Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the City Commission meeting this Tuesday, May 19th, 2026. I want to thank you all for being here. We have a long agenda today, this afternoon, tonight, a lot of fun things to discuss. And so why don't we begin with our conference meeting. We have a communication. Mayor. Hello? Mayor. Yes. We have the CRA that was scheduled for 1.30. And the CRA was scheduled for 1.30? Okay, right. Okay, so why don't we begin with that. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll? Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Glassman. Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Here. Vice Chair Sorensen. Here. Chair Trantos. Yes. And are these microphones a little sensitive? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So to begin our meeting, we have several motions. M1, motion approving the minutes for the May 5th, 2026 CRA agency board meeting. Would someone like to move the item? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Chair Sorensen. Yes. Chair Trantos. Yes. And M1 is now approved. M2, this is a motion approving a third lease agreement with FPA 2 LLC to extend the lease term to September 30th, 2026 for the CRA current office space. Do I hear a motion? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Anyone have any questions? There being none, please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Chair Sorensen. Yes. Chair Trantos. Yes. And M2 is now approved. M3, this is a motion approving an office space lease for the CRA located at 501 Northwest 7th Avenue. Would someone like to move the item? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Does anyone have any questions? There being none, please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Chair Sorensen. Yes. Chair Trantos. Yes. And that's approved. Moving on to resolutions are, one, resolution appropriating and authorizing funding in amount not to exceed $200,000 for capital improvement master planning services with Alta Planning and Design, and amending the interlocal agreement with the City of Fort Lauderdale to include funding for design and construction services, and implementing the capital improvement master plan for the Central City Community Redevelopment Area. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduce. Does anyone have any questions or comments? There being none, please call the roll. A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency approving an amendment to interlocal agreement between the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency and the City of Fort Lauderdale, adding capital improvement master plan project for the Central City Community Redevelopment Area, authorizing and appropriating funds in the amount not to exceed $200,000 for planning services related to the same providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Chair Sorensen. Yes. Chair Trantos. Yes, and that resolution is now approved. Is there any further business in the CRA? Nothing further. Okay. That meeting is concluded. We'll now move on to the conference meeting, which begins with a communication from the Sustainability Advisory Board. Is there anyone here for that? City Manager? I believe a representative from that board is here. Okay, great. Hi. Do you want to push the button at the bottom of the speaker? All right. Great. Is this working? Okay, great. Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Aida Nasimi, and I'm here on behalf of the Sustainability Advisory Board. The Board reviewed the City's exposure to single-use plastics, and we're bringing you our recommendations today. Nine in total. Six are amendments to the Code of Ordinances. Three are operational and policy strategies. They can be adopted one at a time or as a package. First, the six code amendments. One, regulate single-use plastic food service products used by vendors and event permittees on city property and require compostable or reusable alternatives. Two, prohibit unencapsulated polystyrene in floating docks, platforms, and buoys at city facilities. Three, codify the existing glass container ban on our public beaches. Four, strengthen the public straw ordinance to include stirs with a hardship waiver for small businesses. Five, reinforce the polystyrene rules with documentation, clear consequences, and public signage. Six, prohibit the intentional outdoor release of balloons, confetti, and glitter. Then, the three operational strategies. One, align the City's green purchasing policy with these provisions. Two, expand education and outreach, staff training, community campaigns, and beach signage. Three, update the City's event and vendor agreements so that way we can enforce them. Two points the Board wants to be direct about. First, every recommendation stays within the City's authority. We know the State preempts City-wide bans. This is City property, City facilities, and City's own contracts and procurement. Second, implementation is phased, and education first. Compostable alternatives can cost more per unit, but national guidance shows total program costs are manageable through standardization and less waste hauling over time. This is a practical, enforceable path. It protects our waterways and beaches, supports a resilient tourism economy, and it shows real leadership in coastal stewardship. On behalf of the Sustainability Advisory Board, we respectfully ask the Commission to receive these recommendations and direct staff to begin advancing them. Thank you so much, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, great. That's pretty comprehensive. Anyone have any questions or comments? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you for your presentation. Impact and execution. If we go in this direction, what is the timeline that you see we could accomplish this? I'm going to have one of my cohorts assist me to answer this question. Thank you. Glenn Hadwin, Sustainability Manager. We've been working with the Board on this topic for quite a while, and there are six recommendations. The ordinances, as you probably know, take considerably longer, and some of the administrative ones we're already looking at, like we've been working as we do new vendor agreements with the Parks Department and putting language in there to reduce single-use plastics. So some of the things we can do right away in the next six months to a year, ordinances are probably take a year-plus to do. Thank you. So, Glenn, I'm sorry, how many of these do you think you can actually knock out in the shorter term versus the ordinance one? I think the administrative ones, the three, which are amending the contract language, doing the education and outreach, which we can do in the next six to start in the next six months and to a year have them pretty far along. So half of them could be short-term? Yes. Okay. Thanks. I'm seeing some contradictions in these recommendations. It seems to me that a lot of these recommendations are to try to move the city away from the use or the allowing of the use of plastics. Yet, in number three, you want us to memorialize the prohibition of glass containers on the sandy portion of the beaches. So what's the alternative? Well, that's actually a slightly – that brings in a different issue, and I'll let our sustainability coordinator, Sylvia Duque-Aña, speak to that. Okay. Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. I'm Sylvia Duque, sustainability coordinator. I understand your question, and I believe a good way to explain it is we were working together with other groups in staff for the city and thinking solely on protecting our beaches and waterways as one of the biggest assets that we have in the city. Glass is a hazard for safety not only for people but for the animals. So I do understand it's not necessarily related to single-use plastics, but it was in this same line of working towards more safety and less debris on our beaches. So I go to the beach, and I'm bringing a jug of Kool-Aid, okay? And how am I supposed to drink that? Out of the jug? You don't want plastic. You don't want glass. You don't want styrofoam. No. So how do you drink that? With multiple-use plastic cups, for example, reusable, washable. What's a multiple-use plastic cup? Something that you wash and you use again. Okay. That's really counterproductive because that's going to get thrown away also. And in other words, I'm just trying to make sense out of this. You know, people say you can't have glass. Well, you can't have plastic. Well, have, you know, have more expensive plastic, you know, multiple-use, where you wash it and take it home. I've seen a lot of things thrown on the beach, all the beach cleanups I've been a part of over the years. And I've seen these multiple-use plastic containers thrown on the beach. So it's not a deterrent just because it's a multiple-use utensil. But, you know, you're asking us to make ordinances, and we're trying to make sense out of this, okay? And as far as number four, you want us to strengthen the plastic straw ordinance, and you want us to include the plastic stirrers. But if someone can't afford to do it in their business, you want us to exempt them. I don't want to exempt anybody. And what would be the basis for an exemption? You know, you buy them out of a box, right? So what's the basis for an exemption? So the basis for the exemption was our team reviewed a series of other ordinances from different jurisdictions in Florida. We saw that as a relatively common practice. And the idea is to, let's say, be more flexible with enforcement with smaller businesses. Understanding, as I just said... Give me an example of someone who can't... Give me an example of where plastic, the substitute for plastic, is more expensive than the plastic. This is what you're talking about, right? Yes, correct. Exemption, if they can demonstrate financial hardship. So give me an example where paper straws are more expensive than plastic straws. Give me an example. Is that the case? If I go to Walgreens or CVS and I want to buy paper straws, they're going to be three times as much as plastic straws? I mean, help me out here. I mean, these all sound like great ideas, but they don't make... We're trying to understand what the ultimate goal is here. In the documents, in the attachment to the communication, there's a research paper that staff prepared. Towards the back of that, I think it's labeled page 16 and 17, are examples of common single-use plastics and the alternatives and unit pricing. So... All right, so direct me, if you can, to the straws. The straws are at the bottom of page 16. 16. Let's go to 16. So a single-use plastic straw is one cent to five cents. I don't see paper here. Where's paper? I see wheat, sugar, glass, silicone, rice, and bamboo. Where is paper? Well, the rice-based, it's paper or cocktail straw. Well, paper doesn't have to be rice-based. What's your favorite paper? Paper, paper. Okay. Paper doesn't have to be any of these. So I think you're throwing the argument off by suggesting that the only alternative is a super expensive substitute, but you fail to include just regular paper. Right? This isn't... These examples aren't meant to be all-inclusive. But they're pushing us to follow an agenda, okay, expecting us to believe that this is the... These are the only options when we know that these aren't the only options. And I don't want... The point that I'm trying to make is I don't want to give anyone an excuse not to use alternatives to plastic. I want... I do not... We, as a commission, years back, said we do not want to see straws anymore, okay? Okay. Plastic straws. And now you're giving people an excuse not to have them. We don't want that excuse, okay? That's all I'm saying, okay? And so back to the other point of glass on the beach, glass containers, same thing. You know, you can have all these lofty ideas, but when you try to put them into practical use and to see what the ultimate impact is going to be, you know, you've got to help us out, you know, as a commission to figure out what you're really getting at here. So what are encapsulated, expanded polystyrene? What is that? Is that... What is that? Styrofoam? Yes, sir. Exactly. It's styrofoam. That's styrofoam? That's the fancy name for styrofoam? Yes. Okay. We don't allow that floating docks, do we, anymore? Who's here? I don't know which department that would be, but we don't allow styrofoam docks anymore. We worked on that specific point with Marco Aguilera. Can you pull the microphone closer to you? We worked with Marco Aguilera on that specific point. He was acting as a chief waterways officer until recently. He did say that was a common practice, and the suggestion is to prohibit them. Right, but I don't think we... It's not common in our city. You can say it's a common practice, but... It is. Carl, do we allow... We don't allow styrofoam docks anymore. I thought we outlawed that a long time ago. So, good afternoon, Mayor, Carl Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. So, to your question, I believe you are accurate, but I would like to research that matter to ensure that we are all aligned. Okay. And what we can also do is work with our sustainability board here and come back with a better, more refined approach here to address some of the concerns you just brought forth. Okay. All right. Those are the only comments I have. I appreciate your patience and thank you. Anyone else have any comments or questions? Yeah, Mayor, thank you. I think, City Manager, I thought we were already working on number one. Isn't that in progress? We've talked about that before. Yes, we are working on number one. And last time we talked about one, I think we also talked about the same prohibition applying to city-permitted events. Do I have that, if my memory's serving me right? That could be an approach. There is also an approach that could be solely for city-sponsored or city-produced events, as opposed to city-permitted events. Okay. So, yeah. So, I'd be interested in not only the current language for one, but also city-permitted events, which would include city events and outside vendor events. Noted. Okay. And, Carl, for number three, is the inference that glass containers are currently prohibited per city-park rules, right? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. And I think that's for, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming it's for the danger of it breaking and then injury, right? Safety-related, yes. Okay. So, it would be codifying that existing rule. Okay. Great. But, Vice Mayor, so what's the alternative? The alternative, well, when you bring your Kool-Aid, I think you could bring it in a metal container. I know there's, you know, kind of Yeti-like containers. Okay. One idea, I don't know. It doesn't taste the same. It's not the same. It's not the same. It's a Stanley cup. It's a Stanley cup. What's that? Yeah, your big Stanley. But those are paper. But if I could interject with that, Vice Mayor, that's a really good point, though, right? So, if I'm bringing something from home, you know, I will probably be bringing it in some type of a Yeti or a igloo cooler or something like that. If I stop and buy something along the way, it's going to come in the package that I buy it in. I'm not going to buy it and then transfer it into something else when I'm on the way to the park. So, I think we need to be talking about this in terms of practicality for our guests, our visitors, people who are trying to, you know, engage in recreation. Not everybody's coming from home. Not everybody is, you know, going to mix up that batch of Kool-Aid and bring it to the beach from home. I think if they are, yeah, they might be doing that. I'll mix up a jug of iced tea and bring it with me. But if I'm stopping at 7-Eleven along the way, I'm going to be bringing whatever particular type of container I happen to be buying my beverage in. It may be glass. It may be plastic. It may be a single-use plastic. It will be whatever it comes in. And I'm not going to bring along a separate container to then transfer it into and then dispose of that glass or plastic somewhere along the way. So, I think we need to be talking about practicality here. So, then that would require, if you're suggesting, then that would require us to change the park's rules to allow glass, I think is what you're going. And I also think there's probably a difference between glass at a beach where, you know, you may be walking around barefoot. I've never experienced a lot of folks walking around the parks barefoot. So, you know, maybe we need to bifurcate this a little bit. Again, I'm all about practicality, right? So, I think a glass container at a park is different from a glass container at the beach. So, again, I try to introduce the concept of reasonableness into what we do and an expectation of what daily life activities actually look like. Please proceed, Vice Mayor. Okay. Great. Let's see. That's all I have for the... Okay. But thank you for your work on this. This is great. I think we're heading in a good direction. I just wanted to add one other element to the conversation. And when we're talking about the opportunities where there are city-sponsored events and things that we, as the city, are putting on, when you talk about, you know, right now we're drinking out of plastic bottles, being familiar with what they call the box water. You have that option. Juice boxes. Well, Perrier comes in a glass bottle. Who knows? They may come to a box house where I haven't looked, but yeah. But just saying, there are some other avenues. There is box wine, yes. Box wine? Yes, yes. You're giving away my secret. But you don't drink it from the box. You pour it into something else. I've tried. It doesn't work out. I've seen those bong parties of yours. Well, Mayor, they do have some smaller ones now. That's what I do. They have a little box wine. Personal box wine. Single, double. It just depends on how much you want to be drinking. How much you want to drink. How much you want to drink. But just adding to the conversation, if we could, I understand the direction we're trying to get to and what we're trying to achieve, but also in the conversation, let's look at the opportunity for box water, box juices, especially in those opportunities where we, the city, are initiating. Well, yeah. I think our own events, we can certainly try to curb the use of these unwanted materials. But, all right, just, I guess city staff, you kind of hear what we're saying, so do the best you can. Yes, sir, we'll work on that. But practicality is the key. And thank you, I do think we're headed in the right direction. Just need a little refining, but thank you for that. Thank you. Great, thanks. All right, so we decided we're going to continue to keep commission reports at the beginning, correct? Yeah, I think that's where we are. Mayor, I have one suggestion or idea for this as we think about city commission reports. And I just, on my agenda meeting. Keep it to five minutes? Yeah, yeah, exactly. That's basically where I'm going. But here's an idea for those of us who want to share more. So I think in our, generally in our city commission reports, there's two main topics we cover. One are things that we'd like the city manager to work on or we have concerns about, as well as things that we'd like to discuss amongst ourselves. So topics, right? New topics are things we'd like to discuss. So I'm going to put that in one bucket. The other bucket, I think, is sharing of what we've done, where we've been, you know, great highlights about kind of our last couple weeks and things that are upcoming. I'll put that in the second bucket. What I was hearing from neighbors is they would really like to try to keep that first, the commission reports at the start of the meeting as concise as possible. So one idea I had is that at the beginning of the meeting, we would just share those items we'd like to share with the city manager or items we'd like to discuss as a body. And then at the end of the conference meeting, then share our kind of full updates and things where we've been and so forth. That could possibly shorten that upfront time. So it's just an idea, Mayor, for consideration. I think it makes a lot of sense. I would endorse it. And so, but when it comes, like you say, when it comes to substantive items of policy, I think we should have latitude on that. But when it comes to what we've done and what we're doing, I mean, look at my page. I could be a half an hour on that, right? There's a lot to share. Do a lot of stuff. That's right. Busy guy. Okay, I agree. A lot of Kool-Aid to drink. All right, so start with, now the person who has observed this religiously over the years has been Commissioner Herbst in abbreviating his attendance at things. So you're going first today. Absolutely. And thank you, Vice Mayor, for sharing that. That has always been my approach. And through the years, through various commissions, the approach to reports has varied. And I have always seen them as an opportunity as us to share amongst ourselves those topics which we can't discuss in private. Right. I agree. I've never viewed it for me to share what my calendar is. I think if I want to do that, I have a different format for that. But in that vein, there is one thing I do want to bring up. And this is something that came up during one of my agenda briefings. And it's something I have talked with staff about before in the past. And I think it's kind of in the spirit of what we're talking about. So under state law, if you have a disabled parking pass, you can park for free at any metered parking space on a street. There is an exception under state law where a municipality or county may charge you if you are in a municipal or county parking lot. And I think the rationale behind that is the cost for a lot is separate and distinct from providing the cost for on-street parking. So I have had residents who are disabled who have brought to me the request that we consider not charging for disabled parking in city parking lots. I've raised this issue with staff in the past. I had hoped that it would come up and we'd be able to get that resolved. We've not gotten to that point. So I want to bring it up to the commission as a matter of policy. So we have a set-aside number of disabled parking spaces that we do charge for in our city parking lots. There is a cost associated with this. I know I've talked to Ben Rogers in the past about that, and he's looked at some of the numbers. I don't remember offhand what they are, but I've had this as an ongoing request from folks who are disabled who would like us to have parity between parking on the street and parking in a city parking lot with respect to not charging them to do that. Because if you are disabled, you may not have very many other options as to where you can park. Ben, would you like to sort of address that? Thank you. Yeah, good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioner. Ben Rogers, Assistant City Manager. In my time as the director of transportation mobility, this has come up a few times, Commissioner Herbst directly, the last time. I believe there was a memo that we put together that kind of analyzed the state legislation, the options that we had, and the financial impact. So if the commission desired, we can go back and research that, update it for today's consideration, and then bring it back for future consideration. Thank you. So back in 2011, I had the misfortune of flipping my Harley and shattering my leg, and I spent a year of being completely disabled. So I was in a wheelchair. I was on crutches. I was non-weight-bearing for the better part of a year. And so I had the unfortunate experience of discovering what it means to be disabled in our community. And it's extremely challenging to negotiate doors and a lot of our environment when you're trying to deal with that. And so it gave me a very, very explicit appreciation for the challenge that our disabled community has. And things like having closed parking and so forth is something that is very, very important for folks who have navigability problems. And I'd like us to really give this some serious thought as a policy issue. So thank you very much. Commissioner, I have a question on that. So would that be the handicapped parking spots on a city lot or in a city garage, right? So that'd be one. And to park in those, would the requirement be to have the hang tag, a disabled? You would either have a handicapped placard, which hangs from your mirror or is in your dashboard, or you would have a handicapped plate. Okay. So one or the other. Right. So the handicap plate is for permanently disabled. The handicap placard are for those who are temporarily disabled, and those are renewed every five years. Okay. Great. And then one additional question is if all those handicapped spots are full, having the allowance for them to park in a regular parking spot and not be charged there either. Is that? That is still the case for on-street parking, and I would recommend that we consider, again, parity with on-street parking. For both. Okay. So both. Thank you. Yep. Makes sense. So if it's a private parking lot, that doesn't apply. You're absolutely correct, Mayor. The handicapped spaces in a private parking lot are merely a set-aside, but does not remove the obligation to pay for those. All right. Something to think about. I think that makes a lot of sense, so we can work on that. Okay. Thank you. Anything more, Commissioner? Okay. You reserve your time for? I'm going to give it over to my colleague. Okay. Okay. My question was, we just had a discussion about the two buckets being items that we discussed at the commission and then also our activities. What are we doing today? So I think what the Vice Mayor suggested, we could start from now, abbreviate our appearances, and if we have any substantive items we want to talk about, now is the time to bring that up because we don't have any other time to do that because government in the sunshine. So just pace yourself accordingly. Okay. I'm going to share one accomplishment through our students at Dillard High School. I'm going to use my time for that this afternoon. On May 8th in Jacksonville, Florida, over the last six years, the Dillard Track team has established itself as one of the premier programs throughout the state of Florida. Consistent excellence and outstanding athletic achievement. On the boys' side, the team has earned one state champion and a state runner-up finisher. On the girls' side, the program has secured a state runner-up, finishing along with three consecutive district and regional championships. During this six-year span, Dillard has produced some of the state's top athletes. Naming those that were shared with us, Chris Johnson was named as runner of the year and currently holds the state record for both the 100-meter and the 200-meter race. Christina Coleman earned three consecutive runners of the year honors and holds the school's record in the mile, two-mile, and cross-country. Alexia Reed set schools' records in both the Hurdors' event. She also ranked the champion of the New Balance national title in the 100-meter. Also, most recently, Desiree Frazier became the school's record holder in the 400-meters. In addition to these athletes' success, Coach Davidson Gill has received Coach of the Year's honors in all six seasons. He's also become recognized as the Two Dairy Farm Coach of the Year Award and has been honored as the Hall of Fame Coach of the Year by Sun Sentinel. These accomplishments reflect the dedication, the discipline, and the excellence of the continued, that's continued to define the Dillard's track team and track and field program. So I wanted to share that, if we can give them a great hand. Well, I'd rather you more than give them a great hand. I wonder if there could be an evening where we can invite them to a commission meeting and recognize them here at a full meeting. That is the goal. I just wanted, because tonight we're going to recognize the girls' basketball team, and I wanted to give them a separate platform. But with this happening most recently, and being that we're coming to the end of the school term, we're trying to make sure that we can get them before the commission, before some of these individuals graduate. I wanted to have their names and recognize their achievement. Got it. So thank you for the time. All right. That's it? That concludes your remarks? That concludes my part of this. Okay. Commissioner Glassman. Thank you, Mayor. Good afternoon, everybody. So we're just doing now items that we'd like to bring up for discussion or future. Everything. Everything. Oh, including events? Yeah. Oh, I didn't realize that. Okay. I thought we were saving that for after. So we're sticking to the old process now, and then? Try to abbreviate your visits and your appearances through the five minutes, and anything else, there's no limit. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. First of all, I always wanted to commend the FLPD and FOP. The Fallen Officers Memorial Ceremony is probably one of the most moving things that we do all year. I am always just so incredibly taken aback by that ceremony, and I wanted to thank anyone that had anything to do with that. That was recently held in Esplanade Park. Again, so important, so important to pay tribute to those that sacrificed their lives for service to our city, and I wanted to thank everyone from FOP, FLPD, for that. May 7th, I had a great time speaking with the Chairman's Circle at the reception at the International Swimming Hall of Fame. These were, I guess, the Chamber of Commerce's top big, big, big membership of the Chamber. We had some great, exciting updates on the Swimming Hall of Fame project, and also, ISHAF signed their first athlete, James Lichtenstein, who is the top male diver in the United States. Actually, I think, in the world right now, and then he led a group of divers in a high diving show. That peninsula continues to amaze me, and whenever people are there at events, it does the same with them also, so I wanted to thank the Chamber for that and the International Swimming Hall of Fame. May 8th, Mayor, as you know, we've been talking about services in communities like Flagler Village, neighborhoods like that, the type of services that really create a sense of community, and we were happy to be at the ribbon-cutting for Go Grocer. This is a chain out of Chicago. This is their first foray into the state of Florida. Really nice little market and so important for folks that live in the Flagler Village section of District 2 and our city. Really nice event. May 9th and 10th, of course, was the air show. I had the privilege of welcoming all of the folks on the beach on Sunday, May 10th, and what an amazing show. Thunderbirds capped it off in really incredible fashion. I wanted to thank FDOT for holding several educational workshops, both virtually and in-person at ArtServe. This is for the work that's happening on the Las Olas Bridge over the Intracoastal, as well as the Sunrise Bridge. It's really important that we do all we can to communicate with the residents that use those bridges on a daily basis. It's very important, and the work there is very important. The Sunrise Bridge one actually is not like the Las Olas, and it's not just confined to the bridge areas, but actually goes all the way from Birch Road on the Barrier Island to the Middle River. So it's quite an extensive project. That project alone is $40 million. So, again, I wanted to thank FDOT for the communication and for the education so that we can keep our residents informed. May 13th, it was a great day along the Sistrunk corridor. We had three building groundbreakings for affordable housing. We had the pantry lofts on 6th. We also had the Aldridge and the Larimore. That was great, and that connection between District 2 and District 3. I was happy to join Commissioner Pam Beasley-Pittman at those three buildings. Those are great projects and so important, and it was really nice to see the community turn out for those events as well. May 14th, I had the pleasure of addressing the Central Beach Alliance that evening. Always an incredible turnout. They must have had about 100 people over at the Beach Community Center. May 15th, I wanted to say congratulations to Dan Lindblad on his retirement. Were you there? I was. I actually had the honor of being one of the three roasters of Dan Lindblad at the First Baptist Church. Oh, we noticed. You noticed. That was good. Yeah, I had a lot of fun, actually, and I hope everyone had a lot of fun. But it was a great tribute to a man who spent 19 years as the head of the Chamber of Commerce, and on his retirement, he was honored as the Downtowner of the Year. Always a great crowd. About 400 people show up for a luncheon event, and again, I think it was a lot of fun. May 16th, at the Ritz-Carlton, I had the pleasure of joining the Broward Partnership for the Homeless. This was a salute to business, a really well-attended function, again, over at the Ritz-Carlton on the beach. And, again, the incredible work that Broward Partnership does. That evening, top honors went to Senator Nan Rich, well-deserved. A great turnout, great stories of folks that have gone through their service, and the incredible work that they do. I wanted to salute Broward Partnership for their work all year and for the event this past Saturday night. May 20th, I'll be addressing the Flagler Village Civic Association. May 22nd, this Friday, we have the Broward Alliance Mid-Year Lunch out at the Hard Rock coming up this Saturday, May 23rd, on our beach, the Great American Beach Party and the Walk of Fame Ceremony. And, as we know, this week also we have the IPW Conference. Lots of delegates from all over, a huge tourism conference, and I know that people have been really rolling out the red carpet for them and the welcome mat. I think it's a great community effort for that. May 28th, we have the Riverwalk Tribute. May 29th, I'll be attending several functions, several groundbreakings in Holiday Park in District 2. And that's it for events. I'll try to go through them really quickly. Now, a couple of comments and some things that I'd like us to discuss and just be aware of. So, City Manager, on May 7th, we received the update on assessment of existing building options for City Hall. I just want to make sure that we're all comfortable with this because when I put on my memory cap, I remember on February 17th, this commission as a whole said, we don't want to spend the money looking at the older buildings. We don't want to spend the money looking at the appraisals on these buildings, and we don't want to do that. But then again, the commission as a whole changed its mind. I did not change my mind, but we did as a commission. So, we received this memo on May 7th, the update. I want to make sure that my colleagues are comfortable with the fact that we went on February 17th to spending no money, to now spending a half a million dollars on appraisals and work looking at these three buildings. I want to make sure that that's really clear for the public and for us, that we changed our mind, and we went from not spending any money to now spending a half a million dollars, $100,000 just on the appraisals. And I just want to say a few words about that. I looked at the scope. I see what this – we deferred that item to June 2nd to come back to us to talk about the interim agreement for City Hall on June 2nd. But then at the last meeting, we were told we might not be able to have all of the data that we need on June 2nd, and we might have to go to July 2nd. So, I've been thinking about this, and I've been talking to friends of mine in the construction industry and the development industry. And I believe that even when we get the information that we are going to get for the extra $400,000 on top of the $100,000 for the appraisals, we're still not really going to have an idea if this is going to work for us as a City Hall. And I'm going to tell you why. These are non-invasive engineering reports we're going to get. We're going to have real no detail about the structural integrity of these buildings, nor will these buildings – nor will these reports confirm or will they deny what our renovation is going to be in these buildings. Because to really, really properly ascertain if we're going to make this work, we would have to have a full set of construction drawings of what we're going to be doing in our City Hall. We would have to know exactly what we're identifying. We would have to know all of the loads, the distribution of the loads. We are not going to have that information because we're not going to have anything to compare from the reports that we're going to get, which are going to be cursory. We're not going to have that detail to really look at what we're going to try to do as a City Hall. The only way to properly investigate these older buildings would be able to find the older structural drawings of those buildings and then look and put that on top of what it is we think that we're going to do to determine whether or not these older buildings between 25 and 50 years old are going to be able to handle what it is we're going to do. So I think that any survey, any engineering report we're going to obtain at this time will not be worth the paper that it's written on. But most importantly, I want to make sure that we're all in agreement that we went from, no, we don't want to even do an appraisal on these old buildings, to, okay, now we're going to spend $500,000. And that's all I'm going to say about that after I read the May 7th letter to the Commission. Quentin, can you come up to the microphone? So in response to the comments by the Commissioner, tell us a little bit about, you know, the depth to which these studies are going to be done and what kind of decision we're going to be asked to make based on the level of inquiry that's going to be undertaken for this amount of money we've allocated. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioner, Quentin Pugh, Assistant City Manager. So the report that you're going to receive on July 2nd is a high-level summary report. It's not going to provide any recommendations to you, but it will provide high-level summary findings for things such as the condition of the buildings, building systems, the structure, the envelope, the mechanical system, plumbing, electrical. It's going to confirm available square footage for office. We did do some programming, some space programming for the City Hall project. So that information will be transferred over into these summary findings and whether the space is adequate or not. It's also going to provide you with a preliminary rough order of magnitude on certain elements that are of interest to this commission, such as the commission chambers, whether or not that can fit in any of these buildings, what it would take to construct those facilities, and that estimated rough order of magnitude. There will be a side-by-side comparison table for the building conditions as well as the upgrades that are needed for these facilities. So assessment of the windows, things of that magnitude will be evaluated. The roof system will be evaluated in that side-by-side comparison. It will provide pros and cons for each building. Again, it won't be a recommendation to you, but all of this will be in summary findings, and it should be enough information for you all to have a deliberate conversation about whether or not there's one or more of these buildings you want to proceed for further detail and technical information. Will there be a cost associated with each of these observations? Yes, there is a cost associated with it. It's just under $370,000. No, no, no. I'm sorry. I didn't explain myself right. Will there be – so if you do an analysis of the mechanicals and the plumbing and electrical and space considerations and the retrofitting and so forth, will you be able to assign a cost necessary to – if it's found necessary to upgrade or to retrofit what the costs are going to be? Or is that an element of this inquiry that's going to, say, take part in a phase two of your analysis? They will provide a rough order of magnitude. It wouldn't be detailed out, but it will provide you with the range of the estimated cost for that particular upgrade, whether it's the windows, the electrical system, fire, whatever it may be. They're going to provide you with the range or rough order of magnitude that it will cost to do that. If I could add, Mayor, on July 2nd, we also anticipate having the appraisal information ready and prepared to share with the commission as well as a preliminary budget. That was one of the things that the commission asked us to take a look at in terms of how we could identify resources for the cost of City Hall. You just said July 2nd. I know that we deferred this item from last month to June 2nd. What are we going to have on June 2nd when we had deferred this item to? Thank you, Commissioner. When it was raised that you would like staff to come back within 60 days or that June 2nd time period, I did share verbally at the meeting that if we did need more time, that I would share that with the commission via letter to the commission. I have done so via that LTC as well as verbally at the last meeting. It is anticipated that if the commission wanted to take up the interim agreement, which was deferred, that the commission could do so on June 2nd, but the commission would not have the other information as requested on the existing properties. Will we have an interim agreement coming back to us on June 2nd, which is the date we deferred that to, with the elimination of what we all did come to consensus on in terms of the equity piece, things like that? In other words, will we have a revised interim agreement on June 2nd when we deferred the item to? I anticipated that the commission might want to look at those options in totality in terms of a revised interim agreement, as well as the findings of the research done on the existing properties. But we serve at the pleasure of the commission, and if a revised interim agreement is something that the commission wants to see sooner than July 2nd, we could work toward that. However, we were instructed to pause on the new build project, and I know that the developer has been looking at approaches to the new build project, but we have not been fully engaged in the manner that we were before with having those weekly meetings with the various working groups as the direction was more so to pause until we had the information on the existing properties. So if we do, and I am in favor of seeing a revised IA on June 2nd, because that is the date that we actually deferred the item to, but will those appraisals be available on June 2nd for the three structures? It is possible that we could have the appraisal information. It might not make the publishing date for the June 2nd meeting, as we think we'll likely have it at the very end of this month. So it could be something that is shared via letter to the commission or as an add-on to the printed agenda or the published agenda. I also want to, and again, Quentin, I don't know if you were able to answer this question or not, but will any of this engineering work be invasive or will it all be non-invasive into the structure? It will be non-invasive. It will be non-invasive. And so that's my point. I don't think that's helpful to us. I mean, with a brand-new building, the police headquarters, we went through a lot of issues with loads and columns and structural integrity. We went through a whole exercise with that, and we know what that was all about. But now, when we're thinking of a city hall for our future, we're willing to do this very cursory, non-invasive engineering report on three very old structures. We don't have any kind of construction drawings for what it is we want to impose in these old buildings. We don't even know if we're going to be able to get the structural plans from those old buildings. And yet, we're willing to spend $375,000 doing this exercise plus $100,000 for appraisals on these old buildings, which to me is incredible. I don't know why we're doing that, but I will tell you one thing. What I do know is in that IA that came to us that we kicked down the road to June 2nd, and now I'm hearing July 2nd, most likely, we were asking the development team to give us about $350,000, right, as a line of credit that they were giving to us to make sure we were keeping them in line with us, right? So we were asking them for $350,000, which is almost what we're going to spend now on this non-invasive studies of these buildings. And what always strikes me is, so we're going to give all that money away and do this work, but then I come back to the original P3 process that we went through. These older buildings did a little sales pitch on us, and some of us were intrigued by that. But you know what they didn't give us? They didn't give us the $25,000 that the other teams gave that went through the process, and yet we've just forgotten that. They're in the mix. They're in the mix. They didn't pay $25,000. They didn't have to do any of that, but now they're in the mix. For the life of me, I do not understand what we're doing with this P3 process. I find it highly irregular. I find it just incredible that we're now spending, not only are they in the mix in terms of skin in the game and $25,000 to pay, they didn't have to go through the presentations. God knows what those five, what do we have, four teams out of six we had presentations from? They had to spend a good chunk of change on those presentations for staff time, resources, research, the presentations that they made. These older buildings that are now in the mix, they didn't do any of that. They didn't do any of that. They didn't pay $25,000, and now they're on equal footing with a team that we selected. What are we doing? What are we doing? Can someone answer that question? City Manager? Oh, I think Commissioner Herbst. Yeah, no, I'd like to comment on that. So having been through this quite a few times, there's a standard process for a due diligence progression. The first step in a due diligence progression is a noninvasive property condition assessment, which is what we're exploring right now. Based on a noninvasive property condition assessment, we decide if we're going to move forward with a targeted invasive testing. We certainly would not undertake targeted invasive testing until we've done the noninvasive property condition assessment, which may tell us that we don't want to move forward on it. So I think this is the first step. It's a preliminary step. It may tell us that this is not something we want to do. We certainly wouldn't want to undertake extensive engineering testing without having done at least a preliminary analysis, and I think this is the appropriate first step in the process. Great. So now what I'm hearing is we might actually decide as a commission to do further studies making it invasive after we've gone through the noninvasive. That's what I'm hearing, and I'm just tuck that away, everybody, because that's coming next. Again, that's incredible to me, and, you know, Commissioner Herbst, you are the financial guy up here. If you're comfortable spending a half a million dollars looking at noninvasive engineering reports on the three old buildings plus the $100,000 for the appraisals, then so be it. But I'm just bringing this to everyone's attention because I want people to remember. We typically seem to have amnesia when it comes to what we do because we do one thing, and then, oh, there's a change of heart, and we go in a different direction. And, you know, I can name La Solis Median as an example. We make one decision, then another decision, back to another decision. City Hall as an example. We make one decision, back to another decision, back to another decision. Pickleball and basketball on the beach. We make one decision on a site plan. We make another decision. We go back to another decision. We seem to have a pattern here, folks, of, like, just changing our mind and going in a different direction. And I, for one, find it really frustrating. That's all I want to say. So I will leave you with a quote from John Maynard Keynes who said, when the information changes, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? That's an excellent quote. Thank you. I would just say that the information doesn't really change. The people's opinions change. I'm good. I'm good, Mayor. Okay. Thank you. I want a more item, and I want to mention this, too, while I'm on my list here. I've been getting a lot of feedback, and I want to know going forward, when we review charter officers, when we review charter officers, and maybe Jerome, if he's around, can help me from an HR perspective. I'm getting a lot of comments made to me about the last event that we had in terms of the review of the city manager. I want to know if it's customary or even correct from an HR perspective. Do we call up people to the podium to testify under oath and discuss the people that they report to? I find that highly irregular. I've been getting a lot of comments, not just from staff, but also from the public, finding that that was a very uncomfortable situation. That was an uncomfortable situation, perhaps an untenable situation, and highly irregular. I don't remember the years I've been sitting here. It's over eight now. I don't remember ever having a review of a charter officer, clerk, auditor, city manager, city attorney, where we've actually called people up to testify that report to that particular person that we are reviewing. Is that kosher, Jerome? Is it customary? Is it something we should maybe think about in the future when we do future reviews of charter officers? What's your opinion on that? Well, from the HR perspective, this is the third municipality I have worked for, and I have to admit I have never seen that done before in my career. That's not to say it can't happen. It's really up to the commission how they want to handle the review of the charter officers going forward. So you've never seen it done, but there's nothing that prohibits it, and it's okay? You're asking several questions. Take it one at a time. There's nothing that prohibits it. Whether it's okay is up to opinion. Okay. All right. I just want to know. Well, so let me pick up on that. Go ahead. So I think that the police chief and the fire chief hold unique positions within any municipal organization, and I do think that they represent very important roles. I think their ability to be objective is paramount, and clearly when you're asked to opine about your superior's approach to work, it becomes obviously jaundiced when you're having to be in public and you're being asked to comment on how your boss behaves themselves, right? I think that there needs to be a special relationship between our police chief and our fire chief, but I don't think that can be achieved when they're subordinates. So I've been giving some thought, since we're doing charter amendments, I've been giving some thought about why don't we consider making the police chief and the fire chief charter officers and put that on the ballot for this coming election, adding it to the other charter amendments. If the people approve it, fine. If they don't, fine. But I do think that the idea of objectivity is really important, and I think that we were losing that, which was demonstrated, as you pointed out, Commissioner. We were losing that sense of objectivity when we find ourselves in situations where that kind of relationship between the chiefs and the commission and the management staff becomes compromised under these circumstances. So anyone have any comments on that, any thoughts? Mayor, actually, I'd love to weigh in on that. So Commissioner Glassman, I agree with you completely. You know, I spent the first third of my life in the corporate sector, and one of the prime things that you have in the corporate sector is 360 reviews. And the preeminent factor in a 360 review where employees review their supervisor is that it's anonymous. The only way to get candid feedback is in an anonymous environment. You can't expect folks to give a realistic, candid feedback on their boss in an environment where everybody is listening in. So I agree with you. I was uncomfortable during that presentation myself. And actually, Mayor, I also agree very strongly with your suggestion. I kind of like that. You know, I think it would be very important for the police chief and the fire chief to report directly to the commission. You know, I've been through several iterations in my many years here with the city. At one point, we had an assistant city manager that was over public safety. At another point, another city manager elevated them to the point where they reported directly to him. I've seen a variety of ways in which we have managed the public safety function. But I've always felt, as a charter officer, as somebody who reported directly to the commission, that that direct line of reporting was actually crucial. You know, being able to speak candidly to the elected officials as a charter officer gives you a different flow of information. It gives you a different relationship with the commission. And I think that's a great idea. And I'm glad you brought that up, Mayor. I would absolutely support it. All right. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, do you have any thoughts on that? I would like just a little bit more discussion on this because understanding that it will change the direct conversation of how we interact with the police chief right now, police chief and fire chief, directly reporting to city manager. And this would now say they are reporting or able to directly communicate with SS Commission, correct? Correct. That's what we're saying. Okay. So with that, how do we also keep a balance? Because you're talking about five voices up here. How do we keep a balance? Well, there are five voices, but as with any charter officer, we have direct line of communication with them. And I bring it up because I think that the comments that Commissioner Glassman spoke about highlight the importance of trying to establish the integrity of the officers that we're talking about. And I feel that to some extent, and it's not the first time. I've seen it in years past where I believe that the police chief and the fire chief, often their integrity is challenged when, you know, because they're put in a certain position. Now, we wouldn't be the only. I know the city of Sunrise, for example, their police and fire chief are charter officers, so we wouldn't be the only ones. But that's another large city which practices the same way and has been very successful over the years. And the more I thought about it over the weekend, and, you know, I'm thinking, you know, we've talked about it before, and I just feel that, you know, now that we're talking about putting charter amendments and we have a deadline to do it, and we're going to be talking about it tonight. I would like to instruct the city attorney to put together a resolution to put those on the charter amendment resolution and see what the people think. But I personally feel that I respect our police chief and our fire chief positions to such an extent that I think they need to be elevated to the point of charter officers. Mayor, before you go on, you cited Sunrise. Is there any other municipalities? Because what, well, I don't know if you could, someone could clarify for me. Sunrise, are they a strong mayor or is it commission? No, they're a weak mayor, former government. Okay. The only strong mayor, former government in Broward is Plantation. Okay. And do we know how Plantation is there, police chief and? Well, they all report to the mayor. Okay. Yeah. If I may, I was just looking it up while you were talking, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. So Jacksonville and Miami, just two other ones. So Jacksonville, the sheriff is independently elected, but in Miami, the chief reports to the city manager administratively, but to the elected commission and mayor exerts this as influence through appointment and contract power. So there's different varieties of that. But there are actually a lot of the cities where the chief of police would report directly to the elected officials. So it's a fairly common model from what I'm reading. Thank you for that information. Vice mayor, do you have any thoughts on this? Yeah. Thank you. So I think, you know, charter considerations are good to weigh. As we've been following our charter revision process, we have a great, robust process with the Charter Revision Board, with public engagement. So I think when you're thinking about substantive charter changes, worthwhile to explore. And I think we follow the proper path to ensure Charter Revision Board. Has Charter Revision Board evaluated this? Do we know, Mayor? I don't think it's come up, but they haven't met since, I don't know when the last time they met. When is a city attorney, what's our deadline for proposing charter changes? Mayor, we need to address this this evening on first reading. Tonight would have to be a first reading? Correct. If I could add, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, so having been involved with a lot of the charter revision board meetings through the years when I used to sit up there as an ex officio, they typically are dealing with the things that are already in the charter more so than something like this. I think those kinds of initiatives are typically driven by the commission. That's a policy change that we've usually brought forward through the years. That's generally been, you know, sort of the avenue for that type of a thing. The Charter Revision Board is usually focused on, you know, making ministerial-type corrections like you've seen come out of them or things that the commission has talked about or it has bubbled up from, like, the Council of Civic Associations and so forth. They haven't really focused through the years that I've watched them on coming up with major policy changes like that. So thanks. So I've actually sat on the charter revision board for the city. I recall. Yeah. So we actually did come up with, we'd have robust conversations about a host of topics not directed by the city commission and outside of the charter and a wide range of topics, which is really good because we'd, you know, put them on the agenda. We would allow for public engagement, communication, discussion. We'd have some actually very good, robust communication at the charter revision board meetings with the public. And so that's worked really well. And so I think this is, you know, a great possibility to add to their agenda as they can start considering it. So when is their next meeting? We've got to give them time. Yeah. When is their next meeting, city attorney? Do you know? I do not believe they have one scheduled. They don't have one scheduled? The charter, you're trying to come up with the charter advisory board. I do not believe there is one scheduled. May I, I, we, I don't think we have time for that. I'm just going to put it out. Well, we don't, actually. We don't because, and I, I agree with what Commissioner Herbst is saying about how this is a policy decision of the commission more than it is a recommendation of changing something in the charter like that. But here's the deal. At the end of the day, the residents will be the final deciders on all of this. Every single ordinance would change it. Everything we're putting on that ballot is up to the citizens of Fort Lauderdale, not really us. So, again, I, I, I am in favor of your idea. I will agree with you and Commissioner Herbst that we should have a walk-on item to change those roles of the police and fire chief as to be charter officers. Well, I, I didn't, I, I'm going to make it plain. I'm not in agreement with this. Um, this stem, this belief, I'm, the conversation when we invited the chief and the police, um, fire and chief police were invited by one of us from the dais. So, if we did something that was out of our policy, does that mean that we need to change the whole, um, charter to address something that maybe we did not realize that we shouldn't have, um, went in that direction? So, I bring this up not because of a single incident, but because of, I've, you know, in years of being on this commission, um, years, uh, I see where the police chief and the fire chief, uh, have a special role, special place in our governance. And, um, uh, and every, and every so often it, uh, their, their role seems compromised in various situations. So, this does, this isn't so much triggered by any one event, but it does, but events do remind me of, of, uh, opportunities that we've had in the past to be able to restructure our city government in such a way that it works better. Uh, I think it would work better if the police chief and the fire chief were constitutional officers. Um, we could put it on as a walk-on tonight, um, but it's the only first reading and between now and the next meeting, we could invite the public to come and speak, uh, on behalf of, on behalf of the issue, either for or against. Um, so since the charter revision board is not going to be convening any meetings between now and then, I guess it would be up to us to make the decision. I see we have three votes so far, but, um, I'd like to, I'd like to be there to be more of a consensus. But if not, then I do believe we should move the item forward. Before we, uh, move forward, could, um, I have a comparison of what, um, the change would be constitutional or charter officer versus non-charter? Uh-huh. Could we have that, um, in this space right now explained and defined not only for me, but even for our, our, our neighbors so we can understand what, what we are suggesting the change to be? Well, city attorney, you want to explain to the commissioner how that would work? Um, as I understand what the mayor is suggesting, um, those two individuals, those two positions would become charter officers just as I am, the auditor is, the city manager is, and the clerk is, so they would report, uh, directly to you all. More to that than just reporting, right? Is it just, that's the only, um, current? They are their own, yes, ma'am. But if you could break it down, because I'm, I'm, if it's the difference is only who we report to, um, I'm, I'm thinking it's more than just who they're reporting to. Correct. They, they're responsible for their own budget. Um, they are independent and act independently, um, and our officers in the sense that they're, they're direct, not just direct reports, but they're their own little agency, if you will. You could, you could think of it that way. As the auditor has his department and I have my department, so would they. Okay, so at this point, um, as non-charters, do they, or do they not have their own budget? They have their budget, but, uh, it is, they are under the purview of the city manager, the city manager's budget. Okay. And, and of course, a portion is allocated to each of those departments. And the, and the thing is, uh, commissioner, um, we have, we are answerable to our people, right? We're directly responsive to the people we represent and so forth. And I think that this creates a greater sense of, of, uh, responsibility towards our, our, our fire and police chiefs who will now have more direct responsibility. They have to answer to us. And, and I think that, that by being answerable to a city manager, there's a level of separation between the people and, uh, their roles as public servants. And I think that if we continue to, um, if we can move in the direction of greater accountability, that would be the next and best step going forward. And that's why I feel the more I think about it and the more I, I, I see the possibilities here, it just seems to make more sense. And I'm surprised more cities haven't thought of that as well. But, um, I just feel that, you know, they're the direct, the direct accountability between the people we represent and the chiefs would certainly make them more accountable to the public. Mayor, can you help me understand a little bit more what this, what problem this solves? I'm, I'm not tracking what's, what issue are we having that this fixes? I think that, as I mentioned earlier, I think that it's important that the police chief and the fire chief have this, uh, this objective, um, role in which they can perform their responsibilities in a way that I feel, um, stifles them because of the current structure. And I think in conversations with both of them, um, not, not just in the recent period, but in years past with other police and fire chiefs, um, I've spoken with them and there, and there's this sense that where they don't have that freedom of that ability to be able to be, uh, responsive to the public as much as that they would be as charter officers right now, working under a city manager, um, and the ability to interact with the city manager is, is compromised because they're basically her employee or his employee, whoever the city manager happens to be. And whereas we, they will answer it to us. And I think the public as, you know, as tensions continue to rise in, in our societies, um, we've seen more and more of it, uh, on, on TV and on the internet. I just feel that the, um, that those departments need to be answerable to us as opposed to anyone else. And that's why I'm proposing it. Okay. So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying are currently our police chief and fire chief feel stifled and compromised as a result that that's a, what you're hearing from them. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And that's, um, that's, uh, hard, hard to hear. Um, uh, and they're compromised as a result of the reporting structure. Is that what you're saying, mayor? Cause they have to report to the city manager. So that's compromising them. I think it, I think it, it takes away from their ability to, to interact with the city manager's office in a way that gives them the ability to fulfill their role as public servants and as public safety officers. And I think that, uh, making them charter officers will give them that extra, uh, that freedom and that ability to be able to work in their role in a much more productive way. Okay. And other department heads, do you, if they feel compromised, then should we think about other department heads being charter officers as well? Cause they might feel compromised. I don't want to answer that cause I don't know the answer to that. Okay. I haven't thought about that. And, uh, um, I think right now, I think the police department and the fire department hold unique positions in our city. Uh, there's significant roles. They make up more than half of our budget. And, uh, and I do think that they're deserving of having that status. And that's why I'm proposing it this afternoon. Okay. Okay. Um, city manager, any feedback on this or thoughts? Think about this. Thank you, vice mayor. Uh, I, I would hope that the police chief and fire chiefs, um, perhaps want to go down this path. Uh, it is their lives, uh, their roles, their jobs. And I assume that they are supportive of this venture because it has so much to do with their day to day, but I'm not sure. I have not, uh, had that conversation. Uh, I will say that if that change were to be made, uh, I would certainly want to understand, you know, what, if the voters were to approve that, uh, what the effective date would be because a lot of, I think there's a lot of planning and coordination that would need to come along with that. I do think that the police and fire chief, uh, role as a charter officer is something very rare, uh, in South Florida, not very many examples of that. Um, you mostly find it in a strong mayor type of government. Uh, so I'm not as familiar with that reporting structure. Um, but I'm sure it is something that if the commission saw fit as well as the voters, that that's something that I would be able to adapt to. So I really don't have a lot of feedback on this. Uh, I would just want to know the logistics and semantics, um, as it relates to, uh, budget preparations and, you know, how that coordination would work. Thank you. If I could add something to this. So, you know, I'm not going to be up here post November. So whatever the voters decide is not going to have an impact on me, but I always like to think about, this is not about our current city manager. It's not about our current commission and it's not about our current chiefs of police and fire. Um, and I look at this the same way. I always looked at things when I was the auditor in terms of internal controls, as I used to tell prior city managers, I'm not designing internal controls for you. I'm designing it for the person that comes after you and after them. And I think this structure where we have a future chief of police and a future city manager and a future commission is probably a good one. I think accountability to the city commission of the two most important functions that I believe the city has. I've always said, uh, that public safety is the number one reason we constitute local government. It's, it's not for parks. It's, it's not for streets and drainage and everything else. It is for public safety. That is why we have local government. And I think as an elected official, having that direct line of, of communication and reporting to me is very valuable. Um, I'd like to be able to say to my chief of police, this is what I want you to do. Now I have to say to whomever the city manager is, this is what I would like. And it gets filtered through the city manager to the chief of police or to the fire chief. Um, I think the accountability of having them report directly to the elected officials is, uh, is a valuable tool. Um, and again, this is not for me. I won't be here. Uh, it won't even necessarily be just for y'all up here, but it'll be for commissions to come after this. And I think that's how you really need to look at this is this is something that you're really doing for future governance of the city. Again, it's like internal controls. We don't do it for today. We do it for the future. Thank you. All right. So, uh, city attorney, if, uh, and we can discuss it again tonight since it's going to be an agenda item. And, uh, if you could put together some kind of resolution to this effect. Well, well, mayor, um, thank you. We would have to prepare an ordinance. Okay. Um, for each, and then they would have to be presented to you. We're doing the charter things tonight. Okay. As you're aware and be included potentially in that packet. Um, uh, and if you would like that done, we will, we will set up. I think the majority is agreed to agreeable to that, but I think, well, it, it does deserve more discussion and we can be able to do that more tonight as well. Then we'll get a draft. Okay. Great. First reading. Thank you so much. Yes. And one thing I would encourage you, because this came up when they did the creation of the city auditor's office, there were certain aspects of the city charter that were overlooked in the creation of a separate charter officer. And we had to go back and do a separate, uh, charter amendment at a point down the road. So try and think about the variety of areas that will get touched upon when you do this. Um, you won't be able to do that obviously, but tonight, but between first and second read, try and think of all the various things that's in there. So for example, you know, in personnel rules and procurement rules and, you know, what, what aspects of what already exists, you know, the city manager, for example, has a policy and standards manual, you know, what aspects of that, what aspects of the personnel rules are going to apply. A lot to think through. Um, but you know, up in Tallahassee, they have a glitch bill. You know, they pass a bill and then they come back later and do a glitch bill. Let's try to avoid that. Let's try to think through everything that will have a downstream impact when we do this. What might this touch in terms of the organization? So just between first and second read, try and think about that. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, Commissioner Glassman, do you have anything further? Uh, no, that does it for me. I'm really glad that we're cutting way back on the time for the commission reports tonight. This is working really well. Thank you. Well, all right, whatever. Uh, vice mayor. Thank you. Yeah. Just one last point on that. I think we're really shortchanging public engagement. I think it's, it's the right thing to do to have a discussion with charter revision board, bring it to the council of four lateral civic associations. I think robust public conversation about what we're considering matters, but, um, that, that'd be the case. I'm, I'm, I'm clearly in the minority on that. Um, a couple, uh, items just to, uh, celebrate deputy chief, uh, Bodding's retirement ceremony. It's fantastic. Uh, let's see. Uh, Commissioner Beasley Pittman, I think you were there. Who was there? Was that Commissioner Beasley Pittman? I forget the mayor. Um, yeah, the mayor gave some kind words to the chief who's heading to Deerfield beach to become the, the chief there, which is awesome. Um, and then Habitat for Humanity has a great, uh, BBI village opening, which was really exciting to, to be part of Commissioner Beasley Pittman. I know was there for that. Um, a couple items. One, I know we're going to talk about the SWA later, but, um, I think, I don't think we selected a permanent appointee from the city commission to the SWA. I thought we might have, but I checked with the clerk. He doesn't think we did. So I think that'd be helpful to do mayor to the, to the, uh, to the solid waste authority. Cause I'm a, that's not you. It's not me. It's not me. Uh, haven't been fully. Yeah. Yeah. Happy to take nominations. Can you get us your resume? Yeah. I'll send you my resume happily. Are you declining it? So no, I'd, I'd be happy to do it. Okay. If that's a will of the body case closed to be that. Okay. Thank you. Vice mayor. Yes. I do think we may need a resolution to that effect to make that official so we can prepare that. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, lastly, we've, we've done, I think a great job, especially as last year or so, really moving forward with our, our improving our waterways in the city and really from, you know, securing pump out boat to, um, to, uh, the planting of mangroves, uh, to increase in our waterway testing sites with Miami water keepers, um, to passing the first reading of the living seawall ordinance. I mean, just fantastic work. One of the, as I talked to waterway experts, one of the additional opportunities is the desire to really create a almost county wide, um, but ultimately just initially just starting with the city of kind of real time waterway testing and the waterway experts, uh, all tell me that it'd be very helpful if we were able, in addition to the testing that we're doing through Miami water keepers, but additionally test for, or monitor the temperature salinity and turbidity, uh, of the waterway so that we can have kind of real time results, uh, around those metrics. And then that helps the experts really identify what's going on with our waterways changes, um, ways to improve and so forth. So I was wondering city manager, if we can explore that possibility of that type of testing. I don't know if Miami water keepers has that functionality or capability, but exploring that in addition to the current testing that we're doing with the water keepers. Well, before you answer that salinity, so how can we impact the salt water? So that's one of the metrics that waterway experts really, it helps identify the brackish water, the increase in solidity, decrease in solidity, that then has an impact on marine life. Yeah, but how, how can we change that by dumping more salt if it's not salty enough, or we, we can't remove the salt. So how does that, what would be the purpose of gauging that is my question. Sure. So it's, and maybe Todd might be able to speak more eloquently to me, to, to it, uh, than I will, but it's part of the understanding the overall health of our, of our waterways and waterway systems, and then how that's impacting animal life. But Todd, I'll turn it over to you. Sure, thank you. Speak to us. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Todd Heichu, Deputy Public Works Director. Currently, Miami Waterkeeper does collect that data when they sample. Um, as we report out, pretty much on just on the fecal indicator bacteria, but they do collect pH, they do collect salinity, so they already do collect that when they sample twice, twice a week. Great. Do they collect temperature as well? They do collect temperature. Great. So I can start reporting out on that? Yeah. Okay. So I can capture that. Salinity really helps you to make sure you're targeting the right fecal indicator bacteria, because there's a different metric for parameter in fresh water versus salt water. And then it can also, also tell you if there's increased salinity from, um, salt water intrusion to our waterways and things like that. So you can indicate if our waterways are getting solitier and things like that. Well, how do we change that? It's really not to change. It's really just to observe, to capture trends in the water quality and then potentially make recommendations if something starts getting out of... Like we can't change temperature. You can't change temperature. But again, it's also to see if there's a trend, upward trend in temperature in your waterways and things like that. So it's really, the purpose of water quality parameter is that you can start collecting all this data to determine trends. Okay. So I guess we're already doing... Yeah, it sounds great. We just haven't been reporting it. So I guess it's... They've reported on a fact sheet, but the primary interest previous has been just in the, um, bacteria. So that's what's been reported out. Okay, great. And it has, has the source tracing, do we, do we have that data already for the first testing? We do. The microbial source tracking has been completed one, the first month. Great. You should get the second month at the end of this week. Great. So that has been at the, at the five sites. Great. And is that coming to us or? That will come to you in a letter to commission. Great. On the water quality issues we've been working on. Okay. And that's only a monthly sample. Right. So they're only collecting monthly sample at five sites. Yeah. For this, for this next year. Okay. Great. Thank you. If I can piggyback your, your, your, um, questions in regards to, um, the Miami time keepers and the reports that we receive basically bimonthly. Um, I've been noticing, um, in the, um, Sweden river, Sweden water area that the numbers have significantly gone down. Um, I, I'm going to be honest with you when I thought, when I saw it, I was like, is this a typo? You know, because the numbers are usually extremely high. Which area? Um, Sweden state. Yes. Um, my question is, um, we're talking about trends. Is it water temperature? What, what is making this change? Which is positive? And I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm on the fence. I'm really thinking it's a, um, odd reading, you know, so if you can expound on that for me. So what we've been seeing is primarily the indicator for increased bacteria counts in our waterways is pretty much precipitation. When you get the runoff from the streets into the drains or the waterways, that's when you seem to see an increase in, um, bacterial counts. Two, I would love to have an exact answer for you why we've been seeing that. Um, but again, one snapshot in time, it's hard to, it's hard to, you know, ascertain why we're seeing that. You have to look at over a longer period of time. And what's also interesting with microbial source tracking is that I'll, that'll peel another layer of the onion to kind of see what the source of bacteria in our waterways at what concentrations. And then we can also make management decisions based on those. So it's going to be really, it's going to be a really interesting year to continue the monitoring trend, the mountain, the water, weekly water quality testing we've been doing, then adding the MST, the microbial source tracking to it to see, kind of see how these two correlate together. Um, so this time next year we'll have another, you know, layers of the onion peeled back to kind of see exactly what's impacting our waterway quality. It also helps to, you know, we have a strong street sweeping program, strong, um, inlet cleaning program. So getting those materials out of our water, out of the upland system prior to entering the waterways, that's also a big contribution to keeping our waterways clean and improving. Thank you. And mayor, one other, just to clarify city attorney, city manager, that SWA reso will be tonight. Is that right? We anticipate just having a conference discussion and sorry, the, sorry, the me being a permanent or the full member. I think that we were thinking about the next meeting, but if you would like that for tonight, yeah, let's do it tonight, please. City attorney. Is that right? Yes, vice mayor. Okay, great. Thanks. And then mayor, just a suggestion for the agenda. I know we have several folks here for SWA. I don't know if it'd be possible to move that up ahead of the P card, which, which is good. Solid waste authority is that we have commissioner for here. And yeah, I see that if that's possible. Yeah, yeah. Thanks mayor. Does that conclude your comments? Yes. Okay. Great. Uh, just have a couple of things I want to bring up is instead of going through all the different things that we've attended. Um, uh, I have been attending some of the aquatic center events and I have to tell you that we've really upped our game and, uh, it's, um, it's really wonderful to see so much activity at, uh, at our aquatic center. Um, and not just the, the, uh, the quality, the quantity of activity, but the quality, uh, international and national events are taking place there. The best swimmers and divers in the world are, are back to competing in Fort Lauderdale and, um, and it's what we all, you know, why we invested in it. And, uh, and we're, and we're seeing our, our investment, uh, finally coming, uh, coming to, to our community. And I'm very, very happy to see that. So thank you, everybody who's involved with that. Uh, and we really appreciate, uh, the continuing effort that you make to, to, uh, to have Fort Lauderdale be the destination of choice in, in the aquatic world. Um, and that, that, um, dovetails to the fact that, uh, uh, Commissioner, uh, Glassman and I both attended, um, a Swimming Hall of Fame events this weekend, this past weekend. He attended, I believe a Friday night event. I attended the Saturday night, uh, honoria ceremony at the War Memorial Auditorium. Um, my event, there are hundreds of people who attended. It was really great to see the, the, the aquatic world come out and, uh, recognize, uh, the, the leaders and the, and those who are so accomplished in their field. Um, I, I want to mention the fact that on Monday Memorial Day, uh, we're having our Memorial Day ceremony at the, uh, Lauderdale Memorial, uh, cemetery. So we appreciate, uh, everyone coming out there to honor our, the, our fallen, um, men and women who have served in, in, uh, in our armed forces. And, uh, um, it's a great honor to be able to participate in that every year as we, as we, as we have that ceremony. It's at nine o'clock at Lauderdale Memorial. And then that's followed at 11 o'clock at the Sandy Ninager statue, where the local American Legion to help sponsors a recognition of, of those men and women who have served in our armed forces. Um, a couple things, um, city manager, you sent to us a, uh, a memo on the, uh, on the transportation mobility site. Um, now I recall maybe, uh, maybe Mr. Rogers, if you can come up to the podium in our meeting yesterday, I specifically asked, you know, what's going on there. And I didn't, now city manager, you, you indicated to my chief of staff that you, that you said something to me about this. I don't remember hearing anything about this. And then all of a sudden we get a letter saying that you're in active conversations with interested parties. So you want to tell me what's going on here? Um, are we, what's, what are we doing? And are we responding to these parties? Because remember we talked about putting it out to the civic association to see, you know, what they would like to see in their neighborhood. What, what, what was the genesis of this letter? And how, why was it, why was it not discussed in our meeting? So mayor, during the meeting, uh, that we had, I think it was yesterday morning, I did share with you and I'm not sure if you did not hear me, but I did not, I did not hear, but aside from that, I shared that we would have a letter to the commission about the topic of the transportation mobility department. Uh, we have been, uh, engaged over the years from various private parties seeking information on a potential purchase of the property or a land swap. And I think I've discussed that with you in the past, and we did do an appraisal of the property in 2023. Uh, in particular, as we've been talking about the city hall project, which was one of the things we discussed at the meeting, uh, the potential value of that property and whether or not transportation mobility employees would be partially or fully, uh, going into the new city hall. That was one of the discussion points during the meeting. And so I did share out loud that there would be a letter to the commission coming later that day. And so that's the result. So I know that Ben and Milos have had different conversations with folks that are interested in the property, whether via land swap or some, uh, direct purchase. We did provide them with information as to what that process looks like. It would have to go through an appraisal, what the charter provisions require, um, all the details that would go into some sort of action that the commission would have to take. So that was an attempt to share that information with the commission that we have again, in an ongoing basis, been approached by folks interested in that. All right. Well, I recall that the commission did direct, uh, city staff to go ahead and allow you to determine what the value of it was. And, uh, and, and that was it. Um, I don't recall our authorizing spending any more money on this, uh, having meetings. Uh, um, it was just to get a temperature as to what the, what the value of the property was. And I know that there are people that have approached me who've been unsolicited, who came to me and saying, you know, they're trying to assemble property and this would be great for their future development project. But, you know, the civic association needs to, uh, you know, members of the civic association have come to me and said, gee, it would be great if that were an open space, you know, a new building on Bell is about to, uh, uh, go under construction and would be great for those, those hundreds and hundreds of people that can be living there to have an open space. So, uh, and frankly, I don't know why you couldn't have told me the contents of the letter at our meeting. It was, it wasn't a secret. Uh, I felt like, you know, I asked a direct question, what's going on. I got, I got no answer of substance just to say, oh, well, a letter's coming out, wait and see, you know, you shouldn't hold back when a person's asking for information. You know, this is not, this is not something that, you know, needs to be, um, you know, uh, you know, I don't like surprises like this, especially when I ask a very direct question, like what is happening with this property? So going further, I'd like to see, ask the commission, what is the, uh, what is the appetite of the commission going forward on this? Uh, do we want to sell it? Do we want to ask the city, uh, the civic association, whether or not they want open space? This is your district, Commissioner Glassman. What are, what are your thoughts on this and where are we going with this? I don't want to spend any more money unless I know where we're going on this. Right. And I, I'm actually going to be, uh, speaking with the Flagler Village Civic Association, uh, I think coming up this week, actually tomorrow, what am I saying? Uh, so that is a good topic of conversation for us to have. Um, I, I, we just got that memo yesterday, I believe, the letter to the commission. So I, I have not had time to really talk to people about it. I just have not. Okay. And I, and I, so mayor, I would also say that I, I was not given any information about, I, I had no idea. Okay. To clarify, we have not spent any additional dollars on investigating, uh, this property or to provide any information related to the property or its value. That appraisal was from 2023 and that information has been provided to the commission as an FYI. Uh, people do approach staff all the time looking for potential opportunities or, uh, seeking city assets or properties for their own ventures. And so just wanted to share that with the commission. The question that I was asked during the meeting, uh, with the mayor was, as it relates to the personnel, uh, that are operating in the TAM building and whether or not they would be going into the new city hall. What I've shared, uh, with the commission at the last meeting was that we were looking at a bifurcation of the TAM personnel, whereas the parking division personnel, may or may not, uh, transition into the new city hall is something that we've been considerate of in terms of looking at the square footage of the new building. And so we were looking at opportunities. Uh, I did mention at the last commission meeting that there could be an opportunity for, uh, that division to go to the DSD building. Uh, but all of that is yet to be determined. And of course the commission will continue to weigh in on those aspects of the city hall project in terms of, um, the programming and where personnel would go. Yeah. All that is true manager, but, but that wasn't our entire conversation. All that was with regard to the city hall, but, uh, but it triggered my interest in wanting to know what was going on with that site. And I never got anything that approached anything near what you put in your letter. And all I was really asking was, what activity has been taking place on, on that site? And I got no response. And now you're saying, well, we actually did respond to you, but you really didn't. So, and, and the reason why I bring that up is because it's just reminiscent of what happened with the city hall thing. You know, um, the city commission, uh, had a goal setting session in January. Um, we, we were, we responded to the community, uh, community, uh, report, which said that they wanted all these things in a new city hall. We moved forward. The city commission voted to accept a, uh, unsolicited proposal to move, uh, with a new construction project. All the while you were communicating with, uh, other parties, parties about, uh, existing buildings, uh, and, and substituting a new construction for an old construction. And I just don't want to keep finding myself, um, uh, here on here in a city commission meeting and amongst my colleagues on the commission moving forward with trying to set policy when you're doing other things without fully disclosing them to us. And here's just another example of my feeling like you were, there was more to report. You didn't report on it. And, and then, then we get a letter in the afternoon. Oh, by the way, yes, we have been talking with people. That's all I needed to know. It's no, no big deal. Just let me know what's going on. Be responsive to my, to my inquiries. So, um, I just, I just feel that there needs to be open communication, uh, especially when I ask for it specifically. And if you wish to communicate by, by letters to the commission and all that, that's fine. But when we have one-on-one meetings, we should at least be able to communicate all the information rather than saying, well, you'll, you'll be seeing a letter from me. It's just not the way we need to be dealing, working together when we're trying to move the agenda forward. That's all I'm saying. Thank you for that feedback, mayor. And I wanted to ensure that I didn't elongate the meeting that we were having. And I knew that that letter to the commission was on its way. Uh, it had already been approved with staff, uh, to put it out prior to the meeting that we had. I'll allow Ben Rogers now to follow up with any additional details. Thank you, manager. So mayor, I just wanted to confirm that, you know, there's been a lot of activity or interest in this parcel since my time as the TAM director. Uh, there's always, as you said, an interested developer coming for that parcel. I think the city had different thoughts, uh, and ideas at one point. I think there was a concept to put a storage facility there. I think there was a fire station facility at one point. Um, in 2023, we actually did a solicitation, uh, to seek interest for a 50 year lease, uh, which responded with, uh, two proposals. Um, and as the ownership changes of some of the, uh, parcels around the two 90 parcel, uh, I think we have constantly just had, uh, inquiries, not, not, uh, actions that the city staff has gone out and looked for, not interest in the city staff's perspective, but really just responding to developers who come and say, Hey, we would like, uh, to assemble land swap or understand how we could, uh, acquire this parcel. So, uh, from my perspective, nothing different has happened in the, in the last six months or the last year compared to the last five to eight years. Um, but I do think that with the conversations that city hall has been having, uh, with what happens to transportation mobility, uh, team as part of the city hall planning, uh, it was an opportune time to make, make, uh, you aware that there's a new, uh, owner at the Jason parcel who has been reaching out. Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further. If you don't mind, I don't mean to interrupt, but just some thoughts on that. So, um, a couple of thoughts, uh, first of all, do, do we need a park so close to Peter Feldman park? So we're talking fourth street versus six street. Does it, does it make sense to have a park two blocks away from another park? I'll tell you why, because we're going to, I mean, I'm not opposed to it. Just a question. Yeah, I understand. Just, just looking at it holistically that we're adding so much new housing between those two parks that I don't think Peter Feldman park can in itself accommodate the amount of traffic that would be generated by all the new construction. So that's why I'm suggesting it. Okay. And then my second question, Ben, when you talk about a land swap, it, it, it has always been my experience that a land swap is usually done to our detriment. Uh, so what we get in the exchange is never equal in value or utility to what we give up. So why would we be considering a land swap? What are we getting that we need? And part of the reason I'm saying that is if we're going to divest ourselves of, of what would otherwise be surplus property, it ought to go towards reducing the financial impact of a new city hall on the city and on the residents. So if we're going to do something with it, that's not turning it into green space for, you know, in perpetuity, I would like to see that reduce the cost of city hall to the residents. So tell me about a land swap and because I haven't had a chance to read the letter yet. We haven't even gone there. That's the whole point. We're not even there yet. No, I'm just curious as to what, what, what land swaps are being proposed and why? I mean, I think that's a great point. And that just shows that we're not taking a proactive role in this. Uh, we're providing the options to development teams when they come in on how they could acquire city property in the past. Um, we land swap seems to be the easiest or the fastest for the developer who usually is, uh, in the interest of time. Uh, and we explain to them what that takes and what that means. It doesn't mean that we just get a parcel of land and they build a building on it for us, uh, that we'd still have procurement rules and things we have to take in consideration. And so, uh, as part of those conversations for land swap, we've more or less referred to the 2023 solicitation that said, if there was an interest on the city's half, uh, be on behalf, we would need to have a facility that meets all the requirements, uh, for our transportation mobility team to continue operating. Here's kind of the boundaries of the area that we would want to be seeking, but, uh, there has not been any proactive conversations on trying to, uh, pursue a land swap opportunity. Okay. Thank you. If I could follow up mayor, uh, one of the things that we're working on administratively is a standard operating procedure for when we are approached by an entity, either seeking to do, uh, an unsolicited proposal or an offer, uh, to the city for the purchase of property so that we can address, like, what are the steps that we would take to engage with them, inform the commission. If it's that anyone approaching city staff for information or wanting to meet with us about anything, we could always say to them, no, we're not going to meet with you until we share with the commission that you're interested in meeting with us because, you know, we try to be responsive and we try to sort of vet information or filter information. Uh, but we really don't have guidelines or a process, whether legislatively or administratively for how this is handled. So this is something that we are actively working on and I think we will have a draft of that administrative standard operating procedure, uh, by the end of this month so that there's no ambiguity, uh, as to city staff's intent in, um, engaging with private entities or with how we communicate with the commission. We want to create some order around that so that we're all on the same page with expectations. Excuse me. Thank you so much. Uh, any other comments or questions from the commission? If not a city manager, your report. Thank you, mayor. I just want to highlight some members of our team. First, our finance department, as well as a huge shout out to the city auditor's office. Uh, we received a certificate of achievement for the 48th government finance officers association for our ACFER or our annual comprehensive financial report based on the quality of the content in that report. And so I'm really proud of, uh, Linda short director of our finance department, as well as the entire team and event Matthews with her supervisory leadership over that department. I just want to give them a huge shout out. So thank you so much, Linda. Uh, we also have three members of our team, uh, that were recognized by the engaging local government leaders organization. And those are Ashley Desard, Morgan Dunn and Erica Johnson. So thank you so much for your contributions and for being recognized for what you do for our city and our community each and every day. Thank you. And that concludes my report. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Um, city attorney, do you have any report? I do not, mayor. Okay, great. We'll move. Uh, we'll skip to business one. Uh, Broward Solid Waste Authority staff, uh, presentation. Who will be doing that? Oh, Brad. Push the button. Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor Trent Tellis, Vice Mayor Sorenson, fellow commissioners. Um, on May 5th, the, uh, Solid Waste Authority of Broward County leadership along with County Commissioner Bean Furr in attendance gave a presentation on, uh, why the, uh, City of Fort Laurel should be part of the authority going forward, um, in 2028. Today, we're going to give a presentation from staff, just a little bit of a background and then have a discussion, uh, about considerations going forward, uh, for the city at this point in time. So I will, I will try in the essence of time and our long agenda to go through this pretty quickly. Um, and if anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. So just the background on the, here we go, on the Solid Waste Authority of Broward County is intended to support post-collection processing and disposal activities. Uh, the city, uh, as I said previously, will maintain responsibility for all hauling and collection programs, whether or not it joins the SWA, um, in the future. Um, starting, uh, in 2019, the SWA working group, uh, resulted in an interlocal agreement that was approved in 2023. There are 28 of the 31 Broward County cities that are municipal members, which represents about 1.7 million people. There are three cities that do not participate in this, uh, and that is Hallandale Beach, Pembroke Pines, and Pompano Beach. Uh, fundamental conditions are required for adoption and continuation of the, of the ILA, and they are nearing deadlines. And that's why, um, you know, this item is, is before us today. Uh, the facility amendment was approved on March 20th, 2026 by the SWA governing board, uh, and it must be approved by the participating cities representing at least 80% of the population and the county itself by resolution. The county has already passed it and some other municipalities have as well. The master plan was also approved on April 17th, 2026 by the SWA governing board. The background, the initial 40 year term, uh, comes with two 10 year extensions as well for this. Um, and I'm going to just talk a little bit about this and then turn it over to the vice mayor, uh, for a minute on this. Uh, this includes flow control requirements, economic assessments, tipping fees, rates, surcharges, um, for regulatory purposes, the municipal ordinance are in compliance with ILA terms and conditions. And with waste streams, members were required to use authority facilities. Uh, and the master plan really lays all of this out and how the authority will work. Uh, the facility amendment, which we will eventually have to pass if we are going to enter the SWA going forward, it details the end of life language and how to deal with the authority owned assets and liabilities. And it also includes any identification provision, uh, where members are not liable. What I'm going to bring up right now is, um, yesterday where there was a meeting of the governing board, uh, and the executive committee, uh, that looked at, um, some options that were raised by municipalities about having the ability to exit at different points and times of the, um, SWA. And one of the, um, options that we had shared was to be able to opt out at the point when the, um, bids are all received through an RFP process next year, uh, and also add another point in time to 20 years out, which would be, I believe 2048 to have those abilities at the 20 year point of halfway through the agreement. If we wanted to opt out, there were originally three selection choices that were, uh, presented originally. And then yesterday at the meeting, there were a couple of additional ones that were added to the process. Um, there was a vote taken, uh, at the executive committee, um, and that was passed. And then it went on to the governing board and by a vote of 10 to eight, there was an option three that was passed, which allows opt outs for both only if the award is in excess of the market, uh, protections, which is like the maximum cap that are estimated in the facilities amendment by the SWA. So that basically means, uh, uh, the only way that, uh, the city of Fort Lauderdale, if we were in it, could get out, um, is if the pricing at its cap exceeded, uh, the numbers that they anticipated anything with added or lower, there is no ability to opt out. And also you do not have the ability to opt out at the 20 year mark as well. So basically, unless the numbers come in high, there are no options at that point, um, for any municipality. And I want to point out and add as well on the second amendment, it needs to be passed by a hundred percent of the cities, uh, to just, just for even option three to be in play at this point in time, who are going to be part of the SWA. And I will now defer to the vice mayor as he took part in this process yesterday. Uh, I'm sure he would like to share his thoughts on the matter. Sure. Sure. Thanks. Uh, thanks, Brad. Appreciate it. Uh, mayor commission. Uh, yeah, I think Brad captured it well. So one of my concerns at the meet, the SWA meeting yesterday was there's going to be an RFP, RFP process where they're going to go out to the market, get bids, which will come back with price terms, um, other stipulations, as, as you all well know the whole RFP process in general. And so my ask of the SWA was once those RFPs come back and you get those, you've gone to the market. So now you have private contractors saying, here's the terms we're comfortable with. Here's a price. Here's other stipulations, allow cities to then evaluate that response and then determine mayor. Is that a good fit for the city? Uh, the SWA did not support that, uh, suggestion of mine. And as Brad articulated, what they said is, Hey, when all that comes back, you will only be able to opt out. If the price that comes back to us from the marketplace through the RFP process is above the existing price level that SWA has already created. So it severely limits municipalities ability to opt out based on any number of factors. I mean, just one factor we have the state legislature, as we all well know, may be considering property tax reform that could have a significant impact on us, uh, financially. There are a host of other factors that could be at play when this RFP process comes back, um, that we would not be able to indicate, uh, this, that, whatever that reason might be for a reason why we don't feel like this is a good fit for us. So it's very limited the opt out provision. Thus, I voted against this, um, opt out provision as did seven other members. So as Brad articulated, eight of us were against this provision. Um, 10 were in favor of it, which is a pretty divided group. And, and, uh, eight were opposed to it for, I think, various reasons. Um, so that's, I just want to touch on that. And then lastly, I also brought up to the SWA that I think it, I think it makes sense that the two or three most populous municipalities have permanent seats on the executive committee. So we're not on the executive committee right now. There's an election member, Horland, thank you, brought up that there's an election possibly where we could. And I said to the entire SWA, um, you know, I think it's only fair that the two or three most populous cities, uh, have representation on the executive committee. And that was not met with, uh, enthusiasm either. Uh, it was just more of a, we'll, we'll talk about it down the road. Does that have to be unanimous? I think, uh, does what have to be unanimous to make that happen? That change? Yeah. Yeah. I think so. So maybe if you could just help us understand a 10, eight vote is obviously tight. Right. I said divided there are on the governing board, there are 28 cities or 29. I think, I think it's 28. And then the County is 29. Where were the other 10 cities just absent? So there were, it seemed like there were many that were not there. Um, there's only 31 cities, but I think 28, well, we know how, we know several cities, so 28 cities, so 10 cities were not even there. That sounds, yeah, I think it was. So what was the argument of the 10 cities that passed that, that obviously we were not on that side, you voted against it, but what was the argument why they felt that was a good idea? Yeah. Which one? The 10 cities about the opt out. Right. Why, why was that? So, and, and I'll defer to Commissioner Furk and maybe articulate this better than I can, but the argument was if you allow for an opt out after the RFP process, that diminishes the scale and leverage of the ability to almost collectively bargain as it were. You have to have a critical mass in order to be able to secure the pricing. Right. And if you start siphoning off participants, then it reduces the leverage that you have to achieve that pricing, uh, um, um, bargaining position. And that's what this is all about. So I think that there was some discussion about opting out within the first year or something like that. And then after that, and after that, so long as there's a, there's a window, a high, uh, a box where you, there's a high end and a low end. And as long as, if everyone agrees on that high end and low end, as long as the pricing remains within that framework, then you can't opt out. It has to exceed that, that range in order for a city to be able to opt out. And, as, but as well, as Brad said, as long as you're within that frame, which is a, which is a frame that we would have to agree to, to participate in this, then, then we would maintain our participation through the length of the term of the agreement. Understood. Maybe you could also help me understand, um, say that right. Yeah. Very good. Yeah. Yeah. You should be our alternate. So, um, you can be the permanent. Yeah. I'll support you as alternate. So I have a question. So you said that when you recommended that larger cities should have a spot on the, on the executive committee, what was that? You said they didn't go. Yeah. The response was basically, you know, interesting. We can talk about it at another meeting. That was it. Um, and, and the only other comment was there's an election in, I think maybe it's June. Um, and so myself, if I'm a permanent member could run for that election for that vacant seat on the executive committee and there would be probably other people running. Um, so that would be an option as well, but, but not interest in moving forward with, um, um, kind of designated seats on the executive committee, more just a conversation. What about, um, I guess some cities have already adopted the master plan. Yeah. Okay. Several. I mean, maybe 10, 12, Brad. They, they did that. I don't know if it's even that much yet. Yeah. They did that before this amendment, right? They did that before this amendment was passed. Correct. How does that, how does that fly? I mean, if, why shouldn't all those cities then go back and vote again, because you, if you keep changing the plan and amending it, how does that affect those that have already weighed in? I'm not sure about that. In order for that option three that was passed yesterday to have, you know, any legs to it, they would have to go back to all of the SWA cities that are participating and they would have to pass that. I, I believe it's by resolution to their, uh, commissions in order for that, uh, option to be, um, you know, eligible for it to grow in the SWA agreement. So they do get a chance to weigh in after they've already voted or, and that's what I understand. And I don't think there's as rigid a time limitation to pass that ILA amendment. Oh, correct. Opt out amendment. So they, okay. Thank you. So where does that leave us now? Could we have Brad continue with the presentation? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's only 18 more pages. I'm trying. I promise. Okay. Just, just recapping, um, just some stuff for everybody's edification about the services we have currently, uh, as it puts up there, we have twice a week solid waste services, once a week yard waste, once a week recycling, we do monthly bulk service. We have curbside e-waste pickup, curbside tire pickup, and we participate in a co-op for household hazardous waste events. Uh, in our commercial, we have open markets for solid waste and recycling and open markets for construction and demolition as well. Um, again, for us, the disposal and processing, what we do currently, um, is flow controlled via the ILA, which we currently have for disposal with Broward County. And that goes to through the FCC waste energy facility. And we are currently in that till July 2nd, 2028. We have a separate yard waste disposal agreement and it's hauled to a waste management, uh, recovery center where it's screened and processed for mulch and composting. And that is done through our collection contract. Bulk waste also in a collection contract is hauled to waste management material recovery center where it's sorted for recoverable materials, i.e. metals, concrete, wood, and the residues are taken to a landfill. We have recycling through our, uh, solid waste contract as well. Uh, and it's hauled to a state of the art facility owned by waste management and it's sorted bail to be marketed for post-consumer use as well. Uh, electronics are sent to urban mining as an Easter word certified recycler where valuable materials, metals, I'm sorry, are captured for recycling as well. Just some statistics. And I think this is some, you know, another important slide just to pay attention to, you know, Fort Lauderdale, we make up 11 and a half percent of the total population that's represented in the SWA, uh, as it relates to population and 11.3 as it relates to estimated tonnage. And then just so some of our numbers and we put it in 23 because that's when all of this first went into play originally. And that's why we're looking at the 23 numbers. 11% we make up of the population. 11 and a half percent of the total population of the SWA cities. That's correct. That's just Fort Lauderdale. We got 11% of the, uh, one cent sales tax money. Oh, I'm sorry. I concur. I think that would be outstanding. Sorry. Change the subject. I didn't mean to change the subject. Sorry. Please proceed. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Yeah. It's okay. Uh, these are just, uh, you know, again, I'm not going to get too deep into this one. These are some of the, uh, master plan scenarios that were considered A, B, C, and D. Um, Scenario A is what was recommended by the SWA Governing Board. Um, and you'll see here there's a, these are just some of the highlights of the Scenario A programs that they had that they were proposing. Um, in it, I'm not going to get, again, too deep into it just for everyone's edification. Um, so getting on, moving on more to next steps going forward. Um, some of the things that, uh, were being considered as well, or commercial recycling ordinances that mandatory mandatory construction and demolition, recycling ordinances, curbside yard waste, compost collections, harmonized recycling standards, drop off locations, centralized education and outreach. And some of those things were all in the previous slides. Um, that would be stuff that the SWA will be doing going forward. Just some key points to the facility amendment. Um, the SWA allows some transfer stations, uh, to make it easier for cities to, uh, get material to and from places. They also have recycling facilities. They're proposing a drop off centers for household hazardous waste on organics processing facility. Um, the governance and rate controls, uh, just, you know, these are just some basic things, inspection rights at your own expense as a city. If you want to make sure everything is, is being followed and correctly being done. Uh, the county helps with technical review authority. Um, there's a maximum service charges are set in the master plan with any increases, uh, requiring executive committee and governing board approval. Municipalities represent two thirds and the county as well. It's there, uh, amendments need 80% of the population approval by the SWA members to own a solid waste disposal facility. And those are kind of like items that would be, you know, down the road, um, if that is ever contemplated. Again, this is just some highlights of, uh, entity takeover slides, just some of the points to it. These are just some of the maximum, uh, tipping fee charges as we talked about, uh, in terms of numbers. Um, and it's important to understand that, uh, us as a city, and you'll see in some comparison slides, you know, we have, uh, contracts already in place for some of these services. Um, these are just the ones for members that they would get. These charges cannot exceed, um, for producer price index for solid waste collection in the future. These are just some of the costs that, um, you know, we've paid in so far as a member contribution totals around $919,000 for three years. Those are some future charges as well. And I get added on to the, um, program. This is just a breakdown. I think this is just an important slide for everyone to understand. And I just took it out. We did it only based on disposal, uh, nothing to do with the collection components of our contracts, but I want it's important to see that, you know, the yard waste recycling and bulk, those are, uh, contracts that we have. The recycling is part of our hauling agreement for residential with waste management, but we have a separate processing agreement with bulk and yard waste, which currently are lower, uh, than the SWA costs. The cost for disposal is what we're paying as part of the ILA. And then you can see what the maximum SWA cost is going forward. And a little note on the bottom there, important to note is there's a $2.22 per ton tipping fee surcharge, um, that's subject to annual adjustments based on the PPI for solid waste index, as I stated before. So the costs are not really that different. Why is there such a huge significance though between recycling charges? That's what's throwing this whole graph off. Their numbers, this is what their estimated numbers are. We can only go by what we're currently paying for processing of recyclables, which that market is very high. Most municipalities just to break it down, pay over a hundred dollars, some 150 per ton, per ton, not, you know, per home, but per ton. So, um, you know, the costs are, they're saying, uh, their maximum estimates, uh, you know, shouldn't exceed $2.57 per home on the disposal component. Don't know if that's accurate or not. You know, we have to see what the numbers come back in next year, but I can tell you the recycling processing market is not cheap. And that's why municipalities at some point totally scrapped some of their programs for, uh, recycling and have just take their material to either, um, you know, the waste energy or, or they go to a landfill and they don't recycle at all because of the cost of processing. Because in every other category, it's, it's in addition, it's, it's more than what we pay. It's just that one recycling. And I'm just, I'm just wondering if that's an accurate one or if it's, um, if it's just happens to be, um, you know, a temporary cost that they're ultimately going to hit a wall and have to pay more. I'm not going to speak specifically for them on what their estimated costs are. I can just tell you what our numbers are, but I can tell you the market and recycling processing is very high. The costs are high. They're not under a hundred dollars a ton in any city that I'm aware of. Got it. Brad. Yes, sir. You've already pointed this out, but our costs right now for a bulk and yard waste are lower than what's proposed, correct? That is correct. Well, I, I think the bigger number is a tipping fee. What is our tipping fee now about a year? A little, around $300,000? Are you asking overall? Because we have them by different sources. Do we have a tip of a total? Total. Total tipping fee is about $300,000 we pay. Commissioner, I apologize. Can you clarify the question for me? I didn't hear the commodity you were referring to. No, we were, we were talking about, I'm sorry. Sorry, Melissa. So we were talking about the comparison costs between the SWA and what our current costs are right now. And we've already established that in terms of a bulk and yard waste, we're lower right now. Correct. So I wanted to just go to tipping fees, what we pay now and what that could be. Sure. So, um, I think the easiest comparative, if I could, and for the benefit of the public and our commissioners on the dais, Melissa Doyle, uh, sanitation operations for public works, um, it's probably easier to take it, um, instant by instant or commodity by commodity. So starting with solid waste or MSW, um, they are proposing that it would be essentially the same fee, um, plus a $2.22 surcharge, which is the differential that you see translated to our average residential rate. And that's the, that's the cost that I'm curious about. Yes. That's the surcharge fee, what we pay now versus what we might have to pay with SWA. So it's about a million dollar Delta. Once the tipping fee surcharges kick in over the entirety of our tons, which is that 460,000 tons annually. And that tipping fee surcharge is intended to apply towards all tons, including recycling and commercial, um, uh, construction and demolition debris. So you're saying that would be about a million under SWA? It would, it would be about a million dollars in tipping fee surcharges that would go to the solid waste authority from the city of Fort Lauderdale's generated tons. And what is that tipping fee surcharge our cost right now? Just doing what we do. We don't currently have a tipping fee surcharge. We do pay an annual fee to the solid waste authority and that's about $280,000 a year. And we pay that now. Yeah, we do. And we have been paying it since I believe 2023. So you're saying it would go from $280,000 to a million? It would beginning in 2028 when that tipping fee surcharge is scheduled to, uh, kick in. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Brad, don't we also get a rebate for recycling that based on composition, I think of, right, Melissa? We do, Vice Mayor. Um, when you look at the comparative, again, that we did, uh, Director, could I ask you to go back to the, uh, residential slide with the tip fees? Um, this excludes the average material value, which are the benefits of those recovered materials that are sold at market. And the city gets the benefit of those dollars against the processing fee. What you see here is $110, which is what the authority believes will be their maximum, uh, processing fee per ton. We are currently paying north of that at about $156 per ton. But that excludes the benefit of those materials being applied towards that processing fee. So it isn't apples to apples. Right. So that brings our, so if you go, could you go to that slide? That's SWA, city, right? That's that delta. Just, let me see if I'm explaining this right. So, Mayor, that $3.59 is not inclusive of the rebate we get back. So, our cost for recycling is actually less than $3.59. Am I saying that right? You are correct. Okay. So, that throws off the whole analysis thing. Because, so it would show that our current city costs would be significantly less than the SWA costs. It currently, it currently reflects just the processing fee versus the solid waste authority maximum processing fee. So, to pull the average material value, which would be anticipated to apply in both scenarios, that has been excluded. So, it is simply looking at the processing fee that we would pay underneath the solid waste authority versus the processing fee that we currently pay through our agreement with waste management. So, look, do we have a net number with rebates and costs and tipping fees and all that? I can certainly speak to that for you, Mayor. Mayor, I'd be happy to. So, for instance, this month, we had an average material value that dropped our per ton processing fee to about $90 per ton. Okay. And that varies based on the market value. That scenario would also apply to the solid waste authority model, and we would pay a processing fee that would have a maximum cap as they have proposed at $110, and then any of that material value would apply and be a rebate against that processing fee to the city. So, if the value of that material for simple math was $60, we would pay a delta of $50 per ton in a processing fee at $110 per ton. Does that help? Does that help? No, because I... Garbage is simple, except it isn't. My mind is even simpler. So, I'm looking at these numbers here. Yep. Where it says solid waste, yard waste, recycling, and bulk. Yep. And this vice mayor brought up rebates and things like that. So, in an apples-to-apples comparison, with rebates and all of that, how much would it cost the city versus the solid waste authority costs? Using this graph. The expected rebate would be the same under either model. And that value changes on a monthly basis because the commodity prices change on a weekly basis. So, does the SWA have the benefit of the rebate as well? It would come to us. That would be a benefit back to the city, and we would pay that delta, which is why we took the option by the director to do just a comparative of processing versus processing, because that's really the difference. It would be what their rate would be proposed as a cap versus what we are currently paying. So, Vice Mayor, do you want to interpret this? I don't know if my math is good enough, Mayor. A related question, Mayor, to this is, Brad, when we think about the – so, in the option that SWA passed, the opt-out is if you're above the price guarantee. Are these the numbers of the price guarantee? It is, Melissa? Melissa is saying yes. Yeah. These are their maximum numbers on both sides, yes. Yep. Okay. Great. And then the question – just to try to answer your question, Mayor, the – sorry, if you could go back to that. Sure. How does this chart relate to the other – I'm getting – This is in tons. This is what the cost is in tons. Okay. And this cost on the other slide here is basically an annual cost per unit per homeowner, what it equates to. Okay. So, this is all I'm interested in is what it's costing our homeowner, right? So, is this a net number with all rebates? Melissa spoke about rebates, so she spoke about opportunities that would reduce the cost to the city. Is this the net cost? No. And I – as Melissa explained, the reason it's hard to do that is, number one, those estimates from the county – from the SWA, excuse me – they're estimates. We don't really know what that cost is going to be. Well, let's take it at face value. Let's just take it – let's assume that those are accurate numbers at face value. So – but I'm saying, like, for example, the recycling cost per homeowner, is that going to be adjusted in any way because we get rebates? It just lowers – it just lowers the net cost. Right. So, this is a net, then. You know. This is gross. It's what it costs for – correct. Right. And that value changes every month, so it's a little – Right. Okay. But, I mean, so, I mean, it says 44 cents difference. You know, 44 cents over, you know, 10,000 homes is a lot. Right. On an estimate, based on the numbers that we have from SWA. And one of the – Mayor, one of the nuanced questions is – Brad, if you can go to the tonnage slide again, please. I don't know the answer to this question right there, the recycling fee. So, Mayor, what I'm looking at, the recyclable material is 110. So, the question for that is, is it a flat fee or does that include the rebate? So, it doesn't – I think I'm – Brad, am I reading that right? Does not include that. Does not include the rebate, basically, is what it's saying. And so, then the per household SWA cost of recyclables equally does not include the rebate. Am I saying that right? Okay. Okay. So, the – so, I think – I mean, Brad can't echo if I'm wrong, but is it fair to say – now go back to the per household – that it's likely the per household recycling rebate SWA and Citi would be a similar percentage? Is that likely? Melissa is saying yes. Yeah. Okay. On that. Now, is that cost going to be similar? I'm not – you know, again, based upon what I see in the marketplace, do I think that number is a little aggressive? Probably so, based on just I know what we pay and what other municipalities pay. So, again, without, you know, those numbers actually coming in, it's – you know, we're just making the best estimated guess that we can on the information we have. And then another question that I don't know on this as well is this is – what is the guarantee – the SWA guarantee price of this ceiling for how many years? So, the maximum cost will escalate annually by CPI, and that is the expectation. Yeah. So, then the next question would be, does our cost increase by CPI annually? It does. Ours does as well. Okay. It does. With the exception of our yard waste contract and our bulk contracts are actually bid separately, and those have a hold for the first initial term of the contract, and then it's eligible for CPI upon renewal. Great. And in both cases, City and SWA, is the CPI the max increase allowance? The city allows for a CPI, and I believe we have a cap at 5%. It would be my expectation that the Solid Waste Authority would follow that model. That's fairly typical in solid waste. Okay. But we don't know. We don't know. Correct. And would that be part of the RFP process for the – Vice Mayor, that would be my expectation, yes. Yeah, and, Mayor, that's just another concern that I have about the RFP process is maybe in the – I don't know. I mean, we'll hear from the experts, but in the RFP process, they could have a greater allowance of CPI every year, thus a greater increase every year, more so than we have. Right. I just don't know. We don't know. Well, okay. They may be able to answer that. I'm just not sure. Let's let Brad conclude his – Yeah, just a couple more slides left. So just considerations, I think, going forward, and I'm just putting those up there as we discussed. You know, it's basically a 40-year commitment at this point in time. The tipping fee surcharge may be higher as tons may be overstated. The most favored nations provision clauses in existing disposal and processing contracts, we have those in ours. The alternative considerations if the FWA doesn't meet formation conditions or if the city opts out to participate – if not participating in the SWA, the city can enter into a cooperative purchasing effort with other municipalities to maximize non-SWA volumes and deliver stronger pricing. We could continue to participate in a Broward County Disposal ILA should the SWA not meet formation conditions. And the city can also look at doing its own solicitation process relating to disposal as well. Just some of the timelines for everybody, but really the one to focus in on the most is basically we will only have until the July 2nd meeting to make a decision if we are going to decide to opt in or opt out because we will need to pass the facilities amendment by then. And that's the last meeting we'll have. Okay. All right. Great. There are a couple of people excited to speak. Commissioner Furr, did you want to say anything? Thank you for coming here today. It feels like garbage 101. Unfortunately. First of all, good afternoon, Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager, City Attorney. I'm glad to be here today. I'm glad to see the presentation. It does give a lot of food for thought. And, you know, I think when I look at that, there's a couple of things that I wanted you to know. First of all, we did have a meeting yesterday. Ben was there, added a whole lot to the conversation. And I think the SWA was trying to listen to some cities that were concerned about being locked in if the RFPs went too high. That's, you know, and that's why that amendment was presented. Even though it was 10 to 8, a lot of those cities that voted against it, they didn't want to change anything. Denise Worland, who's here from the Broward League of Cities, was one of those no votes. That's because she believes in exactly the way it was already done. And there was a lot of people that felt that. They felt like the 40-year was good because it gave us an opportunity if we needed to build any assets. As well as we just, it's one of those things where you don't want to keep kicking the can down the road and never get started. So this was like a finite date. When I see some of the numbers up there, and I saw you kind of concentrating on the numbers, the one thing that I want to hone in on are two things. One, the yard waste. And maybe can you put that back up? Is that possible? Okay. The yard waste one, I think what's being used there. Yeah, that one. Yeah, thank you. The yard waste one, there's a very good chance in the Broward County landfill is that we'll be building a yard waste facility there. When Broward County builds it, they are not going to be trying to make a profit. Much like your utilities or your enterprise funds, where they just simply, whatever it costs, I think that's what you can expect for that, for both disposable and beneficial use. I think what the, and I have my issue with our consultant on this a little bit, and SCS was our consultant, is that they used our spot zoning number at the Broward County landfill right now. We charge quite a bit at the landfill right now because we're trying to discourage money, I mean, yard waste coming from Miami-Dade. And we're kind of trying to have it only for Broward County, so we only have it, we have it there. The second thing is, what's not in here at all, is there is no, and Fort Lauderdale doesn't do this, and nobody really does it on a large level, is 34% of our waste stream is organic. 17% of that is food waste. A lot of that is in Fort Lauderdale. You all aren't handling that at all right now. Why is that important? Because we've taken it out of the landfill. We've taken the organics out of the landfill because of greenhouse gas effects. We've decided to compost all of that, everything that we can, source separate that. That means we're going to be taking all the food waste from the schools, from the hospitals, from hotels, from the cruise industry, everybody, and composting all that. That's not being done anywhere. Why do we have to do that? A couple reasons. We have to preserve landfill space, and we have to preserve space in the waste energy plant, because we're looking toward the future, what needs to be done. Those are very big things that are, you know, I want you to be thinking in terms of the big picture, because that's for the future of this county. Commissioner Herbst was talking about when you're planning things, it's not for now, it's for the future, and that's what this is. It is looking toward the future, it is looking toward the future so we don't run out of the space. We signed a very long-term agreement with waste management this last year to take those organics out of the landfill and to allow for all that composting as much as we want, as much as we deliver to Okeechobee and be composted. And then that compost and those mulch can come back to you. What we're trying to do is build a circular economy where you're able to use that material. You're able to use that compost. You've got tons of parks, golf courses, you've got everything where you can use that. All those feedstocks from plastic, all those things, think of all the plastic wood that you use in your parks and everywhere you build. You want those things to be able to be coming back to you through the ILA at a reduced rate. So it's a bigger picture than just this. It is prices, and I know everybody concentrates on that, but do think about the bigger picture in terms of the environmental picture, as well as a circular economy, and the entire future for the county. That's what I would count on. And our executive director is over there, Sam. I don't know if you want to add anything, Sam. Sam has been a public works director for, what, 40 years? Forty years, yes. Forty years. Forty years, yeah. And we appreciated him coming on because we needed that kind of background, and I think you can, you know. I just want to clarify a couple of things, and good afternoon, Mayor, Vice, Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk. The City Clerk's here. But I just wanted a couple of things to clarify on your total charges on your surcharge per year. And I know there was a slide up there that had like $3 million, but that $3 million represents the total tonnage, including all of the commercial tonnage. For your commercial, including the C&D that's coming, that's going back to the Monarch Hill, your heavy, heavy C&D. And, yes, they will be charged a tipping fee for that C&D that's going back there, but your commercial people will be charged, for their dumpster, will be charged about $0.11 per cubic yard. So if you have a dumpster that's got, say, four cubic yards in there and it's being emptied twice a week, you're looking at $0.88 a week. They'll be charged on top of what they're being charged right now through a tipping fee at the disposal facility. For the residential portion of it, right now it's being paid about $229,260, I think, is what's slated for FY27. And based on your tonnages and your population, your residential units, you're looking at somewhere in the range of $150,000 per year. So you're looking at an additional $0.30 per month added on to that $14 charge that you had up there, that's your monthly charge for your disposal portion, for the residential portion. The rest of that will be picked up by the commercial people. So I just wanted to bring that out. And right now it's $229 that's going to the city, and I think it's just being paid by the city, whether you're putting it on a solid waste assessment or through your utility bill or however you're doing that. It's not being dispersed out to the commercial side of it. And one thing, too, just to add that the public works director is right, that we are being very aggressive on what we're thinking our maximum service charges will be per ton. There's no doubt about that. If they come back in higher, that's when you'll have the option to opt out at that time. You know, if they said, hey, they just didn't, they thought they were going to be able to get it in at $52.56 for yard waste and $57.49. If we don't do it and it comes in at $60, then that's when you guys can say, hey, you know what, we think we can do it better than that. But just thinking that you can do better than that and thinking you can join other people around you, there's two cities that are on either side of you, on the north side and the south side, that are large cities that are not part of that interlocal agreement now with the county. And the county thing is going to be going away in about five or six years at the very most. They have this 2028 with a five-year extension on it. But those two cities are both paying about $5 more per ton than that $57.49 right now. They're paying about right around $62, somewhere in that range there. So just know that negotiating on your own with those other two cities may not be the best thing. You know, they may be able to get a better rate than that, but they're looking at the Solid Waste Authority also to come on, one of them especially. The other one is not a member, but they're certainly interested. So anyway, that's all I have to say for you. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Great. Thank you. Okay. Is Stephanie Joffe here and followed by Julie Long and then Linda? Hi. My name is Stephanie Joffe. I live at 5880 Southwest 37 Terrace in Fort Lauderdale. I wrote you all a letter today. I guess some people haven't had a chance to read it, but I'm going to change. You can read my letter. But what I really wanted to do right now is respond to some of the things I heard in the meeting. The big thing is that 44 cents, not a big difference, but what I think that 44 cents, one of the most important thing that 44 cents will accomplish is trying to create a behavior change in the population, educating our population, educating our population, our students, our residents, our businesses about why we're doing what we're doing and how to do it properly. You can have all the recycling you want, all the composting services you want, all the yard waste you want, but if people don't know why it's important to comply and if people don't comply, it doesn't matter. You may as well not have them. So we need to educate our population, and 44 cents to me is a real good deal for doing that. The Education Outreach Group has already rolled out an amazing plan that's going into our schools, going into our businesses. It's really impressive. The other thing is that I think one of your concerns is that Fort Lauderdale isn't being listened to, and they really are. That the proposal yesterday would never have come up if Mr. Sorensen hadn't raised his concerns. So I think people are listening to Fort Lauderdale, and we appreciate how important Fort Lauderdale is to making this whole process work. They didn't even listen to me, and I'm a nobody. So if Fort Lauderdale is there, that doesn't make a big difference. We need to teach people also how to divert their solid waste, how to reuse, how to, you know, if Fort Lauderdale had a program, which some cities do, where they provide containers for restaurant takeout, and those containers go back to a central place, get rewashed and brought to restaurants, we could do some of the things they're talking about, diverting plastic on the beach. I mean, that would be awesome. I eat in Fort Lauderdale all the time, and I bring my own containers, but if they had containers there, I wouldn't feel like so much of a freak. It would be really nice that that was generally accepted. So those are important things. Also in terms of escalating costs, I think we keep costs down as a group much more than we can as individual cities. If we're negotiating together, the economies of scale will just all get a better deal. So I think that's really important. We also recognize how involved, for example, Commissioner Herbst has been in the past. We've just used, I'll just say, we've used your concerns. They've been on everybody's mind as we go forward. It's contributed. Your concerns have already contributed to this plan, whether you were there or not, because we heard them. All right. Thank you so much. Julie Long, followed by... Hello. Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Dr. Julie Long. I live at 972 West Tropical Way in Plantation, Florida. I'm here to ask Fort Lauderdale to support the First Amendment to the SWA Master Plan, known as the Facilities Amendment. When the ILA was formed in 2023, it was expected that new facilities would need to be built. However, after years of study, it has been determined that new facilities will not be needed in the near future because of improved management of the waste stream included in the plan. I've attended many of the SWA meetings for the last three years and have been impressed by the dedication of the participants, including the Executive and Governing Board, as well as the public and industry representatives. They have all worked together to benefit the county and make the plan better. As Dr. Jofi said, the plan has been changed based on input from all these constituents. It's been a wonderful example of how government can function to serve people. I'm also glad to see Commissioner Sorensen participating in the meetings. We are better together is a common theme. There is concern that this plan will be too costly. Given the projected population increase of 250,000 residents in the next 10 years, the fact that the landfills are near capacity with the existing use, and that the incinerator is almost at capacity, the only way to control costs will be to leverage economies of scale by joining together. At Commissioner Sorensen's Zoom meeting last night, a thoughtful resident mentioned the costs that Miami-Dade is paying to ship their trash out of the county. We must do better than that. Fort Lauderdale is the fourth wealthiest municipality in Broward County and benefits from the economic activity of local tourism. All the residents and municipalities of Broward County need to join together to manage and reduce our waste, to protect our water, air, and resources. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Linda. Thank you so very much, Mayor and Commissioners. This is such a dedicated group, and it has really been an honor to listen to all of you today. It's also been a great honor to attend, as a League of Women Voters member and a Sierra Club member, to attend the many, many meetings of the Solid Waste Authority. Many of you have participated in this issue for many years, if not months. And as a member of these organizations and the public and a proud Broward resident, we all have our jobs to do. We need to look closely at the numbers, crunch the numbers, do what is in the best interest of our residents. But standing back from the numbers we're hearing crunch today, I think we have a real challenge ahead of which is to overcome the distrust, perhaps the misperceptions, getting caught up in our own histories, the mistakes of the past. We have a real opportunity to move forward together. And I desperately, sincerely hope that we will do this, because our Broward County residents need to know that we live in a county where we can come together with a plan that is thoughtful, forward-looking, and will, in the long term, serve our mutual interests and address this looming crisis that we know we all have. We can put best practices into place. We don't need, there is no longer any other place to ship our trash. We need to work together to take advantage of our tools, our mutual, enormous experience and expertise that we have present before us. I look to you for your leadership. Please come together. Please support one another. Please work together. There are issues, valid issues on the table, leadership, other issues of structure, cost. Yes, let's address those. But please, let's come together for the good of all of our communities. Thank you so much. I appreciate all of you. Thank you. Thank you. Did you sign up to speak? Okay, please, go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Grant Smith. I'm here. Oh, it's here for questions only, so I'm sorry. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mayor, commissioners, my name is Grant Smith. In addition to representing Waste Connections, one of the disposal partners of several cities here in the county, I'm also a 30-plus year resident of the city of Fort Lauderdale. Once you sign on to this, you're signing on to something with a 40-year time horizon. As you heard today, there's not going to be an opt-out any time into the future once you opt in. You become part of this structure, and exiting the structure will be very difficult, if not impractical. And it's adding another layer of government. That $2 that they're quoting is adding to another structure that you're going to be supporting, and there is no maximum charge on that. That can be changed by the executive board. That can be changed by the vote of the SWA into the future as to what it takes to run their facilities. There's a lack of pricing certainty, as has been talked about. They can't promise anything. They don't know what the pricing is going to come in at. But we've been here before, commission. In 1991, I may not look like it. I'm old enough to remember what happened in 1991. In 1991, the city signed on to a 30-year agreement, and the price at the end of that 30-year agreement got to over $100 per ton. If you take the compounding effect of CPI on a $58 number, at 3%, that comes out to $185 in 40 years. And at 4% CPI, it comes out to $278 in 40 years. That's the compounding effect of CPI. What that means is that in that 40 years, because there is no opt-out, the city will not have an opportunity to go back out to bid. If the RFP goes out for a 40-year term for a new provider, then you're stuck with that for 40 years, and you're stuck with the compounding effect of CPI for 40 years, which is what happened in 1991, which is why the ILA broke up again, I'm sorry, in 2013. One more thing I'd just like to stress. As a city resident, you don't know where those facilities are going to be, so your hauling contracts don't know where they're going to be taking the waste into the future. Those could be somewhere else, and they could ultimately increase the cost of hauling, because right now there is no defined facility plan. So I had a lot more to talk about, but that is... But aren't those, aren't those, isn't the price point range going to protect us? We can opt out if it starts to exceed a certain price point? Only when the price is coming in 2027. If you don't opt out in 2027, you're subject to it for 40 years, because the SWA yesterday turned down the opportunity to get out in 20 years. So you would then be subject to the ILA escalating costs of the CPI. So if in 2032 it exceeds the promised range of the cost range, then we can't get out. So my understanding, and by the way, I've been doing waste law since my very, very first waste client, 1991, here with BFI. Well, just answer the question. BFI, I am. I'm just letting you know. I know from what I speak on this. We appreciate your background. The answer to the question is that if the price starts at, let's say, $58 and increases by CPI every year, then, and it exceeds whatever the $58 plus the CPI, you know, what your expectations were, no, you will not have an opportunity to get out of this agreement, period. I mean, I've heard that clearly, and I don't think they can tell you any differently. Okay, so if it were to go up, if the CPI was calculated and the cost, and then it had to go up another 20 percent for whatever reason, we could not opt out. We're stuck forever. That is my understanding, but I think you can talk to, well, I think Ms. Doyle and Mr. Cain are nodding in agreement. Got it. And under the current system, while it's imperfect, there can be bids on the interim basis and not locked in for 40 years. So you can say, I want a disposal contract for 10 years, and you live with that for 10 years, and then you do it again. Under this regimen that they're proposing, you're stuck for 40 years. Okay, thank you. Or we're stuck for 40 years as a resident. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on this item? City Manager, what is your recommendation? Well, this discussion was intended to get feedback from the City Commission in terms of moving forward or not moving forward with participating in the SWA or any recommendations that the Commission would want us to engage with the Board on. We anticipated that by the July 2nd meeting, there would be some determination by this Commission as to next steps. Vice Mayor, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I like the construct and the idea of working together, and I think there's a lot of positive around that. My concern remains the pricing component, and so that's kind of where I am at the moment. Well, it sounds to us, it sounds to me at least, that we're going to be a captured entity in years ahead despite what the costs are, and we can't get out of it. That's not a position, I think, that makes sense for any city. So, how does this arrangement make sense to you if we should decide to participate in this? What would, you know, are we going to be strangling our, you know, property owners with a bill that we have no control over? I'll just say this. I think yesterday we were hoping for a different outcome as it related to what the different provisions were at points in time to be able to get out of the agreement. I have concerns being in any agreement for 40 years. So many things can change. The facility itself currently is 35, 40 years old. There are just a lot of different variables, and to not be able to have at least the options to get out at a couple of points, first of all, certainly after you see what the numbers are, only if they exceed the maximum numbers that they're putting in, that was concerning to me. And also, it was concerning to not be able to get out at the halfway point if we feel for any reason that we chose to do that. So I think those are, from a staff perspective, I think those are the biggest concerns we have, is not having that flexibility and tying us into something for another 40 years that, you know, there are just things in there that you totally can't control. Mayor, if I could ask maybe Sam or Commissioner, for the price increase, the CPI, is there any, is that a real unchecked, unknown, year after year that could increase? I mean, is there any protection around that? Vice Mayor Sam May, Executive Director for the Priority Solid Waste Authority. Yes, there is. The governing board can always vote by two-thirds vote to get out of any agreement that they want to. So there's an opportunity. It's not, everybody's not locked in. The authority is made up of all the, you know, one elected official from each city. That's what the board is. So if the board says, hey, these prices are just going through the roof, you know, it's like we're way over industry standards and everybody can say, look, let's just either get out of it or get out of the contract. So I don't think that's going to happen. Nobody's going to, the entirety of the cities in Broward County aren't going to just be stuck into something that's going to be, you know, really bad for them. But we're subject to the majority vote. You are correct. However, with Fort Lauderdale, you're subject to it, but it's based on population, where Fort Lauderdale, as you said, has 11% of the people. So we have this weighted voting? Yes. So you have, it's based on population. So you have more of a vote than other people have, let's just say. It's kind of, that's the way it's structured. But why wouldn't, why wouldn't we, why wouldn't you structure this transaction to protect everybody without having to face the whim of a majority? In other words, if in fact we find the costs, like if this whole arrangement is to save money, and if in fact it's not saving money, why wouldn't we just dissolve it? You know? You can just dissolve it. You know, the majority can. But why, why would, why would we want to go down that, down a rabbit hole here with increased, you know, the whole idea is to save money, right? So if we're not saving money, then why shouldn't we just be able to get out of it? You say we can't. Well, that's what the agreement that was, that was brought forward to everyone that was, that was agreed upon, that was what was brought forth in the ILA originally. Right, but I'm saying that's not been agreed upon now. Well, you have to move forward with the facilities amendment to make it effective. But there is a way out. The way out is just, if it's just got to be too much for everyone, then everyone could just say, hey, this isn't working out for us. But if it's too much for one party, they're stuck. I think that if it's too much for one, it's too much for all. No, no. Disagree with you. A city that's 5,000 people is not going to be the same as a city for 200,000 people. You're correct. You're correct. But you have a couple of those cities that are 200,000 people, and then you can say this is, you know. All right. I'm going to let the commissioner speak on behalf of that, if you don't mind. All right. So. Go ahead. Yes. Hi. Sorry, Mayor. Denise Horland, President of the Broward League of Cities, Council President, City of Plantation. I just want to correct something that you said. This is not just about saving money. We are in a waste crisis. This is not about saving money? No, it is not. We are in a waste crisis in Broward County. Okay. Our landfill is nearing capacity, and our waste-to-energy plant is nearing capacity. So a very large part of this solid waste authority is about diversion. And again, yes, we're stronger together when it comes into pricing. We know that prices for all of us are going to continue to rise over the next 40 years. Those prices you see that we're all paying in our cities are not going to remain static. What we have to talk about, and from what I heard Vice Mayor Sorensen address this last night, and I've been talking about this, Miami-Dade County is spending $65 million this year alone to haul their trash to Okeechobee. That's unsustainable financially. It's unsustainable from an environmental standpoint. So I think that we also have to look at what happens. We know what happened in the past. We don't want to repeat those mistakes. But we also don't want elected officials 40 years from now to look back and say, why didn't they address it? Why didn't they take care of it? Because we have limited capacity to deal with this. So I just wanted to correct that. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait, wait. So you're saying this is not about saving money. It's about finding ways to dispose of solid waste. Why couldn't the city of Fort Lauderdale contribute to any processing plant that you have without being part of this SWA? We're not building a processing plant. So what's your point, then, saying that it's not about saving money? What is it about? Well, we want to make sure that we don't have escalating costs. We are going to be stronger together to contain the costs, Mayor. But we need to talk about capacity. There's not going to be another waste-to-energy plant built, and there's not going to be another landfill. So what do we do? So answer your question. So what do we do? What do we do? What do we do? What we're trying to do right now is the composting of the organics, which Beam Fur had addressed earlier, Commissioner Fur. We're talking about C&D with the ordinance, keeping that commercial construction demolition debris out of the waste stream and getting that into the circular economy. We're looking at diverting. Also getting the cities that are not currently recycling into a recycling program. But we're doing all of that. We're recycling. We can still contribute to whatever processing procedures you have. There's nothing that's going to limit us, right? Are you going to say, no, we don't want yourself? No, what I'm saying is you continue to say that it was just about saving money, and I want us to look at the global picture. We're also looking at this from an environmental standpoint because, really, there will be nowhere else for us to take our trash and our recycling in the future. So we can't contribute to your composting program? Well, I hope that you do. I hope that you can be part of the SWA. Right. But we're saying, globally, the 31, we're hoping it's going to be the 31 cities, not just 28 cities. But we need to be moving in the right direction together. So I appreciate the time for me to jump up. I just wanted to say it's also about the environmental and sustainability of Broward County. Okay. Thank you. Mayor, let me just say the best example of saving the money has been the global agreement between the 21 cities now in the waste energy. Those have been the most contained costs. That's why your price right now is the lowest on the market. Yes, the reason I think Grant had talked about that escalation was because it was paying off a bond. It was an escalation factor. That doesn't mean every contract is going to have that. It's not. In fact, when we write an RFP, we're going to have controls on that. And the global agreement is a very good example of that. You're a benefit. Fort Audeau benefits from that now, as does 20 cities. Those prices have not escalated that much. And they will not escalate for the foreseeable future up to 2033 because those are contained costs. That's kind of what you're going to be seeing on the big picture. Okay. Okay. Mayor, suggestion here. City manager, the date we have to make a decision by is what? Do you know offhand? August 15th. August 15th. So one possibility, Mayor, is having gotten a lot of information here today, I'd like to debrief with city staff to talk through and just kind of see thoughts and reactions. And then maybe have us come back and make a decision in, you know, whatever you think, Mayor. Let's see, our next meeting is June 2nd. So it could be June 2nd or June 16th or whatever. I won't be here June 16th. By the way, I understand that I had kind of circulated a request to see if we could have the meeting on the 18th instead of the 16th. But I think a couple of people aren't going to be here. Is that what I heard? Can we have the meeting on the Thursday instead of the Tuesday? I can't do that. I'll make myself available. I'm available. I can't do it. Thank you. All right. Okay. But maybe, Mayor, we could bring it back July 2nd or whatever. Yeah, why don't we do that? Okay. Whatever you like. Okay. Mayor, before this item concludes, I just want to circle back to the representation on the board. I know that Vice Mayor Sorensen has been selected as the representative. Is there an alternate as we prepare the documentation to come forward later this evening? We would rather not have a blank line, but is there someone who would want to serve? Is there one which should be an alternate to the Solid Waste Authority Board? Don't all speak up at once. We'll just leave it, I guess, with Commissioner Sorensen right now. Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor, for your work on this. Yep. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. So if I can, Mayor, so just a couple of thoughts that I have on this. So I've, obviously, I've got a lot of experience with the RRB going back for quite a few years, and, you know, I appreciate the comments. I've, you know, addressed some of what I've heard from folks in the community. The two things that are concerning to me at this point, I mean, there's a lot of issues, but I think the two main points for me is not being able to get out at the second point in time. I do think we need to have a secondary exit, and it should be for us to decide, not a group exit. I don't want to be held captive. And the second thing, and I've expressed this to anybody who's asked, is that I think based on our size and the amount of flow that we will be contributing to this, is I strongly believe that a seat on the executive committee is not subject to a vote. It needs to be mandatory for Fort Lauderdale. I wouldn't consider moving forward with this agreement without that being in place, and I don't think we should even consider it until that is made a permanent part of it. So I don't think that should be negotiable on our side. I think that needs to be a precondition to any consideration of us participating in this agreement. I don't want to agree to this and then have it come up for a vote, and they decide once again that, no, we don't think so. We are, you know, for better or worse, the 800-pound gorilla in terms of directing flow to this, and our participation on the executive committee, whomever that representative is going to be over the next 40 years, again, I think our participation needs to be predicated upon our having a seat on that executive committee that is a guaranteed seat. So thank you. So when you say, Karen, you mean the 40-year opportunity for, I like the word perpetuity, but the 40-year extension? Just as a precondition to any participation in this ILA whatsoever. Whatsoever. Okay, I think the vice mayor has enough to go with from now, and we'll hear back on July 2nd. Okay, very good. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your staying with us this afternoon. Let's jump back to CF1, performance audit of the procurement P-card program, city auditor's office. Pat, before you begin, city manager, I don't think we're going to have time to finish the entire conference meeting agenda this afternoon. We have to, well, we'll see how long this item goes, but I guess we're just going to have to push those to the evening agenda, or do you want to take it at a later time? I think for business four, if we were to defer it to the June 2nd meeting, since it's still pretty early in the hurricane season, I think it would still have relevant information if that was one to be considered for deferral. And maybe one other? I would hope that we could get through the... We're not going to. So then the sidewalk master plan... We can get through it tonight, but not this afternoon. Okay, well, perhaps the sidewalk master plan could go to this evening. You want to put that this evening? Okay. Which is business three. Okay. Well, we'll do what we can, but you say the business four will push to a later meeting? June 2nd. Okay, great. Mayor, we have had residents here waiting for business two. Also, they've been here patiently all day, and I would hate to see us not even deal with that, either this afternoon or this evening. This is the Park's Bond program. Well, we're going to do CF1, and then we can go to business two. Okay, great. That's the next thing on the agenda. Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Riley. Patrick Riley, City Auditor. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a summary of our performance audit of the Procurement P-Card program, which included 15-month audit period and included life cycle testing during 2025. This audit report is part of our annual audit plan. Today, I would like to walk through the objectives of the audit and overall conclusions, key findings, and the recommendations we feel that will improve the internal controls over the city's environment over P-Cards. The P-Card program is a critical role in the city's procurement process. It supports decentralized purchasing of thousands of transactions each year and contributes a meaningful rebate of approximately $870,000 annually. That is based on P-Card transactions of totaling spending of $63 million, of which $12 million was spent by employees using a physical P-Card. Our objectives were to determine that whether internal controls over the city's P-Card program were properly designed, implemented, and effective. After reviewing the program's internal controls and performance, our conclusion is our office found that the internal controls relating to the P-Card program were not adequately improved and maintained since the prior audit. Specifically, management was not fully compliant with laws and regulations relating to the property internal controls relevant to P-Card transactions, notably property controls over attractive items. P-Card administration controls, record-keeping, and supervisory approvals were also lacking in as far as controls. And prohibited and questionable P-Card purchases occurred representing noncompliance with PSM 9.13. These issues collectively create a persistent vulnerability to fraud, waste, and operational efficiency. Several conditions were remediated by the city manager and management that were brought to the attention during the audit period, such as ERP enhancements that improve P-Card documentation and on-infor software, updating the P-Card PSMs, and file retention updates that were needed. Also, we obtained reverse charges from the city's P-Card issuing bank related to a compromised P-Card identified by my auditor, and this was a third-party fraud incident. I'd like to go over some of the key findings, which were all prior audit, repeat findings from a prior audit that was done in 2019. Finding number one, property control is not fully compliant for attractive items purchased with a P-Card. We found that the city still lacks a compliant, complete inventory system for attractive items, which are high-risk property items valued below $5,000, such as laptops, appliances, expensive tools, and EV chargers. Specifically, property records were incomplete, lack of physical inventories, disposal procedures were not clear and outlined and outdated, and many of the P-Card items purchased from our sample testing were found only after extensive efforts to locate items with limited records. Finding number two basically is administration of the actual P-Card issuance, the P-Card agreements, and P-Card cancellation. We noted missing or incomplete P-Card applications and P-Card agreements, but the key item was delays in cancelling P-Cards from separated employees. And we feel that the underlying issue that continued reliance on manual paper-based processes and insufficient coordination related to some of the problems with the administration of those documents. Finding number three, recording and supervisory approvals needs strengthening. This includes issues with non-detailed P-Card receipts, P-Card statements, and digital retention. Our audit found that 7% of all tested P-Card receipts were missing or lacked itemized detailed information. And what do I mean there is like the receipts should at minimum have what is the item description, what the quantities are, what the unit price is, and a lot of often that was missing. 7% of all tested P-Card receipts were missing that itemized detailed information. And extrapolating that equates to roughly 2,000 non-compliant transactions annually. Also, nearly one-fifth of the monthly P-Card statements tested were never submitted to finance storage files. These weaknesses impair the city's ability to purchase, to verify purchases, enforce accountability, and ensure compliance with mandatory retention rules. Finding number four, prohibited and questionable purchase. We identify both prohibited transactions and transactions that raise concern about propriety and documentation. Prohibited purchases are items that didn't conform with the city's policies and standards manual. The prohibited purchases include vehicle repairs, split transactions, duplicate payments, non-travel charges on travel cards, other restricted categories for the P-Card, PSM. Questionable purchases include large gift purchases for third parties, substantial spending routed through unnecessary intermediaries. And what I mean by that is still having salespeople providing sales rather than using better methods to obtain smaller goods and services that they needed. There was also un-itemized construction invoices, unsupported expenditures tied to weak work order documentation. And so that was kind of a quick summary of the four findings. We had several recommendations that we provided. We believe that we believe that we need to implement a COSO-aligned risk-based internal control system. We need to strengthen property controls over attractive items. We need to modernize our workflows with digital forms and automated controls. We need to integrate HR IT system to automate P-Card cycle changes. And we would believe that deploying AI-based exception monitoring will help. And I believe, speaking with Linda Short, that we're in the process of obtaining that type of software. Well, not software, but availability of using the AI type of function to look at our functions of what is approved, what is allowable for our PSMs and identify that documentation is adequate before payment is finalized. And lastly, I think one of the probably the bigger things is it require annual internal controls training for coordinators and relevant staff based on the thought that really a lot of our offices and departments are kind of silos. So they need to be the kind of the heavy on deciding, you know, what is the right control over attractive items as far as what's reasonable they need to track based on what kind of purchases they have and how they issue it and how they dispose of it. So I think we need some improvement on that. So that completes my audit presentation. I will address any questions at this time. Okay. First of all, Pat, thank you so much. It seems like you did a very thorough analysis. I got a copy of your report. I read it thoroughly. And so, City Manager, what would be your response to what the auditor has provided here today? Thank you, Mayor. I want to echo the sentiments of thanks towards our city auditor's office in terms of the depth and breadth of this audit report for the audit period of October 2023 through December 2024. We have been putting certain elements into place to strengthen our controls and our processes, and I look forward to continuing that dialogue with the auditor's office as we implement those protocols. I know that our IT department has implemented an inventory tracking system. Our Parks and Rec department is using a new work order system. Our PCART audit program has received more funding, and so we're going to be strengthening that as well. We are promoting compliance through employees, both with training and with ensuring that specific positions are filled that relate to this, and the AI expense management tool that Pat mentioned, we are looking into that. So thank you so much for pointing out areas where we can definitely take a look and, you know, be more responsive, and so I look forward to continuing the efforts to strengthen our transparency and compliance. So let me ask you, did you send a memo to the city commission indicating that there were no instances of fraud and that there was no violation of Section 218.33 of the Florida statutes? You would see that memorandum to the auditor as part of the management response. I mean, I'm just trying to understand, since the city auditor specifically said there were instances of fraud and that there were violations of Section 218.33, I'm trying to understand the response saying that there were none. Sure. So which is correct? Then I'm going to call Linda Short and Yvette Matthews forward to add some clarification. Well, Pat, before, Yvette, before Pat, can you please stay at the podium? Yes. So there was multiple findings, and according to your report, in fact, there's a very extensive report, in which you made findings, and in your parlance, a finding is a serious thing, right? Yes. And Commissioner Herbst, if you could help us out on this, did you have an opportunity to review on what Pat has submitted and the findings that he provided us? I did, and I've also had a conversation with Pat regarding the audit report and some of his concerns and why he felt the need to also provide a rebuttal back to the report. So typically, you know, when we have an audit report, we have two categories. We have findings, and then we have observations. Observations are what we deem in the profession to be opportunities for improvement. A finding is something where we say this is inconsistent with existing rules, policies, or standard procedures in the profession. And so if Pat's got some... As well as statutes? Statutes, ordinances, policies, and generally recognized internal control standards. Pat references COSO, for example. There are other ones that are standard. For example, segregation of duties and things like that. And so when we find something that is inconsistent with those rules, regulations, ordinances, and so forth, that would rise to a level of a finding. And then we make a determination as to whether it's material or not, and we report it as such. We also look at areas where we think there are just opportunities for staff to improve how they do things, and we put those down as observations. At the end of the day, when we have our exit conference with staff, we will share that information with them with the goal of trying to make sure that when we're reporting our findings that there is no disagreement as to matters of fact. We can disagree on recommendations, and I've always said to, you know, my audit clients, you know, feel free to disagree with my recommendations. But we should never disagree as to the factual findings that are in a report. And the exit conference is the opportunity for us to work those out before it gets into the final report. And if there is something that comes back from the city manager, I'm not particularly referring to any city manager, but to a city manager that I disagree with when I was the auditor, we would on occasion put a rebuttal in there where I thought it was fundamentally challenging the conclusion of the finding. And I think that's what Pat had to do. And that is a little concerning. So I don't like to see that in an audit report. If you're disputing facts, that needs to be resolved. It is either factually correct or factually not correct. You can always disagree with a recommendation. You may find that a recommendation doesn't meet the cost-benefit of implementation. You know, you may find it is impracticable to put in place. Whatever that may be, you can certainly, as a charter officer responsible for operations, simply disagree. And then it's a policy question for us as the commission to say whether we agree with you or we agree with the auditor's recommendation. But I don't like to see that in an audit report where we're disagreeing on the nature and substance and context of the findings themselves. Thank you, Commissioner. I just want to highlight that we did share in that memorandum that we concur with the findings. It seemed to me, though, that there was some back and forth. Like, we agree and then we sort of disagree. Pat, do you want to sort of discuss that? Yeah. There were responses to the four findings that basically said they concurred. But in the letter going out to us, there were two paragraphs that included one statement that said, during the audit period, no instances of fraud were identified reflecting the progress staff has made in establishing a system of controls to ensure purchases are properly reviewed and validated. Well, I mean, that's like saying, well, you didn't find any fraud. So, you know, we have everything in place. And, you know, I learned a line today saying, you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And that's really true. You may be looking at stuff, but the intention of this audit was really to tighten up the internal controls, not really necessarily looking for fraud. Although I can tell you a red flag to me is when you have a P-card purchase and it's not broken down as to what the detail of it is and it's just a lump sum amount, that's a bad, you know, control to have where the risk of problems is when you have that. And so I think I felt that it was trying to say that everything looks good. So, you know, we had no fault because no fraud was found on in this situation of this report, but we did find some fraud there. We had a compromise card, a P-card that action wasn't taken to correct that, which my auditor did locate that in his sample. And we got $20,000 back from our bank when that got processed. And so, to me, there was at least four set of eyes that should have seen that, that the individual had that, should have looked at the bank statement for the P-card, the P-card coordinator should have said, well, where are all the receipts for this $20,000? And then the supervisor signing off should have been able to say, well, everything's here and every department needs to do that process that has P-cards out there. So that was another red flag that was a concern to me. So I think we do need some improvements in the areas of how we're administering the P-cards. I think maybe we just got a lax in some of the areas. But again, since so many departments are kind of siloed out there, it's really important that, you know, there's some training on how the internal controls for P-cards should be handled. And the other item, you know, it just says, you know, we pointed out four findings that related to not complete compliance with, with Florida Statutes 218, which really, you know, requires that, that you have to maintain an internal control process in place so you try to prevent, you know, the risk of fraud, misuse, and so forth. So that's really clear. But I think where we, we, we lost that, that commitment to, to follow that is a Florida administrative code on the attractive items. You know, I'm not arguing about what's the right amount, you know, attractive items are items somewhere between a thousand and five thousand that we've decided on. But whatever it is, you know, we, we ran into situations where something was purchased. We asked where the records are on it. They couldn't locate them. Initially, they said we, we got rid of them. And then later on, we were able to find, in one case, EV chargers that were being held at, at the, the vendor. And then it was later transferred over to sustainability and they used them. So, you know, we, we have some control problems relating with the disposal items that really clearly should be, should be done, but the, the comment management concludes that the city remains in compliance with requirements of section 218. We, we just have to, you know, disagree with that because I, I think it kind of gives negative assurance that everything is correct, but I think some corrections need to be made. And it's, you know, I don't think there's anything that's, that's not, you know, easily fixable, but we need to control that because this PCAR, there's 28,000 transactions a year. Like, again, based on our standpoint, we're, we're extrapolating that probably at least, you know, a big portion of, you know, 2,000 transactions, you know, could be, you know, a problem with it. So we, we just want to really tighten that. We spent $12 million. I see two issues here. The first issue is the evidence that you uncovered of the possible misuse of the PCARD and the types of things that were being purchased. The second issue is why the management office did not properly reflect the findings that you, that you, that you uncovered in, in, in making this communication to the city commission. Why the city, why the management said city remains in compliance with requirements and that there were no instances of fraud when you specifically point out four instances of fraud. So that, that concerns me. Why, why would we sugarcoat it when in fact it needs to be investigated? What are your thoughts on that? And just to clarify, Mayor, sorry, Yvette Matthews, assistant city manager, just to clarify, the document was, did not point out four instances of fraud. And I completely agree with Pat that there are a number of findings in here that really detail the need for the city to enhance our safeguards around the PCARD program. What Pat identified, a lot of the things that we get during these internal audit reviews are, before the report even comes out, he's sharing with our team some of these weaknesses for us to continue to enhance those, um, safety, the internal controls and safety. Right. I would hope so. And so we, we value the work and I, you know, one of the things that I've shared with Pat already is that the management response was not intended to diminish the work that the auditor's office did. It was not to diminish the findings that were outlined. And for each one, we took that ETSA interview as an opportunity to really talk through exactly what the auditor's office had identified, whether or not there were additional circumstances that we needed to keep in mind. Our finance director really went through step by step. I think that ETSA interview was almost two hours long. It was scheduled for 30 minutes. It ended up being almost two hours long. And I think that's representative of the city staff's, um, goal, which is to hear the auditor's office, ensure that we're receiving the information. We recognize those shortfalls and our response was intended to indicate that yes, there is work to be done, but some work has already been done and we are already doing some addition, taking some additional steps based on the preliminary feedback that Pat provided. So if there was any, you know, misinterpretation of the way that that response was provided, I've already shared with Pat that I apologize if that's the way he interpreted it, but the intent was never to diminish the work that the auditor's office had done. We really took it to heart and have already taken action to ensure that the city is safeguarding those resources. Is that your, is that your understanding, Pat, that, that, that measures have already been taken to, to prevent this stuff from happening in the future? I mean, have you seen visible, have you seen, as I mentioned, we, during the audit, we did recommend some things that, uh, were, um, taken care of by management that, that we hope that they would do. There's, you know, other things we didn't, but I didn't want to clarify. I didn't say we had four audit, um, of frauds in, in this situation. I was, I was, I was, what I was saying is, it was one related to a third party, not an employee, but a third party fraud that we really didn't take care of. That, that's what, what the problem is, what I wanted to point out, and that through the process of the normal P-card evaluation and approval, we, we should have, we should have caught that. But, you know... Well, that was a substantial instance, 20 grand, you know, and then for the, and for the management office to say there were no instances of fraud, you know. Well, I, I don't, the only other thing I wanted to do too is say is like, you know, um, I met with, with management and they asked a lot about finding number four as far as the questionable items and, uh, prohibited items. And we provided all that information to them and I didn't get any response that there was any issue with, with the documentation on that. So we did that, but my, my comment is just simply that the two comments on, on the response to me, like, were a negative assurance that nothing is wrong and the other point was that there's nothing wrong with, with, with, um, and then we followed to 18 and I, I just, I just, we agree to disagree on that. Okay. Linda, did you want to say something? Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Linda Short, Director of Finance. So I want to just share just a little bit of context on the fraud, the $20,000 in fraud. So finance views fraud in a different way. So when I think about fraud, I think about things that have happened where someone is trying to defraud the government. All the time, everybody has their car gets stolen and someone tries to take money from the city and we fight and dispute the information and get the money back. So when I thought about the fraud as in fraud, where someone from the city committed a fraudulent act and stole money from the city, like they did in 2019, we found no instance of that this year. But what we did have, which we have all the time is someone trying somehow getting the city's card number, making charges. And we review the charges and dispute them and get the money back, which is what happened. In this case, someone used somebody's card and the person didn't report it to us. Timely, we found out about it, contacted the vendor, got all our money back because it was a fraudulent actor who got a hold of one of the city's account numbers and tried to take money from the city. But it wasn't someone from the city initiating fraud. And I just wanted to make a distinction between the two. Well, I think when it comes to definitions, we need to be less subjective of what we think it is as opposed to what it is. Got it. Okay. No problem. Thank you for that. All right. So does that complete your report, Pat? Yes. Does anyone have any questions of the city auditor? Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Pat. This is a very thorough report. A lot of concerns. It's very concerning, this report. And I'm hoping, and I'm just saying this, so that last audit was 2019, and then we have this. I think that we should immediately start looking at January 2025 through today. I mean, I don't think we should wait a long time until we do this again. This particular issue seems very concerning, and I'm hoping that we can get some information about from January 2025 to present day. And I think that we're just taking too much time in between the audits of this PCARD program. That's all. Thanks. And, Commissioner, thank you for that feedback. One of the things that we did realize is when you look at doing an after-the-fact audit, there's often long delays between the time a transaction happened and the time in which you're able to remedy whatever that shortfall was. And so the finance team is already investigating a tool that will allow us to do more real-time audits of our PCARD program, ensuring we're in compliance with the city's various procurement requirements, but also making sure that we're doing active reviews so that it's not just one person or the audit office doing it a year or two years after the fact. But we really want to be able to use technology to ensure that we're keeping real-time pulse on where our PCARD program lies. Thank you. I think that's really important. Thank you. Just one thing I want to add is with the PCARD program, it really is important to have a continuous kind of audit activity because of the volume, because of the nature of how this can be done and because of the nature of items that can be purchased and easily sold on eBay. So there's a lot of purchases, even small ones that over time could be allowed. But one thing I want to make clear is we did a 15-month audit that covered the beginning of the October 2023 all the way to December 2024, but also included the year of 2025. Well, we were looking at cycle, you know, the life cycle testing where we say, okay, something purchased in 2044, where is it? Do we still have it? Are there records on it? So it was kind of a three-year audit that covered that. I don't want to think that we looked at too far back. And it took, you know, you need to look into the, a year or so after the purchases to see especially the attractive items. If we had them, what happened to them? And we had a tough time really finding a lot of the items, very poor records related to what was purchased, who had them, and how we disposed them of them. So that's the main thing of this audit that I think really needs to be cleaned up a bit. Okay. Any other questions or comments? There being none. Thank you so much, Pat. We appreciate it. Moving on to business two, city manager. We have Quentin Pugh, assistant city manager and Colette Satchel, director of capital projects. Good afternoon, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners, Quentin Pugh, assistant city manager. Also joining me and co-presenter is Colette Satchel, capital projects director. Today's presentation is about bringing greater clarity, structure, and predictability to the parks bond program. We will provide a quick walkthrough of what's been done, what's underway, and what's coming, as well as some other relevant information about the parks bond program. The capital projects department was established with the adoption of the FY26 budget and handles all vertical bills, including public facilities, parking, mobility, streetscapes, and of course the parks bond program. Project examples include the recently completed Las Olas parking garage lighting improvements and the new Bass Park Community Center that is under construction. The foundation of this program goes back a decade when the Comprehensive Parks Master Plan was approved. When residents voted to authorize the issuance of $200 million in bonds, they were approving a plan they had already helped shaped. Implementation kicked off during the pandemic in 2020, and when staff reengaged the community in 2021, residents' priorities still lined up with the 2016 Master Plan. In the past five years since that engagement, a few projects in every district have been moved from planning to construction completion. Within tranches one and two, some project funds were appropriated immediately, while others were phased to match project readiness. Roughly $59 million of funds within tranches one and two have been spent. Approximately 24% or $14 million of the expenditures to date are related to planning, design, and program management with AECOM. Trunch three funding isn't tied to a fixed release date. Staff is working to draw down tranche one funds, which is a key trigger that helps advance it. The capital projects department is reassigning projects across more project managers and multiple consultant firms in order to accelerate project deliveries. The parks bond program is extensive in both scale and geographic reach, covering more than 90 parks across all four districts. The parks master plan didn't pre-commit a project to every park. It targeted parks needing work based on community input, life cycle conditions, and programming needs. Some parks were already in good shape and didn't need bond-funded work. The inventory was also smaller back then. The FY 2018 adopted budget listed 104 total parks in the city, whereas today is 112. Every park listed here has a real project tied to it. Several are complex, phased, and or required coordination with outside agencies. The parks bond program allocated $5 million to Lotter Trail to support citywide connectivity between parks, schools, the mobility hub, and the commercial corridors. The seven segments listed here are part of the Tier 1 network, and once completed, will deliver approximately five of the 12 miles. Tier 1 was identified as a starting point in the Lotter Trail master plan because it connects the key destinations. It also provides strong pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, has fewer conflicts, and requires minimal right-of-way acquisitions compared to Tier 2. Many of these segments are already in design and permitting phases. Segment 1D is supported by grant funding, and the environmental assessment is underway. This segment will connect Holiday Park to George English Park, approximately 1.12 miles. Staff will continue to explore funding opportunities, such as surtax-generated funds, grants, park impact fees, CIP decision packages, and packaging trails growth into nearby P3 projects. Take the Holiday Park Parking Garage P3 project as an example. Staff is currently in discussions to package the shared-use path along Northeast 8th Street into that project, connecting Federal Highway to the main entry of Holiday Park. $7.5 million was allocated evenly across all four districts for land acquisition. Notable acquisitions have been completed in every district, with roughly $3.6 and $3.9 million remaining in Districts 1 and 2, respectively. Park impact fees come from new development. They help the city keep up with added demand on the parks as the community grows. These fees also give us another funding source to help close project gaps and move improvements forward. Today, fees split 50-50. Half goes into the citywide regional park bucket, and the remaining half into the district-specific park fund where the fee was generated. Think of a citywide regional park as one that draws residents from across all four districts. Signature parks like Holiday and Carter, and special-use facilities like the Aquatics Complex and Fort Lauderdale Beach Park. Older district regional park funds were collected before October 2024 and split evenly across the four districts for signature, citywide, or special-use projects. Each district was allocated roughly $2 million. The city has leveraged bond dollars to secure over $5.4 million in outside grant funding. Extensions have been requested on the first two grants, Lotta Trail Segment 1D and Cooleys Landing. We also will be requesting an extension for the Carter Park grant listed on the third line item as we anticipate that project being completed late FY28 or FY29. A few projects in each district have been delivered. Restroom renovations and athletic field lighting upgrades at Bayview Park in District 1. Tennis center renovations at Holiday Park in District 2. In District 3, golf course and athletic field lighting at Oswald Park, and community center renovations and new playground improvements at Riverside Park in District 4. Credit goes to a wide team. First and foremost, the residents for staying engaged. The city commission for their support and direction. The city manager for her leadership. ACM Ben Rogers. The parks and recreation director, Carl Williams. And deputy director, Enrique Sanchez, for their past hard work on the parks bond program. Want to give a shout out to Mr. Glenn Marcos, procurement director, for helping us push these projects forward. And to our very own senior project manager, Mark Isaac. I'm now going to turn it over to Colette Satchel, who's going to let us take you a little bit in a dive with the project sequencing and what's ahead. Good evening, everyone. We looked at many criteria in determining how the projects would be sequenced. And one of them is what we call construction readiness, which would be, do we have permits? Are the drawings completed? Are drawings required? We also look to see if all the projects are adequately funding. Do we have to go out and seek funding elsewhere? We look at grants that are available and those timelines. So some projects may be brought forward in order to meet these grant deadlines. We also look at commission priorities, life cycle readiness, which is the life cycle of the equipment that is in place in these parks, as well as interaction with other improvements. We do take an inventory of projects that are ongoing on the different site to make sure that we are not going to be impeded by any of the other projects. So we've categorized the projects based on anticipated construction start date. And what you're seeing in the first slide is projects that started construction are scheduled to start in FY26. Sunrise Middle School, Phase 1 and 2, is well underway. Phase 1 is well underway. And Phase 2 is about to start in the next two to three weeks. Warfield Park is under construction. We had some delays, but work has resumed, and we should pick up very quickly and get that one completed. Happy to say that Holiday Park, we issued notice to proceed for the contractor last Monday, yesterday, and you should see the fence going up very soon. Also in FY26, we have work ongoing at Bass Park, Mills Punt Park. We started work on Esther Davis Wright Park last week, and Harbordale Elementary and Harbordale Park are very soon behind. Projects anticipated for FY27 include completing some of the work that we've started at Sunrise Middle School, or Lifsheet Ocean Park, Cooley's Landing Marina, Holiday Park, what we're calling Phase 3, Ludena Park, Virginia S.Y. Elementary School. Also in FY27 would be Joseph C. Carter Park, Mills Punt Park Phase 3, Guthrie Blake Park, Sunset Park Phase 2, just to name a few. Oswald Park is also scheduled to start. That one is actually out for Bates right now, and we should start construction in the late fall, early winter. Cross State Park is on schedule to go ahead and get that one out for Bates in 2021. Lauderdale Isle Park, likewise. We have some funding challenges there, but one of the things that we've done through this process is try and identify where we need funds and then work to see how we can secure those funds. Florence Hardy Park, of course, that one has a grant funding that we're waiting approval on. As soon as that one's approved, we plan to get construction underway. Gorbets Park is a favorite that we get a lot of input for. We are working on that one to see how quickly we can get that one motivated, just based on interest. But notice that it's not totally funded until tranche 3. We could look at Palm Air Village Park Phase 2. There's some work that we'll start there. Doddy Mancini Park, South Middle River Park, Fort Lauderdale Beach Park. That one's on hold, but once we get a design finalized, we'll definitely see how we can get that one expedited. So for FY28, also, we have Sistrong Park. Holiday Park Phase 4, that's the pickleball courts, which I know we've had some input on that one. And our idea is we're going to go ahead right now and finalize the designing and procurement of both phases, 3 and 4, and then see how we can implement the initiation of that work as quickly as possible. Rather than doing two phases, we're looking for options that would expedite the pickleball courts, for which we've had some input on. Riverland Park is another one that we get feedback on that's scheduled for FY28. Chateau Park, Collie Hammock Park as well are scheduled for FY28. So I wanted to remind everyone that even though we say start of construction of FY28 or FY29 that you're going to see coming, we are actively working on these projects, trying to see how we can engage the consultants. We've widened our pool of consultants to make sure that we have enough consultants to engage in these projects. And we started the project initiation process by engaging new consultants. So Floyd Hall Park, we, on May 5th, received additional funding. Thank you very much to the commission for approving that. We've started the design process and that is ongoing with our consultants. Stranahan Park is on board. Lewis Landing. And Snyder Park is one that we also got funded for. It's not funded totally right now, so we requested additional funding to make sure we had enough to take us through the design and permitting process. Thanks again. Georgia English Park, Phase 2, is scheduled for FY29. Beach Community Center, Palm Air Park, Coolies Land and Marina, Loggerhead Park. We recently got some feedback on that as well. Middle River Terrace Park, Vista Park, Wiltonham Park, North Fork Riverfront Park are all scheduled for FY2029. Of course, the work at the Riverfront Park is also going to append in a grant application match for design phase. Lauderdale Manors Park is scheduled for FY29. And so, also for FY29, we have Hector Park, Brian Penny Park, Smoker Park, Stranahan Landing, and Francis Ellabrew Place, to name a few. And so, we've presented this plan to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board and we've received their input. I think they're supportive of us trying to proceed in an organized way. So, our goal really is to look at how we can prioritize these projects and continuously re-evaluate them to see how we can prioritize and deliver as expeditiously as possible. We do plan to come back periodically to provide an update of our progress and, you know, our challenges as well to see how we can continue to expedite this process. Okay, great. Is that complete your presentation? Yes, sir. Thank you. Quentin, do you have any additional comments you'd like to make? No, sir. We're available for any questions you want to have. First of all, thank you for the good work you're doing and we appreciate, you have, obviously, your hands full and a full plate going on. So, thank you both for your good work. Anyone from the Commission have any questions? I do, Mayor. Go ahead. Actually, comments and questions. So, thank you very much. Very encouraging to hear that little bit of news tonight. I caught it about expediting the design and moving forward with Phase 3 and 4 together in Holiday Park. I really appreciate that because we have made promises to the community and we have told folks that things would be in place this year. Obviously, they're not. So, I'm really happy about that and I encourage you to keep moving forward with that. Find that space for the folks that are in that social center that needs to be demolished. You know, we have a wide eye on the street. I'm sure that we can find space and we can get moving on that because those people over in that area are really excited about that happening. I know they're really also looking forward to the groundbreaking of the playground next week. So, thank you for that. I really appreciate it. I did want to also mention to you two other things. I'm hoping that we'll be able to find some funds for the shortfall on Cooley's Landing. That was a great project that we were not able to take advantage of some of the grant funding that we did receive for a variety of issues. But I really want to see us finish that entire project. It's a beautiful marina in Sailboat Bend and I think we really need to push and to see what we can do to come up with some sort of alternative funding sources, whatever it's going to take. I just think that that's really important. And then I also wanted to mention Warfield Park in South Middle River. That park is actually a year older than our city, so I think we need to do a little bit more. There is a dirt patch area there that I think we can get five more parking spaces out of. I think we can perhaps also fence in that area as well because I think it's important to have that. Maybe we can work with the school board because that is sort of part of the joint use project that we also do. But I think that's really important. Then I think lastly we have to add some more Florida native trees. I think we have to beef up the landscaping there. I know that the neighborhood South Middle River Civic Association has written to us about that, and I concur with all of their requests. I don't think it's a big ask. I know that I think I did just give some of my park impact fees to complete the work that we're doing there to the tune of about $200,000, I think, that we used for my share of park impact fees for that. Happy to do it. Please, let's just continue to find funding sources so that we're able to just tie Warfield Park up. I'd also like to see us pursue some more work with, I know that I still have land acquisition funds. I think just District 1 and District 2 have land acquisition funds remaining. I really want to see us step up with that. I believe that we can do more. You know, prices are a little depressed now. I'd like to see us do more in the Middle River Terrace area and in the South Middle River area. Those are the two neighborhoods, I believe, in my district that could use some more park space just some more places where people can come and enjoy. So if we can check out with Collier's what that real estate portfolio looks like so that we can perhaps just find some opportunities, I would really appreciate that if we could do that for both the Middle River Terrace area and the South Middle River area. And I think, Mayor, those are my only concerns. And, again, thank you for your work on this. It's much more encouraging. We got up to such a slow start. We really are making up for lost time, and I'm hoping that we can just keep accelerating the pace and get this done for actually not just my district but for the entire city. Thanks. We have several people who have signed up to speak, but does anyone else from the commission have any questions? Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Thank you both for your work and continued efforts. As much as possible, and maybe this is a city manager question, when we look to projects starting FY29, as much as possible, I'd really like to see if we can start moving those up a little bit earlier so that 29 is now starting in 28 as much as possible to really drive this. because part of my concern is just our continued diminishing purchasing power with the limited bond dollars we have. Thank you for that feedback, Vice Mayor. We will certainly do so. Thank you. Do we actually have a plan, or are we crafting a plan to make up for the obvious budget shortfalls that we will be experiencing as we move forward for the next couple of years? You guys all working on something now to, you know, cobble together funding sources for what's going to be the inevitable shortfall? So as we audit each project, we're looking at what the need is and reaching out to see where these funding can come from. Cooley's Landing, one of the ones you mentioned, we've actually devised a plan where we can go back to find in January and reapply for design funds and for additional construction funds in the following year to help us get this project done completely correctly the way it should be done. You know, so we're working with every single project to see if the project is waterfront, we can go back to find. If it's something that we have a trail, we could go to recreational trail. So we're really looking at different sources. We're looking at impact fees. The numbers that you saw on the impact fees go back to October of 2025. So we're hoping that we've collected some more money and seeing how we can use those to help the projects. Great. No, thank you. And for those that might, you know, it's a little confusing when you say we're going to find, but I just want people to know a find is the Florida Inland Navigation District. So we're trying to get money from fine. We're not finding money. We're not finding money, no. We're going to fine. We're going to the Florida Inland Navigation District. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Thank you. So please be seated, and we're going to have a few people sign up to speak. Ed Catalano, are you still here, Ed? There you are. And followed by Olga Zamara, and then Ted and Sarah, and then Barbara Stern. If there's anyone else who wishes to speak on this item, please sign up. Good evening, sir. No, you just turned it off. My name is Edward Catalano. I'm the former president of the South Meadow River Civic Association, and I'm here to speak to you about Warfield Park. I moved to Fort Lauderdale about 12 years ago, and the one thing I noticed was there was a beautiful park two blocks from my house. But I noticed as the time went on, we had little or no access to the park. Since the park is part of the Northside School, the school uses that property for most of the time. What we would hope is that you're able to get some more access for our residents to be able to use that park. This past weekend, there was a big, I guess you would call it a group of people where they had a bounce house. They had all kinds of things in Warfield Park. It was the greatest thing I've seen in my whole time here. There were 200 people there. I never saw 200 people in that park. It was so overwhelming that it just opened my whole outlook of the park. And we hope that you can give us a few more parking spots as well, which we need, as well as a use and access to the park. That's what we're asking for. Thank you. Thank you so much. Olga Zamora. Yes, good evening, everybody. Thank you. I'm here in my personal capacity. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I echo everything that Ed has said as a long-time resident of South Middle River, specifically in the Central City CRA area neighborhood. I'm a fairly new resident, and Commissioner Glassman, you hit all the points. Thank you. That's exactly what we wanted, what I wanted as a new resident and as a long-time resident. Essentially, we want to activate. I would love to see the park activated with activities, just like that activity that was not city-sponsored this past weekend. We would love to have neighbors from other neighborhoods throughout the city come to the park to activate it, to bring vibrancy and life to it. And then a note on the fencing, because we are in the Central City CRA area, we want to also, I would like to see beautification of the area as well as safety, and that's why the fencing is important, especially the type of fencing, so that not only the children from Northside who use the park can be safe, but also that the residents can feel safe. Ideally, there would not be fencing, but the reality is that we need to have that fencing, so improved fencing would be great. So thank you, Commissioner Glassman, for saying everything that you did, because additional funding would be so necessary, and that's my request. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Ten and Sarah. Ten and Sarah, President of River Oak Civic Association. Are you ready, Mayor? Ready? I would like to thank our City Manager, Raquel Williams, first up, for driving this thing forward, because it's been just going on for way too long. I've heard excuses of COVID. I've heard excuses of, oh, I wasn't your commissioner back then, which is just unacceptable. But you know what? I remember it, not here, but in that room across, Mayor, when you were giving your acceptance speech on your last election, the theme, I don't know if you remember, but I do, your theme of your speech was checking boxes, getting stuff done. You said there was too much adding to the list and not enough stuff getting done. I understand that, being a chef in the restaurants, because that was the thing. You have a prep list, you circle what you're doing, you scratch it off when it's done, and this has just been lingering way too long. The fact that we are getting the Sunrise Middle School, God bless them, their track and field long jump, and the thing is being resurfaced before any neighborhood parks are being done. I've been promised that Gore Betts Park, years ago, would have been moved up to the top of the list. I sent videos of kids playing in the dark. This is on Southwest 9th Avenue, right in between River Oaks and Creuson Park. Lots of new families coming in there. I promise families that when this playground, hey, is going to be redone, we're going to have swings with buckets for your toddlers. Well, now these toddlers are graduating Creuson Park Elementary School from the 6th grade, and they're the same kids, and we still have the same swing set. The fact, too, also, I went to a lot of these public outreach, which were listed on the city's sites of all these different parks, which were great. Gore Betts. I attended the Lockhart. I attended the ones in Riverland. They were all listed. But I wondered why that the Fort Lauderdale Beach Park, which gets $1.2 million, there was no public outreach for that thing. It was all totaled by Michael Gayhart and his EDSA Incorporated design. Where was the public outreach and design and input for that park when it does get money from this park bond, $1.2 million? All right. Thank you so much. Barbara Stern. Good evening. Thank you, Mayor, Commission. I'm very happy to see that money has been found for Carter Park. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, and maybe you could film me, and I have not been over there in about five months or so. I think it's a community room. Is the ceiling still falling in, and is there still standing water on the ground for that one room that... Well, that particular room is going to be demolition with the new design. So it has been addressed, and as you said, we have been able to identify the funding. And thank you, City Manager, and all of those who have worked to identify those funds. So we are moving in the direction to start. Great. So it's on site to be demolished. It hasn't been demolished? Not at this point, no. Okay. So it's very upsetting that that has remained standing. I have been over there numerous times, and I just want the city to understand, in the times that I've seen it over a two-year period, and it had existed this way long before, ceiling tiles falling down, insulation falling from the ceiling, standing water on the ground. There's things that we could have done. And it's not in use, because it's a health hazard. So I'm happy to hear that it's finally moving forward. It never should have taken this long to start doing something. We've heard about a request to expedite the parks in District 2 and District 4. Please, City, expedite this job in District 3, because they've been waiting way too long. I'm glad you found the money. This park needs attention now, not in 2028 or however long down the road it is. They need the attention now. So I'd humbly request for those members of the community, and that park is used by everybody. If you've been down for Carter Park Jams, if you've been there for meetings, if you've seen football games there, it's used by everybody. And it is a shame that we allowed it to sit that way for so long. That never would have existed if it were downtown or on the beach. And with that, thank you. As a side note, Commissioner Klaasman, I'm so sorry I missed your debut performance for your stand-up comedy. I heard it was quite a trip. No hard feelings. I just have a gift for you. Okay. Anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? A special moment. Thank you. Okay. What is this? Is it more than $5? Just check it out. So the gift law is in Broward County. It's $50. I'm not a lobbyist, so it should be fine. But with all the discussion about apples to apples, it just seems fit. Just check if it's ticking, please. So, City Manager, we have business three, the sidewalk master plan. We'll have to take that up at the end of the meeting. And we're going to defer the storm season preparedness. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. All right. So we will suspend the continuation of the conference meeting, and we will resume our evening meeting at 6.15. This meeting is now concluded. Thank you.