Testing 1, 2, 3. Is that better? Right now. How about now? Testing 1, 2, 3. Is that better? Can't hear anything now. Jack, they did say it's all the way up. Jack, I don't want to say it's user error, so I won't say that, but maybe it's one of your settings. Well, someone's on the phone here from this 357. Can they tell me if it's low on that thing? Because we'll find out if it's mine or yours. We're checking. Actually, Philippe, you're on. Can you hear when they speak? Yeah, I can hear you. Can you hear? I heard you. I heard you very well, Philippe, so that's not an issue. It's your room, then, guys. In the control room, I hear perfectly over here. Well, I can hear Philippe fine. I heard the control room fine. I just, I'm not hearing the main room. Philippe, can you hear us now? Okay. But it feels like far away. Yeah. Okay. So is it better if I speak very close to the microphone? Yeah. It gets better. I can hear that now. Okay, we're going to get started in a couple minutes. This meeting is being recorded. Okay, so before we get started, the audio on the Zoom, they're having a difficult time hearing us unless we are very close to the mic. So if you speak, please speak closer to the mic. Just a little housekeeping. Okay, so we will call this meeting to order Wednesday, September 23rd, 2.36 p.m. Good afternoon. It's good to see everybody. We've got a brief agenda, but an important one. So we will just jump right into it. First, we want to welcome our new administrator, Jonathan Hopkins. I know some of us have got a chance to spend some time with him, but we're thrilled to have you here, Jonathan. So welcome to the team. Since everybody's met me, I'm not going to add anything, but it's thank you for volunteering to help support this program. So excited to have Jonathan on board, and he has hit the ground running. No pun intended. I don't know if there's a transport. I don't know. I did not mean it to be, but okay. Is there any public comment on any of the regular agenda items? We have no one signed up today. Okay. Seeing none, we will move on. Thank you. We sent out the minutes from the April 1st meeting in advance of the meeting. Hopefully everyone has had a chance to review them. Does anybody have any corrections or changes they would like to see made on those minutes? Seeing none, I would like to entertain a motion to approve those minutes. I'll move to approve. Second to motion. Okay. Any discussion? Any objection? Seeing none, minutes are approved. Next order of business is the motion to appoint. Also in the backup material and in the item in front of you, you have received information about Kenneth Ortner, and the motion that we will entertain once I finish speaking here is to appoint Mr. Ortner to the Transportation Surtex Oversight Board in the category of accounting. I guess I'll read this for the record. As defined in Article 5, Section 31 1⁄2-75A, one of the Broward County Code of Ordinances. I hope there will not be a quiz on that because I will not pass. Okay. So I'll entertain that motion, and then we can have discussion. So moved, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Okay. So discussion for Ken Ortner. If anybody knows him or would like to speak on his behalf on the committee, please do so at this time. If I may be heard, can you hear me okay? Yes, Jack. Go ahead. Yeah, I've known Ken for a long time. He's an outstanding choice, very qualified, very diligent, good work ethic. He's volunteered on numerous organizations and foundations and charities around South Florida. He's one of these guys. He works hard. He puts the time in the news to be put in. So I highly recommend him. Thank you, Jack. Any others that know Ken? So I'll add that it's been many years, but we served on, I think, the Riverwalk board together, maybe Leadership Howard as well, but it's probably 10-plus years. And my interactions with him were always great and very positive. I just hadn't seen him in a while, so I was happy to see a familiar name come through the paperwork when he was put forward. Any other questions or discussion? For some of the newer members, just as a reminder, you'll see the last page has a certification. Any names that come to us to vote on have already gone through the certification process and the conflict of interest check, and they have to attest, and staff also does their due diligence to make sure that anyone we are seeing here is eligible to be appointed. So you don't have to worry about that as it relates to eligibility. Okay. Is there any further discussion or questions? Okay. I'll call the question then. All those in favor of appointing Ken Ortner, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Same sign. Okay. Seeing none, he is appointed unanimously. Thank you to Mr. Ortner and to staff for preparing this. We are excited to get him onboarded and in the seat of the accountants. So is there any, just moving on on the agenda, is there any general public comment on non-action items? I don't think anyone knows. No, it's not. Okay. Thanks, Roy. So we'll move on to discussion items. Number one is the proposed amendments to the county ordinance that I tried to keep numerically correct up above. As far as its relationship to the independent surtax oversight board and the appointing authority. So are we going to, well, actually, I'll hand it over to Nate. Thank you. Yep. That's fine. I'll be able to give a very short explanation. We did discuss some of this on the April 1st meeting. Subsequent to that, the legislature enacted various bills this session, one of which necessitates a change in terms of two of the categories for the oversight board, or excuse me, for the appointing authority, which are going to be incorporated into the proposed ordinance that will go before the board of county commissioners at the end of October and into November. We've also did proceed forward with making the change to one of the categories for the oversight board in terms of the representative from one of the institutions or public institutions of higher education in Broward County to expand that out since they do not have individuals that work in the specific field that's currently referenced in the ordinance. And at the request of this body, we also expanded out for the oversight board that it is not necessarily somebody who holds a current license, again, as a CPA, as an attorney, as all of those categories, to expand it out to individuals who currently have or previously have held those certifications, provided that they had never been revoked and those individuals would be eligible to continue or get those licenses back. So we're expanding it out to, again, open up the field of individuals who may be able to or may seek to serve when there is a vacancy on the oversight board. And other than that, a couple of little ticky-tack things, and we are not changing Chapter 31 1⁄2 to a whole number for reasons unknown. Is there any discussion or questions for Nate or staff on these recommendations? Mr. Chair? Go ahead, Sidney. Yes, Mr. Chair, my question to general counsel relates to one of the pieces of legislation that have triggered what I regard as some of the changes that has been proposed to the ordinance that regulates this appointment authority as well as other, I'm guessing, other county programs. And so my question, understanding that there may be occasion by which legislation that has passed, has been executed and enacted by the governor, then becomes challenged, and a successful challenge would render that legislation perhaps void or have some consequences that would, again, set up a scenario where this board has been in a position to approve or at least to recommend amendments to what I regard as an existing program that has worked well for at least a decade, is there a mechanism, Mr. General Counsel, that could be employed that would essentially reverse the actions that we're taking now with respect to, for example, to this particular appointing authority in the event there's some, again, challenge to that legislation that is successful? Or are we anticipating that the changes that we're proposing be permanent irrespective of what happens with a potential challenge? And obviously, I'm not certainly suggesting that anything that goes forward has any degree of success or failure one way or the other. But if we presume that a challenge is successful to, and I'll just repeat it for what I believe it is, Senate Bill 1134, does the county expect that the changes that we're recommending for approval to the county commission to still be in place? Or is there an opportunity or a mechanism that can be built in this proposed ordinance that would allow for an automatic reverter of the regulations that we're proposing now? Mr. Calloway, those are all very good and important questions, given the nature of why changes are being made or being proposed for the board of county commissioners consideration. In terms of trying to put trigger language with an automatic reverter, it would not be our office's recommendation to do that. But just for the reason that we've had similar ordinances, not on this particular topic, but similar ordinances with that kind of catch-all language in them that have resulted in adverse litigation to the county. I believe that the legal phrase is being too cute by half, and the goal is not to be that. However, I would say the following, that to the extent that any particular legislation is ultimately determined to be unconstitutional or void, I would suspect that there certainly could be one or more commissioners that would give direction to the Office of the County Attorney to revisit the ordinance to bring it back to the earlier state that we are operating under now. So it's not something that we would include within the ordinance itself to avoid potential risks associated with doing that. But I can certainly commit to you, and I'm sure that each of you have avenues to speak with the various members of the commission, that to the extent that any law is overturned that may result in the ability to make changes to the ordinance back to the way that it is now, that that that would certainly be taken into consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. And, Mr. Chair, just a couple of other thoughts, given the general counsel's response. One is, again, I'm not sure necessarily of those other circumstances or matters that has given the county attorney's office pause with respect to a reverter clause or worse to that effect. But I would certainly, at least as a member of this board, have a question to county staff as to whether or not that reverter clause could be put in and see to what extent the county commission could still make a decision on that. And I understand staff's record, or at least the general counsel's recommendation. But the last point, and then I'll be quiet, Mr. Chair, is I would solicit the support of my colleagues on this appointed authority to make some level of a recommendation that brings us back to what I regard as a set of regulations that brought us here to the table over the past decades that has, I think, has done pretty well by the county, but also, more importantly, by the taxpayers who have entrusted us to make the decisions relative to the persons that are appointed to the overall board. So I would absolutely solicit the support of our colleagues that we make a recommendation to the county commission that some substantial consideration be given to bringing us back to where we were in the event there was some successful challenge to the legislation that brings us to the point where we're looking at revising the regulations as we are now. Just a point of clarification, because I'm not super familiar with what our options might be. What vehicles do we have to communicate to the county commission what Mr., my friend Cindy, just said? So if we're going to vote on this action item and we have the ability to do what? Well, first of all, there is no action item to be voting on in connection with this. That's right. Discussion item. You're right. You're right. If it's the collective comments from the members here today that that is something that you would like to have communicated, we can include some language in the agenda report that goes to the board that discusses this particular issue. You also obviously have the county administrator here, and you have a representative from the county attorney's office here. And I think based on what we're hearing, unless I hear otherwise from your colleagues, this is certainly going to be an issue that is front of mind to the extent that some, you know, some individual out there or organization out there makes the determination to challenge any particular law. And it is ultimately upheld or excuse me, ultimately overturned by the court of highest jurisdiction dealing with it. That that that will be a discussion that winds up happening with between county staff, the county attorney's office and members of the board. And if there's a motion to direct us to revise the ordinance further, that is something that would proceed forward. Go ahead. Mr. Chair, I also want to be I was in another meeting a couple of days ago, and we had a opportunity to at least reference the work of both the county administration, including the county attorney's office. And I just want to make sure that I'm on the record here by saying that, you know, I've been in Broward since 1993. I've represented clients before the Broward County Commission and before and against Broward County. The Broward County attorney's office and the administration, but I'm referencing particularly the county attorney's office. One of the finest county attorney's offices that I am aware of, period. And I'm saying that to say not just to give polite courtesies, but I am also saying as part of the recommendation that I have strong confidence in the ability of the county attorney's office to represent the county's interests on matters that are particularly germane to this discussion today. And so with that in mind, again, I'm also suggesting, Madam, Mr. Chair, that I do think it's important that we know that we, the extent to which there are challenges or there are scenarios, that we do have some of the finest lawyers that are here that is capable of representing the county's interests. And I would stand by them on any day of the week. Thank you, Sidney. On the phone, Felipe or Jack, is there, we'll have kind of go around the table here too, but I'll give you both the opportunity to either share your support for Sidney's comments or not or just remain silent, which is obviously okay too, but I just want to open the floor up to anybody else who would like to speak. I'd rather remain silent and not make comments. Thank you, Randall. Okay, Felipe. And Randall, I generally support Sidney's comments. Obviously, there's a lot of details, but from the general position, I support what Sidney shared. Okay, I don't know if Monica or Stephen want to share anything. Sure, thank you. And yes, you know, I obviously, we have to, you know, comport with the law, but I generally have the same feelings of Mr. Calloway, and I do have every confidence, and should anything be overturned, that this county commission would certainly be in the position to reconsider the way that the new ordinance is going to be drafted. So, and I'd be supportive of that as well. I guess I would just support what Monica is saying, and if something is overturned, I think we should be allowed to revisit the appointments as well or the reconfiguration. Yeah, I echo everything that's been said. So, maybe the takeaway here is consensus on the direction to communicate that. I will make sure that I have several calendar reminders throughout 2027, and I'm sure that there are many people in our office that will be monitoring litigation that may or may not come about in connection with this particular law. Okay. Sidney, does that satisfy you at this stage of where we are? Absolutely. And again, I do understand the need for the recommendations to the commission today. So, yes. Okay. Great discussion. Thank you, Sidney and everyone else. So, you're right. This is not a voting item. So, just a discussion item. And these things will be coming before the county commission for a vote in the near future, as I believe the law goes into effect January 1, 2027. Okay. Anything else on these topics that anyone would like to discuss? Are we still on number one or number two? Yes, number one. Okay. Number two, we, as you all know, trying to get this meeting scheduled was a little bit of a challenge. And so, staff is making the recommendation to schedule standing meetings. They have drafted the third Wednesday of May and November as tentative dates. It's sometimes the case that we don't meet for an extended period of time because we really are only meeting if there's an opening or if we need to take action on a member that we felt we needed to remove for some reason. So, sometimes it is longer than six months when we meet. Sometimes it is longer. So, tentatively, staff has recommended the third Wednesday of May, November, which would make it May 19th, and November 17th of 2027. I believe that... I'm good. I just realized. Okay. So, I believe for now, we could just advise or direct staff to send out calendar invites to the team so that we can get them on our calendars. And we would only hold these meetings if there was business to have. Otherwise, we would just cancel them. But we're not then trying to find scheduling to get all these busy people together. The other item... Oh, Nate, I think I missed it. Back on number one, the change of five versus seven, correct? Yes, based on the discussion at the last meeting, currently, it was originally just general board policy that all sitting members must be present for action items to be taken. That's going to be... Again, per the discussion at the last meeting, that's going to be modified and reduced to five should the board decide it also wants to have a standing rule that is greater than that. It has the ability to do so, but five seemed like a supermajority, which was what the request of the body was, and that is included. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. The intent would still remain, as far as all discussions to this point, would be for all folks on the appointing authority to participate. But if for some reason something came up and we needed to get together on a shorter notice, we would have the flexibility per the ordinance to have five be the quorum. Okay? So the meeting schedule will be sent out to everybody, and we will discuss with staff whether we want to have that in Fort Lauderdale or plantation. I think our assumption is it would be here unless there is strong conflict, otherwise. Yeah. I think that's... You get two thumbs up from me on that. But I do think we could take a field trip. If you haven't been out to the MAP office, it's great. So is there anything else that anyone would like to bring up for discussion? Okay. Seeing none, 2.59, we are adjourned. Thanks, everybody. Great to see you all. Thank you. Thanks, Felipe and Jack. Good to see you both. Thank you. Thank you.