, can you just stay up there? I think most of the questions are going to be directed to him, right? Yeah. Just stay there for him, please. Yeah. It's quite problematic just in and of itself to regulate whether who's, you know, 300% on an electric vehicle that was really maybe not even damaged to the extent. And there's no law in place that requires this. The state hasn't put it in place. None of the other counties have this. So he's mentioning maybe that Martin does, but just, you know, the counties we compare ourselves to do not. I know Palm Beach County postponed their consideration of this change waiting to see what this body would do. Because their director of public safety called me and asked me if we were going to be. Well, I'm based on all the answers that you've given me so far. I'm a definitely no, definite no on this item. We cannot unduly burden our residents of Broward County and then say, oh, well, you know, the industry wants it so when it's not uniformed across South Florida. And I'm just not in support of this item as it stands. All of the amendment. Any fee changes. What I could live with is the, and that would be the time when they do get their payment based on the 3% CPI. Yeah, the timing is purely a policy decision for the board. It would have no impact on the way that we do business. Thank you. That's it for me. Okay. Any other questions? Now, before we start, we know we have a meeting, immediate following this. So we don't have to extend the meeting, but this is our last item. So let's see if we can, we can bring it in. Mr. Mayor, nonetheless, I would move to extend until you feel as well. We don't have to extend it. I'm saying because it's already scheduled until 1230. So just any more comments? You are acknowledged, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Fisher and I both have amendments. So. Correct. I'll let Senator Geller go first because my amendment was based on the industry's request, but I think that Senator Geller has some tweaking on that. So I'm going to let him go first if I can, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. I still have the floor, sir. Thank you. I'll ask Mr. Villopondo to come back up because I drafted these working with Mr. Villopondo. First of all, I have no problem, as Commissioner Davis said, with the June to October date. It sounds like it's maybe unreasonable to ask them to wait nine months, so I have no problem with that change. I also have no problem with the 3% to 5% because it's either actually CPI or 3%, whichever is lower. And this would change it from CPI or 5%, whichever is lower. So if CPI is actually 4%, they should be able to get the 4%, so I have no problem with that part that they want either. The two items that I had concerns about, and since we were drafting as late as this morning, I'm not sure if they're drafted exactly the way I want. First, Mr. Villopondo, it's the issue, intuitively it sounded to me like when they said categories A and B would get a lower number and categories C and D would get a higher number. That made sense to me until you explained about the 10-mile rule. Now, although Commissioner Davis has already brought this up, if the difference in mileage is, well, you indicated that the C and D, which are the heavy-duty ones, are probably 5 miles per gallon. A and B, which are lesser, would have greater fuel efficiency, more than 5 miles a gallon. But let's say it's 5 versus 10, you're talking about a dollar, about what, $3 difference in fuel maximum if they're tolling 10 miles? Maybe $6. Senator Giller, can I interrupt you a second? You may. I have a doctor's appointment, so I'm going to be running, but he's got the gavel. Sir, I had the gavel. I'm going to tell Keith, best of luck, and take care of guys. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good luck with your doctor. Good luck. Sir. It would be $6 max difference from the 3 to the 6 on the class A, on class C and D vehicles, correct? Yes, sir. But if it's, then it would be half that, $3 if they're talking about A and B, and $6 versus C and D. Correct. You indicated that the price difference that they're asking is 15 surcharge and 25 surcharge. Is that correct? I believe you indicated to me that you thought that it would be fairer if we did go with the $15 surcharge for A and B, but made that A, B, C, and D. Is that correct? Yeah. I mean, essentially, if you did a flat number only because the worst-case scenario probably lended to be a smaller number than what the number was, then yes, that made sense. Okay. Because, so again, I'm not sure if it's drafted that way, but what I would ask is that we give them, they are asking, I believe, 15. Okay. I'm okay with the $15 maximum surcharge, but I think based upon what you have said, that should be regardless of A, B, C, or D. Right. And based on the amendment that you had submitted, essentially what it would do is look at the prior year's average diesel price? That was the second thing I was about to get to. The other issue that I have, and I think that part is drafted correctly, the concern I have is if you go with a 3% or 5% increase and you assume that diesel goes up at the same rate, in a few years, 3, 4, 5 years, whatever it may be, we'd be already, it says there'd be a surcharge if it's over $5. Well, if because of natural inflation in five years from now, it's $4.50 a gallon, I wouldn't want to do a $5 surcharge or whatever it is when they reach $5. So working with you, my amendment says that if it's gone up by $1.50 or more in the last year, then you would get the numbers you're asking for. But I don't want to have to come back, I won't be on the commission then, but if through inflation it's gone up to $4 or $4.50 in five years from now on everything, there shouldn't be a large surcharge because that's not, the intent is what's happening right now. You guys clearly need relief right now for what's happening right now and I'm okay with that. Nobody expected the cost of diesel to double, but if, you know, we shouldn't automatically do a surcharge if it's gone from $4.50 to $5.25, that's not the kind of issue you're talking about. So, Mr. Mayor, I have two amendments to the ordinance. One was to eliminate the hire for Class C and D and the second was, again, as Mr. Villopondo largely has drafted this, so I hope I've got it right, but describing it that it would be if diesel goes up by $1.50 or more, but take away the arbitrary $5.00 or $6.00 because we never know what it will be. Did I correctly describe that? Okay, so those are my two amendments, Mr. Villopondo. So, can you restate your amendments, not with questioning in between so that others will understand what we're going to be voting on if there's not another amendment to the amendment? Okay, okay, well, so, can I ask the county attorney to off-explain this, Mr. Mayor? Again, these were drafted this- But state the amendment, not- Right, can I ask the county attorney to describe, and with Mr. Villopondo's assistance, so don't sit down, you keep wanting to sit down, stay there. Don't want to spin out of your way. Right, if the two of you could explain the amendment. The amendment that Senator Geller has explained is partially described in additional material 31C with some modifications, and so, you know, it's a modification shown on 31C on page 17, beginning on lines 364. The changes would read, the changes there would say, if the difference reflects an increase of $1.50 or more per gallon, then, and this is where it's a little bit modified, then what's been distributed, a surcharge of $15 per tow shall apply. Yes. Then we're going to delete what he shows in his amendments as for Class A and B tow. So, I'm just going to read the new language. Capital T, the surcharge shall be, I'm sorry, shall apply. So, then we delete the rest of item 369, 370, and then start at 371. In its review, the division shall reply upon the data from a recognized entity that tracks fuel prices and continue from there. So, that would be the first proposed changes. If I could, just, you know, in layperson's terms, what it would do is, instead of being a surcharge at, let's say, a $4 per gallon or a $5 per gallon price, and then it being a different surcharge depending on the class of vehicle towed, it would be based on the prior year's average diesel. So, for example, last year, the average price per gallon of diesel was $3.52. So, we would look at last year and say, okay, AAA said it was $3.52 last year. If this month, right now, after you passed this, I looked at AAA and it said the average price of a gallon of diesel is $1.50, more than that, that would trigger a $15 surcharge regardless of what class of vehicle is being towed. Does anything trigger, let's say, the economy adjusts and it goes back to? $3.50. Is there anything in there that? The way it's written, it goes every month. We would check the average again for that month. And it adjusts? And it would adjust back down. The surcharge would go away if it was no longer $1.50 above. And it would remain if it was remaining to be $1.50 above. So, it would, once a month, be based on the prior month, so it would be old data, but it would auto-adjust per month. So, there is a mechanism in there that would adjust with the economy so that we can, okay, so this would just be a one-time. Adjust with the price of diesel. Just be a one-time, okay. Okay, and this does also leave in the June to October so that they wait three months instead of nine months. And it does also leave, increase the maximum of, from three to five percent, but that's, it's either CPI or actual cost, whichever is lower. So, again, I don't have a problem with if it's four percent inflation thing, they should get the four percent. So, that's additional changes to what was presented? That's the underlying ordinance. June to June, was it in there? I'm saying, are you going to add that to it? So, that's his proposed amendment, amendment 31. She read that. So, that's, how many, how many changes are in there? So, Senator Geller. Steve, please let her explain it so everyone understands. I prefer to have her explain it. Thank you. Senator Geller is proposing to amend the item as provided in item 31B, which are the changes to the transportation index and the point at which they get considered. And also, the, that is the three to five, that it's now a five percent increase, the lesser of five percent are CPI. So, that's the changes proposed in 31B. And then, 31C additional material is proposing those changes as provided there, except for the changes that I previously described that make it. So, it's just a flat $15 increase per tow, regardless of the class of people. Okay. I have. Thank you. Commissioner Fisher. Yes. And I think these two late amendments came in today. I had proposed one yesterday afternoon, but I think that what Senator Geller has placed now in B and C is probably better than my 31A. So, I'm going to withdraw my 31A, and I'm hoping that, obviously, the industry understands 31B. So, I'm going to withdraw mine completely. This was really for the industry to begin with, but now I'm going to second his amendment to the motion. Comments from the days. Yes. And so, I'm not in agreement at all. I believe these are compounding costs. We already have the three percent annual to take into consideration any increases by the industry. Most people don't get that, even on their jobs. Some of them don't get that. So, you got this three percent max. It doesn't have to go to five. They've been operating quite well at this point, going from 125, according to what I hear, for Class A, just in 2018, to now 175. So, there's not an issue here that they're not getting increases, which other counties are not even doing. This is something that is unique to Broward County, for this industry to be getting annual increases to the tune that they're getting in Broward. And to add to that, now you're adding a fuel surcharge, which is more than what we've calculated it to be. Instead of $3 or $6, it's a whopping $15, with no consideration to the public who have to be paying this cost. And then, you have the 300% surcharge on an EV vehicle. That's enough to really deter folks from purchasing EV vehicles at a time when gas prices are high. So, I do believe that this is certainly not in the interest of the consumer, and solely in the interest of the towing operators, which clearly, they need relief, but they are getting relief. Any more comments? Go ahead, Senator. I just want to also go back to the EV storage. So, did we change anything there? I mean, we're still at that. And Dade doesn't have it, and Palm Beach doesn't have it, that extra. The current ordinance, as amended, provides for a surcharge for electrical vehicles. So, you'd have to, someone would have to make a motion to change that. But just for context, right, it has to be severely damaged. So, for instance, if it was just a non-consento with no damage to the vehicle, and there's some criteria in the ordinance that lays out what a severely damaged electrical vehicle is, it has to meet that criteria, and it has to have been stored electronically and documented to be stored separately, then they'd be eligible for the fee. So, it is not a mere additional storage charge, just for just towing an EV vehicle. Senator Rich, with your permission, Ms. Mayor, that amount is, we adopted that in item 30, but the amount is in item 31. If you wish to amend that amount, if you consider that number too high, you could amend that in item 31 now. If you wanted, I'm not, I think it's a reasonable number, but based on it, but if you wanted to offer an amendment to reduce that amount, you could do so here. Okay, but what I'm trying to figure out is, what are we doing that's different? Why are we so much more, there's so much cost versus Dade County and Palm Beach County? That's what I'm trying to figure out here, and I still don't have an answer. Senator Rich, again, if you wanted to make that amount zero, you could do so in item 31, or you could move to reconsider item 30. Either would do what you want, but in order to do what you want, you would need to either reconsider 30, or change the amount of the fee to zero, or some number lower than 300. Those are the two ways you could accomplish what you want. Is there a desire to do that? What would you like to do? I think there's a desire, but I'm not exactly sure, you know, what is the appropriate amount. That's what my issue is here. What is the amount, Lenny? What is the amount, Lenny? Monica. Should there be an amount at all? A recommendation, thank you. So, essentially, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade are asking the same question. You are, they had gone to the state to see if the state would institute it. I think the answer is that no one wants to disincentivize an EV. That's correct. And I would just say, from my perspective, it's very difficult to enforce this surcharge, because the way it's written in the code, and the way it could be written up to people, is just, you have an EV, you have to pay the surcharge. And it would be on the consumer to know that only if their vehicle's severely damaged should they have been charged this. And then they would also know they'd have to know to complain to me. So, my main concern is that the way it's written and just, you know, the way that it could be implemented could be difficult from a consumer perspective to understand and difficult for me to enforce. So, I'm personally just, it would just, again, make it difficult. I mean, I can just tell you there are so many charges that get tacked on, and I try to explain to consumers all the time, you know, why, you know, this happens. I had one of our employees at Water and Wastewater get towed because he parked his car out front of his apartment, but it was a rental that he was renting because he couldn't afford to fix his regular car, and the rental got towed because it didn't have a residence sticker, and it cost him $500. And, you know, it just, these things just, it's just difficult for me to enforce. That's all. Yeah, yeah. Well, I, where are we, Lenny, where are we now with the EVs right now? Right now they get just charged the regular storage as every other regular vehicle would be charged, yes. Yeah, that would be my, that would be my motion then to go, to go back to what we have, especially if Dade and Palm Beach don't have it and maybe at some different point the legislature will change something or we can figure out something else, but I, you know, the consumer is going to end up paying this and not even realize that, you know, this is going to happen to them, and I just, I don't. I can't support that. Just on the EV? Just on the EV. Okay. Just on the EV. So is that a supplemental motion on that one, or can we add it to what's being proposed by Senator Geller? To. She's just. I just did. She is talking about EV only. Right, EV only. As you so eloquently asked her to do initially, and that's what she did, in that, on that line item only. So for EVs, if we want to stay under item 31, right, you could change the storage fee to zero, so there's no additional storage fee, and that could be your motion to amend the item so that throughout the ordinance. Well, I'm asking, is that what's going on in, I'm not getting it, Dade and Palm Beach County. What's going on there now is a proposed change. They're the same. If you have a desire for what you're asking, hold on one second. If you have a desire, then we can change it right here. No, I'm going to ask. I don't want to be charging more than Dade or Palm Beach County for it. Currently, all of the EVs are charged $29, right? So the standard storage charge is $29. This amendment creates an EV surcharge, which is the multiplier of the $29, which is how you get to the bigger. So if you didn't have a surcharge, let's say if you made it zero, as you talked about, then the EV would revert back to the regular storage charge, which is just $29. That's what would happen. Or you could reconsider item 30, either one. Yeah, so in order to get rid of the whole concept, because we've already passed item 30, which established a framework for us to impose the fees, we could go back to item 30 and reconsider it. But you could also accomplish the same thing, which is having no fees, by just making the fees. Let's just do it like this. No, I want to put this amendment in to get rid of this. And do it in 31. I mean, I don't know why we have to go back to 30. I mean, unless you're telling me, we have to go back to 30. No, so Senator Rich is proposing to amend item 31 to change all the electrical vehicle fee surcharges to $0. Right, to the same thing that Miami-Dade and Palm Beach County are doing, which is the same price as all the other vehicles. First of all, you have to get a second. Do we have a second or a motion? I know, but... I'll second it. You'll second it. Okay, now go ahead, please. But I'm not voting. I'll vote for you. You're not voting yet. I know. You've got a second. Okay, I'm not supporting any of this, actually. I'm not. I don't think this is in the... You know, I don't think this is broke. It hasn't been broke at all. It's been working fine for a long time. Everybody is having to kind of tighten their belts. I don't care who you are. You've had to with inflation. That's all this is, is trying to... But everybody's having to do that. Towing companies are going to have to do the same thing until things ease up a little bit. I'm voting no on it. I don't think we need to change the thing. We have Senator Gellar's motion on the floor with a second for the changes in C. That's what's on the floor right now. I have debate on her amendment. We don't need debate. We need to vote on... It's your motion. Yep. With your amendments. All she did was clarify C. Just C. A question to... All right. Hold on a second, Steve. Question for who? Debate. You say... Okay, well, hold on. And then we'll go to Fisher and we'll come back to you. Yeah, I just want everybody to realize, and I understand about the EV issue, but I actually personally, it was probably a year, year and a half ago, visited Emerald Towing because they wanted to bring us to my attention about the storage of the EVs. And I saw where a severely damaged EV vehicle caught on fire and it actually took out multiple cars, right? So if that car had been encapsulated in what they're required to do, that would contain that fire. So it's almost like a concrete box that you have to put these vehicles in. They're severely damaged because of the fear of the damage it's going to cause the other vehicles that might not be so damaged. And all of a sudden, now they're liable for those cars. So it is an issue that we've got to deal with. And there's got to be some cost attendant to that to take up that much real estate. You know, Mr. Jim was talking about how much an acre ground cost 10 years ago cost today. So if you're going to make it acquire these 50 foots and all these other issues you've got to deal with, there's got to be a cost to that. And I understand Senator Rich's problem, but at the same time, we've got to be able to accommodate this problem that we're having. EVs are great, but it's impending on their operation and destruction of other property that otherwise shouldn't be destroyed. So we've got to have a compromise here. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Go ahead, Senator Geller. I agree, and that's what I was going to say, largely what Commissioner Fisher said. Now, I don't know if $300 is the right number, but I do know that if an electric lithium battery gets wet, then you have towering inferno. And they burst into fire severe and can cause, you know, severe damages to a lot of things. Under this scenario, under the amendment that we have, they only go with the extra $300 if the vehicle battery is damaged and if they place it in this separate concrete or CBS structure. I think that it is appropriate to charge an extra fee. I don't know if $300 is the correct number, but I believe that it is correct to charge extra. I have a statement. Go ahead. Sorry, it's not $300. I just want to clarify the record. It's $200. It's $29 times three, so it's $80. Mr. Davis, you recognize me. I just think we are going down a very slippery slope, coming up with just numbers and saying, well, what number do you think? What number do you think? Oh, this is a good number. That's a good. That is not how you govern, first of all. And there's no urgency in a lot of this. Over the years, the industry has been compensated, but they haven't done so in Palm Beach or Miami-Dade, the way that we do it. Automatic increases. And for us to sit here and say, well, what do you think? Zero, what do you? That is not how you govern. Pulling numbers out of a hat. That don't make sense. And so this is, I just don't think this is the right thing to be doing at this time when the consumers are going to be on the hook. And you've already heard from the director. He's not even comfortable with enforcing some of this stuff. There's a motion on the floor right now that has a second. And if there aren't any other motions, we're going to entertain that motion. We're voting, yeah, with that included. Senator Rich's amendment first and then. We're voting on Senator Rich's amendment to the original amendment by Senator Gellar, 31A, I believe it was. All in favor? All opposed? No. Hand count, please. All in favor? Yes. Right. Just to keep it at zero, not to change the whole thing. Can we hold on a second? The mayor is calling in for a comment. Just hold on a second. Okay, we'll come back to the vote. You have 30 seconds, sir. We are two minutes from our meeting, our next meeting. Go ahead. Now, will you accept the motion to extend for as long as you want? Can I make a comment? Please. I don't think this is going to get the majority to pass anyway. There needs to be more work done with Lenny's office. The numbers kind of came. Rather than just voting it down, let's just defer this until they can bring us potential numbers. I mean, I wouldn't vote for this today. I'll make a motion to defer it. Is there a second? Second. This is the public. Indefinitely? Yes. I'm in agreement with that. On this one? The whole thing. Hold on. The motion is for everything. Let's hear from the mayor, and then we'll entertain, okay? So I've got the mayor on speakerphone. We're getting the number for calling, but he only has three or four minutes before he goes into his appointment. So he wanted to. You're on speaker, Mr. Mayor. So is the vote to not approve an increase, correct, for EV? Right now, Mr. Mayor, I believe the vote is to defer indefinitely. Okay. Well, that means we can bring it up at a future meeting. That is correct. We have a motion. That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Well, if there's support for that, I'll vote to support that. Okay. The motion on the floor is to defer indefinitely, and we have a second on it. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Ayes have it. Next meeting. It's been deferred, Mayor. Vice Mayor Dewey? We're going to reconvene. We're going to come back and reconvene, or can we call this one now? This is done, and we're at 4.30. So this meeting is completely done. This meeting is adjourned. It's adjourned. I've got it. Thank you.