City Commission - Regular Meeting - Feb 24, 2026

Good afternoon, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the regular commission meeting of the Delray Beach City Commission this Tuesday, February 24th. If I could add the clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Markert. Here. Commissioner Cassell. Here. Deputy Vice Mayor Burns. Here. Mayor Carney. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. If you could all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. You may be seated. If I could ask everyone's indulgence just for a quick couple things I want to say. We had a great weekend this past weekend in Delray Beach. And it was nice seeing my colleagues and all of the fans coming out to watch the Delray Beach tennis tournament. And as I was watching the tennis tournament, I noticed all the etiquette of tennis, where there was no bickering. People would maybe not like to call, but they didn't argue with everybody else and the ump, and everyone got along fine. And at the end of the match, they all shook hands and went home. Some probably went out to party, but others went home. And I thought to myself, you know, that's what I would like to have here because I don't understand why we don't have it here. You know, we have – and I'm hearing it from a lot of people that there is a lack of decorum, a lack of etiquette. And by the way, I am guilty of this as well. I mean, we have a tendency to talk over each other, and I'm just as guilty as everybody else here. But going forward, I want to kind of try to show that each of us respect each other up here because we each deserve to respect each other because we've earned it. But we also need to respect you because a lot of people who have come to these meetings walk away from the meetings not terribly happy with the performance that they would have just watched. And I'm not pointing at it because, as I said, everyone – almost everyone. I don't think you were ever involved. But as I said, I'm guilty of it too. And I want to show the respect for all of you who took the time to actually come to these meetings because it's really important that you do. So this is what I want to do to try to run these – I want to try to pivot tonight going forward to try to do something that I think we – it's going to benefit us all. I think we'll all – it'll work well. So I'm going to ask my colleagues that, you know, if they want to speak, they should – we should all – you should get recognized first. Raise your hand. You will be recognized. Everybody will have their turn. Everyone will be able to speak without interruption. And that would mean – meaning for me or him or anybody, we will – everyone will get their – to speak without interruption. And I'm going to do that for everybody. And if you want to – if any one of us have a question we want to ask the city manager or the city attorney, they should address the chair, which is what the rule says. And then the city attorney or the city manager will be recognized to answer the question that one of us may have. And this way we can also respect one another, but we can also respect our constituents. Respect and decorum is not just for us up here, but it's for everyone in this room, and we all deserve it. And that's what I'm asking my colleagues to try to do going forward. I think I want to – I think we should all have – show respect for each other, show respect for you, follow the rules, no interruptions, no bickering. Just try to – try to go forward with good government. So that's my statement for the day. So if we could now – we're now going to the agenda. And if I could get – if I could get – those of you who have looked at the agenda, are there any changes you'd like to make to the agenda? Mr. Mayor, I have – I'm sorry. Oh, I was saying I have no changes. Okay. Well, you may go first, of course. Thank you. Unless they elected officials wish to China before I – No, no, absolutely. I'm sorry you looked at me when you said that. You are recognized. I got to – I'm going to have to figure this out. When you looked at me and said, do you have changes, I thought you were asking. I know, I know that we're going to do it. We're going to try to – I think everyone will be – everyone out there is going to be a lot happier if we're better up here. I just – that's – and I really believe that. Are you recognized by name versus looking at us? No, we're going to recognize by name. Perfect. Thank you. And you will be addressed as commissioner. You will be addressed as commissioner. I will be addressed as mayor. You will be addressed as – everyone should use each other's title appropriately because you've all earned it. You've all earned it. And you deserve the respect. And I want to make sure everyone is respected. And we want to respect you. So, Mr. Moore. Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would like – given the fact that the chief financial officer and members of his team will serve as the staff emissaries for what will become the financial review committee, I would like to offer a few weeks so that they can prepare accordingly so that I'd like to have this come back in the next coming weeks or so so that we can get that squared away. So, if I may be permitted, please. I think that's in everybody's best interest. Well, I mean, I think that's probably a wise move. I don't think it was – I think it's better to have the CFO involved with knowing how this is going to be organized. But to the colleagues, any – Are you acknowledging me? Would you like to be recognized? I spoke to our finance director. He's prepared, as is our auditor. I don't understand. We put this – we had this on an agenda, then it got moved to this agenda, and they're ready to go with – so why are you changing that now? The financial review committee structure is speaking with Mr. Dakowicz over the past couple days as well as today to get a full definitive understanding in terms of what that looked like. I just spoke to him again a little while ago to make sure that we need to take time to be in alignment so that everybody can offer appropriate guidance and structure. So, again, I will be meeting with he, members of his staff, so that we can be in position to offer this approach. And they are the emissary. And, again, financial review committee structure would not be a role and function of the internal audit. It would be that of the chief financial officer. So, for that reason, I would like to take the next couple weeks or so to get everybody squared away and comfortable in terms of what that looked like so that we can offer appropriate guidance and structure. And personally, without a – as in line with what we've been discussing generally up here, I don't really think that the formation of a standing committee without five commissioners up here – So, I mean, I would be happy. I don't know what you're talking about, too. Are we talking about after the election so that all five commissioners would be participating? Again, my principal concern is the administrative and financial management approach in that regard because they are the staff emissary. Chief financial officer and anybody else who deems appropriate – he deems appropriate in this case – would work closely with them. Okay. Do we have consensus to do that? Well, yeah. I don't understand what the holdup is. However, I'm hearing you're not prepared. They're not prepared. Give them time to prepare. And I think we ask for time to prepare for an item for our workshop. You've got to be fair to everybody. So, I agree. Okay. Mr. Marker? No, I'm fine with taking more time to prepare if that's what we need. Okay. Then I need a motion. Can I speak on that? No, no. You just need consensus, Dana. Sorry. May I speak on that? We have consensus. Yes? Oh, so you don't want me to speak because you have a consensus? I'm saying we have consensus. I'm trying to move the meeting along. But I think there's confusion because we haven't decided if we're having a financial review committee or if we're talking about audit review or what we're talking about because they're two very different things. And they also have components that could cross over. Until we have a discussion, this is the second time it's on the agenda. I've been asking for this since I got elected. Until we have the discussion about it, we'd have to create an ordinance and all that. This isn't going to happen before the election for sure. Commissioner, I appreciate your view, but we have three. Okay, thank you. We've got consensus. I appreciate your view. And all of that will be discussed when it's brought back. Do you want to just delete it? Do I want to disclose? You can just delete it. Delete 7B. Okay, so on the agenda we'll delete 7B. I also would like to pull, well, I would like to pull, not because I'm objecting to them, but for discussion purposes, 6D, 6E, and 6I. So 6D will be 7AA? Okay. 6E, you said? 6D, 6E, and 6I. So 6E will be 7BB, and 6I will be 7CC. Did I say D? No, 6D as in Dan, 6E as in Edward, and 6I as in Italy. Italia. So 7AA, 7BB, and 7CC. And the other, we've deleted the other. And is there any other, commissioners have any other changes to the agenda? No. Seeing none, I need a motion to approve the agenda as amended. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. We now have presentations. The Milagro Center and the South Tech Schools Collaboration. There we go. I see them coming up. And if you could, for the benefit of the audience at home, just describe what South Tech does and what Milagro does so that everyone knows kind of what you do, generally speaking, and then into your collaboration. And could you ask for the purpose of this presentation? Absolutely. But the purpose of the presentation? Well, I've been asked the purpose of the presentation. I had asked for this presentation back, whatever it was, three or four months ago after Ms. Stark and the Milagro came in and talked about the potential for expanding, along with South Tech, potentially into Carver, so that we could give our kids a better education and also opportunities for a technical education along with a high-quality education. We all toured South Tech as a result of that discussion, and then they're here today to present it to the public so that we can continue the conversation about how we can improve the quality of education for our students. Thank you. And, Mr. Mayor, if I may add to that. I'm sorry. I'm recognizing Commissioner Burns. You said to expand into Carver. Are you referring to Carver Middle School or Historic Carver Technical School? They are talking about the middle school as a charter school. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Did you have a comment? No, I'm good. Thank you. And I just wish to support the observations having been made after the discussion ensued back in the fall, a commitment and consensus was formally offered by the City Commission, which followed up with an information letter report committing to a brief presentation today, February 24, 2026. So I just wish to formally acknowledge that direction was offered. I did go back and look at that meeting. That is exactly what happened. And we did have a great visit at South Tech. And I think that we've all shared this common theme of how we want to improve education. So you're on. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting us. Yeah, that mic has to be really close. Really close. Yeah, it's bad. Okay. Thank you for inviting us to give some information about South Tech and Milagro and the work that we do together. Do I need to move it? Okay, great. And I'm Carla Lovett. I'm the Executive Director at South Tech Schools. Joining us is Tony Robinson, who's the Chairman of our Governing Board at South Tech. Barbara will introduce herself momentarily. But we also have with us some of the staff members from South Tech. And we're happy to be here to give you some information about our programs. And we are excited that you came to visit us at South Tech. So thank you. Yes, and hi. I'm Barbara Stark, President and CEO of Milagro Center. And with me today are several of our board members sitting behind me. I want to thank you once again for your recent tour of South Tech Schools. I was there as well. And also thank you for the many visits you've made over the years to Milagro Center. Mr. Mayor, you've been there and some of the predecessors have been at Milagro. We've been serving Delray Beach now for 29 years. That's where I met the other mayor of Delray, that young lad who's called the mayor of Delray. Yes, absolutely. Nice kid. And he still remembers your visit. Nice kid. And wants you to come back. So we're very happy to be here today to talk about our thriving partnership and what we envision for Delray. So just to tell you a little bit about South Tech Schools. We are unique in that we offer both a middle school and a high school, but we are 100% career and technical education focused, which means that every student in our middle school and our high school are in one of our career academies, where they have the opportunity to earn an adult-level industry certification, while they're, of course, working on their academics and working toward their high school diploma. At our high school, we serve 1,150 students. Our middle school, we serve 520 students. Both of these schools are located in Boynton Beach. Our students, both schools are Title I schools. 100% of our students are considered from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. And I only mention that right this minute because I see so many schools often across the country, in my experience as an educator, that want to say because our students are economically disadvantaged, we don't have the same kind of results. And our argument is that it doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter at all. Our school, our high school, has a 100% graduation rate. We have a 100% acceleration rate, which means that 100% of our graduates leave with an industry certification and, in many cases, also an advanced placement course or a dual enrollment course successfully completed. Most people sometimes think that because we're a career and technical school that our students don't go on to college. They actually leave us with lots of options, and they take advantage of those options. 65% of them do go on to college. The rest go to a secondary trade school or join the military. But our students have lots of opportunities. Last year, $2,394,000 earned in scholarships. Both of our schools are A-rated. And, in fact, this past year, our high school was in the top five of all high schools in Palm Beach County. And our middle school is in the top six of all middle schools in Palm Beach County. So, we're just proud that we're able to offer great options for our young people, both while they're in school and as they enter into the world. Oops. How do I go back? It went one too many. Let's see. There we go. Career academies. As I mentioned, all of our students are in a career academy. At our high school, we offer 12 different career academies where our students have the opportunity to earn industry certifications, everything from automotive technology to culinary arts, cosmetology, veterinary assisting, commercial arts. And our newest program is agriculture technology. And you can see our middle school courses, academies there. And last year alone, our high schoolers earned 1,065 adult-level industry certifications in one school year. Even our middle schoolers last year earned 170 adult-level industry certifications. So, they are achieving a foundation that is going to serve them well, even when the best laid plans, as we know. Sometimes when you're a young person and you think that your life is going to go one way, sometimes things change. They have different options and different things that they can fall back on, things that they can do. And we're happy to be able to give them both a hands-on, real-world, high-wage, high-demand industry certification, as well as opportunities for acceleration in honors and advanced classes while they achieve their diploma. May I ask, can you also talk a little bit about the ties to local businesses and the advantages to that? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think that, you know, we hear so much now about local businesses. And, again, I don't think that's just true in our area. I think it's everywhere. Local businesses struggle, particularly since the pandemic, to find high-quality, trained workers for the openings that they have. And I really do believe that it requires partnerships between the schools and the businesses so that the businesses are giving back to the schools and, in exchange, the schools are providing those workers available for them. And we at South Tech have the opportunity to have wonderful business partnerships. As an example, probably our most significant partner is Ed Morris Automotive Group. They are a supporter of our automotive technology program. They provide uniforms for our students. All of our students wear uniforms, but specific to their academy. So our automotive students have uniforms from Ed Morris. And then also they provide financial support. They also have given us connections with other entities, such as Hunter Engineering, which supplies top-of-the-line latest automotive technology equipment for our shop so that our students are working on the latest and greatest and learning how to use that. In exchange for that, we allow Hunter Engineering to do trainings after hours on that new equipment for people that are actually currently in the workforce and using that equipment in various shops around the area. So these kinds of partnerships, that's just two examples. But those kinds of partnerships, I think, are key to really a connection between what we all want to see for community growth, economic development, and sustainable industries in our area. Okay, before we talk about the community, and not specifically here, but all over, about what charter schools are and what are the different types of charter schools. First of all, charter schools in Florida are tuition-free. They're public schools. They must be sponsored by the local school district. So South Tech is sponsored by Palm Beach Schools. And we have a good working relationship with them. They monitor the things that we do and make sure that we're accountable in all the ways that we are supposed to be accountable. We are a nonprofit institution. Part of the confusion comes about, sometimes you hear about for-profit charter schools. Technically, there aren't any for-profit charter schools, but there are a lot of charter schools that are managed by for-profit management companies. And so that is a different category. We are not managed by a management company. It is literally me, the staff, the administrators, the board, and us. And we've been around in Palm Beach County. South Tech was originally a vocational school that opened in the 70s and in 2003 became a charter school. So we've been in the community for a very long time. We don't have anybody out there somewhere that's profiting off of what we do. We have efficient operations as charter schools. One of the advantages, we do have strong accountability. Sometimes you hear people say that charter schools aren't held to the same level of accountability. As someone who's worked in charter schools since 2008 in various parts of the state of Florida, I will tell you that in all of my experience, charter schools are held to even a higher level of accountability than perhaps some of the other schools, simply because the districts pay, and as they should, pay very close attention to making sure that the charter schools are in compliance with everything that they need to do. Financial efficiency, I won't read everything to you. We have efficient operations because we're streamlined. We work like a business that's trying to make sure that we can't afford to have any fluff in our organization. And charter schools actually receive less per-pupil funding than students in traditional schools. We spend less per-pupil funding, but we are able to deliver equal or superior outcomes at least for many charter schools. And we're able to direct the resources where they matter. Because we're lean, a lean organization and a lean structure, because we don't have anybody that is out there somewhere trying to explain to us how we have to do things, we're able to make adjustments very nimbly in the organization to make sure that we're doing the best that we can for our students. And finally, I want to mention Schools of Hope. Schools of Hope are a big topic these days, as I'm sure you've heard, and quite controversial, understandably so. So, I want to stress that Schools of Hope are a very specific group of schools identified by the state of Florida. There are only five organizations that are classified as a School of Hope in the state of Florida. They all happen to be run by management companies. But South Tech Schools is not a School of Hope. We do not have the same sort of opportunities, if you want to call it that, granted to us that Schools of Hope have. So, you have all these different kind of areas of charter school world that I think that it's very easy for people that don't work in it every day like we do to get sort of confused about what kind of charter school different schools are. So, I wanted to take a moment just to talk to you about that as well. And with that, I'll turn it to Barbara. All right. Very quickly, you all know about Milagro Center. We've been here in Delray Beach for 29 years. We are an after-school, out-of-school time, and summer camp program for our communities, most underserved and at-risk children and teens. We've grown over the years to serve children from kindergarten through their senior year of high school at three centers in Delray. We now also have an alumni association. So, we continue to provide support to our graduates to make sure that they take flight and that they are on a path for a productive future. We've been partnering with South Tech schools for probably five years now in a variety of ways. South Tech has their own buses. They don't use the Palm Beach County school buses. They have their own bus fleet. And every afternoon, there are buses from South Tech middle school and South Tech high school that come directly to Milagro Center's middle school and high school and drop off the kids who then stay for our after-school programs. We've also been partnering for our summer camp program. We're one of the few organizations that have a 10-week, full-day summer camp program. And the partnership we have had with South Tech is specifically for middle and high school kids. And I have to say that it's so gratifying to see like 100 to 120 middle school and high schoolers coming to a camp every day where there are mandatory academic classes. South Tech provides language arts and math teachers both on the middle school level and the high school level embedded in Milagro Center. And every day, those two hours of academics are attended by all students. We test them at the end of the school year and then retest them at the beginning of the next school year, and they all make gains. And these are teens who have many options other than coming to a regimented summer camp. So we're doing something right. We're turning out kids who go back to school ready to learn for the next year. At Milagro Center, we stress academic support. So many after-school programs talk about academics, but basically they're watching the kids do homework. We only hire teachers, and our kids are getting enrichment in reading and in math, one-on-one, in many cases, intervention, so that they're reading on grade level. We all know what the recent and last year standardized testings revealed about our third-grade students, so we're fighting against that. And we're moving the needle. But we're only an after-school program, so together with South Tech, we see the opportunity that we could bring to Delray Beach by combining what you do during your day and readying these students for careers and what we do with the enrichment of the cultural arts, music. I mean, we start teaching music lessons in kindergarten, exposure to art. We have a fully-fledged mentoring program, one-on-one, with adult mentors. If we infuse that into this curriculum, we will have a world-class school, and we want to bring it to Delray because our residents of Delray really deserve it, and our business partners really deserve it, too. As a board member of South Tech Academy, again, my name is Tony Robinson. All of the decisions that we make from a board standpoint is strictly for the children. It is for their safety, whether it's operational, whether it is safety, or whether it's any kind of fiscally, any problems that we have with the school. From a board standpoint, we are there to make sure that the kids are made first, so all of our decisions are made about the kids. And so my involvement from a board standpoint is to ensure that that maintaining stays in place as we continue to look at other opportunities throughout the area. Yeah, you can go ahead. Go ahead. So as Barbara mentioned, our partnership has been very successful. Both of our programs have results that show that we have strong programs, and by combining together, as she mentioned, we're able to sort of really expand the enrichment opportunities, the support, the whole child sort of aspects for the young people that go to school at South Tech during the day, spend the afternoons and the summers at Milagro Center. As she mentioned, summer camp, all the things that we do together. So because our board, for the last couple of years, has been interested in looking for opportunities to expand so that we're reaching more young people in our community, and because Milagro's board also is looking to have opportunities to expand to be able to offer what they do well to young people, we have partnered together to look for expansion opportunities. We have looked in Delray. We've been looking in Delray for some time. Barbara and I have looked at many different buildings that might be available, both in Delray and in surrounding communities, Boynton Beach, Lake Worth. But as you guys know, property and buildings that are conducive to what we want to do are few and far between in our area these days. So we just wanted to come and explain to you what we are, who we are, what we do, and let you know that we're looking for the right opportunity, whatever that might be, for expansion. Yes? Yep. That's it. Just if you want to know more about us, here are our websites for both of our schools and our programs. Well, thank you very much for the presentation. You know, you made a very casual remark that only less than 1% of the schools can ever make, which is that there are actually improvement over the summer in the comprehension levels of kids. And I don't think most people realize just how important that little tidbit, that little fact is, because in most of the schools, it's really the – most kids go the other direction during the summertime. They don't have the options, as you say, to attend. Commissioner Casale? Yes, I would just like to say thank you for bringing this presentation to the public. I do – I appreciate – I didn't know what a Hope School was, so I had to look it up, and we're not a persistently low-performing school. But I do think when you look at opportunities today and what's available for our children when they get out of high school, somebody having a backup plan with technical skills that can step out of high school and get a job if they opt not to go to college, that's an outstanding opportunity that most kids in a regular high school do not have. And as we start building them in the middle school, they may develop an understanding of what they want to do, and they can transition in through high school. And your graduation rates really speak for themselves, and the fact that your kids get out and they have multiple different types of opportunities is amazing, because so many of our kids are graduating from our schools without a lot of opportunity, and that's what we as a commission are very concerned about. So I really appreciate your time here today, and I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thank you. Commissioner Burns, do you have anything to add? Well, I just want to thank you for your presentation, and I've visited, enjoyed my visits at South Tech, and I've also visited the Malagro Center. But I wanted to ask, are you at capacity at the Technical Center? You're at capacity? Yes, ma'am. So your programs are full? Yes, our enrollment number, we don't have any more room for more students. Okay. You know, as I said, your programs are awesome, and so have there been conversations with the Palm Beach County School District for what you, that's in your plan about Carver? I've talked to a couple of school board members about various opportunities. Yeah, just an informal conversation. Okay. All right. Well, I won't, because I have like 100 questions here. However, I won't take up the time for that. I'll meet with you and ask you those questions individually, but, again, thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Commissioner Marker. Yeah, thank you. I just want to say thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for the South Tech tour that we took a few weeks ago. That was eye-opening for me. For those of you that haven't seen this facility, if you've got time, make a few minutes to see what's going on there. It really is magic. These are like world-class classrooms with real-life equipment and, you know, state-of-the-art stuff these kids are learning. It's fabulous. And I happen to be in Chicago at a conference not long ago, and there were a lot of teachers and administrators that were there, and I was talking about this was right after the tour, and they were all looking at me like, Delray, what? How are you getting all this stuff? Like, so I feel like we are pushing the envelope here. I think it's so great. I have talked to a couple of the automotive dealership owners, and they love what we're doing here. They think this is right on. It's going to really help them fill some much-needed jobs. I wasn't, he's not in a set with me, I wasn't as aware, but with all the electric vehicles that are being pushed out now and people are driving more, there aren't mechanics that are trained to deal with EVs. And we're bringing out kids that have those skills, and they're paying top dollar for it. So tip of the hat for the work that's going on. I'm super-duper impressed, and I thank you for letting me be a part of it. We thank you so much for visiting, and I'd be remiss if I didn't introduce you guys to Josh Wigglesworth. He's the principal of the high school that you visited. So, Josh. None of the students say anything bad about you. It wasn't like my high school, so I don't know what you're doing, but. It's called cash. I want to thank you all for the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. And you guys do great work. Thank you. In fact, you know, I brought my car into some place. I said, well, we need to get this piece of equipment. I said, you know, I actually know where they have that piece of equipment. And it's your training center. So thank you all for really thank you all, and thank you staff over there. And Josh, we've met before. Just thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you again. Next on the agenda is the Federal Legislative Update presentation from Michael Willis of, there you are, of Color 9 Group. Good afternoon, Mayor, Commissioners, Manager Moore. Thank you so much for having me today. I appreciate it, not least because you got me out of Washington, D.C. Well, thank you for accepting our invitation. Thank you. I do want to say I had a great visit today with a lot of your staff to talk about projects and things that are happening here in the city that we might be able to find partnerships on the federal level for funding and policy issues. And so I just want to say thank you to Jeff Orris, Chief Hunter, Jerry Pryor, Hassan, and Juan over at Utilities. And I didn't get to see Missy and Cynthia today, but they're always a pleasure to work with, and we've done a lot of work with them over the last year. So I just want to give a nice shout-out to them for the work they do because it's very helpful and makes my job a whole lot easier. And so in this past year, I wanted to give you an update today on the things that CNG has been doing in D.C. on behalf of the city, both 2025 and then give you an idea of what's going on in 2026 and what we expect further into the year. And so some of our key accomplishments this year is that we were able to secure $57.5 million for wastewater and stormwater projects. And that's not direct funding, but it's a set-aside pot of funding that the city has access to and can draw down, and it's not competitive. And so those are funds that we can go back after for years and years for projects as we need them. And so there were some issues with that funding right after we secured it. I'll tell you a little bit more about that in a minute. We were also able to work with the Army Corps on a stormwater master plan, and just trying to put together whether or not that makes sense for the city to use a federal agency to assist with that. We're still working through some kinks. The Army Corps is having a little bit of issues getting their act together this year. So we're still working on that. We were able to secure $1.45 million just about a month ago for the Tropic Isles project in the Transportation HUD Infrastructure Bill. And so we're excited about that. We worked with Congresswoman Frankel's office on that very closely. There were some issues with the Army Corps. We had this funding going through the Army Corps to get the $57.5 million, and some issues popped up last second. And we were able to work with your congressional delegation in about 20 hours to move that into an account that actually could get funded in the budget very quickly. So we were excited about the opportunity to get that funding done this year. So as I mentioned, we did have some issues with that $57.5 million right after it was secured, about two months after it was secured last year, just in the middle of the budget process. The federal agencies changed the rules for the project qualifications. And so while we were trying to get the funding, it had already been approved here at the Florida level at the Jacksonville Army Corps headquarters, changed the rules on us, and we had to go a different direction. But we were able to secure the funding. And we also were able to work with Congress to draft legislation that we thankfully didn't have to run through the committee, even though the committee approved it. The Army Corps, after hearing our argument of how it keeps projects from being funded, just on February 13th, reversed their position and made projects eligible again just the way they always have been. And so we'll be pursuing those funds again in 2027, which 2027 for us starts here in a couple of weeks. And so that does mean now that you have access to those dollars. The Stormwater Master Plan, again, we're working through the Army Corps and federal agencies just to see if we can find the right funding match to help cover those costs of that project and that they can do the scope of work the way the city would like that done. Once that's completed, that will allow us to identify future projects, stormwater projects that need to be completed and funded either through federal or state dollars. And we will be assisting with that as well. And then, again, 1.45 in transportation funding for Tropic Isles was just awarded. Those funds should become available this summer. That's our expectation right now based on everything that's happening in D.C. And so we look forward to working with you guys on those. And then in about six weeks, we're going to start the FY27 appropriation cycle, where my meetings today with many of your staff were to begin the process of identifying projects for this next year that need funding and to also look down a couple of years to see where the optimal funding might be versus 27 versus 28. And so we'll start working on those. And primarily that would be water, stormwater, wastewater projects, transportation projects, law enforcement, those kinds of dollars would be available there. And then also for grant funding, our contract last year was expanded to look at grant funding. And so what we've done this last year is put together a comprehensive matrix of funding from the federal and state level for local projects that have been identified. And many of those include things like FEMA disaster grants, infrastructure grants, EDA or Safe Streets for All transportation grants. And so as the year progresses and those grants become available, meaning they're open for applications, we'll be assisting the city as they need with applying for those funds. And so thank you again. That's kind of the overall view of everything we've been doing. We've been pretty busy. We're very grateful, even with all the work that we're doing for the city, that your staff are always on top of their stuff and make it really easy for us. So thank you guys. Thank you very much. Commissioner Burns, any questions? No questions. Thank you for your presentation. Commissioner Marker. No questions, but thank you for the obvious thorough work you did. We really appreciate it and your guidance. Appreciate it. Commissioner Casale. Yeah, I would say thank you. And I think we see oftentimes there's always – there seems to be a preference for, you know, safety, law enforcement and the like, and infrastructure. So – and you've gotten us some substantial funds, and we appreciate that. With respect to the stormwater, where are we at? I think our stormwater master plan was completed in 2018 and implemented in 2019. Are we still working off getting money on that, or are you suggesting we do another plan? I wasn't clear on that slide, so that we can use the newer plan to get future appropriations. My understanding, and I don't want to step on the toes of staff who know far more on the technical details of that. Yeah. But it's just an update to the map. Got it. That's what I was thinking, because I don't think we've worked our way through the entire plan, even though it's been quite a bit of time. Thank you. I appreciate your time. I was going to have a bit of a follow-up on that. You are telling our staff, or you are showing our staff which – I mean, where dollars are available, and we try to modify our plan so that we can qualify for those dollars. Is that what we're talking about? Not necessarily modify your plans, but make sure that if we're going after federal dollars, that the policies match what you're trying to do, and you don't have to modify your plan too much, that you're not actually accomplishing what you're trying to accomplish. So we try to work with the agencies to make that happen. I want to thank you for everything you did. Congresswoman Frankel actually called right after this. They got the 1.45 all excited about what she got for Delray. We were all at an event, and it was great to hear that. Really, thank you for the work that you do. Thank you so much. Mayor, if I may just real quick. Please. Jeff Horace, Assistant City Manager. I primarily work with Michael on these things. I also wanted to let you know that not only is he bringing these things forward, but any time we have any issue with any federal agency, we reach out to Michael. He's off the top of my head. I can tell you he's worked with us on other issues with the Army Corps, the Department of Justice, and the FCC. So he's been very helpful in making sure that we have access to these people, and it's not us being one of many, many people calling these people out of thin air. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming, Mr. Willis. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, we're now to the comments and inquiries on agenda and non-agenda items. First, the City Manager, responses to inquiries and highlights. Not at this time. Thank you. Goody. Well, this is the portion of the meeting which is open to the public. Any member of the public wishing to address the commission on an agenda or a non-agenda item, except quasi-judicial or the public hearing items, come to the police. Make sure you sign in. Give your name and address, name and zip code at the lectern, and you will each have three minutes. Hi, Commissioner and Mayor, Albert Richwagon, 298 Northeast 6th Avenue. I'm here again to plea with you for relief from the nuisance created by club subculture, severe lack of parking for over a year and a half. The in lieu of approval was flawed to start with, the application stating there was sufficient public parking within the application's required distance. The required distance was measured as a crow's fly, not the actual walking distance to Pineapple Grove, with no FEC railway crossing at 3rd. They stated they were going to be a grab-and-go coffee shop, the only liquor-free establishment alternative away from the avenue. They brought the liquor and the entertainment to our block. While in the first month of being open, they applied for a restaurant and liquor change of use and were approved administratively and then had live band concerts. Emails clearly show this. This was not approved by the commission and without public input nor review. I'm one of the few neighbors who will speak out about it. The rest are afraid of the clients' and the owners' backlash on social media threats and doxing. Speaking of social media and Google reviews, I will submit for the record from their own clients stating the severe lack of parking and them acknowledging that they don't have an off-site lot. That the clients were being towed and ticketed and the club-like atmosphere in Subculture Coffee also giving negative reviews to my company. You can read them for yourself, slanderous and costing my family business money, time, and a drop from five-star to 4.1 Google ratings. I had to pay an attorney to have over 10 negative reviews removed from my business. The PD and I came up with a plan and an idea to have a Delray Beach Police PD ghost-marked police car parked at my shop for over a week. It worked for two days. Once they figured out there was no officer in the back, then it was back to the same old no consideration for others or the rule of safe parking laws. While I have lost one valuable parking space all day, I was instructed to report directly to the Delray Beach Police Officer, Williams, by you. I did so for a few months. Did anyone see the report? I have asked for it. No report to date. The officer at one point said the parking problem was resolved, that the city put up orange cones. I put up the orange cones. They worked for a while. Now they just run them over. The owners of the cult have done nothing to improve the parking situation. There is no safe sidewalks, no legal parking lot stripings, or directional signage. People back out onto Federal Highway daily. I have people test riding bikes. This is a hazard and a danger. They are having a coding event right now with 50 RSVPs at this exact moment. Thank you for your time and dedication to our wonderful Village by the Sea of Delray Beach. Thank you very much, Mr. Rischwagen. Mayor. Yes. Can you just let the public speakers know that if they're here to talk about Brooks Lane, the noise ordinance, If you're here to talk about Brooks Lane, the waiver, or the noise ordinance, that's in a public hearing, and you'll have the opportunity to speak then. That's all we had, right? Those are the two. Well, the others don't. We're going to speak. Okay. Does it go? Okay. I'm Ronnie Denair. First of all, before I start. I'm sorry? Zip code, please. 3-3-4-4-4-5. Excuse me. Before I start, I want to thank everybody up here for your work in trying to save the banyan trees at our Delray Beach golf course. It means a lot to me, and I appreciate your effort. I know it's not easy. The reason I am here, though, I would like to talk a little bit about the progress that we have made in terms of the Pride Monument project that we spoke about. A couple of things to let everybody know. I've been asked a number of questions about it. One of the ones always is, what does the memorial stand for? What I'd like to mention is it stands for Ascension, Energy, and Integration of Self and the Soil. And it represents stability, earth, fire, and water. We have a wonderful designer. Her name is Michael Varga. He's a Delray Beach artist and owner of Varga Studio, which he took over from his father. He's been here for a number of years. He's created a rendering for us at rather affordable prices, and also he has offered to maintain it through the years if we are able to go forward with this project. The other thing that I want people to understand, because there seems to be some confusion about what the memorial or the monument means, the reality is this was an anti-terrorist attack in which over 49 people were killed. Not everybody understands this, but the person who did this actually talked about it being in retaliation for an American act of killing an Iraqi human being. So people need to understand that there's a wide diversity of people who were killed that night. It wasn't just an anti-gay action. The other big question that comes up is, who's going to pay for this memorial? Well, I want to be very clear that the city and the taxpayers will not be charged with having to pay for this. And the way that we have gotten this to come about is we have a 5013C that has offered to partner or sponsor us. They have, the name of the organization is Compass. Compass has been in business for 35 years. They're rather well known. They are very well liked in their community because of the community support services they provide for people, everything from mentoring to counseling and social work. The other wonderful thing about it is they will create a separate account for us that we will have access to. They will manage fundraising with us. They will also have their staff, who I have met with, their marketing people, and their PR people will manage a lot of the advertising. They will create a website for us, and they will not charge us a penny. No other not-for-profit gave us that option. So I want to let people to know that that's where we're going. Also, the CEO, Julie Seaver, has just been nominated for a Women's Chamber of Commerce as the annual Woman of the Year. So it's a very stable, wonderful organization. Thank you very much. You bet. Good evening. Deborah Walker, 33444. I am here today to give a big shout-out to the Pompeii Park team. On Sunday, February 22nd, my church, St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal, celebrated its 69th organizational tea. Our venue was the gym at Pompeii, and the team did a marvelous job helping us set up for a successful event. This was our 69th celebration, and we celebrate community in the Delray Beach and South County area. We celebrate citizens and youth in areas of community service, lifetime achievement, outstanding service, and rising stars. This year's honorees included a former employee of Delray, William Dennis Murray, a 30-year employee who taught swimming and tennis at Pompeii Park, and Chief Daryl Hunter. Both were community service honorees. Other community service honorees were Commissioner Angela Burns, Kenya Madison with Healthy Adele Ray, and the Pompeii Park Senior Divas were all honorees at the 68th annual organizational tea on last year. Again, a big thank you to the Pompeii Park staff for their continued support. Thank you very much, Ms. Wright. Good afternoon, Mayor, Commissioner. I'm Andrea Brun, 334445. I'm the founder and the CEO of the Incredible Hope Foundation, a breast cancer awareness initiative for people of color. In October of 2023, we hosted our annual fundraiser, one of our annual fundraisers, which was consistent with the event we had held the previous year. As required, we completed all applications and contracts associated with the event to the city staff. At no point during this process were we advised that there would be any costs associated with hosting the walk. In fact, both in 2022 and again in 2023, we were explicitly informed by the city's event coordinator that there would be no charge provided we remained on the sidewalk and didn't require any road closures. And, well, to our surprise, in 2024, approximately four months later, after the event, we received an invoice in the amount of $1,100. The invoice contained no itemization or explanation, only a headline reading, beginning balance. This is both surprising and concerning. We have been deeply disappointed by the response we received while attempting to resolve this matter. When I raised the issue with the city administrator, I pointed out that there was no mention of any costs in the contract or related documentation. I was told that this information had been communicated at a CTAC meeting. To date, we have no recollection of being informed of any such charge and would like to formally request a copy of the minutes from that CTAC minute for review. I am certain that we were never advised that this event would incur a fee. Furthermore, receiving an unexplained invoice several months after an event without prior notice, documentation, or itemization is unreasonable. We respectfully request clarification, supporting documents, and a review of this charge. Sincerely, thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Moore, could you make sure that they get all the information that they need to review? Of course, I will. Not only that, but I will arrange a meeting with you and everybody else involved, administrators, so that we can get down to business and offer the noted clarity as well as a prospective path forward. So, we'll be in touch tomorrow to make arrangements, Ms. Bruton. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Cynthia Ridley. I live at 210 Northwest 2nd Avenue. I'm going to speak to the same thing Andrew just spoke to as well. We, in the set, has been given like two or three bills, and when we receive them in the mail, whoever sends them out, finance. I think we did a cookout in the park one year, and I think the next month we got a bill for $1,500. No, like she said, no reason for what we got it, no what we are paying for. Then the next week, I received one for $500, and I did have a meeting with someone, and no answer was given. So, we're doing a lot of things in our community, and the next thing we know, we don't know what we are paying for, why we're paying for it. And I just think it's unfair when we're in this community doing a lot of free events for this community. And then we receive bills that we charge no money, no money from, but the city has sent us bills. I can bring them in. I got it. They send them to us each month for a cookout for $1,500. No reason why the bill. I received one for $500. No reason, no explanation why and the purpose of this money. So, I think you need to have city manager, I think you need to have all the meeting with all these folks that we're receiving bills, and they don't even tell us why. Is it to pick up trash? No clue. I have no reason, and nobody is giving us any explanation of the reason why, but we receive these bills every month that we owe the city of Delray money. And these continue to be free events for no charge that we're getting bills from not to pay it back. So, I hope you are sincere about saying you're going to look into it. I hope we can get these bills wiped away because we cannot do any more events when we owe bills to the city that we charge nothing to this community. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, if I may please. Yes, please. So, Ms. Ridley, as I just committed to Ms. Bruton, you will also be part of that visit. Absolutely. So, you'll hear from my office tomorrow. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Ms. Ridley. Hi, everybody. Marjorie Waldo, Arts Garage, 33444. I always say it, but it's true. I love living and working in Delray Beach. Today, I was fortunate enough to go to Boca. That's not the fortunate part. For the AIDS for Victims of Domestic Abuse Heart of a Woman Luncheon. And the keynote speaker, Denise Brown, the sister of Nicole Brown Simpson, remarked on the participation of law enforcement being key to the solution of domestic violence. Three of Delray's finest sat just off my shoulder, including Chief Hunter. They were right there. And I'm super grateful to be in such an amazing town. I did want to mention that the workshop agenda, when you look at the attachment for Arts Garage's lease, it shows amendment number one. There is a, from 2018, there is a second amendment, and I can send it. It was executed on March 2nd, 2021, so it needs to just be updated in the thing. It's not the correct amendment. Our lease is not due to expire. Arts Garage's newest program, Out of the Black Box, is an annual residency program for a theater company without a home base. We provide space to create a full production, including concept development, rehearsals, and performances, as well as community engagement opportunities. We hope you'll be part of this launch with Recchio Ensemble Theater Company, Recchio Ensemble Theater Company, by attending one of the six performances of their play, Wrecked, probably named after me, as I am often wrecked. That was funny, Mayor Carney. That was funny. You know, I left the laugh track at home. I apologize. I won't make that mistake. I gave ten seconds for the laugh, by attending one of the six performances of their play, Wrecked, beginning March 12th and running through March 22nd. It explores endings and what comes after, with six actresses shapeshifting into multiple women confronting endings, marriages, careers, friendships, parenthood, civilization, and sometimes sanity. A play is devised, this play is devised and performed by the New York City-based theater company, the Recchio Ensemble, and we'll hope to get another theater company in for the next year. So, I hope you'll come check out the play. Thank you very much. Thank you. By the way, I have the Second Amendment. You do have it. Yeah, I do have it. Very good. Okay. Good evening. Alex Burns, 33445. I just wanted to remind everyone that the city charter has citizens at the top, and then, of course, commissioners, and then so on and so forth. And I do get triggered when I hear sometimes from the dignitaries on the desk speak in terms of I or what I feel or what I think. You're not up here for you, but you're up here for we the people. So, I just want to definitely put that out there and put that on record. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Burns. Lucica Suarez, 33444. I want to start with some positives. I want to thank the city and everybody involved for getting us some sidewalks because I was concerned about our children that have a bus stop on my corner. We have lights in the alleyways. Thank you, Jesus. And y'all. And I am thrilled about the speed control mechanisms during school hours. I'm not sure why that was a point of conversation when it comes to the safety of our children. So, thank you, all those involved, including the police department. Okay. So, I know South Tech and Mar-a-Lago, maybe I'm saying that wrong. But anyways, they were up here with the... Milagro. There's a difference. I know. Thank God there's a difference. I happen to prefer Milagro, but I mean... Right. No, no, no. Thank God there's a difference because we're dealing with children. But anyways, specifically South Tech, I know they are a charter school, but I do want... I am an educator over a decade and I started my education career in a charter school. So, I want to give you some perspective. When we're going to these schools, you guys schedule them. So, of course, we're going to put our best foot forward. Everything is polished and nice and pretty. But I just want to remind you, statistics show that charter schools perform as well, if not worse, than their public school charter counterparts because they are... It's basically education on a discount. For every $1 a child goes to public schools, charter schools get $0.60. And, of course, states love that because they save 40%, right? But what... When we're saving on our budget, we need to think about the cost-benefit analysis. Is it okay to pull funding from our children with subpar education when we're talking about charter schools? South Tech is also among them. If we look at the numbers, they perform just as well as their public school counterparts. So, I just want to put that out there and make sure that we're looking at the data and not the shiny and pretty and things of that nature. Are they actually pushing our students forward? And just a reminder, if we really want to compete with other cities like Boca and Wellington and Royal Palm, we should definitely make sure we have a dedicated line item to support our schools in our budget. So, with that, I yield it. Thank you very much. My name is Esther Rose, 33496. Could you speak up just a bit? I can barely hear you. Okay. I'll try. It's difficult for me. I'm very nervous. I am the mother of Daniel Rose. He is unable to be here tonight as he's out of town, so he has sent his best spokesman, me, his mother. In July of 25, my son purchased a property at 323 Northeast Avenue. He has had peaceful and quiet and has run a successful law office. He runs a local charity in this town. He also quietly does pro-pono work for some very difficult matters that nobody else would consider handling. When the coffee shop opened, it has been a complete nightmare for the neighboring businesses, his clients and business partners. This was not a go, a go, sorry, it was not a grab-and-go coffee shop. People are there doing business. The owner talks about the employers not being allowed to park in the property, but they have since day one. In fact, one of the employers on Monday got a ticket for $116 for parking. Rather than take responsibility for parking mess and try and fix it, the owner has done nothing but blamed my son and has taken no accountability for his actions to help resolve this issue. I am sure you will be aware of some of the incidents that I have shared with you, but you are probably not aware of the customers trying to hit my son with his car when he called for a tow truck to take it out of our parking lot. Sorry. He has got an injury of his meniscus because of this, and the threatening messages from burner accounts against him, and the building which, in my opinion, is irresponsible posting and attacks. We've had vandalism at the building twice. The social media, sorry, against him on social media and even the meeting by the owner of his staff and following has caused this to happen. They write the most, I can't tell you, the most terrible things about my son. I could tell you he hasn't shared two-thirds of the nasty email messages and phone calls that we have received. The office has been vandalized. I'm sorry, I'm repeating myself. I wanted to share with you that in 2024, my son wanted to open up with his business partners a PPAC. If you don't know what that is, I'll explain to you later on, which is the facility to help children get care at no cost to their families, their disabled children. He spent thousands of dollars obtaining all the licenses, due diligence for the project and scrapped it. Why? Because him and his partners were in our parking lot and a car that was just going to grab a coffee practically knocked them over. You need to wrap this up, Mrs. Rose. Sorry. Can I go? No, that's it. It's going to be about 30 seconds. Okay. Just that I would like you to consider a yes vote to allow the situation to be properly discussed before somebody gets seriously hurt. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mrs. Rose. Did you guys say that this is not the appropriate time for the noise ordinance discussion? Is that what you said? That is correct. That's going to be later in the media. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. Yvonne Odom, 33445. I just wanted to take the opportunity to read the editorial from the Palm Beach Post because I had never read it. My CTA president brought it to me January 30, 2026. And why? We still have a vacant seat over there. City missed opportunity with Odom's nomination. These are the words of Tom Carney. Not me. Recently, I nominated an outstanding community leader, Yvonne Odom, for the entrance city commission position in Delray Beach. It was the second time I had done so, and the second time the motion was voted down by my colleagues. I was optimistic about Mrs. Odom's appointment, though we were fortunate to have strong candidates as well. She stands in a class herself, embodying the past, present, and future of our citizens. The second vote last week came just one day after we gathered to honor the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Sadly, two of my fellow commissioners paid tribute to Dr. King one day, only to reject an icon of the black community then next. That was an appalling rebuke to that community. Why did Commissioner Tom Markit suddenly deem it inappropriate to appoint a highly qualified, unelected nominee in this temporary position? Then, just weeks earlier, he had enthusiastically nominated his unelected nominee for the same role. And why is it mischievous to nominate a revered city icon to the commission? Why did the commission, Judy Cassell, invent a non-cynical accusation that I, the very person who nominated Mrs. Odom twice, had encouraged her to vote against the appointment? It defies all reason. Why would I sabotage the very person I had proposed so wholeheartedly? And why did Commissioner Cassell dismiss those who attended the meeting to speak in favor of Mrs. Odom as a charade? This was deeply insulting, not just to Mrs. Odom, but to all who supported her, a point reflected on Cassell. What a lost opportunity for our city. Now, that was the end, but this is me. Elections matter. Looming for us, March 10th. We got to really look at somebody's integrity, not what's written on those flyers that they sent. The CRA was voted down. Nobody said they were going to do that. The old school square was voted out. Nobody said they were going to do that. So elections have consequences. Please vote and vote on integrity. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mrs. Odom. How do you do, Arlen Dominic, 33483? I'm not here to comment upon the noise ordinance. I'm here to comment upon the inability of the city to enforce whatever ordinances we have on noise. We continue to do the same thing over and over again without getting any positive results in controlling the noise of loud vehicles on Atlantic Avenue. Having police cars stationed on the road on a rainy Friday afternoon or Wednesday afternoon does not cure the problem of motorcycles and vehicles that are racing down the road or just driving down the road and making noise or turning on their boom boxes at 6.30 in the morning, 7 o'clock in the morning, 12.30 at night, or 1.30 in the morning, as well as in the afternoon, particularly the late afternoon and the evening. Over the course of this weekend, we had noise throughout the course of the entire day. We need to do something differently than simply have a policeman at that location from time to time. We were kind of commenting on the ordinance. Well, the noise ordinance has nothing to do with how the current ordinance has been enforced. That's a fine distinction. Thank you. Okay. Can I go on? I'll give it to you as a... I'll just say the same thing again. Okay. Ditto. Very eloquent. Thank you. City Commission, Mayor. My name is Chuck Ridley. My zip code is 33444. I want to give a shout-out to your staff and their professionalism. In this instance, I'm speaking directly to 8D. 8D. Whatever it is with the land development regulations. Wait a second. Wait a second. Mr. Ridley, that one's apologizing to me. You are welcome to speak on that when it comes up, but good try. You've got a good sign. We'll see you later in the meeting. Thank you. See you later in the meeting. Are there any other members of the public wishing to address the commission? Are you standing to come up or are you just standing to let him by? Great. Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Great. Now we have the consent agenda. We need a motion to approve the consent agenda as it was already amended. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We're moving on to item now 7AA, formerly 6D. I pulled this. Obviously, I'm supporting Jazz and the Avenue. I'm probably going to go. But my question to you is we had a discussion about making sure that we would be seeing approvals at least 30 days prior to when the event is going to take place. This is tomorrow. I'm happy to approve it. But we do have a policy that we're supposed to be taking a look at it 30 days in advance. So I'm just curious, is there a particular reason why this was giving? Yeah. Sorry. Allie Bierman, special events manager. The application came in to me in the end of November. It had to go through the process. So it didn't go to CTAC until December and DSMG until January. So this was the earliest because of when the application came in. I could get it to you guys. But we actually had that discussion that people would have to make sure that they got the applications in earlier because they know the time thing. Yes. I mean, obviously, I'm happy to. It's a great event. Yeah. You know. No, they are aware of the time frame. This one just slipped through. Okay. Well, are there any comments? Yeah, I have a question. What is the time frame? You said that this application was submitted in November. Mm-hmm. And it's the end of February. And it takes that long? It had to go to CTAC first, which it got into CTAC in December. And there wasn't enough time to get it onto the December DSMG meeting. So it couldn't go to DSMG until January because DSMG only meets once a month. And they meet towards the end of the month. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Cassel. Thank you. So what date should it have been? Was it in on time and it just processed slowly or was not in on time? It was not in on time. When should it have been in? Six months prior to the event date. Wow, that's a lot. That's what we talk about. I mean, it's an annual event, so I think probably we should expect it on time because it happens annually. But we all love the event and we want it. Where it says water. Do you want a motion? I'm sorry. Yes, please. Let's not do it again, though. Motion to approve. Do you have anything? Do you have anything? I would just say, let's don't do that again. Okay, that's good. Lesson learned. Motion? Sure. Motion to approve resolution number 4-6-2-6. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? It is adopted. The next one is the consolidated annual performance evaluation. I guess what I'm asking in this question is it talks about it was late because of the I don't understand why something like this is why the federal were you late or the federal government was late. Which part are you referring to? Mr. Michael. 6-8. Could you all introduce yourselves to the measure, please? Tavares Parks, Neighborhood Services Administrator. Jerry Friar, Director of Community Services. I was interested in this one because of the different people. It's not a lot of money. I was just interested in how we arrived at these dollars on this process. It's only like still $71,000 or something? And this was for previous fiscal year, 2024-25. Right. Okay. All right. That's fine. Then I need a motion to approve. So moved. Approval of FY2425 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report. It's the report after the fact. Yes. Second. It's the performance. Everything that we need. Gotcha. Okay. Now it's just unclear on that. Thank you. You're welcome. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next one is 7CC, and this one is a Missy question that I've talked to her about. And I understand we do this all the time. This is the agreement we have with Palm Beach County and the city of Delray Beach for the traffic control authority, et cetera. My question to Missy was, and you were going to look into it for me, is are there any, this contract doesn't give, the city doesn't really have a lot of input into this contract. Other cities seem to cut deals with the county in terms of better input from them in terms of their traffic control. And I'm just trying to see, and I'm just trying to see, is there anything we can try to do in this agreement? Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. It's Missy Barletto, Director of Public Works. You just asked me this question very recently. Yes, I know. And I have not had a lot of opportunity. That's because I got the agenda late. So there, I mean, I'll do it through. Okay. That's not correct, ladies and gentlemen. That's not correct, ladies and gentlemen. I got it last week. Wow. But it was a good try. So we can look into that. There are some communities like Boca Raton who actually have their own traffic control division. They have a large staff of people that do that. They have the equipment. They own their own equipment. They have more control. In our city and almost all of the other cities around the county, the county maintains the traffic control devices, and they more or less dictate to us. This particular interlocal agreement went back and forth with the county for a year and a half or so. And every time we attempted to make changes, they were not accepted. So I did share your concern and the items that are on the commission agenda tonight with City Attorney Jelen. And at some point when I get free again, we're going to sit down and talk about it. But this particular ILA that's on the agenda tonight is an update of our existing agreement, which is dated all the way back to 1992 and has never been updated. And the one concession that we had been able to get into this particular interlocal agreement is the ability to do art wraps on the transformers and things that are actually owned by Palm Beach County, which that was very difficult to negotiate, which that was very difficult to negotiate, just that one thing. But that's something that our public art board has been asking for for a very long time. So we consider that a win. Okay. Motion to approve? I'll just, do you have a comment? Yeah. Thank you. I mean, this comes up at every election time because people talk about, well, we'll synchronize the lights and we'll do this and we'll do this. But what they don't understand is we would have to hire people, take over the whole responsibility and the cost of this, which would be tremendous. And at the end of the day, what could we really get in return? Because we have a lot of cars on the road and we don't have a lot of movement. Where can they go? We have the train tracks on Atlantic. We have a lot of factors and I just think this would not be cost effective for a city at present moment. And if we do want to do this in the future, we should, you know, really consider that it's going to be a long-term cost. Because once we take over responsibility, I don't see them taking it back. So I will make a motion to approve resolution. I just wanted to say one thing if you were finished. I wasn't actually advocating. We've had this conversation. We cannot afford to take them over. But we can afford to have them deal sometimes with the timing of some of these lights, because there's a lot of interchanges where we sit there and we just wait. So that's really what I'm – we cannot afford to take it over like Boca. We don't have their tax base. You can't do it. So I'm agreeing with you on that. That coordination is ongoing with DOT and the county and the city all working together. We are continuing to try to coordinate that. Could I be recognized one more time? Certainly. The one thing that I would say, just because we're having this conversation that concerns me, is sometimes you get that white light for walking while you have the green light to be going. And there's just – it's the tremendous amount of foot traffic. It's not just the car traffic. I just – I think we have to accept it because we have an amazing city at some point. It would be nice. But when we are considering the traffic lights, the bigger concern is the – especially when you're coming federal, going west, and you've got the green light to turn right, and the people get the white light, and they're walking across the street. Holy moly. At any rate, would you like me to make a motion? I need a motion. Yes. Motion to approve resolution number 46-26. Second. All in favor. Oh, no. Excuse me. Wrong number. I apologize. Well, we will approve that one then, too. Motion to approve. We already did that. Interlocal agreement between Palm Beach County and City of Delray providing for certain traffic control authority within the City of Delray Beach by Palm Beach County. Second. Second. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Now we're out onto the Agenda 7A, Resolution 39-26. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, amending its budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, by providing for supplemental appropriations in the amounts identified in Exhibit A, repealing all resolutions and consistent here with providing an effective date and further purposes. Mr. Dukowitz. Thank you. Good evening. Item 7A is several budget transfers. It starts with a request by Parks and Recreation to cover a pool safety grant funded by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and it's processed at quarterly reimbursements. They're requesting $50,000. It will increase revenues and increase expenditures by the same $50,000. They offset one another. The second is a transfer from the Crest Theater Auditorium Project, No. 41023, to the Delray Beach Historical Society Improvements Project, 41039, to support the project scope expansion related to land disposal restrictions compliance. Transfer request is $210,000. It is an expense-to-expense transfer in the General Construction Fund. And the third and last is the Central Garage Fund, a transfer from the line item Other Contractual Services to Equipment Maintenance for the Triennial Fuel Tank Testing. The transfer amount is $4,600. That would be an increase in expense, and it's just a transfer to the Central Garage Fund. Okay. Any questions on the commission of Burns? Yes, I have a question. So this $210,000 from the – is that from the $6.5 million we just approved a couple weeks ago? No? I could answer that. It says from the – it says from Crest Theater. Just clarify. I'm going to do it. Mr. Moore is asking me. There's $3.5 million in the CIP. You answer. The $6.5 million that we agreed to was to be over a period of time. I think there's currently $3.5 million when we approved our capital projects, there was a line item for the Historical Society in the initial version that somehow got taken out in the follow-up version, and that money was supposed to be in there. So the city was looking to move money to get the money to the Historical Society that should have been there. But what was in the CIP is only $3.5 million, not $6. That is correct because it's a phased approach, and we touched upon this before. In fact, when we offered the recent presentation, we made a commitment to bring this back to adjust accordingly so that we can get started. Okay. Well, no offense, but – so that answer couldn't have been answered by our chief financial officer? Of course it can. And I chimed in accordingly. I'm just wondering if our commissioner had to answer that question. Well, she expressed enthusiasm to offer her commentary and knowledge, so it wasn't a request on my part. And quite frankly, that's a healthy dialogue because it does demonstrate elected officials taking an interest in a particular subject matter. So that's quite all right. So, again, I wish to support and endorse that outcome, and that's exactly where it is. I just like to get it from the professionals that we pay for that, but thank you. Yes, ma'am. And if I may, Mr. Mayor – Thank you all concerned. If I may, Mr. Mayor, again, it's consistent with what we previously outlined. I've made a written commitment in one of my information letter reports going back a month or two ago. That is consistent in that regard in terms of these arrangements being made with respect to the Historical Society campus. So we've provided you all this background information well in advance of today, as well as previous public commentary on the subject. But to confirm, this is the same $200,000 that we talked about several months ago, right, that it's making its way back into the budget? Actually, to be more precise, $210,000. Right, $210,000. I know it's $210,000. That's correct. So a lot of fun making, that's all. So not at all. It was clear, and we are in position to proceed accordingly. We did make a commitment for the February 24th regular city commission meeting to this effect, so therefore, here we are. Okay. Thank you. Are we – any more questions? No. And then I need a motion to approve or disapprove. I need a motion. So moved. Motion to approve resolution number 39-26. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Okay. 7C. City attorney – 7C? Yes. City attorney's – oh, merit increase. Jeez. I don't know. Do we have to? Huh? Dwayne DeAndre, Human Resources Department. Happy to be in front of you again at this time of the year for consideration for this city attorney's performance evaluation and merit increase. She has received all of your performance evaluations and reviewed them, and the cumulative score was 4.9. Very good. So the – so how does this work when we – how do we now – what's the process of recommending the increase? Is it based on the 4.9? Is it based on some other – how do we – what is the policy? So it's 4.9 is the merit increase incentive that you can approve tonight, or you can increase that up to 5 if you want. That's – 0 to 5 is what it is for the city employees. Okay. So that's the purview. Commissioner Casale, you were recognized? I – thank you for recognizing me. I'm moving 6, and I'll say why. You know, first of all, a lot of things have happened in the negotiation of the last number of contracts that have pushed a lot of people up. But it's more about – listen, the city attorney and I, sometimes I call her and I say I'm not sure I appreciated that, but she's always accessible. Residents call her on the weekend at home. Residents, not commissioners, right, that she works for or answers to, and she answers. She answers on vacation when she's on a cruise ship. But she's accessible to all, all, all the time, and I think there is a tremendous benefit to that. I think we all know how hard she works. We all know she's solving a lot of problems around here, and I really appreciate her, and I think 6 is reasonable and fair. Okay. Commissioner Farnes, you had a thought? Yes. I just – is that consistent with what we gave last year? Was it 6% or 7%? It was 6 last year as well. Can't remember? Okay. Yeah, no, it was 6 last year. I agree with the 6%. I'm good. I'm supportive of 6 as well. Then I need a motion. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? It's adopted. Thank you. Can I borrow some money? We're going to get an increase for the commission? No. My gosh, that happened once. Do you remember? I know. I wasn't part of it. Holy boy. Okay. Resolution number 7D47-26. Would you like to please read the resolution as the record? So 7D and 7E are related to each other, Mayor? Yes, they are. Both on Sherwood. Yep. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, providing for the abandonment of a water easement located at 3,900 Sherwood Boulevard, totaling approximately 1,812 square feet, as more particularly described herein. Providing for an effective date and further purposes. 7E is resolution number 4826, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach. Providing for the abandonment of a sewer easement located at 3,900 Sherwood Boulevard, totaling approximately 2,600 square feet, as more particularly described herein, providing for an effective date and further purposes. I know that I see the applicant's attorney here and Ms. Janotis here. This is the Layton Place Toll Brothers Development. Right. We've already negotiated the general utility easements, so unless you really need a presentation, I think, you know, the city engineer concurs with the recommendation of abandonment. Like I said, we've already secured alternative easements, so I don't know if you really need to go through it. I don't need a presentation unless you feel compelled to do it, which I'll rule you out of order. I'll rule you out of order if you do, so go ahead. So, I need a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Resolution number 4726. Yes. Second. Separately. Separately? Okay. Do I have a second? I give a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Adopted. Okay. Motion to approve Resolution number 4826. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? It's adopted. Thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation. You guys did great. Nice job. Let that be a lesson to everybody out there. Okay, we have Resolution 53-26. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Delivery Beach, Florida, approving the reconsideration of Resolution number 62-23, approving in-loop parking fee request for the property located at 302 Northeast 6th Avenue, as more particularly described here in Schedule a quasi-judicial hearing to reconsider the parking requirement for the property on March 9th, 2026 at 5 p.m. or any time thereafter, directing City staff to notice the property owner, providing an effective date and further purposes. And this is your presentation. This is mine. I don't have slides. All I'm asking you to do today is essentially to reopen this matter for further consideration. I think from the complaints that you've received, the complaints that staff has received, I think and I did attach as backup the transcript from the original quasi-judicial proceeding where it's very clear that the applicant portrayed a grab-and-go restaurant. They're having a workshop tonight. So, you know, I think it deserves a further look. I think that the City Commission has a discretion to assess a higher parking requirement if, in fact, a restaurant or an establishment is operating in other terms. And so I think the appropriate way to do it is to reopen this. We can schedule a quasi-judicial hearing before you on March 9th. We will notice the applicant because he does have the opportunity to be heard on this. And I think it's appropriate for you to revisit this. Okay, does anyone have any objections? No objections from me. Can we have consensus? Can I have a motion? Motion to approve resolution number 5326. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Adopted. Okay. Item 7G. Now, this is a quasi-judicial hearing. This has to do with the property. Those of you who are waiting to speak to 1006 Brooks Lane. Let me read you the rules as it relates to quasi-judicial hearings. First of all, the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be allowed 15 minutes each to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for 3 minutes each or a maximum of 6 minutes if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The city commission and staff and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not be legally made upon personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the numbers of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. Any of you wishing to speak on this subject, please rise and be sworn by the clerk. The authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida that you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I did. Thank you all very much. If the city could please enter the project file into the record. I'm going to enter two files into the record. One is the building permit from 22-00204096, and the planning and zoning file PZ-000448-2026. Thank you very much. Are there any ex parte communications? Commissioner Casale. I spoke to the owner's representative, both gentlemen. I spoke to members of the community. Do I need to list those members up? No, that's not really. Okay. And who else did I speak to, I think? Perhaps the former representative, Ms. Kaiser, on this at some point. And I'm sure at some point I spoke to Andrea about this. Mr. Mark? I spoke to these gentlemen. Okay. I actually spoke with members of representatives of the BPOA, with staff, a long time ago. Yeah, a long time ago. And the city attorney several times as it relates to the permit process. But I did not have any direct conversation with the applicant. And I think that that is – and by the way, there's tons of correspondence we all got in the record. So we have gobs of letters with bells and whistles and everything. So I'm going to have those all entered into the record as part of the ex parte communication. And then after Commissioner Burns reveals her ex parte, I forgot to read the resolution. Oh, any ex parte? Any again? Nothing recently. This is – I haven't spoken to anyone recently before when this came up. I think you met with the obligan. Recently? I thought – It was about this. About the same. And this – okay. Yes. Okay. So – okay. And the e-mails that we have here. Right. Yes, e-mails are on the dais. Yeah, and anything in the public record affects us all. So, okay. Can I just read the resolution? I beg your pardon? May I read the resolution? Yes, you're next on my list. Yeah. Resolution number 57-26, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Derby Beach, Florida, approving a waiver to Section 443F1A of the Land Development Regulations to allow floor area ratio of 0.85 for the property located at 1006 Brooks Lane, as more particularly described here in providing for an effective date and further purposes. By the way, I did speak with Andrea Kaiser about three months ago on this, just as I remembered when we were talking about the permit process, so I wanted to make sure that got included into the record. And so did I, but this was back in November. It was like three or four months ago. Yes, yes. So maybe it could have been December. Right. Thank you. Anyway. Sure. You're on. Good evening, Mayor Carney and the entire City Commission. I'm Mike Stom, the principal of Stom Development Group. We are a development firm and construction management firm here in town. We're also the owner of the affiliated entity, 1006 Brooks Lane, LLC. We are here obviously seeking a waiver, but it's very important to make the point that we're still reserving our rights and equitable rights from our originally issued permit number 00204096. I know I've come here before the City Commission. I know I've spoken to the majority of you guys over the last year, year and a half. We are here to hopefully reach an amicable solution. I've brought my colleague, Sean McAllister, Director of Development here, who's going to walk through the presentation, the facts. Happy to answer any questions. But that being said, I'll turn it over to Sean. Sure. Thanks, everyone, for being here tonight. As Mike said, Sean McAllister, zip code 33483. So I'll go ahead and get into a little bit of the timeline in history. As Mike alluded to, a permit number 2200204096 back in June of 2023 was approved for the construction of a new single family home under the existing code regulations at that time. After the approval, their ownership had incurred some expenditures, obviously in reliance on that building permit for maintenance of the site, installing temporary power poles, temporary water to gear up for construction. Unrelated to the permit, but in between the two dates mentioned there, on March 5th of 2024, an ordinance was passed establishing the maximum FAR of 0.65, as well as additional regulations for properties that were located east of the intercoastal waterway, but were not subject to the North Beach Seagate Ocean Overlay districts. This property, subject property, does not fall within either of those overlay districts. However, obviously, is located east of the waterway. So at the time the permit was approved, this ordinance did not exist. On September 12th of 2024, permit fees in excess of $40,000 were paid to the city of Delray Beach. That check was cashed, and the permit plans and permit card were issued to owners of the ownership at that point. I think it's important to note at 9-12-24, the originally approved building, which I'll get into the specifics on the size and what that was done at that time, could have been constructed as the permit was issued to the owner, you know, as issued. In between the issuance of the permit around, you know, September and then through the early of January 2022, in reliance on the approval of the original permit, significant costs to the tune of, you know, over a half a million dollars were spent by the owner updating said plans within the already approved building permit or building envelope to adhere to some of the new FEMA regulations, building code, and revise some of the exterior and interior layouts. Right around that time, the beginning of January 25, owners notified that they believe the permit was issued in error and that they believe that, you know, that it was believed that the permit had expired and would be, you know, required to adopt this new ordinance that was passed back in March. Oh, sorry. That went twice. So, kind of in between then, you know, as the ownership and having paid the permit fees and being given the permit and issued and spent significant amounts of money to, you know, work within the approved building envelope, it was ownership's kind of understanding and, you know, disagreement with the stance taken that the permit had expired and had kind of sought additional opinions and uh, ultimately, uh, around December of 2025, a letter, uh, from Florida House representatives is sent to Attorney General James Uthmeyer requesting an opinion letter from the Attorney General for the issue, uh, at that, you know, towards the tail end of 2025, the response letter from James Uthmeyer is received with the interpretation that a non-expired building permit was issued in September 2022, the original building permit, uh, and told under state statute, uh, in an issuing authority could not revoke a told permit extending, uh, and extending the building permit to keep it in, in, uh, good standing. Uh, around that time, uh, ownership, myself, Mike, at beginning of January, uh, met with city staff, uh, as, you know, some of them alluded to, uh, and ultimately wanted to discuss the issue and propose a resolution that was a middle ground and something that, you know, everybody could get behind, although not fully, uh, scrapping the original plans, but also kind of finding a middle common area that we could meet, uh, for a new iteration of the plans and then seek a waiver for that iteration. So, go ahead. Before we get into it, I think it's important to note, uh, we as an ownership from an equitable position still feel like we have an active building permit. You know, we probably do more projects in town than any other development firm and construction management firm at this day and age in, in Delray. Uh, you know, I don't think we've ever been, you know, a contested firm. I think we've always done, you know, the right thing. We're here trying to attempt to do the right thing, even though that, uh, we have a letter of opinion in response to the city's position or third party. Uh, we decided to attend this, you know, and concede, uh, and try to achieve this waiver from the city commission. Uh, but, you know, we feel that we're still here on behalf of this proposing something that, you know, we feel good about, but, you know, we feel, still feel like we have the equitable rights in the original permit and still have, you know, the ability to actually construct what was initially approved. So to give a little information on the, uh, previously approved permit, uh, the, that was approved in 23 and kind of the, uh, altered iteration that we are proposing now, uh, with the waiver request. So the original, uh, FAR on the originally approved new single family home was 1.06 and we are proposing now 0.85 as noted, uh, that actually calculates to a gross floor area that was originally approved at 9,112 square feet down to 7,330. Uh, additionally, we've met all of the additional code, uh, implications that were added in that ordinance for, uh, the, for the properties east of the intercoastal waterway, uh, which include the horizontal articulation, uh, that we are meeting as well as the five foot step back above the third floor, uh, and a major area reduction to the third floor. Additionally, and it's not necessarily code related, but it is, uh, or part of this ordinance, but bringing up FEMA to the current FEMA elevation for purely for safety perspective, uh, obviously, and also, uh, updating all engineering plans to current Florida building coding standards. So really bringing everything else up to speed, uh, with where it should be today. And just a couple of visuals. So obviously it's the location. I think everyone's familiar with that. Uh, this is the existing approved massing at the 1.06 FAR or 9,112 gross floor area. So this was the massing of the originally approved permit, uh, its size and everything here is the proposed redesign and the reduction to 0.85 FAR or 7,330 gross floor area. And obviously, as you can see, there's been a heavy concession on the third floor and all of a lot of the protruding elements have been dialed back and it has been significantly decreased in size, both, you know, from a square footage perspective, as well as a massing perspective and a visual perspective. And here are just a couple of different elevations that you can see from the vantage points that you can see the, the severe size reduction, uh, especially from a street level. The third floor is really far set back, uh, off of the, so this would be from the street. So as you can see, you really lose the visual perspective, which I believe is the kind of intent of the code that was adopted to help do the, you know, I think it's the stacked cake, uh, method or what, you know, uh, term that's been used before. Um, so this really pairs this back, uh, from a visual perspective and massing again, just another elevation. This would be as you come down Brooks lane towards the dead end. I think again, you know, a really big improvement on a visual, uh, eye perspective, massing perspective and not, uh, as, as daunting as the originally approved. This is from the rear. So from the waterway again, you know, same concept here, third floor, really dialed back, really scaled, uh, down here and not as visually imposing. And lastly, just one more elevation again from the waterway, just the other side of the home here is just an understanding of the floor plans. So there was significant modification to the interior, additional stairs, uh, stairwell had to be added. Uh, a lot of engineering changes on the interior side, which obviously come at a cost from the engineers, uh, to meet this proposed, uh, iteration, uh, to adapt to, you know, suiting the code and meeting the standards and meeting what, you know, we think the intent of the ordinance was again, just to reiterate what the waiver is we're seeking for. Um, you know, it's the code section mentioned there originally approved was 1.06 FAR seeking the waiver approval of 0.85 FAR. And lastly, just a justification statement, um, you know, should not adversely affect neighboring areas. You know, we don't feel that it does adversely affect the neighboring areas. Um, you know, it's consistent, uh, with the code and, uh, you know, implications and the spirit behind the adopted, uh, you know, FAR requirements, uh, so shall not significantly diminish the provisions of public facilities. Uh, there would be no issue with that. No diminishment in public facilities should not create an unsafe situation. Again, nothing unsafe about proposed structure. Uh, lastly, does not result in a grant a special privilege in the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for an applicant owner. Um, I think the, the bullet point doesn't state it here, but I think it's important to understand the sentiment that Mike had mentioned earlier about the originally approved building permit, uh, it being accepted, uh, you know, and issued. And that kind of poses where we are today, where we feel that this circumstance is different because we feel the original permit was told, uh, based on Florida state statutes. Uh, and we're here trying to come to a middle ground on that as opposed to, you know, force that issue. That's all. Thank you. Thank you very much to the city. Don't do well without the visual cues. I'm sorry. I'm just waiting for a comment to catch up with me. Okay. So again, this is the property, uh, in question, one series or six Brooks lane, it's zoned R one double a, it is located east of the intercoastal waterway, which is where the ordinance, um, affected a maximum, a new maximum FAR, um, limitation, which was largely community driven and drafted, um, from the beach property owners. So the property is 0.2 acres in size. Um, a couple of things we'd like to add to the timeline presented to you. Um, because the permit that is in question is an owner builder permit. Um, we were not notified that on August 20th ownership transferred from the owner builder to a limited liability, um, company without notice to the city and Florida statute is stipulates that, um, an owner builder permit cannot be utilized by a company. Um, so regardless of the time that's gone by, um, this permit that they're trying to travel under is no longer valid because the ownership has changed. Now, I do think it's important to, to say on the record, Mr. Susan is one of the owners in the corporation. So I think you need to know that our company, sorry. Um, so this is the timeline, um, it was changing in, um, in August. The other part, I'm going to add one more thing to the, at the end of the timeline too, just so you feel a little better, hopefully. Um, so, uh, we know once we realized, uh, that the permit was issued in error, too much time had gone by was my initial assessment, but it was actually a bigger issue with, um, the ownership pattern. Um, we had that meeting to say that the Florida during the time between the permit review and the, and the remitting of fees, the Florida building code had been updated. Uh, the FEMA map elevations had changed, the electrical code had updated, and this LDR had happened. And so, what were we going to do about that? At that point, they indicated that they had spent about $100,000 at that point engineering the project in the meeting to me. So, um, so then we go through this timeline. The other, um, thing I want to, wanted to add, um, in, um, June of, so between April and December, we did migrate off of the old system. We're on a new software system that does track expirations, that has a GIS base for ownership, so hopefully this won't happen again, in terms of the information not being clear. Um, so, uh, the city's, and if you want more detail, I'm sure Ms. Jelen will provide it, um, did reach out for a second legal opinion about the issue related to the underbuilder versus the LLC ownership pattern. Um, and we received confirmation, um, that, uh, Mr. Myers' informal opinion, which was drafted without discussion with the city at all, in terms of the situation, um, was not really applicable to this issue. And at this point, the permit status is that it's closed and three attempts have been made to refund the fees, um, and that a new permit would be required to move forward. So floor area ratio, we've been through this pretty recently. So floor area ratio, when it comes to single family, we take all of the area that is air conditioned, and then we also include half of the garage space. We do not include open air porches. We do not include open air terraces. We do not include about include open air balconies. Those are all the elements of a building that, you know, make it really lovely and human. And we don't penalize people because if we do, those are the first things that are going to take off. Right? So, um, so what is proposed now from what you've gotten an overview before, um, is a, an FAR that comes out to 0.85, which is, um, a square footage of 7,330 square feet, which includes half the garage, um, which is 1,700 and change over the limitation. So that's what you're looking at. At this point, you're approved. So again, in practice, it's half the garage. These spaces do not count. Um, the roof terrace does not count. Um, the other, um, just another view of it. This is the one, I think the before and afters were maybe better on theirs. This is not the easiest thing to read, but I will say that they have worked to make sure that all of the recesses, all of the, uh, setbacks are, you know, are met. The lock coverage is met. Everything is met. Um, in terms of FAR and kind of how we ended up here with this being such an issue for the beach, this is, this little area is kind of a snapshot in time, right? Because you have 1011, which was built in 1965. Um, and it's got an FAR of about 0.33 across the street. Um, 1005 was built in 1973. It got a little bit bigger. We're at 4,500 with the same sort of calculation. These are from the Palm Beach County property appraisers. Um, this is the only one I looked up because the project is in for interior renovations and window changes, but they're not, um, adding anything significant. And then we go over here to this house in 1986. It's still at an FAR about 0.52. Um, the corner 2005, um, right up to the 0.65 limitation. Um, I have a really big garage. And then, uh, the net, the directly adjacent neighbor is 0.64. And so this is a site, um, which is about the same size as these three that maybe four that were measured, um, that the request is 0.85. And so ultimately you have to use the findings to make a determination whether this specific unique situation, um, warrants, uh, a waiver from the maximum 0.65 that was, you know, adopted, um, to allow 0.85 and whether it meets these criteria. That concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. We're now opening the, uh, meeting up to the public. Any members of the public wishing to address, uh, this matter, please come to the lectern, give your name and address, uh, and, you know, you need the address on this name and address for the record. Um, you will each have three minutes unless you represent an organization. There's six or more people that are here who agree not to speak, in which case you have six minutes. Okay. Thank you. My name is... And have you been sworn? Yes. Yes. I have been sworn. My name is Hal Stern, 622 C Sage Drive, Delray Beach, Florida, 33483. Uh, I am president of the BPOA. I have a letter that I'd also like to submit. Uh, there should be copies for all commissioners, and there's one for the clerk as well. So, um, as I said, I'm president of the BPOA. There are several members of our board here. Um, we're speaking in opposition to this, uh, this granting of a waiver. The BPOA's mission, uh, is to protect, preserve, and enhance the character scale and long-term stability of the barrier island neighborhoods. That mission has guided our collaboration with the commission and the staff in adopting the meaningful floor area ratio standards culminating in the unanimous passage of Ordinance 08-24 on March 5 of 2024. Those standards were enacted in direct response to widespread neighborhood concern over oversized, out of proportion, three-story buildings. Uh, the clerk purpose of the, uh, was to regulate mass and scale and to ensure compatibility with, within established neighborhoods. Residents spoke in support. There was no opposition. Standards were intended to be real and enforceable. The waiver before you seeks of an FAR of 0.85, approximately a 30 percent increase above the adopted 0.65 standard on a set standard, uh, 75 wide, uh, foot wide lot. That translates roughly into a 5,600 square foot house, and I think this is actually much larger than that, 7,300. The, that magnitude of increase is not minor. It materially alters the mass and proportionality contemplated by the ordinance. A structure of that scale on Brooks Lane would be incompatible with the established neighborhood context and therefore fails to meet the waiver requirement of adverse impact. Second, approval would not, uh, would set a clear precedent. If a 30 percent deviation is granted here, future applicants throughout the Barrier Island will cite this case in support of their similar relief. That is how zoning standards are are incrementally weakened. The waiver provision was not intended to function as an alternative development pathway. Third, there was no hardship. The property can be developed with a residence approaching 6,000 square feet in full compliance with the existing regulations. I would add that some of the expense associated with the engineering would have been paid regardless of the size of the house. Uh, the inability to build a substantially larger home does not constitute a hardship under accepted land use principles. The commission adopted ordinance 08-24 to protect scale proportionality and neighborhood compatibility. Granting the waiver would undermine the integrity of that ordinance. For these reasons, the Beach Property Owners Association respectfully requests that the commission deny the FAR waiver for 1006 Brooks Lane. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Stern. My stuff. Good evening. My name is Joe Shalal. I'm at 33483, also 1005 Brooks Lane. Um, I'm here representing a lot of the homeowners on both Brooks Lane as well as White Drive. So this is the house in between. So if they, I think it's important to know. And I, we have signatures for multiple. I don't know if you're going to allow me more than three minutes because about five or six other homeowners that are here have yielded their time to me. So, but I will still try to be brief. I think the first thing that comes to mind is we've gone from the commission and the mayor listening to a proposal from Milagros about vulnerable, uh, vulnerable youth and now dealing with going from a 9,000 square foot house to a 7,000 square foot house where less than an hour ago, we're talking about the vulnerable. I think we're all in the lucky group if we're living on Brooks Lane. But at the end of the day, what's being requested is not a minor, uh, deviation. There's an approximately 30% increase in FAR. And this is precisely the adverse impact that the FAR was trying to prevent. And particularly in a neighborhood east of the intercoastal where lot sizes are smaller and compatibility is critical. So there is definitely an impact and it's not, it's an adverse impact to those that live on Brooks Lane and white street. We are all Delray residents. We are full-time residents. We live in Delray and we have people on both sides that are very concerned about this. Excuse me, sir. Can you speak into the microphone? Sure. I'm sorry. Thank you. So in addition, there is no unique hardship or physical constraints that justify allowing this property to exceed the maximum FAR of 0.65. Approval of this, as Mr. Stern stated, would signal that the established limit is negotiable and they spent a lot of time coming up with the limit of 0.65. And therefore, this just undermines the integrity of the code and invites similar requests in the future. Finally, this is, there is no unnecessary hardship by building a 5,500 or 5,800 square foot house that goes along with the 0.65 FAR. This appears to be a, simply a request driven by the preference to, for a larger structure rather than the necessity to need a larger structure. So in conclusion, as residents of Delray Beach representing, I've got signatures from, in front of me, 11 on Brooks Lane, from four on White Drive, which are the ones that are significantly affected by this. But as a whole, as Mr. Stern stated, this will set a precedent and will be used against Delray Beach after the amount of time that was spent coming up with what was considered, at least at this time, the optimal 0.65 FAR. Thank you for your time and I appreciate it. Thank you very much, sir. Good evening. Ned Wheeler. I serve as the Vice President of BPOA as well. I'd just like to add a couple of more remarks. As a resident, 33483. We need your address. No, you need your address. This is a quasi-judicial. 1010 Ingram Avenue. Yes. Thank you, sir. You may recall that I spoke before this commission concerning these changes to the LDRs two years ago on March the 5th, 2024. At that evening's meeting, that was the culmination of three years of work on behalf of the property owners, citizens, residents of the barrier island seeking to regulate and control the ever increasing size of new homes being built in replacement of teardowns. And the concerns were that the construction of these very large oversized massive homes two and three stories tall were significantly and permanently altering the character of the community. One of the things that this commission asked us to do when we were working on this process was to work closely with development services to try to adopt something that was consistent with the existing charm and character of neighborhoods. We worked with the development services staff for a period of about three months to go through neighborhood by neighborhood by neighborhood to identify the existing floor area ratios for existing homes, including the newest homes built by quite a number of the active developers in the community. And when we settled on the set of floor area ratio standards in the residential districts of the barrier island, we adopted values that were consistent with the current characteristics of those neighborhoods. So I just want you to know there was a lot of work that went into defining these numbers. This was not random. This was aligned with current conditions, the character in existence at the time the change was made. So I'd just like to point out that, you know, this particular applicant is seeking a floor area size that's 30% beyond any of the neighbors. That's out of character. And this underscores kind of the reasoning that you heard from Hal Stern on behalf of BPOA as to why we would oppose the approval of this waiver. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bill. Good afternoon. My name is Tom Custer. I live at 1010 Brooks Lane, directly next door to the property in question here. I want to speak about something a little bit different. I understand that you're bound by legal requirements on whether to approve this waiver or not. There's also a state law that dictates some of this, specifically Florida statute 163.3184, and case law states that waivers must be strictly justified to prevent takings, claims and arbitrary decisions. Because if you approve this waiver, I'll be the next in line asking for a waiver to enlarge my house. My house, as you saw on the slides, is at 0.64, and it's directly next door to the property in question. So where does it end, right? The other thing I want to mention is that I was very friendly with the previous owner, Mr. Zusson, and I know from personal experience that he has applied for a permit as owner-builder because he intended to build the house and live there, which, as you have explained, has expired and the new LLC has taken over as the ownership of this property. Lastly, if we're going to give any consideration for a waiver of this kind to a community member, we have to look at whether they are a good community member. Because I live here full-time like my neighbors do, but STAM Development Group does not. They're based out of Philadelphia. They come down here to make money, and that's why they're asking for this waiver is to build a bigger house so they can make more money by selling it. In addition to that, they're not very good members of the community. There are a lot of complaints about construction sites around town that they manage. I've filed many complaints for the construction site at 1006 Brooks Lane. The city has taken them to court for violations. Right now, the property has unfinished seawall that's been sitting exposed, rebar exposed, for a month. Garbages turn all over the place, construction material everywhere. I've reported it to the city's zoning department. Nothing's been done about it. I've had to deal with this. I've sent emails to all of you before about these issues. So I don't think that consideration should be given to this company for this waiver on those grounds, but in addition to all the legal grounds that have been presented here as well. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Public comment anymore? Public comment? Public comment is closed. There's now the opportunity to cross-examine. You can cross-examine witnesses. You can cross-examine the city. The cross-examination rules are how much time do they have for the cross? I think it's two minutes. Do you want to cross-examine anybody who testified during public comment or do you want to just move on to rebuttal? Yeah, I don't need to cross-examine. We're not here to, you know, get into back and forth. Look, I would just say a couple things. I would just say a couple things. Look, first and foremost, I'm a full-time resident in Delray. 99% of my staff is in here. I moved down here two years ago. So any claims to which I'm from? Yes, I'm from Philadelphia. Yes, I run a development firm in Philadelphia, but this is home base. This is my headquarters. I know everyone in this room pretty well. Two, I'm not sure what violation and so forth and bad neighbors, but, you know, there's no validity behind that. And on top of that, the biggest point here is I don't think this sets precedence, you know, on anything against the BPOA. The BPOA is a great organization. You know, we send projects there every single year through BPOA, and they go well. I think the big point and consideration for you guys to consider here is this isn't a normal fact pattern. This isn't a fact pattern where there was a permit. The city did take the money, right? And we relied upon the issuance of a building permit for four months, statements about, hey, we would have had to redesign it. No, money was spent on the initial $9,000 engineering. We then redid it based on changes and so forth that we brought forward in January of 2025. Now we're standing before you guys upon reliance, and we're willing to go back and spend several hundred thousand dollars to re-engineer and design it again. But if anything on a waiver request, I think this is a good precedent. This is a fact pattern where the city issued a permit, and the equitable permit holder had the rights to it, relied upon the building permit to proceed with the project. And this only came about because we came in to change the FEMA regulations and update to the current building code. Otherwise, this house would be done. It would be through a CO. We didn't come to you guys as an initial applicant saying, hey, we want to build 85% in this overlay. We're coming to you for a waiver request, which is what I think this whole process was geared towards based on the specific fact pattern that existed for this very project. A reliance on an issued building permit with equitable rights, a material amount of money. We are conceding. We've spent a year and a half cordially going back and forth with the city. We've met with almost everyone in here. We've met with a lot of other parties as well. And if anything, in kind of closing, again, I'm not here to rebut and get into anything with them. But I think this is the exact type case. I don't see the fact pattern of a city issuing a permit and reliance upon it, setting a precedence poorly against BPOA and why this was enacted at the date it went into effect. And I think that's a very important determining factor from our position that I hope you guys consider. Because, you know, again, we're not an original applicant coming for this. This is an amendment to a permit that we feel we have equitable rights to. We have an illegal opinion letter in response to the third party that the city came, but we came here unrepresented, right? But just Shawn and myself on behalf and to make that point very clear. Thank you very much to the city. Mayor, can I respond? Sure. Oh, yes, you can. Yeah, please. Thank you. So just a few points. First, and I know you wouldn't do this, but considering what kind of neighbor Mr. Stom is or the fact that he's not local, that's not for your consideration. So I would really ask you to disregard that. I know you wouldn't consider that, but I just want the record to be clear. That's not something before you. The criteria for a waiver was highlighted before. You're all very familiar with it. I do need to talk about this permit because frankly, I think that's not relevant to your consideration today. Mr. Zusson secured a permit. It was an owner builder permit. Florida statute allows an owner builder, any one of you could secure that kind of permit. Essentially, you become the contractor. And so you take the risk. Now, what Florida statute says is, if you're going to take that risk, you're going to live in that house for two years. And it makes sense, right? Because if you're building it, if you're taking that responsibility of ensuring that the contractors are doing the appropriate work and becoming your own GC, you have to live in the property for two years, as Anthea says, to make sure the house doesn't fall down. So there were some, there were some specific circumstances that happened with Mr. Zusson that didn't allow him to be able to move forward with his building permit. Like Anthea stated, at some point the property was transferred. It went from the owner, Mr. Zusson to an LLC. I will concede that Mr. Zusson is a, I believe is a 5% owner in this LLC. However, we have an attorney in general opinion too, that's very specific to the facts here that says that number one, an owner builder permit can be transferred for the reason that we just talked about. The owner has to live in the house themselves. And number two, even if there's an LLC that takes over and the owner builder has some percentage of that LLC there, it doesn't matter because now it's a corporation. So really what should have happened here is that when the LLC took over, the property was conveyed to the LLC, they were now required to essentially submit a new building permit application with the city. And our application is very clear. I think it's in bold caps lock that because we make the owners essentially, you know, almost sign their life away, explaining to them what you are undertaking by being an owner builder. And so it's very clear that if something changes, that the property is conveyed, if you're not going to live in it. And now we know that this property is not going to be lived in by Mr. Zusson because it's on Mr. Psalm's website as a spec house. So we have those facts in our favor. So to talk about this permit today, I don't think it's relevant to your consideration. Now, I will tell you that I, you know, as your attorney, you know, there's always this, you know, there's always gray areas, right? So nothing is ever black and white around here. So yes, was I happy to hear that the, um, that staff had, you know, accepted the money? No, we're human, we make mistakes. Was I happy to hear that there were meetings with the, with the new owner in furtherance of this building permit that didn't apply to him? No, I wasn't. When staff realized the mistake, we immediately took action and we took corrective action to say, this permit's not valid. Here's your money back. We're still holding the money, I believe. So there are factual circumstances specific to this case that I do believe, you know, create, create something for a discussion. It doesn't mean that you're bound to, you know, approve this FAR you, but it's something for you that you should consider. Now we do have the Deleonibus case, which every one of you is familiar with, where the circuit court and the appellate court both indicated that a mistake on behalf, on behalf of staff, the city is not bound to that. So we don't have to, you know, continue to move forward if there was an error made and that's what happened here. Now, Mr. Stom has put on the record, you know, a lot of language about, you know, equitable estoppel. What that basically means is in reliance of the city accepting the money and it's the city allowing it to move forward with the permit, he relied on that promise from the city that the building permit was active. So that's what's before you today. The permit, you know, the validity of the permit, I don't believe that that's for your consideration. And if they want to litigate that, we can litigate it. They asked, you know, they suggested to the commission, I think you received that, that email where they suggested that I get another opinion to confirm whether or not I was right. I did. I was right. So, you know, I don't think that the, that permit issue is gray. That one's black and white. That one's easy. You can't use the owner builder permit. They do need to secure another permit and they haven't done so. What's before you today is whether or not the findings of the waiver have been met or not. This is, I don't think it's precedential. Waivers are specific to a project, just like a variance. And so I don't think you're going to set a precedent. But as, as many of you often indicate, you know, we have our regulations for a reason, right? And they're there because either you or a previous commission made a determination that that was what was right for this community. And so you have to determine if some special exception exists in order to justify the waiver that he's seeking. Okay. Anthea? Just, just one clarification. The Zuzan's are, um, or Mr. Zuzan is a 50% owner with the company, not a five. It's 50. Oh, he has 50. You're saying that he has 50%. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. But let me ask you. I don't think that makes a difference. There's a clarification point because I, I, it doesn't matter whether you're even a 75% owner of the company. If, if, if, if, because I believe the statute says it has to stay in the individual person's name. Is that correct? It has to stay in his name and he has to live in it for two years. No, I understand that. That's part two. That's part two. It's two conditions. I'll just focus on part one. Yes, sir. That's all. Okay. That's, I just wanted to clarify that. Um, any other comments then to the commission, commissioner market, would you like to start? Sure. Um, this is a complicated one. No, no, no doubt about that all the way around. Um, I, I wish, I wish that we could have gotten the square footage down to 7.0 and the residents would have been happy about that. I, I, uh, huh? F-A-R. Sorry. Sorry. Another corporate acronym. My apologies. Um, so I, I, and I live in Lake Ida and we're going through similar things there and I think we've, I think we've gone to the, to the trouble of setting up some boundaries for development and I think we, we either have to amend those, those boundaries or we have to stick by them. I think that's what the only fair rule for everybody that's in our city. So unfortunately, uh, I, I won't be in favor of this. Done. Okay. Commissioner Burns. Yes. Um, you know, um, I'm sorry that this project has taken this long and, and I appreciate the attorney for making that verification on regarding the, um, the permit, but I do think that I was in favor of the ordinance, um, back in, in, in, um, 2024 and I voted for it. And, you know, the reason is to protect that, that neighborhood. This, that is what the requirements were and I was definitely in favor of it. And I do think that this will affect the, um, the neighboring, the neighborhood. And so, um, it's not consistent with the code that we set, um, at the 6.5, the 0.65. So I'm not going to be in favor for it either. Okay. Commissioner Casale. Thank you. Um, I appreciate, I know this is unrelated to our discussion tonight, but I did want to say that, um, um, the applicant has been in front of us before I had some concerns about a vote. I made the vote and I reached out to the applicant's representative, uh, Mr. Schiller. And I said, please make sure these neighbors, any questions, comments, concerns they have are taken care of. And you were very accommodating, overly accommodating. I would even say some of those complaints were nutty and you bent over backwards to accommodate. So I, I would say from my perspective, what I know, you are a good neighbor. I appreciate your work in the city and I feel, uh, the, this is a very unfortunate situation. But however, I did, I sat here when, uh, Mr. Stern approached the commission and talked about this idea, uh, Bill Petri as well. And Mr. Wheeler and on its face, it was a good idea. Like, how do we slow this down? These properties are, you know, getting too big for the land. There's not enough drainage. There were so many issues of concern going on along with, you know, what was happening in the neighborhood and what, how is the look of our city changing? And one of the things that, uh, Ned did not mention, I said to the gentleman, will you do me a favor? Will you sit down with a couple of the local developers and will you sit down with Gary Iliopoulos, the architect? And they went and did that because when we were looking at getting this ordinance underway, we were looking to do it as a collaboration with the development community. Unfortunately, I didn't know you at the time. And, um, and the architects who are working in our city and what we came out with, what that ordinance re the result of that ordinance was, was quite a collaboration. It wasn't just what the BPOA wanted. It was what the developers said. Yeah, that makes sense to give you the feel that you want in your city and allow us to continue doing our work. And it was what Gary Iliopoulos thought, and I don't want to speak for him, but he was in that meeting and I did speak to him afterwards. So I would have a hard time going against the ordinance that I so promoted, um, at the time. While I appreciate your situation and I, um, um, I feel, you know, it's unfortunate that you find yourself in front of us asking for this. I, I cannot, um, I can't agree to it and I apologize. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, I, I'm going to, I'm going to take a different tactics. I mean, I'm a lawyer as you're a lawyer. So I, I, I kind of read these things in a very different way. And I'm in this situation is really a very unfortunate situation, but at the time you file through the application for, I mean, I actually had an owner's permit when I did my house here years ago and the city was very accommodating, much more than probably would have been to a contractor because I was going to have to live in it. So, um, but so I know the process a little bit with an owner's permit. If at the time you change any kind of a permit here in the city, you're required to tell the city that of the change, correct? If you change your contract, you're changing this, you're changing that. If you change owner, you're supposed to go to the city. I think you have 30 days to, but I think whatever they're done, I don't remember what the time is, but you have a time certain where you have to go in and tell them we have a change in, change in whatever it is, change in architect, change in urban, whatever, whatever it is. I know you have to do that because your permit was based, was issued based on the particular qualifications of the persons who you list. Okay. So if they had come to you at the time of the change of ownership, would the, I'm going to assume that the permit didn't expire. I'm going to go with, let's assume this permit was alive and well, and they bought the house from, from the guy from the alive and well permit. Okay. And not permit, but approval, approval and permit. If assuming they went to you at the time, then would we have pulled the permit? All right. You're asking me, I'm buying a permit. The actual requirement is not a change of contractor, right? Where you have a permit, say it's permit number 24, number one. No, I'm changing the owner aspect of it. Then it's a new permit. It's a new permit. Okay. So that we would have done that regardless. And then everything goes to what the standards are when the new permit is submitted. Okay. So at the time of that circumstance, essentially the permit was not valid is what you're saying? It became, it became invalid because of, because of the, of the change in, okay. Um, if, because that's the, the issue that I'm having is the change in the ownership aspect, because in this permit, you're not allowed to change the ownership, regardless of whether it was issued or not. If once you change the ownership and you create no longer the owner permit, it renders it invalid at that point. Right. Right. Okay. So whether the, so there are no, what I'm saying is on the original permit, there are no rights on the original permit. Once you change the name, is that what we're saying? Once you change the owner. Yes. Once you change the owner, there are no rights. Okay. Um, when they paid for the permit, when they paid for the permit, did they come in at that time and tell you that the name had been changed or what did they just come in under the old name and pay for the permit? So to be clear, let's put the timeline back up if we have to. Okay. Yeah. The application was made in 2022. Okay. Right. I'm going to go back. Oh, that's the first one. Um, so it was approved in, in June, right? January, February, March, April, May, June of, uh, 23. So I don't remember if we were on project docs then or still paper. I'm following what you're saying. I'm actually asking a question based on this, this thing. So what, but what I'm trying to get to is that in the older system, the oldest system possible, like it's, you get your fees and you go to the window over here and pay them. So nobody in development services would have known at that point, the check was being remitted. I'm not saying that there was a good, good reason why they didn't know that it changed. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking in August when the ownership changed, fine. They came in in September to pay for the permit. In whose name was the permit issued? In the name of the former owner or in the name of the new entity? The check or the perm? I'm sorry. You mean the check? In whose name was the check issued? Okay. I see what you're saying. Okay. Right. So the permit, so when they issued the permit, did they do a contractor change to Listom? I don't know that the answer he made. They did eventually. They did. But they were still traveling under an owner builder permit. Right. When the permit was paid for. Right. And whose name was the permit issued? It was issued in the name? I don't know. I'm sorry. I don't, I'm not going to argue with him if he's got the paper permit now. I mean, it's literally going back to a different system. So I, I know what you're saying. I understand, but the response, the onus is always on the property owner. Right. Right. And so I'm looking at the owner builder affidavit and disclosure statement, and it's, it's very clear what the onus is and who has the onus. And so when you're, when that conveyance occurs, they're required to get, to submit a brand new permit application. So effectively, when they, when they recorded the, the deed, changing it from Zusson to the LLC, frankly, at that point, this permit's closed because he no longer owns the property as an owner builder. All right. Yeah. I don't believe, by the way, I agree with you. There's no, I'm not worried about the precedents here because it's this, there's too many special facts and circumstances that, to try to duplicate this to be. We don't want that. Yeah. I don't want that. Um, but so that's really my issue. My issue is it's an owner's permit and now it's not because no, once you're going to sell it afterwards, you're going to have to, it's for sale. The whole purpose of having the, the flexibility of getting an owner's permit is because of all of these subsequent facts that are going to have to exist. And those, those don't exist. Okay. That's what I've got. I've got my answer then. Okay. So now to the commission, I'm saying, no, no, I need a motion. I need, I need something. Silence is not golden in this case. Excuse me. Motion to deny resolution number five, seven dash two six. Second. Roll call vote. Commissioner Margaret. Yes. Commissioner Cassell. Yes. Deputy Vice Mayor Burns. Yes. Mayor Kearney. Yes. Motion passed. Okay. Nope. Nomination for the historic preservation board. Based on the rotation system, the nomination for one qualified member to serve an unexpired term ending in August 31, 26th will be made by Commissioner Marker. I would like to nominate Jake Eliopoulos. I knew you were going to. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Good. Congratulations, Jake. You're taking over your dead spot. We are now into the section of the meeting for the public hearings and second. Mr. Mayor, no. Seven I. Oh, I forgot about seven I, of course. We just added it today. How could I possibly not forget that? Okay. After all the work we did on poor old seven I. Seven I, seven I is a request for the reconsider, our request to the Lake Worth Drainage District for a reconsideration of the determination to, et cetera, based on the new evidence and work that we have done because we actually didn't get a presentation to begin with and I think that's what we're trying to ask for. Is that correct? Nailed it. Nailed it. Would you like to pick up the ball here? Mr. Moore has a lot of enthusiasm for this, so. Okay. I'll let him do it. Well, thank you, Madam City Attorney. I'm just reiterating what you said earlier. We're trying to exhaust all the possibilities here. Well, this is actually fairly brief because I think between Ms. Jelen and myself we've done a nice job bringing you all up to speed since the aftermath of last Wednesday's meeting, including the fact that the initially contemplated tree service provider was not actually utilized for this particular purpose as for issues and concerns not pertaining to the city of Dairway Beach. However, we were able to identify another company rather quickly to produce a report that's been provided to each of you all to include the update in today's agenda based on consensus and direction offered during the Wednesday, February 18th special call meeting. So to cut to the quick, my interest is to secure City Commission's approval this evening as the Office of the City Managers prepared to deliver to the Lake Worth Drainage District the letter requesting reconsideration to be accompanied by the technical reports as provided by Baker Landscape Services relative to the Banyan Tree Survey and all other related data. So with approval this evening, we'll be able to proceed beginning tomorrow morning. For good measure, we will not only deliver an original copy, but we will deliver one via United States Postal Service Mill. To also include in the narrative by the city attorney supporting our position and all that other kind of stuff in the motion. You're going to be drafting essentially a justification statement for the... I did. Okay. Done. It's in the backup. I've cited to the report as well as a risk assessment that was completed and essentially just requested one of the board members to make a request for reconsideration. It was a 5-0, so any of the board members? I think it was 7-0. 7-0. Is there seven board members? There's only five on listed. And two alternates, but I don't think they voted. So essentially anybody can make the motion because they were all on the prevailing side. And so the letters in here, Mr. Moore can hand deliver it tomorrow like he indicated, along with the reports. And it's basically based on newly discovered evidence, which is the city commissioned reports. Okay. Well, I'm in favor of it, but I mean, I'd say it's to the commission. Can we just say so moved? Yes. You can say yes. That's it. To repeat all of that, I forgot. So moved. Perfect. So moved is fine. I said. All in favor? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Good. And just to conclude briefly, Mr. Mayor, so the Lake Worth drainage districts actually have two meetings each month. The first Tuesday of each month, they typically have a workshop meeting, which the next is scheduled to take place one week from today, Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026. However, their regular board meetings are typically every second Wednesday of each month taking place the next Wednesday, March 11, 2026. So we'll advise you if arrangements are successful for either engagement, but the intent to deliver tomorrow based on this evening's direction is to provide an opportunity for either opportunity for a visit. So we look forward to that and we'll advise accordingly. Great. Thank you very much. We are now in the public hearings portion of the meeting. We have ordinance number 03-26. Would you like to please read the ordinance into the record? This is a second reading. In ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Dollar Tree, Florida, amending Chapter 32, Department Supporting Commission, Section 32.64, Qualifications, to clarify the criteria for appointment of board members to the Police Advisory Board, providing a conference clause, a severability clause, an authority to codify, providing an effective date, and further purposes. As you recall, we received a letter from the Director of Civil Rights at the Office of the Attorney General back in November of this year. A complaint had been filed concerning potential equal protection concerns against the City of Delray Beach. I reviewed the ordinance and I made some changes to the language. I notified Tallahassee. They haven't said otherwise. And so I'm just asking for this change. And this is a public hearing, so we have to open it up. This is a public hearing. You've made the presentation, so this is both for 8A and 8B, or you just did 8A? Just 8A, sir. Okay. This is a public hearing. If there are any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, please come to the lectern, give your name, zip code, and you will each have three minutes. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioner. This is Paul Cannon, Chair of the Police Advisory Board. My zip code is 33483. I'll be very brief and simply say that, to me, this sounds like Tallahassee overreach. I think if we think about the reason that the Police Advisory Board was created in the first place, was entirely to make sure that we had adequate representation from all the different and various communities that we have within the city. And I think it's something that we should resist and leave the wording as it currently is. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, public comment is closed. Public comment is closed. To the Commission. So the way that... Commissioner Burns. Thank you. Thank you. You're supposed to... Yeah. She's looking at me. Commissioner Casales has been great. She's been raising her any time. She's looking at me. I keep thinking. I've got to confirm. The way that the ordinance was rewritten, it's just inclusive of everyone, correct? So the language that was objectionable was, the City Commission shall endeavor to include as many racial and ethnic minority members as possible. I have amended it to state, the Police Advisory Board membership shall include a diverse cross-section of the community representing a variety of perspectives and experiences across all demographic groups. And that is what we want. It seems fine. Would you like to be recognized? No, I just think we have to make this change. Otherwise, we, you know, it doesn't change the meaning for us. All right. It's inclusive of everyone. So that's just... Commissioner Markman. I agree with the commissioners. I agree because it really is going to be up to us to ensure that the board is the right, you know, complement of the different portions of the interested party. So that's good. That's the most important part because we're in control of that element. So I need a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Ordinance No. 3-26. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Unanimous. Okay. Ordinance No. 13-26. An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Title III, Administration, Chapter 36, Acquisition of Goods and Services and Disposal City Property, Section 36.02, Commission Approval Required, to Increase the Threshold for City Commission Approval of Acquisitions from $65,000 to $100,000, Providing Conflict Clause and Severability Clause, Authority to Codify, Providing an Effective Date and Further Purposes. This is to a second reading, and this is just to follow the purchasing manual that you've already approved. Thank you very much. This is a public meeting. Anyone wishing to comment on this agenda item, please come to the lectern. Give your name and zip code. You will each have three minutes. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Opposed to the Commission. No comment. Then I need a motion. Motion to approve Ordinance Number 13-26. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? It is adopted unanimously. Ordinance Number 8C. An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Chapter 99, Noise Control, by repealing the adopted Chapter 99 in its entirety and readopting same as revised in order to amend and update the city's regulations for the appropriate level of noise output originating within the limits of the city, providing a complex clause, a severability clause, authority to codify, and providing an effective date. And I have a short presentation for you today. Thank you very much. All right. So I feel like we've talked about noise ad nauseum. And so today we're going to do a little bit different. I think everybody understands the ordinance. I think everybody understands the changes I'm proposing. So just by way of background, pursuant to the commission's direction, we did hold a town hall meeting. Mr. Moore and certain members of staff were present to answer the community's questions and provide some feedback on the noise ordinance. That was on February 5th of 2026. Today we're doing second reading. Should this ordinance be approved today, staff will commence on the purchase of noise meters. We have our consultant who's ready to start training staff. We will do outreach within the communities to ensure that everybody understands the requirements. And we're looking at March, April 2026 for that. And the projected implementation would be April, May of 2026. So what I want to talk about today are the misconceptions. We heard a lot of commentary from some of our partners at the town hall meeting. And I do think that it does deserve a conversation today so that we can try to dispel this. Our goal is to get us to succeed, right? We don't want to write ordinances that fail. And so we all have to work together. And that's where that community outreach comes through, the education comes through. So I want to talk about some of the misconceptions. The first one, noise will be measured from the doorstep of businesses. That's incorrect. And so Florida law actually prohibits code enforcement officers from entering private property absent consent from the property owner or unless there's like a life health safety emergency. Typically, they stand on the sidewalk. And if they can observe it from the sidewalk, then they're able to issue that notice of violation. But the entire investigation has to occur on the sidewalk. And our noise ordinance is consistent with that. Sound levels shall be measured on the property boundary from which the sound is generated, which is really around where the sidewalk is. However, you've all been to our downtown and you recognize that some of our businesses have a property line that's very close to the doorstep. This ordinance accounts for that. You know what? Did I go? Sorry. I went really fast, didn't I? Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. We're going to start over. So the first one. I'm going to do this one first. The city doesn't have a noise ordinance. We have a noise ordinance. We've had it since at least 2012, which is when a large overhaul was done. In 2013, a smaller overhaul was done. And we haven't touched it since then. And so this is actually really timely in order to be able to keep up with the technology so that we can actually measure the excessive noise. Our current standard is whether the noise is plainly audible 100 feet away. And we've talked about this. This is a subjective standard, right? This is the, you know, do I think the music is too loud? Probably. Do my kids think the music is too loud? Probably not. That's not fair, right? We always want to ensure equity and fairness with our ordinances. And so when you're looking at things subjectively, that's when you can potentially have issues with, you know, disparate enforcement, unfair enforcement, and that's what we're trying to avoid. And so what this proposed ordinance does is it does maintain the 100-foot plainly audible standard only if the noise meters are unavailable and it establishes the objective standard. This is like the speed limit sign on 95 that tells you if you're going too fast or not. So if we don't adopt this today, we do have an ordinance and we will have staff out there because we are getting complaints that do need to be addressed. From the city's perspective, the most fair way to enforce something, and the mayor knows this with the law, is objectively. Because when you have different opinions, that's when the unfairness and the inequitable situations arise. So we started talking about where the noise is measured from. So noise is not measured from the doorstep. Some of the properties on the avenue are very close to the boundary, but the noise ordinance accounts for that. And you can see there's a table in the noise ordinance, 99.05A, and it has the entertainment district. And if you look at the entertainment district, it's five decibels louder than the commercial, the community facilities. Industrial is always going to be your highest because that's, you know, that's the factories and things like that. Not that we have that many, but the noise ordinance accounts for that. The noise ordinance accounts for the entertainment district and the boundaries of it and allowing the noise to be not only louder, but later. And so these adjustments were accounted for by the noise consultant that was hired by the city. Next one. Another misconception. The decimal limits were manufactured by the city. These were based on a sound study that was conducted. The sound was captured over the course of two weeks. We had volunteers that went with the noise consultant on a walk throughout the city to determine, like, do you think this noise is too loud? So they have subjective responses based on the people who went on the volunteers. And they also have the objective information from those noise meters that were attached to the light post. Now, there have been some allegations that maybe the noise was turned down during that time. And so, you know, the city can't control that. We have to measure the noise as it was done during that noise study. And so the numbers were reviewed by the consultant. He reviewed the data and he came up with these recommendations of the numbers. Nobody in staff is an expert on noise. We did not come up with those numbers. They were done by a professional who's an acoustic expert who has done this for other cities. Our noise consultant actually did the noise ordinance for Miami Beach. So in addition, because of the delay in getting this ordinance before the city commission, I had the numbers reviewed by another consultant to make sure that they were appropriate, as well as outside counsel reviewed the legality of the ordinance. And everybody supported what we're bringing before you today. Let's not forget ordinances are fluid, right? It's like the constitution. It's a living, breathing document. If changes are necessary, I saw them here. If changes are necessary, we bring them to the commission. And you have the ability to adjust these numbers. You have the ability to review these numbers. You can say, Lynn, go conduct another noise study. Have the sound consultant come back and review to make sure that these numbers are appropriate for our community. The noise ordinance is not a revenue generator for the city. Our goal of code enforcement is always compliance. Ms. Pryor will tell you that her staff works endlessly with the businesses, with the residents to get to the point of compliance. We don't want to drag people into the special magistrate. We have to. But the goal, the first goal is compliance. When we don't achieve compliance, then people are going to be brought before the special magistrate. Our fines are statutory. Florida law dictates what those fines can be. So they're not set by the city commission. Furthermore, the recommendations that we give to the special magistrate, he's not bound to them. Last, the ordinance does allow staff to issue warnings. I am confident that at least at the very beginning of this enforcement period, we are going to be issuing warnings because the goal, as always, for code enforcement is compliance. We've had a lot of commentary and questions about vehicular noise. Vehicular noise is essentially governed by Florida statute. The Florida statute defers it and allows the DEP and the DHSMV to work collectively to establish decibel limits. And so that's governed by Florida statute. It's a ticket. It's a non-criminal, so you're not going to go to court for it, a non-moving violation that the police can issue. I'm not here to tell you that that's going to be an easy task. Our law enforcement officers are going to have to be trained. It's going to be a learning process. But the goal is to, and what we hear from the residents is, that's the main source of the complaint is those mufflers, those loud engines that you hear all hours of the day. And so we will have the ability now, because we will have decibel readers, in order to capture that, unlike other types of noise, like the noise emanating for businesses, Florida statute basically allows us to point the meter at a distance of 50 feet away. And if you're able to capture that measurement, and it's in excess of those limits, you are able to issue the citation. What our ordinance does say is that it exempts the motor vehicles that are in compliance with this, with Florida statute. So I know it's a little bit confusing, but we will defer to Florida statute for enforcement of the motor vehicles. So what's my recommendation? My recommendation today is that we adopt this ordinance. There's been a lot of hard work. You know, I would be remiss if I didn't think, and Thea's team, my team, all of our consultants, this was a very huge undertaking in order to come up with something that we feel is fair to everybody, allows everybody to have this, you know, symbiotic relationship between the businesses and the residents. That's what the goal is. I would recommend that you direct staff to come back in 120 days. At that point, we will have had the training, we will have had the educational outreach, and we will have some implementation of this ordinance so that we can come back to you with what we've discovered. We might say to you, you know what, these numbers are too low. You know, everybody's in violation. We need to adjust. We might say to you, nope, we found the sweet spot. You know, everybody's in compliance, and this is doing what we wanted it to do. And again, you always have the ability to direct staff to bring back an ordinance to you if you deem that changes are appropriate. So there's nothing about this that's final. There's nothing about this that can never be changed. But I feel that we need to have something on the books that our law enforcement can enforce and that – and more importantly, that puts the residents on notice as to what the requirements are, the residents and the businesses. And so that's it. And this is a public hearing. Anthea's here for moral support. Did you have – oh, you're just here for moral support? Okay. I got you. Listen, you're doing a great job. She's excellent. This is a public meeting. If anybody wishes to come up and comment on this proposed ordinance, please come to the lectern, give your name, zip code for the record. You will each have three minutes. Hello. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. Alex Burns, 33445. This particular one here is near and dear to my heart because when I actually started my business, it affected me in the ability to make money. One of the things that I will say as a disclaimer, common sense isn't so common any longer. Anytime you go around this country and you go to downtown, what are some of the things you think about? Capable of getting food right down the block? Maybe get some entertainment? And, of course, what comes along with that, those are the pros, the cons. The cons are you might have some noise, and it's going to be noisy indoor development happening, so you're going to have that noise factor in there. Now, when I first started, it was already an issue east of Swinton, and the issue was same thing. It was noise, right? But the city was very instrumental in explaining to anybody who moved in there that, hey, unfortunately, you moved downtown, and you're going to get some of those same things downtown. But the reason why you moved downtown is because you can walk right downstairs and go out and get dinner and or have some entertainment, right? I can bet you that no one west of the railroad tracks have an issue with it, right? And I would even be willing to believe and bet that Lake Ida don't have an issue with noise, right? It's really only downtown, and that's what your downtown is supposed to be. It's supposed to be vibrant, right? And I think, in my opinion, that it does hurt different businesses, especially if we're talking about having a vibrant downtown in terms of this noise ordinance fiasco. Now, with that being said, I want to also say that by design, there has been a particular community that's been left out of a lot. When I say left out of a lot, I mean left out of economic empowerment, and that was definitely by design. And once again, it's coming back around. We talk about redlining. Well, now we talk about possibly removing Atlantic Avenue out of this downtown area, right? That's also a new form of redlining. And what I'm saying is that whatever happens downtown, because we always talk about equal and fair, I don't think it's been equal and fair for quite a while now, being that you have the largest community, excuse me, excuse me, the second largest community in this city on the bottom of the economic totem pole. That also was by design. So if we're going to be fair, I would say that whatever happens east of Swinton, also allow that to be extended, whether it's the entertainment district or even a noise ordinance. As long as it's fair and consistent from 95 to the beach, I'm good with it either way. But in the same breath, I do think that it will definitely affect businesses and how this vibrant downtown could make money. And I also think that with the second largest community, if that community started making money, it only uplifts the whole city, right? So we talk about taxes and money and not having enough to pay for things. Well, I guarantee you, if we fix that second largest community being on the bottom of the totem pole issue, Delray would be thriving. Thank you, Mr. Burns. Three, three, four, four, four. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioner. Your name, please. I was going to say it now. Okay. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Angela Hill, 33445 again. I am speaking tonight as a member of this community, not just today's community, but one that's shaped by decisions made long before many of us were born. In 1935, Resolution 146 established zone limits for Delray colored residents. Shortly after that, Ordinance 209 divided the city into two police districts. One for the whites and one for the blacks, with the curfews that made it illegal for black residents to be east of Swinton and whites to be west of Swinton at certain hours. Those policies not only separated the community, but they defined where culture, business, music, and life itself were allowed to exist. The west side became the place where black residents were permitted to gather, celebrate, create culture and community. Fast forward to today. The entertainment district begins just east of Swinton, right where history once drew that line. Now, residents have crossed west, purchased homes, and historically, culturally, quarter, and complaints about noise and activity continues. But what we are really hearing echoes of is boundaries that never fully disappeared. We cannot celebrate diversity while preserving invisible borders. The area of I-95 to A-1A may be called downtown, but it does not operate under the same expectations and circumstances. On the east side, entertainment is understood as part of an environment, and on the west side, it is treated as a disruption, even though it existed there first. People should know the character of the neighborhood before they buy into it, not change the character after they have arrived. To extend the entertainment district west of Swinton is not special treatment for the residents. It's not an expansion, excuse me, for expansion's sake. It is the correction, the acknowledgement, the culture placed there by segregation, which should now be restricted nor regulated by a few. The community deserves the same right to gather, celebrate, and sustain its businesses in the very area it is once confined to. The community asks that you extend the entertainment district to the westward, not just for businesses, not just for music, but for fairness and equality to all. Because sometimes equity simply means removing the last remaining line and making it visible. So, thank you. Thank you very much. Lucy Casores, 33444. I just want to give some perspective when we're talking about North's ordinances. I am a realtor, so if you want to buy some real estate, shameless plug. But the average cost per square foot on the app is $90 per square foot. Let's just say you have a modest business that's 1,000 square feet. That's $90,000 a year, about $75,000 a month. So, if I'm going to move into what I consider the entertainment business of Delray, and then I have a noise ordinance, I don't know if that lends well to the viability of that business being able to not just thrive, but to also pay for the tax base that we so much enjoy here. So, I do want to give you perspective, like we just want to make sure we're not setting businesses up for failure because I know of an owner right now is probably on his third tenant because of some of the North's ordinances are literally handcuffing some of his tenants. So, not only, and then additionally, we all are on board for developing from the beaches all the way to 95. So, when we're introducing these types of blockades, if you will, I don't want to say handcuffs because that's a little bit extreme, but when we're doing some of these hoops and things of that nature, we really do hinder a lot of what would be businesses there, robbing us of tax bases, robbing us of developing and thriving and this viability that we want to see. And then, my last thing, I just want to mention, when we are moving to, if you move to a rural community, there are pros and cons of rural communities. Of course, you know, some of the pros is it's a little bit more peaceful, it's less traffic, and you get to probably do a homestead. When you move into a city, you have more services, you have convenience, convenience comes at a cost, unfortunately. So, I think for someone who is considering location and they're moving into a downtown area, it is, you know, thought of, hey, I'm going to have these things to deal with. And maybe we can offer them, you know, silent impact windows that kind of isolate noises from outside. Maybe some of those things could be considered, but to just say, hey, this is noise ordinance, I don't think that's fair. And I do think that's on the part of the homeowner to consider the location. And that's it. Thank you very much. Hi, good evening. Michael Teich, 33444. My wife and I live in Lake Ida neighborhood. I'm here to take a moment to ask whether this ordinance truly reflects what the residents asked for. For example, in our most recent election, the city elected a GOP-backed mayor in large part because residents were looking for less government encroachment into their daily lives, not more. Yet you're being asked to adopt or appeal and adopt a replacement for an existing noise ordinance that's far more technical and onerous regulations that increase government oversight and further limit quiet hours. At a recent town hall meeting related to this ordinance, the overwhelming concern raised by residents was vehicle noise, loud exhaust, mostly motorcycles. This ordinance does largely exempt motor vehicles only if they don't comply with Florida statute, which for motorcycles is measured a distance of 50 feet from the center lane and at over 82 decibels if they're traveling over 35 miles per hour, which is far louder than the current limits being placed on bars and restaurants. So as far as I'm concerned, most of this ordinance would not address the concerns of residents that I heard at the last town hall meeting. Also, quiet hours are being proposed to move citywide from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week with no distinction between weeknights and weekends. In a community like Delray Beach where neighbors gather for birthday parties, barbecues, and family get-togethers, it is normal for these activities to run until 11 p.m. Recently, one of my neighbors had their yearly Valentine's Day luau in Lake Ida, and a ban ran until 11 p.m. on purpose because that was when the noise ordinance went into effect. This change would change the very fabric of our community and how we get together with friends and neighbors so that ordinary social interaction could result in warnings, citations, or fines. I'd also like to point out that the silent majority of residents who are happy with the way things are are not the ones showing up to these meetings and coming here to tell you they're unhappy with the noise ordinance. The people that are coming here are the minority that are complaining about impact to the noise. But this noise will impact every single person in their homes and their day-to-day lives. It will negatively impact local businesses that rely on a vibrant and active downtown, especially during the short, seasonal, busy season. From a public relations standpoint, I would like to ask you to imagine a headline in the Palm Beach Post saying, Dolray, question mark, with a photo of a city employee standing outside a busy bar with patrons holding a piece of high-tech noise equipment and a notepad. That's a PR nightmare. And I think it's not the image that we want to project to people coming to the city. We all want to address legitimate disturbances, but this proposal is clearly not what the majority of your constituents want. I respectfully urge you to reconsider in its current form. There should be a focus on road noise, which appears to be what most of the residents are concerned with, distinctions between weekends and weeknights for residential noise, and less, not more regulation and onerous problem for our downtown businesses. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Chuck Ridley. I reside at 210 Northwest 2nd Avenue. Ms. Jelen, you're correct. It doesn't need to be subjective. It needs to be based on facts. The facts I'm going to talk about are historical facts. I want to talk about why CRA was brought to Dolray. I want to talk about, at that time, there was two things, two facts really clear. The area that we now call the set was adopted into that plan because of slum and blight. The reason downtown was adopted into that plan, and some of you were around, was because it was dead. It was empty at nighttime. And what the CRA did, including DDA, and I see Laura here, they became advocates to make downtown pop. And during that period, they fought hard to make sure that the buildings and businesses and entertainment that came into that area got every resource that it needed. During this period, though, and Ms. Hill talked about when there was a period where there was two Dolrays. Many of us there say there are still two Dolrays. But have you ever heard of the Paradise? Have you ever heard of the Elks Club? Have you ever heard of Tropicana? Have you ever heard of Georgetown Tavern? There was a vibrant entertainment district east of Swinton Avenue. And why isn't it there anymore? Because those who wanted to make sure that downtown popped was afraid to have folk drive from I-95 to get to downtown because they had to come to my neighborhood. Some of you can remember when the traffic lights were put on flashes so people who were leaving downtown wouldn't have to stop in our neighborhood. And what you did at that period is you killed our entertainment district, and then when you made the NOAA's ordinance and brought it back, you did not even consider how that impacted businesses. Fact, I have watched it kill one business. I'm talking about the NOAA's ordinance and the lack of an entertainment district, and I see it putting stress on another. I don't know enough about NOAA's to tell you if it's a good idea or not. I know that you've got to think through what it takes to have a good entertainment district. Why don't I go downtown? Not just because it's high. I don't like that entertainment. I want to have me some chicken with bones in it. I want to have some soul. I want to hear R&B. That ain't what's happening downtown. And commissions like this and CRA and DDA, they watched the entertainment district die. It's time to bring it back. Get this ordinance right. Extend an entertainment district and fight for businesses to survive the way those people who said in the days did back when the CRA came. Thank you. If you want to go pick up some and bring it back, I'm happy to pay my share. George Long, 33444. I remember driving by the Georgia Town Tavern and Bab's Blue Room. That's how long I've been. But I was too white and too young to go in. They did. They were good. They were good establishments. Two things. We're kind of conflating this idea of moving the entertainment district west, which is good. I'm okay with that, with the noise ordinance, right? Everybody comes up here and they're talking about we need to move the entertainment district west, which is all right for me. But I thought we were talking about noise ordinance and decibels and things like that. Let's go back to that for a minute. I think that this ordinance is here because the noise gets out of hand. It gets too loud and you get a lot of complaints. But that doesn't mean we want to stop the music. It's essential to keeping up with the vibrancy and all that stuff you guys are talking about, you guys that can hear. Also, let me bring that up. I've never complained to code ordinance, the city, or anybody else because I can't hear it. So that's good. But I have been sympathetic to people who have complained. I'll be glad to support them and take their side. If the noise is too loud. I believe that sometimes it's just too damn loud. There's no way around it. And it doesn't have to be that way. These people that have some of these entertainment venues do not have to have weapon-sized speakers up there to try to blast us all off to the sidewalk. Isn't there ways you can handle this? Maybe put some smaller speakers around them. Maybe you can put a little buffer there. Have you ever talked to an engineer, an acoustical engineer, and say, we've got a lot of complaints here. Can you kind of come up with some ideas? At least show we care some about these complaints. But anyway, in my opinion, the ordinance is not going to kill business, kill Delray Beach. We live a long time without being really awful noisy. And it could be useful. The people who have businesses and are getting criticized, come at us, complain, say, look, we're at 78, 85, whatever it is, and bring us statistics about other towns that have raised their decibels up to 100 in order to make everybody happy and stuff like that. Do some research and prove that this ordinance is too restrictive. And you'll probably find it's not. Anyway, that's about three or four cents worth, isn't it? Thank you. Good evening. Laura Simon with the Downtown Development Authority. Our office is at 33483. I did want to share, we did submit a letter to you all back last Friday as our board did review several times the ordinance regarding our nighttime and sound. And I just want to, we've also been part of, as Mr. Ridley said, been part of this nighttime economy evolution and nighttime management, if you will, for many, many years. And it is a nighttime economy that is thriving and bringing and driving our engine of the downtown. And there are concerns. We have concerns. And one thing that I think that wasn't mentioned today is about the Entertainment District. It was discussed at the Town Hall of the expansion of that. I know you all have discussed that. I do think it's time we look at that. It is only in a Swinton to Federal Highway and on two blocks on north and south, which does impact if it's on the, the Ray is just north of the 2nd Street. So that will impact the Ray with this new reduction down to 10 p.m. Swinton to Military Trail will be now until 10 p.m. A federal highway to the beach will now be at 10 p.m. reduction. So the time change is going to impact not, it's going to impact a lot of the community. And the Entertainment District is going to swell, if you will, with activity. But at the same time, I think it's really important for us to look at that and make sure that it is equitable for all. We want to grow West Atlantic Avenue and the Set neighborhood. We want to grow north and south on federal highways. So how do we do that? And there can be incentives with sound and Entertainment District and growth. And I do know that there is some concerns with our organization and our downtown community and stakeholders. We have some here tonight that know that it's not just about, you know, most of the ones that are here tonight are in the Entertainment District. But they know that everything that's some of the things that are proposed here could hinder and impact the entire community. And we want to support the entire community as a whole. And we hope that you'll look at the times, look at the decimals, because I do think there is concern with that level. And maybe look at that at a broader level and do some testing before it's actually approved. So thank you. Thank you very much. Ellen Bate at a 33483. This is my first town hall meeting because I usually am very satisfied with things. But the vehicular noise is really what brought me down here. And it's scary to pedestrians to be walking on Atlantic Avenue and having motorcycles and cars rev up. And seeing little kids respond to it is concerning to me. I was not aware of the intersectionality of the other aspects of the noise ordinance. And I appreciate all the things that are being said. So thank you for that. And thank you for giving me a moment to speak. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Rhonda Miller. I live, reside in 33444. I want to know who is they that is complaining about the noise, because it sounds like the people that are moving here are the ones that are complaining about the noise. Well, they knew what they were getting into when they came. Who's the expert? Who qualifies somebody to be an expert? Who's to say that these noise meters are going to be used properly, just like they did for the tent on a car? People are being targeted. Areas are being targeted. Noise is noise. People are having parties. People want to congregate. People want to get together. As much as division has gone on in this city, when it comes to having a little noise because people are congregating, why? It's not just going to affect the businesses. It's going to affect everybody. And if it's a noise ordinance doing with automobiles, then target them. Don't target the city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to speak on this proposed ordinance? Seeing none, public comment is closed. To the commission, who would like to go first? Commissioner Burns, would you like to go first? Sure. I wanted to, I think that, you know, it has to be fair. And I heard the city attorney, you're asking for 120 days. And this is like a test period, correct? Is this to test the meters and see if they're working? Because I want to make sure that, as you said, that it is appropriate for our city. Like, you know, Delray is its own unique city. So we want to make sure that this ordinance is appropriate for the city. And so the 120 days you propose that there's education going on and then testing this, testing these meters out, because we definitely don't want it to be subjective. Because as you said, what's noise to you may not be noise to me. Right. And that, we definitely don't want that. So are those the two options? So the options are we maintain the current subjective approach, which I think we all agree doesn't work. Option B is, is what I'm proposing, which is we adopt it. We can't do a pilot program unless there's something in the code, right? Because there's, there's, we have to have regulations in order to test it out. So similar to our red speed cameras, where we're still on this phase, we may extend it even longer if we find that we're having issues with this. But I think we have to have something where, and we can start with a warning period, the same, same way that we've done with these traffic citations. I'm recommending 120 days because at the onset, we have to purchase the noise meters, schedule the trainings and do our education all at that, that early period. And then we can have a 60 day period of implementation where we're testing out the ordinance, testing out our staff. We need to ensure that our staff understands how, how these noisy meters work. If you look at the ordinance, it's very technical. They have to make adjustments for ambient noise. They have to have the meter meters positioned properly. So this is going to take a little bit of an effort. But at the end of the day, once everyone feels comfortable and we'll bring back a status, same thing with red speed. You know, the, the PD came in and provided you with an update. We'll bring back an update at the 120 day mark. And if everybody's satisfied that the numbers are where they should be, that the ordinance is, is going to be applied fairly, then at that point we can start with the, with the enforcement, right? But we, we can't enforce without having the regulations in place. There's, there's nothing to enforce right now except the plainly audible standard. So I do think that this is the right method. And again, our goal is compliance. You know, as an example, Mary, and I think, you know, because you live right by their pop stroke, we had a lot of issues with pop stroke with the noise. I think you all were on the dais or were coming on the dais. A lot of complaints with the noise vibrating off a federal highway. The mayor lives right by there and they actually were brought to code. However, they also work with staff in order to, to come up with ways to mitigate the impacts of the noise. And there's things that, that, that business, businesses can do. There's landscaping. There's, um, these meters that you put in your building that, that don't allow people to adjust the volume of the noise or the decibels. So there's things that we can do. Code enforcement and development services are so great at having meetings. I mean, I remember when the noise was out of control before most of you were on this dais. We brought everybody in. We brought all the businesses on the oven to talk about their site plan, to talk about what the issues were. And I do feel that that made a difference because once you educate people on what the requirements are and why they're in violation, it leads to a much better relationship between the city and the business. And I do think that when we did that and Anthea was there, she'll tell you it was onerous. It was a lot of work scheduling these meetings, but everybody came in and had a fair understanding of what the city's concern was. There were life health safety issues. There were issues with the, you know, having DJs, but we got to a place where everybody could understand what the concerns were, what the regulations were, and it helped us be able to properly enforce our regulations on the app. Okay. And in terms of the, you know, one of the main complaints is about the vehicular noise. Is that enforced? Is that realistically, can we enforce that? I mean, um, you actually have to see and witness these revving up vehicles. It's like speeding. You can't give a ticket off of hearsay. No. So if somebody calls us and says, you know, the mayor's car is, you know, revving the engine, you know, we can't, we can't act on that. We have to have personal observation of the citation. And so I, and I think I've spoken to each of you individually about this. Miami beach did a task force when, after they adopted and they trained their, their staff, they were able to do a task force where they station their officers, almost like speed traps. It was like a noise trap where they knew that most of the vehicles were creating the noise for us. It would probably be on the Avenue. It would be on federal highway. You, we know the areas where you hear it and they stationed officers there. They were trained on the noise meters and they were, they were giving out citations. So, you know, that's administrative. That's between the manager and our police chief. I can tell you, I've had so many meetings with our police chief to discuss this because we are being proactive. We understand the concerns of the neighbors, but we also need to have the noise meters to start with and the proper training, because with the proper training, we're not going to be able to properly use those devices and it's going to be a waste of money. So I think once we have those two things, administratively, we can come up with a plan. In order to address, and I don't disagree, the main concern of residents is the cars. And so I do think that this at least provides us with an avenue by way of purchasing these noise meters in order to be able to move forward with that and hopefully make a difference and, you know, add to the quality of our residents' lives in a positive way. Well, I am in favor of proper training. I realize that the training is required. And I also would like to say that I think it's time that we also look at extending the entertainment district. So wherever that fits into this, now or later, I think that we need to give that some consideration and bring that back to the commission. Okay. Very good. Mr. Markert. Yeah. I'm going to take one minute. I've been to all the noise meetings, and I would say that we've had very, very good representation from the community, not from everybody. There are some pockets where we didn't get as much information as I would have been more comfortable with. But the noise that we're talking about in Delray is coming in three flavors right now when you break it down. There are gas blowers, which are very, very loud, and our residents are very unhappy about that noise. The second thing are cars, motorcycles, and golf carts, particularly in the downtown area. The noise from the cars and the motorcycles are from revving the engines. They may be illegally modified. I don't know. But they make a lot of noise. The noise that's been reported from the golf carts is music being played full blast as they're going down the avenue. Okay. Then the third thing that we're measuring. So again, three things, blowers, motor vehicles, and then we're measuring bars and restaurants. So there are three areas that we're measuring. The nice thing for all of these areas is technology is coming into play now, and we have some technology solutions. I talked to Chief Hunter at one point about if we didn't have technology, how would we go about finding the cars making the loud noise? And it would be asking him to do the impossible. We'd have to station an officer in a location waiting for somebody to drive by. They may be there for three, four, five hours before there's any noise. We don't know. But just like with the red light cameras that we have in the school zones now, technology is available. And we're talking to the companies that make that technology. The technology is just like the red light camera. It can suss out where the noise came from. It can take a picture of the license plate. And if we wanted to issue a ticket, it can. So there are some technology solutions that are coming. As for the bars and restaurants, I'm right down the middle on this one. I think our downtown is very vibrant. And I think noise is a part of that. And the restaurant noise is a part of that. But I think there may be some places where we can balance it out a little bit. And I think this technology solution that Lynn is talking about is the right way to go. Give us a few months to test its technology out. Let's get some real hard facts. And then let's make some decisions. And somebody brought it up earlier today, a very smart person. I forgot who it was. We need community buy-in on this. This can't be a group of people saying it's got to be quiet downtown. We need our restaurants and our bars to participate in that discussion as well. We want them to be a part of the solution. We don't want to jam it down anybody's throats. That's not who we are as a community. That's not how we've been so successful. So I'm in support of what Lynn brought up. I think let's get that technology in here. Let's give it 90 days, see what the data really looks like. And then let's come back to this group and show everybody what we found. And our hypothesis may be right on. I don't know if it's wrong, we'll change it. Or if it needs to be modified, we'll change it. But that raw data is going to allow us to make smart decisions. So I'm in favor. Commissioner Casale. Thank you. Just, I'm mistaken. Are those noise cameras are preempted by the state? No, you can't use noise cameras. Yeah, okay. So that's off the table. The handheld is the only thing we can use. It's not that we're preempted. It's not permitted. Not permitted. Sorry. Thank you. But that said, it's being looked at. Okay, but for now, that's not a viable solution. But the handhelds are correct. Okay. There's a couple things. Ms. Simon mentioned the Ray. And are they doing rooftop music? Because how would the Ray be impacted from the time change? Okay. So the Ray is not in the entertainment district now. So nothing's really changing for them. Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to ask that. Thank you. So, oh, gosh, I can't. Everyone's concerned about the vehicles. And if we could find a solution, that would be amazing. Even at the tennis center, sitting, listening to tennis, which was pretty loud. There's background stuff going on outside. Some guy was revving. It felt like three minutes, literally. I know it wasn't that long, but it felt like it was ridiculous. And I can't even imagine if you were eating on the street at that time. I was so far off the street, how offensive that would have been. And I think, you know, it goes to quality of life and balance. And I appreciate, I know you're doing as much as you can in every aspect of the city. So I'm sure you're working on it. But maybe at some point, if we can talk about a timeline of, like, how long we think it can be so that some of the residents who are constantly making that same complaint can have a sense of how long it's going to be. And another thing I want to say about this that we haven't talked about, because I'm supportive of this. I'm getting so many complaints about people who are buying houses and using them on weekend rentals and Airbnbs. And they're just a party palace. So if, say, my neighbor sells their house to one of these people, then there's a party every single week, every weekend music going on. And I'm hearing complaints. I mean, one of our most lovely city employees called me, said, I don't want to be making complaints, but I don't know what to do. It's happening every weekend. There's another person who called me and said, literally every single weekend next to my house, music blasting all night long. And so I do think because we can't really control those rentals in the way that we would like to, this is something we can do to give some relief to the people who are so unfortunate that have lived here for probably their entire lives and now live next to, basically. We can mitigate the impacts. Exactly. And for that, I support this almost alone. I think it's concerning if people on the Ave think that we're looking to shut down music on the Ave or shut down your party or any of that. We're not looking to do any of that. We are just looking to address a situation if we are getting persistent and repeated complaints. Because the only time we find ourselves making changes like this, and people should understand, we have an ordinance in place right now. It's there. Only thing this does is make it data-driven, not plainly audible. It's been said over and over again. But the only reason why we changed this was because we got so many complaints and we knew we needed to do something to give some relief to our residents. And if we implement this and we get complaints, we'll be reversing it because that's sort of how we operate. But in the meantime, I see an area that desperately needs relief, and I'm supporting this. Thank you. Well, obviously, we have consensus for this. Just for the record, I'm going to, I mean, Angela Burns is, I mean, fairness. One of the great things about having an ascertainable standard is you are creating fairness. So people are going to have a definite thing to look at. They can turn it down. They'll know exactly what they're going to do. Commissioner Gustav's quality of life argument is actually a very strong argument. I think there are people, all parties deserve quality of life. I was at an event not too long ago, and they talked about, well, you know, they wish they could have it every night. You know, some of us go to restaurants and we don't actually like to have noise blasting. You know, we really don't. I know some enjoy it. I'm not really among them, but I've helped all the other businesses that want to do it. And Mr. Marker said, you know, we are getting the technology, and I think with the proper training, we can do it. And 12 years ago when I sat at that chair, the commission decided to put the police out on the road with Swinton and A1A, and they sat there with their noise guns. And, yes, it was an imprecise system, but we didn't have to wait hours. We waited about 12 seconds. But by the fourth weekend of doing it, you were actually waiting a long period of time. So we have some abilities to take care of that. And I do think that I'm going to support this because I want to get started, but I don't think we're done with noise because I do think we need to readdress the issues of the gas blowers, and we have to readdress the issue of also the other lawn equipment because the trimmers actually, they say, are actually higher decibel level than the gas blowers, which I didn't know. So I talked to some guy down at Coral Gables, what they did. But they gave a three-year transition because everybody's concerned about the cost. They're right to be concerned about the cost. They are expensive. But maybe we consider a transition over three years or five years to finally get to a point where we've converted now to fully electric. So I'm saying this is an ongoing issue because regardless of what, everybody talks about the gas blowers, everybody. Right. And unfortunately, I do think there's a bill that is going through. Oh, I know. I saw it too. It's every year. You saw it too that I sent you already. Yes, I did. So, I mean, I think that you're talking about. I just want to make sure everyone knows there's a bill floating around. Well, I know. I sent you. That's why I know it. And I'm looking forward to your response on those two bills that I sent you as to whether it's going to affect us or not. But anyway, we need a motion. I have a motion. Yeah. A question for – I don't know if the attorney said or anything. Somebody said that the code officers are not allowed to go into private property. So now, in these businesses, is a code officer allowed to go inside the business taking pictures? I mean for investigation purposes. Now, if they're doing an inspection, that's different. But I'm saying if you get a noise complaint, you have to stay on the property boundary in order to be able to – So you don't walk – They're not allowed to walk into the back of the tin roof and do their measurement. They have to stay on the sidewalk. And they can't walk into the business where the business is being conducted and take pictures either. Is that what you're telling me? Yeah, you can't walk up onto the stage to do the noise. It's giving the parameters for how it will be done. Thank you. I have my answer. Thank you. So, and look, the fact that it's going to be 120 days, we're going to look at this. Let's see where it goes. Yes, we'll bring this back in 120 days. Because I'm not a noise expert either. I don't know if 85 does the order. What do I know? I mean, my brother hears my phone ringing on my desk, and I'm sitting in his office, and I don't hear it. And he hears it. So, you know, I'm like Mr. Long. You know, I'm lucky to, you know, I turn to my wife. My wife's always saying, you know, that TV's really loud. No, it's not. Okay. Whatever. I need a motion, please. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? It is adopted. So, Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, if I may, that means given the 120-day trial period getting logistics squared away, I anticipate a presentation to the City Commission first meeting in July to include leadership from the Dary Beach Police Department, as well as the Department of Neighborhood and Community Services, who will contribute their observations and feedback to date in terms of how this is working, what adjustments might be considered, in addition to some of the other policy opportunities you've all addressed. So, that's when that will occur, and we look forward accordingly. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. I look forward to the results. I look forward to what you're doing. Likewise. I don't think it's going to be as bad as people think. I really don't. No. I really don't. Last but not least. Ordinance No. 8D, would you please read the entire thing backwards? An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Dary Beach, Florida, amending the land development regulations of the City of Dary Beach Code of Ordinances. Chapter 1, General Provisions, Article 1.3, Non-Conforming Uses, Lots of Structures, Section 1.3.2, Non-Conforming Lots of Record. To remove the definition of a non-conforming lot of record, amending Chapter 4, Zoning Regulations, Article 4.1, Establishment of Districts and Official Zoning Map, Section 4.1.4, Use of Lots of Record to Allow the Redevelopment of Previously Developed Non-Conforming Lots of Record and to Eliminate Relief Procedures, amending Article 4.3, District Regulations, General Provision, Section 4.3.1, Application of District Regulations to Eliminate Relief Procedures and to Add Allowances for Lots of Records, amending Article 4.4, Based on Any Districts, Section 4.4.3, Single Family Residential R1 Districts, amending Article 4.7, Family Workforce Housing, Section 478, Other Incentives, to Add Design Requirements and Setback Relief for Workforce Housing Units, and Amending Appendix A Definitions to Amend the Definition of Lot of Record and Adopt a Definition for a Legacy Property Non-Conforming Lot and Non-Conforming Lot of Record, Providing a Conflict's Cause, a Severability Cause, Authority to Codify, and Providing an Effective Date. And this is second reading. Okay, so I do want you to note that there are two versions of the ordinance before you attached. One has actually got a track, train, strike, through, and underline, and I'll go over the changes. We had a lot of comment between first reading and second reading. There's also companion, not really companion, but another effort going through for accessory dwelling units, the Northwest, Southwest, and some feedback from there was incorporated here as well. So I will go over what we're trying to do here. So on October 1st, 1990, there was a citywide rezoning. There was just a wholesale rezoning of the city. I was in college. It wasn't me. So the minimum requirements for lot dimensions and square footage that were adopted for the R1 zoning districts for a lot of the properties that are east of 95 did not match the historic plats that go back to the 20s and the 30s. And, you know, then there's other parcels that have a long history of use and ownership that I'll go over as well that have been defined over time by something called meets and bounds. So the result is that a lot of mostly the single-family neighborhoods have what are called legally non-conforming lots. They are legal parcels that you can develop, but they don't meet the current standards. And in some cases, that's resulted in waivers that this board has seen. So, for example, the R1A zoning district, the smallest lot allowed, is 60 feet wide, yet most of the east side of town is platted with 50-foot wide lots. Or much of it, not all of it, but much of it. And it requires a lot area of 7,500 square feet. And, again, if you have a lot that is 50 by 120, it isn't meeting that standard. So the city has provisions in the code right now that says if you have a legal lot of record and it has at least 50 feet of frontage, meaning it's along a street for at least 50 feet, you can still develop it with a residential house in the R1A districts. So this is a map, quickly, of the parcels that are green are less than that 7,500 square foot area requirement. And then in addition to that, much of the property in the northwest-southwest did not have the benefit of a plat. So it doesn't have this legal document that says this is lot 2 of block 3 of the Osceola Park plat, for example, or something like that. They were defined by means and bounds. And in the city's code, up until this ordinance, you're required to have a legal lot of record defined in that manner. And it is a bit of, I think, institutional unfairness to some of the communities that developed without the benefit of surveyors, without as much money. And meanwhile, these properties have a historical definition on their warranty deeds that have been used to transfer ownership legally, you know, for decades. So we are encompassing that. And then as well, some of those parcels, and we've heard this term, I think, almost as a colloquialism, but it's never been codified. If we have legacy families, properties that have been owned for generations by the same people, this property has existed, and it should, you know, be able to be developed. So we'll go through what we're doing. So the first thing, some of you may have heard these waivers. Some of the established plats, Osceola Park, and then some of the neighborhood that is south of where the mayor lives, the Lake Abs, their lots are not necessarily quite meeting the requirement. And so we basically have people that they'll have a house, and it's not worth designating. We're not going to make it historic. It's just an old house. It's lived its life. It's time to replace it with another house. If the lot is 49 feet wide instead of 50, our code says it has to be workforce housing. And so because it was sort of aimed at these remnant pieces that were maybe never developed, and it's actually impacting property owners that have always had market rate property. You know, I mean, my lot in a different city, not subject to any of this, is one of these lots, and it's not a workforce housing property. So what happens when we don't know when it's a full-scale rebuild, you've heard, I think, at least three waivers to this requirement. And we just want to just put it on the record that if you're not date restricted with a workforce housing unit and you want to build a new house that meets the Florida Building Code, that meets the wind standards, that meets all the setbacks and the drainage and all the things required now, let's just make this a step easier and not require a waiver. The other issue is that we are proposing to take the definition of a lot of record and recognize the different method of property demarcation that is used in areas of the city, but often within the northwest, southwest. Thank you. So you can see the strike through and underline of how this is proposed to be changed. So it used to be that it was part of a subdivision recorded in the clerk, or it's a parcel of land defined by meets and bounds that has existed in its current configuration since the citywide rezoning date. This, we have, Rebecca Dossery is the long-range principal. She's worked on this exhaustively. We also had the benefit of Ms. Barbara Pinkston joining our team after a long, you know, career with the county. And the county had already tackled this issue, so we did have the benefit of staff on trying to look at how some of our other municipalities had tackled this. And it's given us, I think, a bit of confidence on how to move forward. Then we are defining what it means, what we're talking about when a legacy property comes up. And so this is a parcel of land, again, defined by meets and bounds that's existed in its current configuration that has been under the ownership of the same family for at least 30 years. If it has been under this duration of time with a family that is a long-time family for the city, we are calling it a legacy property. And really what that does is it says you're not going to be subject to the workforce housing if you're building it for someone in your family. If the lot is only 45 feet wide or 48 feet wide right now, you can only build it for workforce. And maybe these families would meet a workforce housing requirement, but it requires a deed restriction and some other things. So the proposal is that if it's being developed or redeveloped for a family member, it can be done without the covenant. If that legacy property is being sold to anybody other than a linear descendant, then if it's less than 50 feet, it still needs to be workforce housing. Like, it's great, you can build it, but it's got to be workforce housing, then. And again, keep in mind, these are not necessarily lot three on block six of this plat. So that's what we're working on there. So, and again, all of these together, what's a lot of record of legacy property, a non-conforming lot of record, a non-conforming lot, all the things. Um, this is where, um, we had, I think, some of the new issues that, I'm trying to see, I'm trying to remember how I changed it from first reading. Okay. So, um, this was it. Number four, this gave everybody a lot of angst. Um, so, um, there are right now in the code, um, you, um, there's rules that you have to meet, um, the current block standards and everything, but the R1A district. And then if you're smaller, um, even if, if they're legal lots of record or they're legal lots now, you could develop them separately. Um, and we had a little back and forth. It's gone through previous commissions. I think, um, maybe Commissioner Burns may be the one that's been through these, um, that you have someone who has three lots together and they have a big house and they're going to tear down the big house and then they're going to develop the three lots independently. The R1A district is the only district that you can really do that in. If you're in R1AA, AAA, AB, all the others, you've got to plot that property into lots that meet the current rules. So maybe you only get two lots out of that. Um, so what had come up when we started to see this pattern happening, um, and I believe it was even still under May Petrolia. Some of the idea was, well, maybe at least if you're going to get it to two, find one's market, but one should be, be workforce. Um, so it's a policy shift and it has definitely not gone over well. So, um, and there are people that have made a financial investment with the expectation in the R1A district that they could separate the properties. The other problem is the way we've worded it is that it's too general and it kind of works the other way in the neighborhoods that have bigger properties, right? So it's like, oh great, we'll let you build smaller houses and put more houses on as long as we can get workforce. And their neighbor's like, wait a minute, we were getting conforming lots here. Now you're introducing the non-conforming ones. So the proposal is that number four gets struck. We just take it out. We want to revisit different things at another time. We can do that with workshop or some other things, but I don't want the, the other efforts for the meets and bounds and the other legal ways of defining property to fall away because of number four. So, um, I'm going to show you the, the draft that is in there has it struck out. Um, but I mean, it's red line. So I want you to really look at it because when you make your motion, then we need to be really clear on what we're adopting and what we're not, unless you want to come back for a repeat. Yes. So here it is under this. So that's just, okay. So let me, I'll start with that. So the legacy properties are the new ones. Okay. That is for our longstanding families that have owned a property by meets and bounds that maybe have not been able to redevelop them easily because they weren't legal lots of record. This gives them the opportunity to jump in now when this passes, recognizing these parcels are legal lots, even if they're not lots of, you know, under the old definition they wouldn't have been and move forward with redeveloping for their family or go ahead and sell the property and make it available for workforce housing to someone else without having to plat. So that gives them two choices. It sort of unlocks some of those parcels in the Northwest Southwest to move forward. So we would, so let me, I'm going to show you what's on the red paper because it looks a lot like the regular paper. So the first thing is, um, a lot of this is, is the language we have now, how do I put this? It was the previous grammar and the previous way it was said was you can't do this. It didn't really say what you could do. So that was like, except for this, you cannot do that. And we were like, we would have, it was a very confusing section just the way it read. So the first three are not meant to change anything that is allowed now. Okay. So if you've got a lot of record that has at least 50 feet of frontage, you can build a house on it. That's, that's the, that's the rule right now. Um, no matter what in the R1 districts, if you've got two or more together that don't individually meet the lot standards, but they're been under the same ownership. This is the current rule. The lots must be replotted to meet all minimum lot standards. You've got to do it. But then this is a, this limitation does not apply to properties that are subject to R1A zoning before it said, except for this, you can't do that. And it was like this double negative that every time someone new started, we had to keep walking them through what it meant. So I'm hoping this is clear. Number three is saying that if you are subject to the R1A development standards. So in some of our zoning districts, RM, RL, there's probably more, um, if you decide to build a single family house instead of an office or a multifamily prop building, you just follow the R1A. So that's why that language is in there. If you're R1A or subject to it and you have less than 50 feet of frontage, but at least 40, you can do it for workforce housing. And you cannot do that in the other R1 districts that require larger lots. So this was really just trying to make the first three read more clearly. So that's, and then we're, and then four was the, you're dividing one into three. You should at least give us one as workforce housing that is taking some people that have invested money by surprise. So it needs to come out. Um, let's see. Say that again. Well, it, there are people that purchase property with the expectation under the old rules that they could divide them, but then it's also the neighborhoods with the larger lots, then they don't want them subdivided even smaller because they need to maintain the same sort of density and character that those properties have. So we're not permitting that. So that, so the red, anything here is, is things that have changed. So then to address, this is, um, non-conforming lots, right? Of record, which now includes the meets and bounds definition where it didn't before. To address a shortage of workforce housing, um, non-conforming lots of record having 50 feet or less of frontage, but at least 40 feet and 4,000 square feet of area may be used for workforce housing and have the following adjusted development standards. This, um, some of these adjustments came out of the study that OptiCoast did for us for, for ADUs. Um, so if you are using it for workforce housing, and then this is part of what came up between first and second reading, that if you're going to allow this, this, the five foot setback instead of the seven and a half. And this goes back, I think Commissioner Markert has had neighbors complaining how close people are to them. The, the, these buildings are very big. Now, theoretically, you're not building a three story workforce housing, but you never know. So, you know, we're adding in that the structures can be no more than two stories and 26 feet so that they don't get bigger. Um, there has been a lot of confusion and a lot of people appealing to DSMG about how far do I step back from an alley? Is it the same as a side street? Is it a rear? An alley's not always in the rear, runs in the back. So we're just like, the alley's 10 feet. We're, let's make it clear for everybody. Um, and then this rule about accumulative side setbacks, um, is something I think we should come back to generally with the R1A district, because right now the R1A district has seven and a half and seven and a half if you're in an interior lot, which adds up to 15. Um, but it might be better to go five and 10. So a drive could go up the side. You know, there's just some things that also came out of OptiCoast that we should think about, but it actually would have made more setbacks for the workforce housing than what's currently allowed. So I, I took it out for now and we'll, we can revisit it. Um, the other things, this came out of the OptiCoast as, um, we're being able to allow, um, properties to retrofit that, um, some of the things again, like what we're talking about with the waiver before is that the open air elements or what makes a house is a quick way to do the curb appeal, a quick way to upgrade houses. And so like in the central business district where certain elements are allowed to come forward into the setback, this would allow for porches to come in up to six feet. Um, driveways on these smaller lots that are 50 to 40 feet, um, it's very difficult to, to not have the whole yard look like a driveway and you really just need enough room to open the door instead of have a five foot landscape and then this and that. So, and it's the way a lot of them are organically are already. That is also a recommendation of the OptiCoast file. And then also that if you're in a neighborhood with alleys, you should be using the alley for access, um, in the back if possible. So, um, these changes, um, particularly the establishment of the legacy properties really are, um, kind of reaffirming property rights that have been in some level of limbo that I think will help, um, you know, spur some infill and, um, hopefully, um, for longstanding families and also workforce housing. Uh, you've seen these before. I'm happy to answer the questions. Um, this went to planning and zoning board. They recommended approval with that number four. So just, we're really clear on what I'm saying to take out. Um, so if, if you agree with, uh, the changes that we've put in, um, you know, kind of taking that piece out, removing the cumulative, limiting the workforce housing to two, two stories, if it's using the reduced side setbacks, um, then I would suggest you recommend approval as amended. If you're not comfortable with the changes, we can come back again and re-advertise. It's fine. Let me ask you a question because the way you looked at Lynn, when you talked about being able to push it, would you, are you, is it your preference that we, because you're usually very careful. And so that, that's why I'm asking this question. Is it your preference that we push this back? I'm comfortable with the way it's edited. That's part of why I gave you a strike through and underline in your backup so that you would, and so you would see it, you know, and, and so I'm, I'm comfortable moving. I think the edited one is a, is a great improvement over the, what it was, but I'm just, let's today ask what you think. I'm not, I'm comfortable moving forward the way that it is now. Um, I'm sorry. Yes. Commissioner Burns. Public hearing. Oh, it's a public hearing. I don't know if you want to take the comments. I'm sorry. This is a public hearing. Any members of the public wishing to speak? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Yes, yes, yes. You'll have three minutes. Look, I'm so, I, Yvonne Odom, three, oh God, what's my zip code? Three, three, four, four, five. We all know where you live. I'm sleepy. I'm sleepy. Anyway, uh, as I'm speaking now as president of Delray Beach CDC since 1992, we had two of these non-conforming lots already set to bill for two of our young men with families, coaches over a particular organization. I won't put their names out there. And because of the historic way that these were plotted, we could not build these houses for these two young men. So I think it's a very good, uh, improvement. We'll be able to build the houses because I'm a stickler for home ownership. Um, that's one of my passions. I've been doing it because my husband and I never got, never rented. And that's because somebody said to us as a young married couple, you know what? I want you to have this house. And that became my passion for young people who want one because that's the American dream. And in Delray, it's getting so bad, so bad, um, that that dream is slipping away. But this is just one way, because my husband still owns his dad's house. And back in the day, they just walked off the lot. They did not have surveyors. They did not have, and the city could care less, you know, what they did when they built their houses. So why penalize the generations now because of what the city failed to do at that time? So I think it's a corrective action, and I think we'll be able to move forward, um, to build these houses for the young people. So I'm asking you to approve it because we have firsthand knowledge how it has impeded, um, young men who wanted to buy a house who have families. So please, I urge you to adopt this. Thank you very much. And I want to thank, especially Barbara Pinkston. You said her name, but she's dear and dear to my heart, and you have some expertise that's coming to work for this city from the county. So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Soto. My name still is Chuck Wrigley. You're still the 221? Not quite. Um, I, um, 33444. I, um, the reason I appreciate your leadership, um, and your staff leadership, and I hope I don't get us in trouble because this is viewed as a DEI statement, but what they just did was cure a wrong that dates back to Jim Crow segregation, all right? Um, and the staff has always worked around it. Um, I remember in, when we did the Southwest plan, um, a young planner that came on board. Uh, she worked with Treasure Coast, um, back at that time. Um, and I watched her as she struggled, um, with some of these same things then, um, but what a vision. Um, um, I watched, like, Jeff Costello, um, and many of the planners, they knew why. Um, they knew it was a difference, um, and it didn't take that. We know it. History tells us, um, that that is exactly what happened. Um, but as opposed to ignoring it, they put their heads down, they found better words than I could come up with, um, to explain it, um, like I heard her share things that happened in the 20s and the 30s. Well, heck, y'all know what was going on in the 20s and 30s, and how she was able to explain how they got those. I just love the way they did it. Here is what I want to say thank you to this commission, particularly you, Commissioner Prince. This took courage, especially in this climate now, this took courage, but generations to come and those yet to be born will benefit from this if we want the set to be here. For the long term, this is the kind of work that you've got to guide your staff to do. I'm going to ask you to continue to do that and work with your staff as they make Delray Beach the All-American city. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ridley. Commissioners. Jeff Costello, JC Planning Solutions, 33444. Um, just to support, uh, this ordinance and the work that staff has put into it, um, it's been a pain, I know, and I appreciate their help, um, in getting, in assisting, but, um. I'm just confirming, you're saying you're supporting the amended. I was a pain. The amended, the amended one. The amended one. Okay, I'm just checking which one you're talking about. Really specific, because I'm working with two, I have two hats, one with the CDC I'm working with on the, the meets and bounds lots that are now going to be able to just be developed without replatting. And then also to have the 50 foot, the minimum 50 foot to allow that reduction in the setback for a workforce housing unit. And then also with regard to 414, um, A4, I believe it was, uh, where to delete that, uh, it has higher ramifications, bigger ramifications, uh, even for clients' minds that have purchased very expensive R1A properties in the, in the hopes of eliminating a nonconformity and building to market rates. So it gets pretty broad and, um, it's, I'd really appreciate their working on this and, uh, moving forward. So anything you can do is to support and approve and we can all move forward. Appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. Costello. Are there any other members of the public wishing to address the commission on this, on this ordinance? Seeing none, public comment is closed to the commission. Can I, go ahead, start over there. No, go ahead, Inch. Go ahead. No, I just, you know, I, I was so happy about this ordinance and, but now with the with these changes, I am totally like thinking we should be, we are back at reading first reading instead of second reading. Um, can you explain the changes for number four and there's the smallest amount of words that you can, like that was a lot. And even the, the red is a lot. I know. So if you can just explain what that, uh, eliminating that does less words as possible. Okay. So right now, if you're R1A and you have three lots, right? Lot one, lot two, and lot three. So keep in mind at 50 feet wide, those are substandard. They're supposed to be 60. I'm there. So right now, if you are in any other district, you can't divide those into individual lots to build them unless you're meeting the 60, the 80 on the corner, whenever the rule is right. Um, but in R1A, you can go back to the original plat of those 50 feet, even if you've owned them in together for a long time. So we were trying to add a rule that said, if you went back to that original plat in R1A, half of them needed to be workforce instead of all market rate, even though right now they can all, they've historically been able to do market rates. Okay. The other thing was that if we let the other districts, R1AA, AAA, AB do this, then you're going to get more houses in those neighborhoods. But the lots then were now, you were almost, we were, I think, inadvertently encouraging more non-conforming lots in neighborhoods where the yards were much bigger. The upside is you would get more workforce housing, you know, which as we know, the levels that we're price pointing at are not particularly onerous. I mean, they're not, it's not, you know, so it was an effort. We, we tried it. It, to be honest, we didn't go rogue. This had come up from the dais over and over again, that this was a way that the neighborhoods were densifying and should we be allowing it and should we not? So it was really focused, to be honest, on R1A. It doesn't say that in number four. And so I think it's just too much of a shift to, to do right now. Like it's, it's just too much of a policy shift. Let's put it that way. The rest of this has come out of the optical analysis, longstanding review of what constitutes a legal lot of record and other things like that. So it relieves a person who has a larger, more expensive lot from having to put workforce housing on it. It, it says, so right now, if, so right now, if your lot is at least 50 feet wide, you don't have to do workforce housing. Correct. It's if you're at 48, 49, you know, something smaller like that. Um, so if you had two of those 48s together and you were going to separate them into, I don't know. I'm getting tired too. I'm sorry. I got it. Um, so if you look at what's in one and two, basically four was starting to conflict with what we said would happen in number two. Got it. And then the allowance that number three gave you, it was sort of, you know, starting to, to impede on that too. So it just wasn't worth it. Okay. I think I got it in Mr. Laundrie's, um, Mr. Laundrie's, uh, email explains it. I got it. Okay. Mr. Barkley. I don't have any further questions. Commissioner Casale. We revised this because we followed what they did and you said West Palm. No, no. I'm sorry. The only part that, uh, we were struggling with was the definition of lot of record. We add adding number two is more is consistent with the way the County has handled, um, parcels of land that have been transferred through warranty deed over the years in a legal instrument that is different than a plat. And we have a lot of the same issue. So this is just saying just because the parcel wasn't platted back in 1930 doesn't mean that's not a piece of land that is developable right now. Now they'd have to plat and that's not cheap. Okay. And there's not many changes. I mean, like you're taking that combined 15 and making it, which would be seven and a half on each side and it's just going to five. But if they're on the alley or the street, it's still 10, it's not a lot of changes. Can I ask a question though? And forgive me, cause this is going to sound you were doing it for the legacy families, which is good. Cause the intent is to keep the people here and allow them to benefit off their land and make money. Is there a concern at all though, in these instances that people can then be taken advantage of somehow? Like, in other words, I'm just thinking about how people can come in and encourage them to develop their property in a particular way. I mean, are we concerned at all about that? Cause you're making these changes and you're saying this, this property now we, you can go and develop it however, there are people that may, may be not understanding. Are we creating a scenario where somebody could, do you know what I'm trying to say? I'm not sure I'm saying it well and forgive me. Mr. Costello, did you have something you wanted to, you keep standing up, waving your arms. I'm happy to have you come back up here if you have, if you don't, but you, cause you're. I mean, look, I'm understanding how your property works. I think is there are. After Mr. Uh, what Caruso came in and made that comment about people being victimized on their property, you think? Yeah. We were just talking about that today. And so anything, a warranty deed could be describing your property through a legal description. Um, we have a lot of people that, not a lot of people, but it does happen that people come in to pull permits to build a new house and it's not a lot. And then we're like, well, you have to do a plot exemption and you have to do this. You know, like this just takes some of those steps out of it. No, I understand that. I'm just wondering how. But yeah, I mean, obviously that's. Yeah. And gentrification. I mean, I'm totally in favor of this. I think it's good. I think it's probably long overdue. And I remember all the number of things coming in front of us for our amendments when there was just a foot here and a foot there. So. Inches sometimes. Inches. Yeah. Okay. Are you finished? Yes. Thank you. I'm in favor of the amended version. I think it was a much improved version. I certainly think that the, I understand the concern about being taken advantage of, but this is a great way. Most of these legacies are in the northwest, southwest neighborhoods and it allows these families to create some wealth. It really does. And so I'm, I think it's very important that they have that opportunity because let's face it, all the other real estate in town has gone up in value and this has a great opportunities to increase in value if you can build single family market rate houses on them. So I'm, I think that your amendment really does a lot to help, you know, that community, the northwest, south, the legacy community. And, um, so I'm, I'm in favor of your, your amended version. Yeah. I think it's a good, I think you've done a good job. That's why I asked you to begin with. Did you want to push it forward? Just do more work? I mean, or you think you finally got it right here and you want to hit it? Good. Then I need a motion. Motion to approve. It's number 1026. As amended. As amended. As amended. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? It is adopted. Anthea, you rock. No, good work, Anthea. Yeah, I mean, that never, because I, I, well, now you're going to, now you're going to deal with people in the lobby. There you go. All right. We are now, no first readings, comments and inquiries on non-agenda items. Mr. City Manager. I do it at this time. Thank you. Okay. Madam City Attorney. I do it. Thank you. Yeah. With your six, well, the money you're going to go floating on. Thank you all. I love working here and working with us. Absolutely. City Commission, Commissioner Casale. Thanks. I want to congratulate Marjorie Waldo. Boca Magazine named her the Best of Women in Business 2026. That's exciting. Delray Reads is Thursday AM. We're reading See Marcus Grow. I think there are probably still spots available. Right now we have 146 readers, which is super exciting. Thursday morning. Just want to say thank you to everybody. The Delray Open was amazing, as it is every year. The Barron family, the city, the sponsors, the volunteers, our crazy amazing Parks and Rec Department, and Mr. Hassan Hajimiri, who saved the day bringing in a generator when ours wasn't working. Literally, there was no play on center court for over 45 minutes, and he definitely saved the day. I want to remind everybody, Lori Durant had sent us an email about the event Saturday, February 28th, 3.30 to 6.30 at Lilly Pulitzer. The Francis J. Bright Women's Club, it's to support a mentoring program for 12th grade girls in the debutante program. And also, lastly, could you just give us an update at some point on how we're doing with respect to the hiring of the purchasing director? I'll be in touch in the coming weeks with an overall approach, as well as the hiring process. Thank you. Commissioner Burns. I'm going to, well, I'll just say that the Open was great. I think it was, it gets better and better. I'll just say it that way. And congratulations to Marjorie on her recognition, and I'm done. Okay, Commissioner Markert. Just real quick, I just want to say a quick shout-out to all the folks that worked at the Open. Some people put in some incredibly long hours. The Parks and Rec people were there from morning to night, and it didn't go unnoticed. And that event was great, and everybody loved it. And I just want to say thank you to the staff and the volunteers and everybody that put in the long hours. It was appreciated. Came off great. Okay. I actually have several comments here, mostly developed from the meeting today. I just want to remind, we talked about, I don't know if it's been scheduled yet, but there will be a new commissioner sitting in this chair at some point in the next month or so. We're going to be doing, like when we all first got elected, a goal-setting session, right? Somewhere we're going to be doing a goal-setting so that we can regroup after two years. I thought we forego the goal-setting for the visioning. The goal-setting is different from visioning. If I may just to clarify, in 2025, the goal-setting session was foregoed in order to support the vision 2035 exercise. So the last time such an experience took place would have been in May 2024. Right, we did. So we did not have any in May 2025 because preparation and guidance was offered by the commission to proceed with the vision 2035 exercise. Given the potential interest and merit for a goal-setting session, this would not actually take place until sometime in May, commensurate with previous years in that regard. So prior to 2025, again, we skipped that for the reasons I've just mentioned. They did take place on an annual basis. And so for that reason, an opportunity to solidify direction to that effect can be made available during your organization meeting, scheduled to take place March 26th, in which the new elected official will be sworn in. And from there, we can go forward. Nevertheless, once that occurs, we can then accept direction to proceed with a goal-setting session, which I would recommend to take place in the month of May. Yeah, I just want the new commissioner to have an opportunity to participate in that. I was going to bring up the seawall, but I'm not because you're comfortable back there. I'll do that next week on the Marina District because I know the contract is still underway, but I'm not going to put you on the spot. The compensation study, I had in my notes to look at it. It was like six months ago to review the compensation study because you had talked about we were going to, that you were going to be implementing things in the compensation study and, you know, because there were recommendations on salaries and recommending of this. Do we have any update on how that program went? Sure. And I recently did my best working closely with the Department of Human Resources to visit with all of you individually to aggregately discuss efforts being made by the city of Derry Beach going back to the fall of 2024, what the structure is and some clarity in terms of what's been executed to date so as to prepare for recommendations that will become commensurate with the fiscal year 2026-2027 proposed budget process. Likewise, we'll be before you all in the coming weeks, next few months or so in terms of what that looks like. I think it's appropriate for Director of Human Resources Dwayne DeAndre to be given an opportunity to share with the Commission, for the record, what's been achieved in this regard, what systems are in fact in place to demonstrate the forward momentum I just described in general. Again, at the beginning of fiscal year 2024-2025, a number of adjustments had in fact been made in response to the results from the comp study. I mean, when I was, the person over the weekend said, oh, they didn't do any, they didn't adopt any of the stuff. And I'm saying, I don't think that's true based on what, the briefing that we had. So that was. Correct. So, Dwayne DeAndre, Human Resources, kind of a little bit caught off guard here, but. Just a little. Yeah. I kind of just wanted to say, you know, there was some things that were done and we were governed by a personnel policy and procedures, PER for class and compensation. I think when I met with all of you, I covered that and I explained to you that we just, you know, once the class and compensation study was done, we provided the opportunity for you to adopt it. There was no appetite to do that, no consensus to do that. So there was some direction from Mr. Moore to the directors to be able to incorporate that with their budget that they already had outlined. And we did do that. I think approximately just 30% of the general employees received a increase of some sort. I'm going off the top of my head here. I don't have those notes in front of me. And that's something that I'm going to bring before you guys in a presentation, I think, here that Mr. Moore just talked about. Well, that's fine. You don't have to do it. That's fine. I just wanted to kind of see how we were, what measures we've adopted and, you know. Yeah. So we've actually done some benchmarking and going to have some recommendations for you coming up here in the next few months according to CPI and what was provided to us for the class and comp study as well. Fine. All right. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you, Mr. DeAndre. And would you be, and I know we've talked about we're doing the zero-based budgeting things, but have you created a schedule yet for when we're going to be having the actual budget workshops? Because if so, because I. I did. For me. Could you send, I mean, do we all have them? Do we all? You do. We do. Okay. I provided that via the information letter report February 13th, I believe, and the first workshop will take place during the first meeting in April. So your workshop meeting before your regular meeting first session in April will be devoted to this purpose of which we'll outline what the structure, the cycling approach might look like in terms of that place. Perfect. Okay. I do think that the time has come to look at the, and I'm not saying we should expand it, I'm not saying we shouldn't expand it, but the entertainment district, you know, the city has evolved certainly since we drew the map to create the entertainment district, and maybe it is time to review. I think the last time we discussed this, it was at the noise workshop, and I think you directed that when the set transformation plan comes before you, we would revive that conversation. Right. It would be commensurate with that process. You have the Ray, you have others, which is second. So there is, I mean, it's, I don't want one little street there, you know, influencing this hotel against that hotel next door. That's all I'm trying to say. That's when I plan to have that conversation. Okay. That's fine. The conversation on the Pride replacement to the Pride interchange, I went back, I mean, I actually looked at the meeting the other day. We talked about inviting a number of people to make proposals. So, you know, I understand we have one proposal, which I happen to like the proposal, but I'm just saying, but I thought we were going to reach out to the community, so to speak, to have others come up with general ideas, because we weren't going to exclusively just choose one to go ahead and do it. I mean, because nobody's been selected yet. So I'm just saying, what are the plans to do that? So this goes back to the discussion we had back in fall 2025, of course. No, that's why I'm raising it. I went back and I saw the meeting. We talked at that meeting about coming back with something, inviting the community to come up with some ideas. Other than what was approached today, we hosted a town hall engagement in early October. I recall. So I hosted that, and the general discussion was along the lines of any interested parties having the ability to come forward to the city of Delray Beach to express some level of interest, some commitment in that regard. So far, only one has. Correct. And again, that has not been brought to the office of the city manager. So as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing formal as of yet. I'm just trying to find where we are in it. The door is still open. That's what it comes down to. No, that's what I'm saying. I'm just, I got all these from the meeting. And the last thing is, and there was a couple of very good points made. When people are filing applications to do an event, like some of the speakers did, and they get a bill three months later, okay, is the application very clear that they're going to be billed for something? Or what are we doing that is confusing to people that they suddenly get a bill three months later saying, well, why are we getting this bill? Generally speaking, it's a variety of reasons, Mr. Mayor. However, what I would like to do is follow up via the March 9th meeting, because of course, by which time we would have had the meeting with the individuals who brought these concerns to our attention, to also include leadership from special events and others so that we can clarify what the position is in this regard. So give us the March 9th meeting. We'll offer an update. It came up from the public. My practice is to get back to the commission as soon as possible. So I anticipate being able to offer specific direction and clarity via the March 9th meeting. Okay. Well, all I'm saying is that that's two people, and I'm sure there are more. And so if there's something wrong with our procedures, it's a good time to look at it is all I'm saying. And again, I look forward to the clarity and guidance March 9th regular meeting. Great. Okay. I have nothing else. Wait. May I add one more thing? Run with the chief. This Saturday, 9 a.m., Barwick Park. Is this the chief day? I mean, everybody's saying, everyone's giving this guy awards all day today. Yeah, you can walk, or you can bring a walker, a scooter, a scooter. He'll be on a hover around. You know, that was a chief shock, Commissioner Casale. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I thought we were going to be civil up here. We were. We were. We lasted until 9, you know, 17. You are so jealous of my skill. It's just my athleticism is unbelievable. Your athletic prowess is killing me. We are adjourned.