City Commission Conference Meeting and CRA Board Meeting on 2026-02-17 1:35 PM - Feb 17, 2026

Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the City Commission Conference Meeting this February 17th. Wow, we're really burrowing into 2026. Anyway, as is with all of our conference meetings, we begin with our communications from our advisory boards, and today we have a couple of those communications. First of all, from our planning. Mayor, if I may. Yes. I think the CRA meeting would be the first meeting. You want to take up the CRA meeting first? So that one is scheduled for 1.30. Okay. That other meeting's over? No. See how easy that was? Okay. Okay, let me convene the Community Redevelopment Agency Board. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Vice Chair Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Here. Commissioner Swanson. Here. Chair Trantelis. Here. I can't hear you. Oh. We start with M1, motion approving the minutes for February 3rd, 2026, CRA board meeting. Do I hear a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. Second. Move and seconded. Any comments? There being none, please call the roll. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Vice Chair Herbst. Yes. Chair Trantelis. Yes. And that item is now approved. R1, a resolution approving a central city, community redevelopment area, property, and business improvement program incentive forgivable loan in the amount of $225,000 and a non-residential facade program forgivable loan in the amount of $125,000 to the Art of T, LLC. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduce. No one has signed up to speak. Any comments or questions? I did just want to say that this is really, I don't know if anyone really dug in, this is a great company moving its headquarters from Los Angeles. They really have a lot of outreach to incredible other companies in the hospitality industry. And they are a really high-end producer of all products related to tea. And I just want to say congratulations. I'm thrilled that they're moving into the central city neighborhood, and we welcome that to Fort Lauderdale. And I'm just really excited that this is happening. Good not just for District 2, but for the entire city. This is a real win-win. Thank you. Where is 900 Northeast? What building is that? Do you know off the top of your head? I do, actually. I mean, right now it's pretty much just like a warehouse. Is it east of the tracks or it's west of the tracks? It's west of the tracks, isn't it? It's west of the tracks. Yeah. I believe so, yes. But this is really a big deal, and it was interesting reading the minutes of the advisory board. The votes were interesting to see, and the totals were interesting to see, and it was a good tussle back and forth there for a little while. But I think it's a good deal, and I'm really thrilled that we're able to assist and help, and I really look forward to the success of this business in Fort Lauderdale. What's there now, or what was there? So they purchased the building in spring of 2025. The forgivable loan would be for the build-out of the interior space. No, I understand what it's for and all that. I'm just out of curiosity. I just want to know what was there before. I'm going to ask Vanessa Martin. Hey, Rebecca. To share. What was there before? Just trying to get my parents. They purchased a warehouse that's there right now. So they purchased the warehouse in 2025 in April, and so they're just requesting to do a build-out of interior and exterior. All right, that's great. We'll have a storefront. It'll have a storefront. And there will be some retail for the public. There's some photos of the warehouse. Okay, okay. And they currently employ 27 employees, and they're looking to add seven. Yeah. Wonderful. Great. Thank you for coming to Florida. Anyway, all right. Someone's introduced the resolution. Introduced. I think it's already been introduced, right? Yeah. So if we could please call the roll. A resolution board commissioner is of the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency approving a property and business improvement program incentive for a giveable loan in the amount of $225,000 and approving a non-residential facade improvement program for a giveable loan in the amount of $125,000 to the Art of T LLC, authorizing the executive director to execute all related instruments delegating authority to the executive director to take certain actions in providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Chair Herbst? Yep. Chair Trantals? Yes. And that item is approved. Thank you. Good luck. Looking forward to coming to your grand opening. Thank you. Okay. Any further business of the CRA? No, Mayor. There being none, that meeting is now concluded. Now we'll go back to the conference meeting and begin with our communications. And our first communication is from the Planning and Zoning Board. Is anyone here from – hello. Push the button. Push the button. Yep. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Jim Hatzel, Everdesign Planning Manager at DSD. The communication from the Planning and Zoning Board occurred from January 21, 2026, was to communicate to the commission to have staff do research on public notice requirements for projects of certain sizes in location and context. And this came about due to a project that was processing a land use plan amendment and a rezoning of the size of 40 acres, which is very unusual to have a project of that size. In our city, it's very unique. We don't have that many properties. This is southwest side by the Rock Pit property. Oh, in the northwest. In the northwest, yes, about 40 acres of size. So that was the discussion from the Planning and Zoning Board. Okay. Are you asking for a response in any way? They're asking for you to direct staff to do research on public notice requirements, and this was due to the fact that the project size was so large, they felt that the distance requirements, which is normally 300 feet for notification, should extend to a larger distance based on a project size. Because of the impact? Because of the impact of the larger project. Any thoughts or comments on that, Ben? I think it makes sense, Mayor. I think given the scope of this makes sense. So what do you think the distance requirement should be? So staff would have to conduct research and also check with the city attorney's office on identifying larger projects and separating them out from smaller projects could be an issue because of just changing the public notice requirements based on the size of a project. Not that it can't be undone, or it can't be done, but basically we have to check with legal. We haven't done that yet. We'd have to do more research. Okay, currently, is there a definition of how far out, like you're saying large is 40 acres. What is considered the average of a project if this is considered a large project? Well, I know we don't have that many 40-acre large sites in the city. We have much smaller sites than that. I don't know what the average is off the top of my head, but I know they're smaller than a couple acres. Most of 10 acres would be a very large project, usually what we deal with. 40 acres is very unusual. We don't get many like that at all, unless it's a regional activity center designation like we've done in the past. I'm in agreement for going in this direction. I just wanted a definition as to what's been done in the past in comparison to what we're calling large versus small. We would have to define it. Or average, I should say. Yeah, we don't have a definition for it now. We'd have to define what large meant. But that's definitely large, 40 acres. Up to what distance are we even contemplating? I mean, not a mile, I hope. Yeah, so if I may, Chris Cooper, Deputy City Manager. So when we notice a project, especially for Planning and Zoning Board, there are several ways that that notice goes out to the public. One is a direct mail to those within 300 feet of the project. The other is a notice to the Registered Civic Association or Recognized Civic Association where the project is located. So there's an expectation that that group is also sharing the information with their membership. We also require newspaper and sign notices. So, again, staff can look into how to accommodate this request for larger projects, but the result may not be that we are directly contacting individual property owners nearby within a wider area, but it may be that we're looking for a way to communicate information about the project more broadly to a lot of people at once. So I don't know what that looks like now. We can certainly look at other municipalities and places that do this kind of notice in a broader way. But, you know, essentially what we're looking for today is whether or not the commission would like staff to spend the time to look for those ways that we can more broadly communicate on those larger projects. Well, I think it's only fair that a broader net is cast, especially in these larger projects, that are going to have a greater impact than just within 300 feet. So why don't you get back to us and give us your recommendation then? There was one other item I forgot to mention was neighborhood associations outside of the city because our code only recognizes the city associations. That was another factor that was brought up by the board was to look at associations outside the city as well to notify them. Because in that area we border with the Broward County neighborhood. neighborhood, I forget the acronym that's used, but they are, they're neighbors. We're right next to each other. So I can understand that. And even I don't know if this would be outside of the scope, but where that 40 acres is across the highway is the city of Lauderhill, correct? Which is a large association that, in a sense, interacts with the communities right in that area. So even thinking, I'm in agreement. I'm just trying to get a visual of this because knowing where it is, and when we're saying only 350 feet, we're definitely not making an impact as to where this information needs to be shared. Because just, I'm thinking just north of there, west of there, east of where, you can go so much further than 350 feet. Make sure we get any information to the neighbors in the area. So typically 300 feet is used in planning and rezoning projects as well. So that's why that distance is there, but we can look at expanding that or making the distance larger. We'll do have to do research on that. Okay. All right. Well, Mayor, I'm in agreement with this. Okay. All right. So we'll do research to come back to the commission. Okay. Thank you, Jim. Thank you. Thank you. Anthony, did you have anything you wanted to add to this? No? Beard looks good. Okay. Moving on to the next communication, we have a communication from the Budget Advisory Board. Mr. Bill Brown. Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the commission, Bill Brown, Chairman of the Budget Advisory Board. This afternoon, under Business One, you will receive a presentation on the process that staff is proposing for what's called a certificate of use. It's a new process. It's a new process that you'll learn about when they come in. This same presentation was presented to the Budget Advisory Board at our meeting earlier in February. After some discussion with staff and questions and answers, we took a vote. It passed 9 to 0, and we encourage you to direct staff to go ahead and start this process. We would ask, and we did ask that we do it for a one-year pilot with some benchmarks so we get some feedback to see if it's really, truly beneficial for businesses instead of adding an extra burden on them. And if it's beneficial for their use so that they don't get caught up in a build-out later on that they weren't allowed to do when they get their business. Well, first of all, Bill, I don't think it's a burden. I think it's a benefit because having represented a lot of prospective commercial tenants and, you know, they signed leases saying, and this has to be used for a specific purpose. And I always tell them, please check to make sure the purpose is permissible within that zoning area, and that's done automatically. So to now give them an opportunity to say to a landlord, hey, I need to get a certificate of use before you can charge me $1 of rent to make sure that the use that you said I can do can actually be done there is a benefit to a tenant. So I'm totally supportive of this. I hope you are as well. And not all the members felt it was a burden. They saw much more benefit from it, but they just wanted to make sure that it's being done and begin properly. It doesn't cost burden them in terms of applying it. Right, and there is a fee that would accompany this. Yeah, but it's a minimal fee. Right. And in the long run, as you mentioned, it will save them thousands of dollars of doing bill-out. And a lot of headaches. Yeah, and legal expense and everything else. So we encourage you to, after the presentation, direct staff to go ahead and start the process. Thank you. Mayor, if I could just acknowledge the chair. Thank you so much for your leadership on the BAB and the entire Budget Advisory Board. When we went through the budget development process last year, I committed to the commission as well as to the BAB that we would identify opportunities to not only enhance services, but also to look at opportunities to generate revenue, and the item that will be discussed later reflects cost recovery for these services. So I just wanted you to know this is part of an ongoing discussion that we're having with the BAB in terms of new initiatives and programs that could generate revenue for the city and also provide an enhancement to our neighbors and stakeholders. Well, if it's cost recovery, I mean, it's not really revenue-generating because we're actually going to spend money to initiate the program. Well, what we're doing now is providing these services essentially for free. So we do have businesses that come in. They ask all these questions. Right, right. Staff takes the time to do the due diligence, to help them through it, but we don't get anything afterwards. So I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you. Get a certificate. I like it. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak on any of these two communications? Okay. There being none. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Moving on to CF1, state legislative mid-session update, city manager's office, and I guess. Thank you, Mayor. We have Daphne Sainville, intergovernmental affairs manager, who will be leading the presentation. Daphne. Good afternoon. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Daphne Sainville, intergovernmental affairs with the city manager's office. I'm going to do this 2026 mid-legislative session update. We are currently in week six of the legislative update of the legislative session, so we are at the halfway mark. And there are some bills, appropriations, and property tax that I want to discuss. And based on your discussions this morning, we'll touch on the accessory dwelling units and some housing bills as well. So to get us started, I also want to mention that all the policy issues that I'm touching on now are aligned with our 2026 state legislative program. So what you'll see is the basic areas that the policy issues are touching and the bills that correspond with those areas. So first, we'll discuss the property tax bills in the later slides, all eight proposals, including the three that are with the House right now. House Bill 103 for revenue taxes and sovereign immunity. The local business tax bill would repeal Chapter 205 Florida statutes, removing the authority for local governments to levy a local business tax. However, it allows municipalities that impose the business tax on merchants measured by gross receipts to continue to impose the tax. So this bill is on special order calendar for today, so it will be heard later on today in the House. The Senate version is in its second committee of three, which is finance and tax. It doesn't appear to be moving. However, there is another reference bill, 650, that hasn't moved out of the Community Affairs Committee, and as of last week, Wednesday, the Community Affairs Committee will no longer be meeting. House Bill 105 is touching on sovereign immunity by Rep. McFarland, and there is a Senate Bill 1366 by Senator Broder. These two bills would revise the statutory cap, attorney fees, and filing time frame provisions for sovereign immunity. The House version allows for political subdivisions to settle or pay excess claims above the caps without legislative approval. The House version does not address this. More specifically, the House bill, the per-person cap, it would raise that cap to $500,000 for claims accruing between October 1st of 2026 and September 30th of 2031. The Senate bill per-person cap increase would be $300,000, no increase after that. After October 1st of 2031, the House bill would further increase that cap to $600,000. The per-incident cap under the House bill would be raised up to $1 million for claims filed prior to 2031, an increase to $1.2 million after October 1st of 2031. The Senate version increases that cap to $450,000. However, it's not specified. There are only going to be periodic adjustments, and every five years, there would be a cap at 3% increase per every three years under the Senate bill. So under the House bill, it's an automatic increase of $1.2 million. Under the Senate bill, it's an every three-year 3% automatic cap. That's on sovereign immunity? That's under sovereign immunity, yes. That's the sovereign immunity bill that they've been filing for the past couple years. So right now, the House bill was passed by the full chamber. It's in Senate messages, and the Senate bill is in its last committee rules. It hasn't been placed on the agenda yet, so we're closely monitoring and watching that piece of legislation. Daphne, before you move over to the next slide, could I just ask you a question? Out of the eight Homestead Saver Homes assessment bills, any one in particular gaining more traction than the others, and are they still looking to maybe just put one on the ballot, or what are you hearing in terms of the possibility of more than one on the ballot, just one? And what's happening in the Senate with regards to any of these? So for property tax, there are three proposals out of the eight that are currently in the House chamber awaiting a vote. We did receive word that one of them will be heard on Thursday, which is House Bill 203, which is the gradual phase-out, the 10-year phase-out for property taxes. So that one will be voted on in the House and sent over to the Senate. We are currently hearing that the Senate has no appetite to file anything. However, we're also hearing that they want to call a special session, maybe in April or May, to discuss property tax. And then there's also the version where they are going to file their own bill, send it over to the House, and that's what will be placed on the ballot. So currently there are three different rumors that we're hearing. None of them have been confirmed, but once we receive word, we will definitely update you on that. And would that special session be done in conjunction with a special session dealing with redistricting? Would that be all at the same time or possibly not? We don't know. We don't know where it's going to go. Currently, the House and the Senate, they are not seeing eye-to-eye. So right now we're just waiting to see what happens by the end of session. Okay, so everything's sort of in the air right now, and we don't really know. Approximately when do you think we would have a little bit more insight in terms of property tax issues, the Homestead Save Our Homes assessment issues, or in particular, HB 203 you say is getting the most traction? HB 203 is getting the most traction, yes. Okay, and when would we, do you think, have a little bit more clarity on this? The guesstimate would be in two or three weeks as the budget conference, as it appears that most of everything is tied to the budget, but the Senate is keeping it very close to the best. Okay, thank you. So 203 is where property tax elimination would be phased in over 10 years? Correct. Now is that just on homestead properties? Yeah, so the proposal would expand the existing second homestead exemption for ad valorem taxes on homestead property, and it would increase that exemption by $100,000 per year for 10 years. Increase it by another $100,000? Correct. Okay. Per year for 10 years. Okay. On the portion of assessed value currently covered by the second exemption. Okay. So beginning 2037, it would be a complete phase out of property tax. Over a span of 10 years, they're estimating that all property tax would eventually be eliminated. On homestead properties? On homestead properties. Okay, so in their discussion, have they come up with solutions on how to augment city budgets that are going to be missing this income from homestead revenue? No. Now, are they going to deny cities the right to increase taxes on other properties in order to make up the difference, for example, on non-homestead residential properties or on businesses? Has that been part of any of the bills? That is a good question, and we can ask the sponsors and our legislative delegation to pose that question when that bill comes forward on Thursday. All right. Thank you. All right. Moving into home rule enforcement and land use, House Bill 105, which deals with local government enforcement actions and Senate Bill 588, would establish new exclusive mechanisms for challenging enforcement actions taken by counties and municipalities. And to accomplish this, the bill would prohibit counties and municipalities from initiating or threatening to initiate any enforcement action that is determined by a court to be arbitrary or unreasonable and not authorized by an ordinance. And an enforcement action was further defined to mean any decision determination, demand inspection, citation order, denial interpretation, or other regulatory action undertaken by local government entity. It is currently on the House calendar agenda, so for a full House chamber vote. The Senate version is still in its Committee of Reference, which is community affairs. And as stated before, that particular committee is no longer meeting as of last week Wednesday because we have reached that halfway mark during session. So subcommittees and committees stop meeting, which is a good sign in a way because it means whatever bills were in those committees have less likely of a chance to move over as a standalone bill. But we don't know if they're going to move that language into other moving vehicles that are similar or refer to the similar statutory citations. 1143 deals with local government land development regulations and orders, and it would prohibit local governments from requiring more than one parking space per dwelling unit, so this is the Florida Starting Starter Homes Act. It would prohibit local governments from limiting the maximum building height. It would expedite the timeline for review of development applications, including development permits, orders, and plats. However, local governments may continue to apply the generally applicable architectural aesthetic design, setback, height, or bulk standards to off-site constructed residential dwellings. And they may also adopt compatibility standards for architectural features, but the standards are limited to certain things. It also provides that local governments should allow lot splits. And currently, it is in its second committee of reference in the House, and the Senate bill is also in its second committee. And as of Thursday, that committee in the House Judiciary will no longer be meeting as well. There is a House Bill 347. This bill is not moving because it hasn't moved out of its subcommittee, and it's in reference to the adoption and display of flags. This bill has been filed approximately for the last three years, and it would prohibit and strictly limit what flags government bodies are allowed to fly on public property. Any flag that shows political parties or messages or references to ideology, race, gender, or sexual orientation would be banned from government flagpoles. So while this bill has been filed regularly, it's not moving this year, but we can expect it to be filed next year. So the POW MIA flag that's on the flagpole out here would be illegal to fly? I believe it would not be legal to fly, but let me clarify and provide you with the proper answer. I'd like to know what the parameters are. I thought the POW flag is always legal to fly. I believe it is. Yes. Yes. It's always legal to fly, but there are also some restrictions, I didn't put it in here, that say that the U.S. flag needs to be flown at the very top. Well, that's always been a law. Above any other flag. Always is. Always is. Yes, yes. And that's fine, but I just want to know what are the boundaries now? And so you'll get back to us. Well, it's not going anywhere, you said, so we don't really have to address this now. Okay. Thank you. So what is not on this slide, but I know the commission was addressing earlier, was accessory dwelling units. There is a housing bill, Senate Bill 48, that is moving by Senator Gates, and it would require municipalities or local governments to have ordinances requiring ADUs. So right now, the way the statute is written, it's a May, so you have the option of having an ordinance to create and allow for ADUs. It would make it mandatory. Well, we have that anyway. Correct. Correct. Mandatory without restriction. So local governments can only regulate the construction, permitting, and use of ADUs, except local governments can't prohibit the owner of an ADU from offering it for rent, except for terms of less than one month, notwithstanding a particular statute. I confirmed with our lobby team as to what that exception is within the prohibition. So in this case, it is protecting local government in the Senate bill from short-term rentals. So an owner cannot have a short-term rental on the ADU. However, that is not addressed in the House version. So it's something that we're closely monitoring and speaking to the sponsor, as well as our delegation, to see if an amendment could be proffered and taken as a friendly amendment in order to match the Senate bill. Okay. Great. Thank you. This is interesting. Go ahead. In our legislative program, firearms, DEI equity, and cybersecurity and IT are also legislative priorities. So we're going to touch very lightly on some of these bills. Some are moving. Some are not moving, such as 6017, the preemption of firearms and ammunition repeal. So this would repeal the Florida statewide rule that only the state could make gun laws and would give that power back to cities, counties, and other local jurisdictions. This bill has not moved out of its subcommittee, but they're going to file it again next year. Who's they? Senator Polsky will file that bill next year. Okay. I was surprised to see that. I can't see that ever getting out of subcommittee. Okay. Thank you. So it's been filed before in the past, unsuccessful. However, we know members in the legislature will continuously file it until some traction is made. Got it. House Bill 1001 is official actions of local government, which is referred to as the DEI bill, as well as Senate Bill 1134. So both of the bills would prohibit counties and municipalities from funding, promoting, or taking official actions, such as adopting ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, programs, or policies related to DEI. And it would also prevent a county or municipality from expending any funds regardless of the source to establish or support any DEI office or officer. The House bill was amended last week, and it's differing from its underlying bill in that it provides for a delayed implementation of some of the provisions to 2027. And it doesn't prohibit a county or municipality from recognizing or honoring individuals or groups recognized and honored by a national monument that has not been designated by an act of Congress. It also authorizes a county or municipality to authorize or permit in a content-neutral manner civic and community events so long as no public funds are used to pay for it. No county or municipality employee is required to promote or attend the event, and the event doesn't promote terrorism, racism, or anti-Semitism. We have asked some questions about our DBE policies or local preference policies as it relates to this bill, and we're seeking some clarification. And once we get answers on that, we will let the commission and city manager know. Daphne, how does 1566 differ from 1134 in the Senate? It does not. So they're the same? So they refer to the same things in different manners. This year, which is different from, not in a way, but different from previous years, is that several bills referring to the same subject matter have been filed and are moving, but they just refer to them in different capacities. Okay. So I just want to take a moment on this one. I know that the mayor at the last commission meeting mentioned when we did the proclamation for Black History Month that this might be in jeopardy in the future. So what is the status of proclamations? I'm not talking about anything else, although I'm going to get into that in a second. But would we still be permitted to do proclamations? We do proclamations for almost every ethnicity, every cultural group, LGBTQ group. You name it, we do proclamations. Would those all be in jeopardy if passage of HB 101 and Senate Bill 1134 happened? In discussions with the city manager and the city attorney, we're seeking clarification because the bill is very broad and ambiguous in a way, and I will clarify that Senate Bill 1566 also is more on the budget-cutting exercise. It's on the local government spending side. Okay, so we're still getting clarity on proclamations, resolutions, things like that. Okay, taking it just a step further, the city spends funds on festivals, parades. Would all of those be then in jeopardy? We have coming up, we have Cistrunk Festival and Parade. Would that be in jeopardy? We're seeking clarification about that as well. In the staff analysis for the bill, there are several observed holidays, state and local memorials and other recognitions that have been listed, but we know it's not an all-encompassing list, so we wanted to see clarifications. We have reached out to parks and recreation with a list of events that may not be on here, such as St. Patrick's Day, the Cistrunk Festival, Diwali, and various other city programming and youth and neighborhood events. So we wanted to gain some clarity in how, if this bill does become law, what would local governments be restricted in doing, and in what capacity can elected officials attend or promote these events? Because right now, the way it's written, and the city attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's so broad and ambiguous, you wouldn't know if you're actually sponsoring or promoting an event under the way it's written now. Because it just seems so broad. I mean, it could almost apply to, you know, any kind of program that deals with any group, really. I mean, it just seems so broad to me. So I'll look forward to that clarity. Commissioner, could I jump in there? Yeah, go ahead, Ben. Is there all right, just to add on that? Sure. No. Just, City Manager, as we get clarity on this, I'd also like us to advocate, while getting clarity, that we would be opposed as a city to any limitation that would be thrust upon us to recognize all these identities and heritages that we've talked about. So I'd like to not only get clarity, but also advocate. So we're advocating proactively rather than reactively. And I think there's still opportunity for us to do just that. Okay. All right. Thanks. Sorry. No, no problem. Are we still looking in these bills and seeing the threat of removing city and county commissioners from office if these kinds of programs continued or we participated? Yes. Yes. So we have sent a one-pager to our delegation indicating our opposition to the legislation. So they are aware that we are opposed. Our members, our Fort Lauderdale delegation, the Broward delegation, and there are several other members of the legislature, have also voiced their opposition. And we are working with the League of Cities to see how to mitigate, if not what we call kill the bill during legislative sessions. So we will continuously work on that. Right now, we are working on it on the Senate side, and based on last Wednesday's meeting in community affairs, because they're no longer meeting, on the Senate, the Senate version is what we call stalled. However, that House vehicle is still moving, and there's always the possibility that it could pass off the House floor, and the Senate will take up the House bill, waive the rules, as they call it, and take up the bill even without a Senate companion. So I was under the assumption that this bill was actually scheduled in the House Judiciary this morning at 8.30. Do we have any idea what happened for the final committee hearing on this? I will let you know with the update. I know the committees that have been meeting this morning, because I've been preparing for the presentation, and here we haven't had an opportunity to look at them, but I'll work with our team. I'll be in Tallahassee tonight for the rest of the week, and I'll get a better update for the commission on what's occurred. Thank you. I was also told, and perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think so, that we actually did have two people from our delegation vote yes on this so far in committee, a state senator and also a state representative. So I'm just looking for clarification on that as well, because I, and again, you know, there are issues here that hopefully we will get the clarification that we need. But some of these things I find just really a little bit troubling, and they're serious. And to me, when I look at these bills, they threaten really any, any local program or activity that's basically designed or implemented with reference to race, color, sex, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, you name it. So it's, it's, that's going to be a tough balancing act for a city like Fort Lauderdale. So I'm, I'm looking forward to. Well, especially since there's a certain someone on this commission who's going to be one of the grand marshals at the Black History Month parade, and I could be removed from office for being that, whoever that person is, for being a grand marshal. Right. None of this makes any sense. Well, but they're both, these bills are steamrolling ahead in Tallahassee. And then, and also to add to the conversation regarding that term participation, because I'm thinking even beyond this capacity here, I'm recognized as a commissioner, right? I am an elected official. However, I have other hats that I wear. I'm a minister. I'm a community, a community activist who is involved in other activities. Will that be combined into one label? Because I am elected, but I do operate in different capacities. I don't think it's, I don't think this law would be enforceable. If there's a challenge in court, I think it would be unenforced. But, but why don't you, before she answers that question, why don't you find out more information for us and we'll know how to proceed. Well, dear. Thank you. I really appreciate it. I just think that there's some real, some tough issues right here for us to look at. I mean, I just looked at a couple of ideas. And just to throw these out, a county health department sickle cell anemia program focused on African Americans, promoting Tay-Sachs screenings for the ethnic Jewish community, funding support for an HIV outreach targeted towards the LGBT community, a city police department providing extra security as an in-kind support for a local pride parade, Jewish food festival, women's equal payday event. Miami-Dade County already recognizes Cuban Heritage Month every September and in Broward County and elsewhere we have commissions on the status of women. So, I mean, I could go on and on and on, but this is just something that we need to think about because this doesn't seem to me to be the city that Fort Lauderdale is. Or the state of Florida, for that matter. I mean, or the country. Yeah. This is not who we are as Floridians. Well, we can speak for the city of Fort Lauderdale. Sometimes it's tough for us to speak for the state of Florida or for the country as a whole, but we certainly can speak up for our constituents and what this means to many of our constituents in every single district. So I look forward to getting some of that clarity. Thank you. So, Daphne, does the Florida League of Cities support our position in opposition to this? Yes. They do. Okay. Great. Do we need to communicate outside of our Broward delegation our opposition to this? That's a difficult question to answer. We can communicate to the entire legislature that we are in opposition. However, based on the discussions and the temperature of Tallahassee, I would remain cautious and take a more conservative approach and continue to work with the league and then have me get some more information from our team, have me get some more information with the league to see what they're doing behind the scenes to talk to the Senate sponsor, to the House sponsors, and see, you know, where the temperature is with leadership on the Senate side and the House side, if they are going to take it all the way, and then act based on that information that we receive. Okay. Great. Do we know if the Florida... Commissioner, you have every right, obviously, to speak your mind. Yeah. Thank you. And so, you know, never feel like you should be held back. Yeah. Thanks, Mayor. I agree, and we'll continue doing that. Do we know... Does the Florida League of Cities have a list, for example, of cities that stand with us in opposition? Do you know if anything like that's... I can find out. If you could, because I'd love to see who all's there, and that could be a helpful tool for them to advocate. Okay. Thank you. Daphne, and I don't know if this falls under what we're talking about now in terms of DEI equity and small business tools, but are you going to get into any discussion of HB 641 and Senate Bill 1642? Is that listed later? That's the Don't Say Gay or Trans at Work bill. They seem to be nicknaming it. No. Which bill is this? That's HB 641 and Senate Bill 1642. Right. Very extreme, but obviously targeted specifically to the LGBTQ community in Florida. I am not touching on it on this report. However, I can provide you with an update. Yes. I'd appreciate that, because that's also very tough for many, especially a lot of my constituents in District 2 and throughout the entire city. And I would just love to know where those bills stand, too. Again, very targeted, and many people would say that it's very extreme anti-LGBTQ ideology, throwing that into the workplace and also into the government sector as well. It really is a license to discriminate, plain and simple. Thank you. Welcome. Keep going. I had turned the page too soon. On Senate Bill 56, that is the local government spending bill by Senator DeSiglie and also the House Bill 1329, it would just require counties and municipalities to conduct an annual budget cutting exercise, identifying specific reductions at least 14 days before the final adoption of the local government's budget. It would also require local governments' budgets to be posted on their websites in a manner that allows members of the public to view data in a specific format. And it's basically just calling for greater transparency in the budget process. We did speak to the Office of Management and Budget, and most of what is in this bill we are already aligned with, and we remain neutral on it. The Senate bill, as of Wednesday, was in community affairs and doesn't appear to be moving. Senate Bill 593, which talks about governmental agencies and personnel, is mostly geared towards the state and state agencies, and it would just impose several limits on how state officials handle money, travel, lobbying, and political activity, and it would broaden existing restrictions on political activity, making it illegal for state and local officials or employees to use their official position to ask for campaign contributions. It aligns with some of the ethics rules that have been out there, mostly for the state, but we've been monitoring it to see if it could be amended to be stricter with local government, and so far it has not. 1662 is the Prohibited Preferences Bill, as well as House Bill 1189. It would bar agencies from giving preference in employment or procurement based on race or gender and would repeal many existing minority business enterprise provisions scattered throughout state law. There is also requirements that state agencies and commissions, when they're considering race, ethnicity, or gender, when making appointments or hiring decisions, Again, this bill is specifically geared towards state agencies. However, we wanted you to be aware that we are monitoring it in case it was amended to include counties and municipalities. There are two bills in reference to local government cybersecurity. That is Senate Bill 576 and House Bill 635. One sets up a new local government cybersecurity protection program run by the Florida Digital Services and requires state and local governments to sign data-sharing agreements so they can safely share security information with each other, helping everyone's spot prevent and respond to cyberattacks more quickly. House Bill 635 just says that governments and certain private organizations can avoid most lawsuits over data breaches or hacks. If they follow the solid, recognized cybersecurity practices, I did speak to our information technology director, and he said that we already follow those cybersecurity provisions, and that bill just helps us with our liability. The next slides, we will be discussing our appropriations. We have requested nine appropriations. Both chambers released their general appropriations and implementing bills last week, Thursday, and Friday. The House budget totals $113.6 billion, where the Senate budget totals $115.1 billion, where there's a $1.5 billion difference, still below the governor's budget request of $117.4 billion. So after the proposals pass their respective committees, both plans will then go to their chamber floors, setting up budget conference, which we expect to happen within the next two weeks. Are these appropriations included in either of the bills? Yes. Want me to get there? So our aviation technical training program, we had requested $1 million. It is in the House budget at $500,000, and in the Senate budget at $350,000. The fire rescue fire boat replacement, we had requested $643.78. We received $321,540 in the House budget. We did not receive anything in the Senate budget. However, we're still in play during budget conference for that. The substance abuse and mental health treatment program, we requested $250,000. In the House budget, we received $200,000. In the Senate budget, we received $250,000. So we received in the Senate budget our full ask. Roadway resurfacing, we requested $850,000. In the House budget, we received $425,000. In the Senate budget, we received $350,000. In the Law Solis Business District Safety Improvements and ADA Upgrades Project, this is the Law Solis Mobility Project. We received $1 million. We requested $1 million. In the House budget, we received $500,000. We didn't get anything in the Senate. For the Rio Vista and Lauderdale Harbors License Plate Readers, we requested $111,825. In the House budget, there is an amount of $55,913. We did not get anything in the Senate. For the Galtmile Street Safety Improvements Project, we requested $1.25 million. In the House, we did not get anything. However, we received the full amount in the Senate. For the Tri-Plox Water Pump Station and the Sunrise Lane District Streetscape Programs, respectively, we are not in the House or Senate budgets for the amounts that we received. As long as we are in one of the two budgets, we are considered in play during budget conference to get funding for this legislative session. So out of the nine projects, we have seven in play. And we'll share this information with you via email. It was not available at the time of printing. It just came out. So you'll get a detailed list that summarizes what Daphne just shared. Interesting. So now... Has State Representative Lamarca been informed that the House has not allocated any money to the Galtmile Safety Improvement Project? Yes, and we will be discussing that this week. Okay. Thank you. And the Sunrise Lane. Yes. Thank you. We will also be discussing that this week. All right. Property tax. So there are eight. All property tax joint resolutions of the eight, three are awaiting a vote in the House chamber. The remaining five are in various committees. So we'll go through them relatively briefly. We'll just go through the three. Through the three? Yeah. Okay. If the others aren't being considered, what's the point? Okay. Yeah. So the first one that is in the House calendar on second reading is House Bill or House Joint Resolution 203, which is the phased out elimination of non-school property tax for homestead. And this proposal would expand the existing second homestead exemption for ad valorem taxes on homestead property, increasing the exemption by a $100,000 per year for 10 years on the portion of assessed value currently covered in the second exemption. So that beginning in 2037, the full assessed value of homestead property is exempt from all non-school ad valorem taxes. And as stated earlier, we just received notice that it's scheduled for a vote on Thursday, the 19th. Now, you say $100,000 per year. What happens if your house is worth $5 million? So you're only exempted up to the first $100,000, $1 million or something? Is that how it's being interpreted? Yes. Okay. All right. So it isn't a full exemption. No, no. It just depends on the assessed value of your home. There are some areas of the state where the house is valued at $100,000. It would be fully, the property tax would be fully exempt that first year. But if their house is worth in excess of a million, it won't be fully exempt. Correct. Okay. Thank you. The next one is House Joint Resolution 209, which is property insurance relief, which is considered the property insurance relief homestead exemption. And this proposal would create an alternative second homestead exemption that is $200,000 higher than the existing $25,000 second exemption on the portion of assessed value between $50,000 and $75,000. So it would only apply to homestead properties that have comprehensive homeowners insurance and would cover the assessed value between $25,000 and $250,000, adjusted annually for inflation for all ad valorem taxes other than school taxes. So an estimated 83% of homeowners would qualify. And the third one that is also on the House floor awaiting a vote is House Joint Resolution 213, which is the modification of limitations on property assessment increases. And this would change how often and how much property values can be increased for local non-school property taxes. And for counties, cities, and special districts, the assessed value of each property could be changed only once every three years. For homestead properties, any increase in assessed value at the three-year point would be capped at the lower of 3% or the total change in inflation over the three-year period. And those are the three that are currently in the House chamber. Mayor, I'd like to go back to 203. To your point, based on my understanding and what has been provided to us by the property appraiser, after January 1st, 2037, the exemption shall equal the assessed value of the property. So it's a full exemption. A full exemption. Okay. Got it. Okay. Any questions of Daphne, other than the ones we've asked already? I do, Mayor. Thank you. Go ahead. So, Daphne, I just wanted to bring your attention to the advanced air mobility bills, HB 1093 and Senate Bill 1362. I just want to make sure that we're working really closely and coordinating, you know, not just with the folks up in Tallahassee, our lobby teams, but also, you know, folks like the Holiday Park Garage partners that we've moved forward with on this project, because I think that those advanced air mobility bills are very applicable. to what we're going to be building in Holiday Park. And that could really be a substantial, substantial savings in the short term and the long term. So I just want to make sure that we're really closely monitoring. I'm hearing that those bills look good with FDOT fully funding these vertiports. Is that what you're hearing? That's what I'm hearing. I know the advanced air mobility bill was amended last week to ensure that FDOT does fund vertiports. Okay. So are we all on the same page working together with our partners on this and working with our legislative delegation and just making sure that we're all moving forward on this because it does have excellent ramifications for our city? It does, Commissioner Glassman. And we are working with our lobbyist team to promote that. Okay, good. Do we see any pitfalls or anything negative at all down the road on these at all for us in terms of something that I might be missing? We're only seeking clarification to ensure that the funding for border ports doesn't come out of the trust fund to divert from funding from our general aviation airport, FXE. So as long as there's parity in funding and one is not coming from another POT, then that's all that we're seeking clarity on. Okay. Do we have any indication what the answer is going to be for that? I'll let you know by the end of this week. Okay. I can't wait for the end of this week. Correct me if I'm wrong. As far as the VertiPort proposal in connection with the Holiday Park parking garage is concerned, the city was not going to be paying any part of that anyway, right? Correct. So this would just be to benefit the contractor who had proposed it. Yes, but I believe because of the actual dollar amount involved that we can make that advantageous for us also as we move forward with that project. I mean, there just has to be because that can't be just a one-sided benefit for our partner. We have to be able to take advantage of that as well, and whether that's requiring negotiation or whatever. But I just think that the dollar amount is so significant that we have to be able to take advantage of that down the road, whether at the beginning of the contract or as the contract makes its way through. Because we have not, correct me if I'm wrong, we have not solidified that contract or negotiations or developer agreement or comprehensive agreement or anything, right? That is correct. We had our first negotiation session a few days ago, and the concept of the VertiPort was one of the primary points of discussion to ensure that we're on the same page about its inclusion and how it would work, how the city would participate, and how the developer and its partners would participate in the project. Great. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't that dollar amount that was assigned to that about $16 million for the VertiPort? That is what was shared during the presentation. Right. You are correct. The mayor is also correct that the city was not contemplated to be responsible for those costs. Right. But we also did not contemplate this legislation that all of a sudden, out of the blue, FDOT was saying we're going to fund 100% of these projects. Correct. So what you're saying is that this windfall to the contractor should, the city should somehow offset some of the costs of the building of the parking garage. Without a doubt. Okay. And we can incorporate language into the interim agreement to speak to that. So whether or not this came to fruition at this time, maybe it's something that we could build in so that should something like that happen, we would be able to benefit. Excellent. I just want to make sure that we're all working on this together. We're coordinating with all of our partners. And we're not going to let something like this just sort of like slip through. And we're not taking advantage of it because it really is a big dollar amount for the overall project. Thank you, Mayor. You're welcome. We have one person who signed up to speak. Thank you, Daphne. I think that's it. Ben, did you have something to ask? Yeah. I just had one other question. Daphne, Senate Bill 1548 regarding Live Local. Can you give us an update on that? Thanks. So Senate Bill 1548 is in regards to some amendments to the Live Local Act. So it would provide that the preemptions to Live Local of the Live Local Act permitting the development of affordable housing apply on any property owned by a county, municipality, or school district. It would also provide that a local government may not utilize other dimensional means such as setbacks to constructively restrict the height of a project authorized by the Live Local Act. It permits the utilization of the Live Local Act in the vicinity of airports when approved by the airport's governing body. It clarifies language around the prohibition against discriminating against affordable housing development and land use decisions by a local government and waives sovereign immunity in cases based on such discrimination. It also provides for provisions regarding farming and farm operations, which we don't really have in the city of Fort Lauderdale. So it does some specific things to the Live Local Act. I know on the Senate side, we have been in discussions about any amendments in order to clarify certain things that were bad for local governments in the original bill. The Senate is not receptive to taking any of those amendments. The House bill doesn't appear to be moving much, but we'll know for sure by the end of this week so I can provide a more clear update to you on where the Senate bill is, where the senator's mindset is, but also where the House bill is and whether or not we can work post-session with the legislators in order to develop some legislation for the 2027 session. Okay, so thanks. So this bill makes the bad aspects of Live Local even worse for us as a city, just to be clear, right? So it makes it worse. It makes a bad bill even more horrible for us as a city. Because if you're a developer, it's really good. So yeah, it's fantastic if that's who you are, exactly. But for residents of Fort Lauderdale, this is bad. So I just want to make sure, city manager, that we're advocating against this bill. We need to, in addition, create bills, proposals after the legislative session to improve Live Local, but we need to advocate against this. Is that it? That's clear. Okay. It sounds like there's consensus to do that. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Daphne. Thanks, Mayor. That's it. Any other questions or comments for Daphne? There being none? Okay, thank you, Daphne. Thank you for your great work. You've been very thorough. We really, really appreciate it. You're not getting anything done, but we really appreciate it. Thank you. Great job. Great job, though. Great job. And, Mayor, if I could, I just want to highlight that this year we participated in Broward Days in a way that we haven't in the recent past. I've heard such great comments. You know, you're going up there. We really appreciate all the great work you're doing on behalf of the city. You know, you made a great presence up there. Daphne, everyone, when I mentioned Daphne's name, everyone is so thankful that she's there because she provides a lot of good information to the other legislators, what's going on, and understanding the depth of some of these bills. So it's really helpful for the city. But, you know, there's a culture up there. You know, I was up there a couple weeks ago myself on another matter, and the culture up there is just so, you know, it's just – it has a deaf ear to so much of what we feel is just good and right and fair. And things like this, like the Live Local Act, I don't think anyone's paying attention up there as to the impact it's having on communities like Fort Lauderdale, like Miami, like Tampa. You know, everyone's complaining about the impact that these statues have on the quality of life that we're trying to maintain here in our single-family home and multi-family home neighborhoods. So, you know, we'll do what we can to try to make the best of it, but at least if we have our lobbying team there making sure that our voice, our opinion is being heard, I think that's the most important thing that we can expect at this moment. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Marilyn, anyone else wish to speak on this item? The only one will give you a full three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. I'm Marilyn Momano. I am speaking on behalf of myself as a professional planner and as a member of the Broward section of Florida APA, of which I am the legislative representative. Daphne, being the consummate professional, does not go around crying, fire, fire, okay, house on fire. I'm here to cry house on fire. Okay. I'm here to speak specifically on SB 948, which is, in my opinion, incorrectly called starter home, the Florida starter home provision. It's a false promise of starter homes. I prefer to call it the death of the American dream of owning a single-family home. Actually, what it is, is it's live local for single-family residential districts. And if you read from the staff report, I'm not telling you this. This is from the staff report from the staff up in Tallahassee. The bill will have a determinate negative physical impact on local governments as they reorganize their entire framework for single-family residential zoning and development approval, okay? Now, I'm the first person to say that large-lot single-family zoning has been used exclusively, implicitly, and explicitly to reduce the opportunities of home ownership for people of a myriad of economic classes. And there's a racial component, too, when there's literature all over the place that would substantiate that. But this is a false promise of opening up the residential zoning districts, the single-family residential zoning districts, to multifamily housing. And I will tell you what this bill does, reading from the bill itself, okay? Under the bill, a local government may not adopt development regulations that govern residential lots unless there is a compelling governmental interest. Zoning protects the welfare and health of the community. It doesn't have to have a compelling government interest. But let's put that aside. That's a planner's, you know, kind of argument. Let me tell you exactly what it does. If there is a lot on residential real property connected to a public water or sewer system, the local government may not require a minimum lot size greater than 12,000 square feet. That's a 20-by-100-foot lot. May not require a minimum lot size greater than that. It may not prevent the lot from being developed as a townhouse, duplex, yada, yada, yada. It may require greater setbacks than zero on the side feet, 10 on the rear, or 20 on the front, and a minimum dimension that is more than 20 feet, or provide that more, or require that more than 30% of the lot be reserved for open space. It may not require a building height less than three stories, or a minimum floor area ratio of less than three. It may not require that the property owner occupy the property, very important, because we're talking about potential short-term rentals here. And it may, and a minimum size greater than the requirements of the Florida Building Code, and it gets worse, it gets worse. Under the bill, the local governments must allow the lot to front on a shared space and not a public street. Local governments may not require a minimum number of parking spaces greater than one per residential dwelling unit on lots of less than 40,000 square feet, 4,000 square feet. Obviously, these are smaller than 4,000 square feet, so you may not require parking for more than one dwelling unit, or any parking for lots within one half of a mile of a permanent public transit stop, such as bus, commuter, or intercity rail system. Okay? This is a nightmare. Think about this. Think about two lots in Imperial Point. Okay? Together, they have two single-family homes on them. Somebody comes in, purchases the two lots, and starts to subdivide them into townhouse units. Nothing you can do about it. It's live local for single-family residential districts. It doesn't preempt, but it provides for a development review procedure where you must approve them if they meet the requirements that I just read. Okay? And if you don't approve it, you must provide written notification to the developer why you don't approve it. So, in a sense, it's a preemption or an administrative approval. Daphne has, excuse me, Sanoville, has said that this may not be moving. It may die in committee. One only hopes that it dies, a well-deserved death. But we should be careful that this kind of attitude in Tallahassee, which the mayor correctly characterizes as pervasive, anti-city, anti-local government, this may end up being little pieces being put into other bills. That's happened. We saw that with SB 180. So, this is very concerning, and I think we should keep our eyes open on this one because if it lives, it will be a catastrophe. And what will happen is the first time it happens, they will come to you and say, how did you let this happen? Well, that's the point, you know. And we had that same situation at the Galleria where people were pointing to us that we're letting it happen. And that's why we had the town hall meeting to educate people what's going on. But that alone is not going to be the solution. You know, I remember years ago when I was first a commissioner, and we started to see a plethora of townhouse development in Victoria Park. And people were saying, how do we let this happen? This is supposed to be a single-family home neighborhood. But what we're going to see is a complete changeover of many of these single-family home neighborhoods where they're going to be cluster homes. They're not going to be detached with yards where kids can play and things like that. And trees. Right, and trees, exactly. You know, it's funny, you know, everyone knows this iconic picture of San Francisco with the multicolored townhouses that are on, I forget the name of the park that it's on. And if you go up to those houses, they're 20 feet wide. So when you go inside, you have room for a staircase and you have room for a hallway to whatever room you're going to on that particular floor. This is what we're looking at. We're looking at completely changing the identity of our neighborhoods because someone in Tallahassee has decided that this is how the rest of Florida needs to be accommodated. And, you know, I'm all about accommodating growth and I'm all about embracing the change of, you know, of populations that come here and, you know, welcoming people to come and experience the paradise that we have for so many years have come to experience. But there's a right way of doing it and there's a wrong way of doing it. And this is definitely the wrong way of doing it. Definitely the wrong way of doing it. My community, Harbordale, we're seeing a conversion of older single-family homes into townhomes. But it's not a catastrophe, okay, because we're not a single-family zoning district. We have townhouses. We have apartment buildings. So this is a natural evolution of the old 1950 houses. You just can't, they're not viable anymore and grandpa passed away and the kids don't want to live there anymore. So we're seeing that gradual transition. No problemo, okay. I'm not anti-townhouse. But I'm telling you that the American dream of buying a home in a single-family neighborhood where your kids can play in the backyard and you've got lots of room to run around is under direct attack. It's been under direct attack in planning circles for quite some time now because of its exclusionary and past racial implications. But I'm telling you that in the more recent past, a lot more people have been able to afford that American dream. And now that these people have just had this nice new opportunity to afford the American dream, they're going to find out all of a sudden, well, wait a minute. Now that I got in, you're changing it. You're changing the rules. And now it's all going to be townhouses and Airbnbs. So there's no affordability here. The Tallahassee people have bought into this developer dream that if you keep increasing density, okay, increased density, increased density, and increased density, houses will become more affordable. And, you know, in a closed system, increasing the supply does reduce the price of the commodity. But we don't have a closed system. This is America. People come. You keep building, they keep coming. The price doesn't come down. And you know that's from empirical evidence that we see all around us. We build, we build, we build, and the prices don't come down. They're still unaffordable. So this idea that we're going to increase the supply of housing by breaking up the single-family residential neighborhoods and houses will all of a sudden become more affordable, it's a false dream. So let's be careful on this one. You don't believe in supply-side economics? I know. We've had this argument, you and I. So, Marilyn, I've got to challenge you on a lot of that. Sure, go. So I'm going to refer back to your background, right? Sure. So all the row houses and brownstones in Brooklyn and most of those other neighborhoods were on narrow lots, okay? No lot lines whatsoever. They're cheek to jowl. And when people wanted a backyard, they moved out to Long Island. When they wanted a backyard and a big lawn in the front, they moved out to those suburban neighborhoods. The reason New York worked was the density is what made it possible for 8 million people to live in a relatively congested area. At some point, and I lived in one of those townhouses in Dick Park. As did I. Okay. So, yes, all those older 1940s-era houses that were built there that had a closet the size of this, okay, and had floors that sloped like this. There are people that want to live in that, but most people don't. Most people want a walk-in closet. They want rooms that are square, not trapezoidal, okay, and they want more modern amenities in their house. And when you can tear down a single-family house that sits on one very large lot and put in four townhomes, yes, increasing density does increase supply, and nobody has repealed the law of supply and demand. So, as more people move here, they're going to bid up the prices of existing houses. If we do not create more housing, then the price of existing house goes up more than it will if we create more housing. That, again, nobody has repealed the law of supply and demand, and nobody ever will. We have to create more housing. The only way to do that in a constrained environment, as you point out, we're not creating more land, so we have to repurpose the land that we have. May I? May I? Okay. Sure. I agree with you that we need more housing. I agree with you that townhouses are a perfectly acceptable way of living, and that is the American dream for some people. Not everybody wants to live in a house on a big lot with a big yard that you've got to, you know. Or can't afford to. That's what happened all along Victory Boulevard in Staten Island. You used the example of the people who were living in those townhouses in Brooklyn, and then when they had a family and they could afford it, they moved out to Long Island to the burbs where they had a single-family home. What this is is an attack on the Long Island burbs, okay? No, that's Weston. That's Parkland. That's Sunrise. No, no, I'm using, I'm following your example. That's not the urban environment that we live in. But when people want that American dream, I mean, we've had this argument at the planners level, okay? My American dream versus your American dream, okay? I've had both. I've lived in a townhouse. I built myself a house out in the Hamptons on a big lot. So, you know, people move, they change, their lifestyles change, their economic situation changes. So it's about choice, okay? You can't tell one person's American dream. You can't have that dream anymore because we need more houses for other people. It's just not fair. There's a fairness argument here that I would bring to your attention. But I'm not against density. I teach it. I preach it, for goodness sakes, okay? In the appropriate places, in the appropriate amounts, which is not live local, okay? I don't care what you say. I will never support the density and preemption and administrative approval of live local. But speaking of live local, the bill that we're opposing has got one good part of it. It reduces the affordable, the income limits from 120% of median income to 80%. No, no, to 100% of median income. That's a good thing. You know, if we have to take the bad, let's take that good one. Let's call that a victory, okay? So, you know, we can have a couple of beers and talk about this ad nauseum, but there's truth on both sides of that. Mayor, check your time. Thank you very much. Check your time. Thank you. Thank you so much. I love my house on Long Island. I don't know about anybody else. I really enjoyed that single-family home. We had about an acre and a half. It was really nice. Thank you. All right. Let's move on. CF2, this is a presentation on managing your water bill, rates, prevention, ordinance rights, and customer assistance program. And this will be presented by the finance department. Yes, I'm going to invite Linda Short, our finance director, to provide a presentation. And as you know, Mayor and Commissioners, we receive emails and feedback all the time about things related to water billing. And our team is very dedicated to providing excellent customer service and information. And this item reflects an opportunity for us to share some background information as well as to give our neighbors an opportunity to learn more about what we do and how we can assist them. Thank you. And just to piggyback on that, I've had hundreds, hundreds of people with bills in the tens of thousands of dollars. And so we need a more robust answer. Well, so to your point, you know, we initiated this new water meter program, correct? And tell us, in your presentation, tell us what the stats is. The presentation does include some information about the AMI program. Okay. So let's hear about that and let's see, you know, what steps we're taking to try to ameliorate the situation. We're trying to fix it at every avenue. Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Commission. Linda Short, Director of Finance here at the City of Fort Lauderdale. With me today that's going to be presenting, I have Aaron Kendrick, who is the Deputy Director of Finance. He handles the utility billing area. Most of the day-to-day stuff goes through him before it comes through me. Additionally, with me is going to be Ingrid Schimbom. She is the Program Manager, Utility Services. And Albert Carbone, who is the Utility Services Director as well. And additionally, one person here for question and answers is Veronica Wage. She's the Revenue Collections Manager and the front line working with the customers every day. So let me give you a background about our utility billing system. We have over 56,000 accounts that we bill for, and that's about 66,000 meters. So the reason why you have more accounts than meters is that some accounts have an irrigation and a regular meter for the residential. So we have more meters than accounts, which makes sense. The more irrigation meters that we have out there, the lower your bill would be because you don't get billed for the sewer as a part of your bill. So let me just walk through some numbers before we get into the presentation. We bill approximately $200 million worth of revenue every year for the water and sewer system. As an intake and dealing with the customers, we deal about 300 to 350 phone calls a day. There's only about 125 neighbors that walk in to our lobbies day-to-day to get service, whether it's to talk about a bill, pay a bill, open, close service, or submit an application. All right. All right. So the discussion today, we're going to go into how to understand and manage your water bill, right? We'll go through what the current rates are, rate increases that have been adopted by ordinance. We'll go through some of the common causes for high bills. We'll go through high consumption and some steps to prevent the high bills. And we'll go through what the benefits are for an irrigation meter, which I told you already, we're about 10,000 irrigation meters out there. We'll go through the tests and credits that we do to test what's going on with the system. We'll go through the pay arrangements and the assistance program that was developed this year and funded this year. And then we'll also go through the AMI, which everybody wants to know what's going on with the AMI, which is a program we've been working on for several years to implement. And we're on the road. It's implementation that started, and we're excited to talk about what those steps are. All right. Understanding and managing your bill. All right. So on the left-hand side, you will see what our current residential rates are. We do a tier system when it comes to the consumption, and the rates that you see there right now are 26 rates. So $4.92 for every 1,000 gallons up to 3,000. Anything between 4 and 8,000 is $10.80 per 1,000 gallons, and so on and so forth. So when you have a bill, and on the bottom we have our sewer rates, which is also you have 0 to 3 or above 3, and the rates are for every 1,000 gallons, how much you get charged, that's the rate. On your right-hand side of your presentation, you'll see what the average bill is for the smallest meter that we have, which is a 5-8 meter, using about 5,000 gallons for the month. If you're looking at that, the middle chart, fiscal year 2026, you will see your consumption on a 5,000-gallon utilization equates to $36.36. That is just for water consumption. Included in the bill also is a sewer consumption portion, which is $48.94. However, included in the bill are fixed charges that are standard. So whether you have service hooked up or not, there's an availability payment, fixed costs that are required to be paid, and that is your base and your fixed rate for the water and sewer system. And like I said, if your water is shut off, you're still getting a bill. It's your base charges. Additionally, on top of that, we charge a 10% utility tax on the base and the consumption. And then, of course, if you have sanitation with us, you have a sanitation fee. So for a 5,000-gallon consumption on a 5-8 meter, you're paying about $173.83, including sanitation, utility taxes, utilization, and the base charges. All right, so rate increases. Why did our rates increase? Our rates increased for several reasons. One, we're trying to support needed infrastructure in the water and sewer system. Additionally, you know, we have operational changes that have to happen due to regulatory changes. So we have the Prospect Lake Clean Water Center, which is why that big spike happened in 2025 to 22% increase for water and a 9% increase for sewer. In 2026, it is 9 and 9, and next year, in 27, fiscal year, is going to be 9 and 5, and 28 afterwards is 5 and 5, which was our standard about 5% increase what we had years ago. Like I said, these rates were built in as a part of our rate study to ensure that we had sufficient revenue to manage the system and issue the needed debt that was needed for the infrastructure. Now, to go over some common causes, I'm going to introduce Aaron Kendrick, Deputy Director, just to walk you through a couple of these slides. Good afternoon. As long as I said, my name is Aaron Kendrick, Deputy Finance Director for the record, speaking through the city manager to the mayor, vice mayor, and commission. Very pleased to be with you. This is my inaugural discussion with you, first time being in front of you. Make it good. You'll be judged. Very pleased to be with you. I want to talk about some of the common causes of the high water bills that we hear. When someone applies for a credit with us, one of the criterias or the things that they have to do is they have to engage a leak specialist in order to determine whether or not there's an actual leak or whether this is an unusual leak scenario. And if there is a leak, that it has been repaired because we don't want to issue a credit on something and the leak still exists. And so these are the common causes that we see on the applications that comes back from individuals when they're applying for a credit. And essentially, there's nothing here that's rocket science. It's probably most of these you probably would have guessed, but these are indeed the items that we see on the applications. Running toilets, the flap, the flapper is usually either worn out or valve fill or there's a stuck float. Those three devices, those three items that are in the back of the toilet there, usually one of those. Toilets are probably very high on the reasons for most leaks, surprisingly. Leaking faucets, shower, add valves, things of that nature. Water softeners, stuck regeneration mode, stuck in regeneration mode. Essentially, it doesn't realize that it has cleaned that water and it continually cleaning the same bucket of water over and over again. And when that fills up, it causes it to drain. And so it's just additional water going down the drain. Refrigerator, ice maker, often the leaking lines. Washing machine hoses, often leaking. Then you've got the reverse osmosis caught in a rerun cycle. And that is that tank often that sits underneath the sink. And what happens is that when it fills with water, the air pressure is supposed to turn off that valve, but it doesn't in a lot of cases. And you can use up to 100 to 500 gallons a day when one of those systems gets locked up on you. Outdoor causes, irrigation leaks, as you, like I say, you may have guessed that, of course. Sprinkler heads, you know, are cracked, things of that nature, or just generally running. We've got the overwatering during the dry season. A lot of individuals here are, as we all know, are here part of the year and somewhere else at the other part. But they leave the water irrigation set at the same system. And so they're often puzzled as to why they're using so much water when it's during these off-seasons. Hoses left running, malfunctioning irrigation and rain sensors, spigots from the outdoor showers and leaks. And I've got to admit, I never had an outdoor shower, so that one's an interesting one to me. Other causes. Your other causes are pool fillings or the pool fill system continually running. Pressure washing. We often get this where people or a proposal, they call us. The first thing they ask me generally is, why is my bill so high? Tell me, how can that be? And often I'm not there, but after a little bit of a conversation, you'll generally find out they've had to house order a driveway pressure washer, which explains a lot of what that spike is related to. Guest and large gatherings. People have, we see this a lot during the holidays, as you might expect. People coming over or people staying, things of that nature actually, you know, creates a significant spike. Flipping down to the next page here. High consumption and the practical steps. How can we prevent some of this and how can we identify these issues? Normal indicators of unusual consumption is a sudden doubling or tripling of your usage. Now, utility billing, automatically, when it sees a doubling of someone's bill, we don't bill that right away. We sent out the team to do a second read on that just to confirm that the reading that we have is indeed a legitimate read. So doubling, we double check before we actually even put that bill out there. Monitoring of the immediate flow during the night hours. If you're curious as to whether or not you've got an issue, a lot of times you can take a look at that meter just before you do, before you've finished all your shower and everything that evening. The next day or the next morning, before you start engaging in a lot of water usage, take a look at that meter, and you will either, there should be very little movement. If you've got movement at that time, you've probably got some type of leak somewhere. Spikes during months when the irrigation isn't normally used, as I've kind of indicated earlier. A lot of times that's because the irrigation meters are set and never monitored or changed. And if you have usage that is kind of significantly higher than your 12-month average, which is what we utilize for most of the calls that we receive, we look and say we take a look at that average and see whether or not you have, you know, you're increased above that or whether or not you're really in your normal pattern. The benefits of irrigation meters. First of all, irrigation meters do not charge sewer fees, which is the biggest financial benefit to them. Because if you notice the slide that Linda showed you earlier, sewer charges cost more than the actual water does until you get up to 13,000 gallons, which most households very rarely get up to 13,000 gallons. So most often, if you're paying for sewage, you're paying that cost. Like I say, that's greater than the actual water usage itself. So getting an irrigation meter in place can drastically reduce your monthly bill. It also helps isolate the outdoor usage from the indoor usage. As I indicated earlier, the number one thing I hear, why is my bill so high? What's going on here? A lot of times it's difficult to tell if you've got your irrigation and your domestic water usage combined. But if they're separated, it gives us an opportunity to be able to distinguish a little bit quicker where the issue may be and to provide you with some assistance. And so as I indicated, that's supporting the future investigation aspect of this. Went to the wrong direction. Testing credits. The city offers a couple of – well, I should say the other way around. A neighbor can request a meter test at any given time that they are concerned about the accuracy of their readings. Now, this comes with a cost. First time is $16. Second time at the same household would be $70. However, if we test that meter and it turns out that it's faulty, naturally that would be refunded to you so you wouldn't have to pay for a test on a bad meter. Customers often like to be present during that reading. That is not a requirement of the ordinance. However, we do our best to kind of honor that request when it's practical. And so we will allow, as neighbors, to take a part in that meter test in terms of being there. If a meter passes, as I indicated earlier, we will – well, my apologies. There we go. Sorry about that. But I was doing such a good job. Come on. You still are. If the meter passes the TIFO test, then, naturally, we will adjust that bill accordingly. One key distinction here or clarification. When we say if a meter passed the test or failed the test, what we are talking about is if it's over-registering. If it is over-registering and charging you more water than it should be, that is a failure where you get a credit. If it is under-registering, that's still considered a failure. However, you are not going to get a credit because we haven't been charging you enough in the first place. Okay. Let's stop right there. So if we're over-charging and you give – and it's determined that the amount is not correct, but are we giving 100% credit or just a discounted amount? No. If your meter is determined to be faulty. Okay. It's all based on the meter. Right. Okay. Right. Not based on a spike where a person gets charged $3,000 a month for water and their normal rate is like $200 a month. So that's different. That's a whole different situation, correct? It is, and it's on the next – I believe it's the next slide coming up, what you're going into, sir. Okay. Yes, ma'am. And so I'll – yeah, I'll see if I can clarify that when we get to that in a minute here. What we're saying here in this aspect is that you've requested a meter test because you were concerned about its accuracy. We've gone out. We've pulled that meter. We've replaced it with another one. And so we are taking that back to the shop, and we're going to test it. If it fails by because it was over-registering, in other words, it was charging you more water usage than you were actually utilizing, then we will credit you for that. If you – if it does not – if we don't have an issue with it, then, of course, whatever bill we've issued stands. Aaron, thank you. Do we have any limit to the credit that can be paid based on a faulty water meter? The only limit would be your 12-month average. So let's say if your 12-month average is 5,000, just the 5,000 gallons, and we go out and we test your meter because you say, hey, I'm using 15,000. What's going on here? Then we're going to credit you back down to your average. Got it. Regardless how high it was. Correct. Perfect. Thank you. The entire amount. So consumption credits, since we're talking about credits and assets, we go through that. Essentially, we have two types of credits. That for a known leak and that for an unexplained scenario where – Mystery leak. It's a mystery leak. We don't know why it is, and you can't tell us why it is. And so it is essentially, as the mayor says, it's a mystery. How those two credits are attributed to you based upon their attributes. If it's a known credit, if it's a known leak, then you can have – I'm sorry. Yeah. If it's a known leak, we will allow you to do the normal paperwork, indicate, show us that the repair – that has been repaired. And then we will take your 12-month average, provided – and this is what happens with a lot of individuals – provided that that leak created a scenario that was more than double your normal average. So let's say your average usage is 5,000 gallons again, and you had a leak, and it went up to 9,000 gallons. You will not get a credit because your leak did not create a scenario where you went 10,000 or above, double what you normally – your normal average. But should it go above your normal average, you will then be credited, everything back down to your normal 5,000 average. Even the mystery leak? Even the mystery leak? Even with the mystery leak. So – but in many cases, the 5,000 a month average can go as high as 20,000 a month. So what happens to that 15,000 difference? If – well, that's – if – that is what you're getting the credit for. So you're – if you're a normal 5,000, you went up to 20,000 because of a leak. Right. So you're 15 above your normal usage rate. Correct. We will credit you by – everything above the 5,000, everything above your average, the 15, will be credited. You'll get a credit for that because you've done two things. You've exceeded double, that double what your normal was. Right. Normal was 5,000. So if you go above 10 – So that's the litmus test. It has to be double or more. Right. Okay. And then we will credit you for everything above your average. The problem that I'm having, though, with my residents is they're having companies come out and testing for leaks, and there's no leaks. Which is – I mean, I got a guy with a $36,000 bill and no leak. So that's bigger than my swimming pool. I have a 23,000-gallon swimming pool. So, I mean, I wouldn't be able to float a boat in that thing. I have seen what you're describing, Commissioner, several times, but that is where the – and I give credit to you, this body as well as his predecessors. He said, hey, if we can't – if you can't find it and we can't tell you what it is, it's a mystery. We've got a credit for that, too. And essentially, it's the same credit for when you have a leak. Like, they're both calculated the same way. And just so you know, by the way, the mayor and I have both experienced the mystery leaks. So the mayor had one and I had one. And I've been doing this for the better part of 30 years, so I know how to go out and check my meter for leaks. I stand there. I watch and see if it's spinning. Right. You know, I know how to look for, you know, by toilets and check if they're leaking. I've done this before. I have a hook. I know how to hold the thing up. Now, the one important distinction between those two credits, though, is a known credit, you can apply as many times as you have a leak. The mystery, you're only allowed once at that particular residence. And so – Forever? Forever. Forever, ever. Now, should you move and go to another residence, then you get another mystery. But as long as you're at that same residence, you only get one – Something doesn't sound right here. You all have to say a mystery. It's the unexplained. So, city manager – or mayor, if I can jump. So I think that's an opportunity for improvement, city manager, I think, is that if it's a mystery – By the way, thank you, Aaron and Linda, for what you do. I email you all all the time, and thank you for your help. Thank you all, too. I'm sure they see my name. They're like, oh, gosh. I wouldn't say that, Commissioner, but Larry would. Thank you. So I think that mystery, unknown origin, I think shouldn't be a one-time-only credit. But – and so I'd like us to look at, Mayor, is it – you know, is there a 12-month period where it begins again? Because there's got to be, I think, rather than a once-a-lifetime opportunity for something that's chronic, right? So is that something we can look at? I think we could take a look at that and figure out what's the right time period or window. Linda, you look like you wanted to say hi. Hi. So, you know, one thing that we need to focus on or keep our focus on is that we're implementing the AMI system. The advanced metering program and the infrastructure we're putting in place, neighbors will have this every minute, every second. They can see it. So I really feel that a lot of the issues we have – They can't see it. You can see it. They can see it. How can they see it? They will have an app, and the app is connected. As long as you long in and register, it will give you alerts. It will say, is my water running? Is something running? It will give you alerts. It will let you know that something is going on. Okay, so I've been hearing this for years now, so tell us what the timeline is. It is coming up. That's later in the presentation. I've been hearing this. Look, I did not understand. No, no, but it is – it actually is being – you guys awarded the contract. The contractor is out there installing it right now. But that was just a pilot version. No, no, no. We're installing meters. Meters are going in the ground, area by area. Okay, and what's the timetable? That you will get at the end of the presentation. Okay. So 8-12 already. We started installation in December. December, yes. We're up to about 400 installations per day, and I think we're trying to ramp that up significantly. Right. So while this project took a while to get started, we are expediting to ensure that we can get this done by 2027. Citywide. That's next year. Yeah. Okay. Next fiscal year. It's not 2030. Okay. No. Okay. That's great. And I'm very much looking forward to the AMI, and I would just say in the interim, I think we should still evaluate more than one credit for those scenarios. The other question I have around that, Linda, is do – what months are used to determine the average? Is it prior to a spike? Because we don't want to include the spike. You see what I'm saying? It is prior. Yeah. Whatever time that spike is – Before there was an abnormality. That's correct. Thank you. Thanks, Mary. I just wanted to ask about that. Okay. Yes, it's the previous 12 months prior to the incident. This is great. I'm going to move to the next slide here and talk about the pool credit. We do offer a pool credit as well, provided at least 75% of the pool was filled. Sorry, Aaron, if I could – one other question on that last slide. So, city manager, if I'm understanding it right, for mystery or identified leak, that credit kicks in if and when there's a doubling of average usage. Did I say that right? One of the criterias that we utilize to determine whether or not you're going to get a credit at all is that whatever usage your average is, it has to be twice that. Twice that. For both of them. Sorry, for both of them. For both identified and not identified. Am I saying that right? So, here's another question is, instead of necessitating a doubling for credit, could we have a lower bar for that? In other words – so, what I'm thinking, Aaron, is could it be, you know, a 50% increase that's either mysterious or identified? In other words, could we lower that threshold for credit is something I'm interested in exploring if that's – I think if there's consensus to do that, we could look at our policy and go to that 50% threshold. And I guess the only thing I would add to that is that the calculation is not an internal policy. It's actually written into the ordinance itself. And so, yes, to the manager's point, if that is something that the body wants, then naturally we could bring that to you. But I would also emphasize what Linda said earlier, though. With the AMI meters, what the neighbors don't have now will be greatly enhanced to allow them to be able to identify these issues, I think, drastically ahead of what they're able to do now. So, I think what you're trying to do – and I would probably strongly agree with under normal circumstances, but I'm not sure – I would probably say allow the AMI to get put in place and see whether or not that is still needed. But, of course, that is your decision, sir. I think perhaps what I'm hearing is that, yes, we're excited about AMI being implemented, but we have gone through a lot to date, and our neighbors have experienced a lot, and we want to do something to address it now while considering that AMI is still being rolled out. Correct. And I do think that we're going to see a significant improvement in the user experience as well as with our operations once the AMI implementation is fully realized. So, I do think that there's a benefit to doing something now, looking at the data, and let's track to see how it's going, and perhaps once we do get full implementation and we see how that looks, maybe there's an opportunity, again, to come back to the commission and say, hey, look at all these improvements that we've seen based on the data. And we can ask the commission at that point, hey, is there anything that we might need to do to tweak our implementation process or how we apply consumption credits? So, I hear the frustration, and it sounds like we're looking for some sort of immediate relief. It would still need to come back to the commission via ordinance, and so that's why I'm just trying to make sure we have consensus on those ideas. I think we could do that. But then I think at a later date, after AMI is fully realized, if we could then come back to the commission with a status update and say, hey, this is what we've seen, this is where we think we've improved, or it hasn't improved in the way that we thought it would, and then we could ask the commission again to take a look to see if there's anything we need to do. I think that's important because there's a potential class action lawsuit hanging out there right now. So, they're collecting names of the hundreds of people that have been complaining on Nextdoor. So, I'm just letting you know that this is out there. So, yeah, so, agreed. So, I think that's a great direction, city manager. And, look, once AMI gets fully instituted, we may be able to adjust that percentage and time frame and so forth in some helpful ways. But I think until then, this would be good. Sure. And, Linda, could you follow up? It looks like you wanted to share something. I did. I just wanted to share that even the credits that are afforded to people who apply for it is built into our rate. So, any changes to the credit methodology, we'd have to take a look at how that affects our rates going forward. That's all I wanted to make sure you guys knew. And I'd point out one other thing as it relates to these credits to kind of give a little bit of context to it. In terms of known leaks, on average, the average credit request we get is about 140 people or 140 accounts. Unexplained mystery, we get about 35 of those per month request. The total monthly cost is about $260,000 in credits that we're giving back. Every month. Every month. In relation, but compare it to us billing on average $22 million monthly. So, it's less than 1%. Right now, it's not. It's about 1.2%. So, it's just 1% basically. So, although these credits are coming and we're spending a lot of time and energy on them because we need to research them and go through and make sure that they're valid requests. In the overall big revenue picture, they're 1% of what we bill them off. Yeah. Please proceed. Sure. I was just mentioning the pool credit. And like I say, we do offer a pool credit. And somehow or other, that particular credit is not as well known to the neighbors as some of the other ones. I didn't know it existed. Yeah. Yeah. And I get that a lot of times. Like I say, we talk with individuals and we find out, oh, you refilled the pool. Oh, we got a credit for that. You know. So, it does have to be, like I say, almost a complete refill, 75% at least. And then we need a little bit of documentation in terms of what size the pool is and so on. But normally, that's one thing that we're able to surprise people. It's not for topping off. No. No, sir. With that, I'm going to go back. I'm going to turn this back over to Ms. Short to talk about the payment arrangements and some of the other items. Thank you, buddy. That was a great spirited conversation. I love it. Thank you, Aaron. Good job. All right. Now, just to – He quits, by the way. He's just – He's like, I'm done. No. All right. So, let's go through what we have to help neighbors who can't afford to pay or if the bill is so high that it's giving them an issue. We do allow for payment arrangements. So, what we can do is we do a structured payment arrangements are available. We typically do a 12-month repayment period. We can do more if the bill is super high. We've done more than 12 months. We've done 24, sometimes 30 months. But 12 months is typically what we offer. We don't want someone to pay more than double their – more than double their normal bill. So, if it's going to be more than double their normal bill, we would extend it a little further. It's designed to avoid service disruption. So, instead of you getting a notice that we're going to cut off your water because your bill is too high, you can't afford to pay it. You can't apply to get a payment arrangement. It's a zero-interest percent to you. You just basically amortize your large bill or what's remaining of that bill over a 12-month period. And it must be arranged in person through the Utility Billing Office. I just want to tell you, as of today, we have about 151 payment arrangements active right now. Total amortized cost was about $580,000 of utility arrangements out there. All right. Now, we're going to talk about the new program that started this year. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. This may be a little bit off, but pertaining to the conversation. We have that neighborhood in my district that had the problem with the billing and the way that the water bills were being engaged. Are they currently under any of these arrangements? And also, moving forward with the AMI, would they be able to take advantage of the AMI because of the way their infrastructure is set up? Right. So, I will give as much information as I presently have on it. They were offered a payment arrangement but have not accepted it yet. But I don't know where their status is. I think it was sent out to them a little while ago, not that long ago, a couple of weeks ago or so. I believe the letter went out with them with a payment arrangement. And additionally, in order for them to partake in the AMI program we're doing, they have to convert their system from a private utility to a public utility. And the cost for that assessment was provided to them. I can tell you that that neighborhood has not made a payment since August of last year. We've kept the water on even though they're not making payments. And so, we're hoping to get this resolved. Now that we've sent the letter out, I'm hoping we can get some movement on that. Okay, thank you. And through City Manager, I keep in contact to make sure we're staying on point with it. Perfect. Thank you. All right. And now we're going to go over, this is a new program that started this year. It's a Municipal Services Affordability Program. I think for the budget, we had about $150,000 we put aside this year. Neighbors can apply and can get up to $1,000 towards their utility bill. I have some numbers here. This program is actually managed through the CSD Department, the Community Services Department. You have income limitations on there. You must live within the city limits, of course. Assistance is applied directly to the utility account, so we're not giving you a check. We're applying it right to your account for you. You must have the required documentation to apply. And if anybody is interested, there's a phone number there on the bottom that they can call to get in touch with someone to give them information about the program. All right. So now comes the exciting part of our program and our presentation, which is to talk about the AMI program. So, Ingrid, would you please come up? Good afternoon, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners. My name is Ingrid Kingbom. I work in the utility services as a program manager, and I am heading up this AMI implementation. So I will give you a little short, brief update on where we are in the program and the benefits. We've already kind of gone through many of the benefits through Linda and Aaron, but, yes, you will be able to see hourly usage, and we can monitor it on an hourly basis. And residents will get access to their own hourly usage once all the meters have been installed through a customer portal where they can log in. They have to sign up and log in, and they can see their hourly usage. The system also can set different levels for leaks. If you have, like Aaron talked about, a leaking toilet, you can set your individual limits. If you have a continuous flow of water of, say, 10 gallons per hour, that indicates that there is a slow leak in your house somewhere. And you can notice that within a few hours. It reduces, definitely, the city's need to estimate billing, because we will have accurate billing on demand, or you can even do an on-demand reading. Customer access, like I said, to the real-time data. I even get some calls sometimes when they say I have such a high bill, and they're already in the program. They don't have access to their usage themselves yet, but I do, and I see a 500-gallon usage at 5 a.m. every other day. And they say their sprinkler is not on, and I say, go out at 5 a.m. tomorrow morning, and then I didn't hear back from them. So it'll be a faster identification of abnormalities. We don't have to wait for average monthly bills. That should be coming up almost instantly. So the status, we started putting meters in the ground in December of 2025. We have started small to make sure that we are installing, that all the systems and the Kayenta and our billing system is keeping up, and that we don't fall behind. We need to make sure that this is done right. So we are ramping up rapidly. We've overcome the first hurdles, I think, so that we feel comfortable to ramp up. We will ramp up, so all the approximately 65,000 meters will be replaced by mid-2027. We are doing continuous neighborhood outreach. We have a really nice website that Strategic Communication Designed. We're going to all the HOA meetings. We also send out postcards before we come and install, and we have a hotline that also takes calls. So actually, I looked at the numbers of meters installed as per 2 o'clock today, because we just started the ramp up. It was 1,085. But next time I come here, if I come back or I send out an LTC, it'll gradually increase. And here's just a visual in case you have never looked at your own water meter. This is an actual install of before and after. So now, Vice Mayor Herbst, once you get it in your house, you have to read it digitally. Lift that little – there's a little lid you lift on the new ally meter, and you can see your read. What's the app? It's a customer portal that's going to be – it's called SpritePoint. I'm sorry? It's called SpritePoint, and it will be implemented when all the meters are installed. When all the meters are installed? Yes. So the people that have it now can't use it? No. Okay. But if they have an abnormality, we can see. And if they call us, we can tell them. Well, they won't know it until they get their bill. That is a true point. Does it alert you? It alerts us as well. Okay, okay. So, you know, one of those things about those old meters is everybody is telling me that when you open them up and you look at them, you can't read them. Some of them have the glasses. They're dirty. They're buried under dirt. They're illegible. They're actually kind of asking me all the time how our meter readers can read them when nobody else can read them. I think – It's a secret code. Well, this is a legitimate question because these folks with very high water bills and they pull the top off and they look at it and they say it doesn't look like anybody has read this since, like, 2004. So they're sort of curious as to how our meter readers have never read a meter that's buried under, like, three inches of dirt. Unless it's got, like, an RFID chip in it and, like, they're able to walk down the street and they're reading it remotely. But if they have to look at these, they're not reading it. You're correct in the sense that we do – we get that question all the time. You're right. Absolutely right, Commissioner. But when our readers go out and they – no one believes it, but they have a little solution that they do utilize to spray on those glasses or whatever that allows them to, you know, to see a little bit better than what most neighbors are able to do. And often we're only looking at three digits on there. The neighbors are normally trying to see every digit on there, and they don't realize that the reader is only coming out and paying attention to three of those numbers out of the six or seven numbers that's in there. And so subsequently – I'll just tell my residents you guys have x-ray vision. No problem. They'll cover it. They have secret Dick Tracy glasses. We make it happen, sir. Okay. I'm going to send them all to you. I'm getting hundreds of you. Here's just a last visual for you, what it looks like when it's done. So when they come out and install, they put the meter in the ground, they activate it, and then you see on the right-hand side there the little mushroom cap that's in the lid. That is what sends out the signal that we can read the meter remotely. Got it. All right. Any questions? I think there are no further questions. Thank you. Anything for it? Nothing? Okay. We have one person who signed up to speak. Abby Kanner. Is Abby here? Come on up. Thank you so much. Can you push the button at the bottom of the speaker so that Abby has – okay, great. Thank you. Good afternoon. Hi. I'm going to need more than three minutes. Well, you're only allowed three minutes, so – Good. Do your best. Okay. With all due respect, I appreciate everything that you've shared with us. However, if you go to Publix and you spend $50 and you look at your receipt and it says it's $100 because they double-charged you on everything, or they say it's $80. Does Publix only give you back your money if it's double what you paid? No. They give you back everything that they took that they shouldn't have taken. That's how it should be with your water bill. If you have no leak and you've had a plumber check and you have no water that's leaking and yet your bill is $7,000, why are you only getting back the difference between your, let's say, $200 bill and your $7,000 bill? You should be getting back everything, whether it's double, not double, doesn't matter. The same thing with this new meter thing. This is great. We're thrilled that you're putting in new meters. But what this gentleman pointed out, when you have a meter that is not legible and you know it has not been read and you're still getting ridiculous water bills, you have an 1,800-square-foot house with one person in it and a cat, and they're getting $700-a-month water bills, something's not right. Okay, there's way too many somethings that are not right. This gentleman on the end pointed out that there is a class action suit pending, and it is. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who are writing and saying, I don't understand it. I was away for a month and a half, and my bill was still $600. The water was off. No sprinklers, no nothing. Gone. House closed. Still got the bill. This is happening again and again and again and again. People are getting outrageous water bills. They are going from people who are paying $125, and now suddenly their bill is regularly $600 a month. There are no leaks. They've had plumbers. They have everything. This is insane. Plus the fact, once you fix these meters and it shows that these people who were getting these $600 water bills should have been paying $92, are you going to reimburse them the difference for the last 15 years that you've been overcharging them? Because that's the way it works. When a company is sued because they've been overcharging their clients for goodness knows how many years, they don't just get sued for what they overcharged last week. They get sued for all of the overcharging, which is what you guys need to do, okay? This mystery bills, there's no mystery, okay? If you've had a plumber, check everything. If you've sat in front of your meter and watched it not move for an hour, you know you don't have a leak when nothing is on. So why are you getting a bill that's ridiculous? All right. Thank you so much. Whatever you're doing here, I appreciate the info, but it is me, and you know it, and we all know it, and everyone here knows it. But ma'am, if I could, ma'am, do you know, ma'am, hi, no, no problem. Do you know what city commission district you live in? Yours. I live in Tarpon River. Tarpon River, okay. So you're in District 4. I am. So District 4. So I'd be happy to help. So if you want to send me an email, I'm happy to work to figure out what's going on. Well, you're going to be busy for the rest of your life doing this because there are hundreds and hundreds. I don't sleep much. I don't sleep much. I work on this all the time. So feel free. There are hundreds of entries on Nextdoor that this gentleman pointed out. And unfortunately, they're all coming to me, Commissioner Sorensen. No, seriously. So they've set up one email, and they're forwarding them all to me. Everything in the city is now coming to me. Citrus Isles. My office gets issued. No, no, no, no. Mayor, I'm telling you, they set up one email, and they've decided that I am the point person for the entire city because they think I'm the mayor. I swear to God, you can't make this up. The privilege of being vice mayor, I guess, is what it means. They didn't read the entire thing. They sort of mayor and just decided I'm it. Right, right. Well, then you certainly get everything you need from this. No, I actually can't, so I can't, so Sunshine Law prevents it. Well, would you like me to just forward five or six hundred emails to you? You're more than welcome if that's what you'd like to do, but we'll start with you, so start with yours, if you'd like. Well, mine has gone from ridiculous to better. Okay, okay, good. Okay, I don't know why, for no particular reason except for the fact that I complained and screamed and went down to the water department and was literally on the phone with the woman who said, no, you're right, your meter, we can't, I said, we can't read the meter. We're reading it every month. You can't possibly be reading it because I'm looking at it, and it's covered in four inches of mud. So he said, we'll have someone come and read it, and he'll knock on your door. While I was on the phone with her, this guy came, theoretically, put a sticker on my door. Did he read it? I don't know. I went and opened the thing that was still covered with two inches of mud. Miracles happen. Okay. Thank you. Let us continue. Thank you. Moving on to business one, this is also a presentation, proposed certificate of use process, development services department. City manager? We have Michael Ferreira from the development services department to present on this item. Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. I am not Michael Ferreira. I'm Anthony Fajardo, the director of development services. Today we have a presentation that's been a joint project with CSD and DSD. The point of this is to develop a program and a process that would be business friendly so that people who want to open a business in the city of Fort Lauderdale have clear direction on what they can and cannot do in a specific location. As I think many of you have been aware, there have been issues where we've had applicants come in after they've signed leases for business taxes or other agreements, and it turns out that use is either not even permitted in that location or they have to do other things such as go through a conditional use approval or revise the building to accommodate the use and they can't provide parking or something else that the code requires. So staff has been doing some research, looking at other communities. The presentation today is to get feedback from the city commission. We have Portia Garcia and Katrina Johnson from CSD here with us, as well as Ella Parker, Michael Ferreira, one of our urban design and planning planners, is going to do the presentation and we'll be here to answer any questions. Part of this process, though, I want to emphasize we haven't gotten into a lot of details, but our intent is that it is a business friendly process attached to our current processes. So, for instance, our idea is that if someone comes in for a business tax or whatever that process is, this would be dovetailed into that so it's a one-stop kind of issue for the individual. They don't have to go through something complicated. Right now there is no defined process, so there are many entry points into asking the question and many exit points. So it's not really easy for staff to maintain. It's not really easy for people to understand. So with that, I'll turn it over to Michael, and we'll be prepared to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Hello, Michael. Is this your first time, too? Thank you. Yes, it is my first time presenting to you guys. A lot of first-timers. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Commissioners. Michael Ferrer. I'm an urban planner with DSD. Today's presentation is regarding a certificate of use process that DSD, in collaboration with CSD, is proposing to implement. The presentation will include a brief background on what a certificate of use is, the current and proposed use, as well as the proposed ordinance, and some presentations that some city staff have conducted, as well as potential outreach. So what is a certificate of use? So a certificate of use verifies that a business type and or use is permitted in a specific location. It complements a business tax receipt, which is needed in order to operate a business. It provides an applicant with vital and valuable information before they move forward with investing in a space. Although we do not have a certificate of use process at the moment, it is common practice throughout other jurisdictions, such as Boca Raton, City of Miami, and Weston, to name a few. So why do we need a certificate of use? There are several reasons and scenarios. Some of the most important ones are, let's say, for instance, an applicant were to come in and apply for a building permit for an interior alteration where they are proposing a change in use. Through the building review process, it's revealed that that particular proposed use is conditional, which requires DRC review as well as PZB approval. At this point, staff will have to put the permit on hold while the applicant moves forward with DRC and PZB approval. This adds additional costs to the applicant as well as additional review times. Another scenario is a business owner that comes in and applies for a business tax receipt with a lease already signed beforehand without verifying whether that use is permitted or not. So similar to the first one, going through the review process, when we find out that that use is not permitted, the applicant or the business owner has two options. Either they choose to change their business type or they would have to hire an attorney in order to break that lease. The third example would be similar to the first in that you have an applicant that comes in, they apply for an interior alteration for a restaurant with an outdoor dining in an existing plaza space. Well, during the review process, it's revealed that that plaza space was not parked for a restaurant, which means now the applicant would have to apply for a parking reduction. Similar to the first example, they will not have to go through DRC as well as planning zoning board approval, which adds added costs as well as review time for the applicant. So some of the goals and benefits of this new certificate of use process is that it improves business application process and it provides structure for certain application types. It enhances our customer experience. It reduces denials and decrease in review times. And kind of one of the important ones is it identifies the issues up front before substantial fees are required, before a contractor is hired, and a lease is signed, or a property purchased, and you can avoid potential code violations as well. This process also reduced staff review times and improved staff review efficiency. So this slide provides a visual representation from the applicant's perspective. We don't have a process at the moment, so this is just something staff came up with as far as a flow chart to kind of depict how convoluted the current process is. There's clearly no, there's multiple entry points, there's multiple exit points, there's nothing that's streamlined. You can either come through our zoning counter, you can go through building, you can go to BTR, you can provide, you can give us a call. And so there's not one message, there's just no one cohesive message. So part of this certificate of use process, if directed to move forward, is we'll have a collaboration and coordination with Urban Design and Planning, our building division, business tax office, and zoning. The Urban Design and Planning... How long is this going to take? The entire review process? Yeah. So at the moment, we haven't had the luxury of finding out how long it could potentially take, but in any given scenario, I don't foresee, and once we get direction on and actually get this done, I don't foresee something like this taking longer than a week or two to get done. A week or two? Correct. Review. We've got to shave that down from two to a few days, Anthony, because the person's entering into a lease agreement and, you know, value creating red tape. Yeah. Typically speaking, it would happen much faster than that, but we do have complicated projects that have restrictions, zoning districts that have restrictions. So to do the research and to come up with the material so that they have a complete document might take a little time in some situations, but I think we can trim it down a little bit. So is artificial intelligence appropriate application here? That is something that artificial intelligence could help with. I don't think we're quite at that stage yet, but we are experimenting with AI in the city. We have co-pilot in certain situations that staff is being trained for. So as we get more fluent in AI, we think we can really kind of get those into these processes to help slim them down from a time perspective. Okay. Thank you. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I just, yes. I'm sorry, Anthony. In the opposite direction of what Mayor has just asked, right now if someone comes to us and they are already in and then they discover they need this type of a review, how long does that take right now? It's all over the map. It's kind of everywhere. I would say that depending on who they come and speak to first, it could take weeks, like weeks and weeks, because they just didn't talk to the right person. Part of this effort is to make it mandatory so that this happens beforehand so that we can truncate that as much as possible. All right. Thank you for that answer. And I think important, too, with that question is anybody that comes in to open up a business or apply for a permit or whatever the case may be, internally they do have to perform their due diligence regardless. This is just something that we're actually going to solidify so that they have an actual process to go through with us. So, as I mentioned, there will be coordination with several divisions, urban design and planning, building, business tax, and zoning. The urban design and planning division will review the submission to ensure that the use is permitted and that the parking is adequate. The building division's review will take a look at it just to verify if it's going to be a building change of use or if it will be a change of use required through urban design and planning, amongst other things. Business tax receipt will take a look at it. They'll make sure that what's the last recent use, whether their existing license has been expired, and if there's any additional licenses that would be required. So once all this information is gathered internally, the zoning administrator or his designee will take a look at all this information and make a determination on whether or not a certificate of use can be issued. So, contrary to the first slide that was provided, this would be the proposed certificate of use process. This provides a great representation, a visual representation of what the proposed use could be. This one is much more streamlined, much more cohesive. There's a clear entry point, and there's a clear exit point. And at the end of the day, I think most important is that they'll receive a definitive answer in a timely manner as well. As mentioned, if a director moved forward with this initiative, staff would have to amend the Code of Ordinances Section 15 in order to establish purpose or definitions, application, a minimal fee, and exemptions, process, insurance, and enhancement as well. So staff reached out to approximately 17 municipalities in order to gather some information on how they work on their certificate of use process, as well as get some insights on the fees that they're assessing. Staff came up with a minimum fee of approximately $230.50. And if you can look through the chart, you'll see that it's either in line with other municipalities or less than what they are assessing. So in addition to us reaching out to other municipalities, staff did conduct a couple of presentations with the Economic Development Advisory Board as well as the Budget Advisory Board, with both recommending that staff move forward with this in addition to the Budget Advisory Board with their recommendation that we begin a one-year pilot program. And if directed to move forward, staff would create a robust public outreach. We would go ahead and make changes to DSD's website as well as Business Tax Office. We'd post flyers on DSD's building, and we would share with groups such as the Chamber of Commerce. And kind of one of the most important ones is we'd reach out to stakeholders such as businesses, general contractors, design professionals, and permit runners as well. So that concludes my presentations. I'll be here if you guys have any questions. All right, great. Thank you so much. Anyone from the Commission have any questions? Okay, we have a couple people who signed up to speak. Is Peggy Messenslager here? Nope. And Bill just for questions, right? Okay. All right, so I guess that's it. So thank you so much. Do you have anything you would like to conclude with? Just if there's consensus for us to move forward, we can bring it back to you for consideration. Just see what you can do to minimize the time frame within which this is done. We'll do that. We'll try to nail down more specific language as well as some of the numbers that we have that are very preliminary, but we'll bring it back. Okay, great. Thank you so much. So I just want to note that if our attempt to reduce the timeline impacts the cost recovery estimate, can you please highlight that? Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving on to business two, outdoor event ordinance presentation, parks and recreation. Mayor, that item was removed from the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, moving on to business three. This is our last item on the agenda, City Hall update, overview of proposed interim agreement term sheet. City Manager. Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. So since the direction to staff to negotiate the agreement for the City Hall project back in December of 2025, we have met with the developer team multiple times per week, beginning the first week in January. We have been negotiating on several fronts in order to come to the commission today with a proposed term sheet that will inform the interim agreement. We anticipate that between that December 2nd date and the time that we come back to the commission with a draft interim agreement, it will be about April. And so that's about a four-month period that we've been working on this, both internally and with the developer. We have before you for consideration a term sheet, and that term sheet speaks to a summary of the principal business terms with a focus on the pre-development phase of the project. This term sheet and the feedback that we are seeking will inform us as we continue to negotiate with the developer so that we can come back with that interim agreement in April. So that's what it is. What it isn't, it isn't an agreement. So you'll see in the backup that it somewhat looks like an agreement, but it is a non-binding document that outlines some of the terms that we have already discussed with the developer and we are already, you know, having agreement on. However... It looks like it's a working paper. I guess you could say that. It's an outline. Yes. ...of a basis upon which you intend to move forward. Absolutely. Okay. Yes. That's how I read it. I thought it was very comprehensive. You did a great job. I think it's really going to move us forward. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but no one saw it as an agreement, even those called agreement. So there are several terms that still need to be negotiated, and our legal team, led by Attorney McCartney, will go through some of those terms. But remediation responsibility, budget and milestone schedule, allowable pre-development expenses, developer default, city default, developer fee, value of step-in rights, and business participation. Those are just some of the high-level topics that we still will be working through as we continue to meet with the developer. This project has truly been an all-hands-on-deck project. Every single one of your charter officers are participating with this project. We have various working groups. We have a business working group, legal, finance, operations, outreach, design, build, each headed by a different member of our city team. On the business working group, I am the chair for that group. On the legal working group, Attorney McCartney leads that group. Quentin Pugh is our design, build chair, Yvette Matthews, our finance chair, Ben Rogers, operations, and Kevin Polito, outreach. On the developer's team, they have also identified their own working groups with the same categories, and each of these working groups, both from the city side and the developer side, come together weekly to discuss areas of concern and consideration for this project. We are very dedicated to advancing the City Hall project. First, by getting your feedback today on the term sheet, then through the interim agreement, we would also be negotiating with the blessing of the commission. We would continue with negotiations toward a comprehensive agreement. We will be bringing to the commission a term sheet for the comprehensive agreement as well. We took direction from the commission in wanting to have various touch points for the public to provide input, and Kevin Polito will speak to that momentarily. But this term sheet gives the public an opportunity to identify where we are in terms of the negotiation process and to provide any feedback to you as you consider the various steps along the way. At this time, I want to recognize those presenters who will be coming to the podium today. Sherry McCartney, City Attorney, she will be presenting from her seat. Ben Rogers, Assistant City Manager. Yvette Matthews, Quentin Pugh, Kevin Polito. Eric Singer, Outside Counsel, Bills and Sundberg. Alex Barrett from Plenary and Cody Keist, Core Construction. Each will play a role in the presentation today, and we're looking forward to hearing that feedback from the commission and identifying any opportunities to modify the terms so that we can come back with that finalized interim agreement for your consideration. Before you begin, could I ask that we take a few-minute break? I don't want to miss anything. I just would like to take like a five-minute break. I know it's going to be very comprehensive, and I don't want to miss anything. All right? So let's just take a five-minute break, okay? Uh-oh, we're missing the city manager. Oh, there she is. Okay, let us resume the presentation. Thank you. Great. Thank you, and welcome back. My name is Kevin Polito, Strategic Communications Director. So just to pick up where we just left off, we, this project, it's a huge component about public outreach, transparency, and staying connected with our community. So there's going to be different touch points. Currently, if you go to spotlightftl.com that you see on the slide in front of you, there you have a really comprehensive list of all the different public outreach that has been done. One, there's different documents that you could download from the proposals themselves to a summary of the public outreach that has been done to date. Going forward, we have great cooperation from the design team with CORE and Plenary, who I'm about to introduce in a second, and there is a desire where we would like to work with all the different HOA and community groups that would like a meeting or a team is willing and able to go to the different Homeowners Association meetings. One item that we are discussing is to work through the council and have a kickoff meeting at one of the future council meetings to go over the project of where we are today. Then you're going to go ahead and see design-related public meetings that's going to take place at the conceptual 30% and 60% design, and of course, we're going to be engaging our media partners throughout the way to coordinate the different needs going forward and to make sure there's some great feedback on the project. I'm going to call up Alex Barrett and Cody from CORE and Plenary, and they're going to walk us through the different milestones on the next slide. Good afternoon. We're very excited to be here in this capacity. I'm Alex Barrett, Vice President with Plenary, who's the lead developer for Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners. Cody, I'll work for you. And I'm Cody Keese, the President of CORE Construction. So we're here just to walk you quickly through a milestone. I know you're a little taller. Cody really drags me down for a bad combo. We should have a children's mic and an adult mic. So just to echo what the city manager said, we've had a very collaborative process so far. We've come a long way in the month and a half since we kicked this process off. And here's a quick milestone schedule for all that's ahead of us. So as was mentioned, we're aiming to sign an interim agreement that mirrors the term sheet that you have before you sometime in April. We're currently at work, though. I want that to be clear. While we're negotiating the agreement, we have already kicked off all of our technical working groups, so the programming phase is well underway, and that will help lead to a May completion of the programming element of the design phase. And that will lead to a site plan approval in September, followed by a guaranteed maximum price in October. So by the end of October, you will have a full committed price, not just of the construction element, but also the long-term operations and maintenance of the facility, financing, all elements of the project will be fixed by the end of October. And if all goes well, that will lead to a signing of the comprehensive agreement in November, followed by a financial close in December. All of that teeing up a start of construction in early 27. Thanks, Alex. So looking to have shovels in the ground, if everything should go well, by January of 2027, and keeping with the milestone schedule we provided during the presentation, we're still on track for the summer of 2028 to have the commission chambers be substantially completed where people would be able to move in and start using the commission chambers, while the tower will be continued to be completed until spring of 2029 to have the entire project wrapped up and turned over and the city fully moved in. I think we wanted to just pause here if there are any questions on the schedule component. We'll be here if there are questions later. Any questions? There being none, thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioner Ben Rogers. This is the city manager. I'm going to focus on kind of the three priorities that we have right now. We're looking at the space programming, site conditions, and the project negotiations. All of these things are dovetailing and interwoven together to move the project forward. The first one on space programming, you're going to hear a little bit more about it from Quentin as he talks about some of the scopes of the term sheet. But I think the biggest thing is when we went through the unsolicited proposal, we heard feedback from the commission on right sizing the building, bringing some of the elements down. And so we've already started that process. And we've got it down to about 220,000, 230,000 square feet at this point. And we're utilizing the subject matter expertise from the development team, their architects, their engineers to, again, continue that process. And we're doing that through tenant engagement. So I know that the project team has reached out to each elected official, each charter officer, and each department head to talk through the space programming needs with them so that way we can put together the final program and build the right size building. The second thing, site conditions. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the development of City Hall. It's remediating the current site. So when we demolished the City Hall building, there was a generator that fed an emergency generator. And there was some contamination associated with that diesel tank. And so there are some site conditions that we are fully aware of. We've done all of the reporting process up to this point. We have a scope of work that the city was getting ready to engage on. But what we're going to be seeking is to transfer that duty or that responsibility to the developer as part of the interim agreement to remediate the site. And one of the reasons we're doing that is because that remediation will take a long period of time. While the work itself is relatively quick and easy, there are monitoring that will go on for about 12, 16, 18 months, depending on the reporting requirements. And so we want to make sure that the developer is the one doing that and monitoring it. And so if there are any conflicts, challenges, or needs to modify anything, they are in the sole driver's seat of that process. Let's stop right there. Shouldn't this have been going on all this time? It has been. It has been. Yes. So we've done the boring samples. We have monitoring wells in the ground right now. We had to get all of the data. We've been working with the regulatory agencies on that. And now that we have all of that information, we were ready to move forward as a city to deliver this. But the timing worked out where it can be transferred to the developer to perform. Okay. But the comprehensive agreement is, I mean, the comprehensive agreement is still going to be several months away. And is that delaying the remediation efforts that you say are going to be a long-term project? And so what we're trying to do is incorporate in the interim agreement so that there would be a scope of work that would survive the interim agreement. And it would be specifically focused on the remediation of the existing condition. All right. Thank you. Then question on the building size. So it sounds like we're aiming towards 220,000 square feet. So that's what we have it down to at this point in time. Staff did some internal exercises, had some tenant engagement, and that's where we're at. We're continuing to find efficiencies with the development team and with Quentin's effort on meeting with all the different stakeholders. I think that number will change again. But right now we're in that ballpark. And what percent of total city staff, or give me a number of people, or who will be housed in there? And that's what we're still building out as a space program as part of the supplement information package. I think we had 700 employees that were envisioned to go here. But as we're conducting these interviews with department heads as we're meeting with different stakeholders, we're going to finalize that and bring forth that space program that was identified in the milestones sometime in May. Okay. Thanks. But in the meantime, I think each of us will be asked what would be an ideal amount of square footage that would be necessary for each commissioner and staff, and incorporate that in the total package. That's correct. I believe some of you have already met with the development team, and then I think there's a couple that still are scheduled for later this month. Okay, great. And then the last thing, as the manager said, project negotiations, you know, it's multifaceted. It's not just get the term sheet done. It's work on the term sheet. Also focus on the interim agreement. While the interim agreement is underway, we're going to be focusing on the comprehensive agreement term sheet and eventually bring a comprehensive agreement to the commission. So there's multiple conversations going on, different negotiations at different points in time, but just want to, again, relate to the commission that it's all moving forward simultaneously with all these working groups and all these different lenses. And so what I'm going to do at this time is turn it over to the city attorney, who's going to talk a little bit about the term sheet and the interim agreement, and then start talking about some of the term sheet components. Great. Thank you so much. Sherry? You can do it from your seat if you want. You can do it from your seat if you want. I'm having technical difficulties, so I thought I'd wander up here and go from here. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. So today you'll be presented with the term sheet, and the term sheet relates specifically to the interim agreement. So 30,000 feet, the interim agreement is that which gives us the opportunity to assess the project, gives the developer the opportunity to assess it from a site perspective. Engineering, finance, and costs so that we could ultimately get to a GMP. And so we have developed the term sheet to enter into that agreement. It is the link between the time period when we're doing pre-development activities and the ultimate comprehensive agreement. I like to think of the interim agreement as dating and the comprehensive agreement as marriage. So on that note, I am going to introduce Mr. Eric Singer, who, as you know, has been engaged to represent us and guide us through this P3 process. He's done an amazing job. And he will go over the term sheet with you and answer any questions you have. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Eric Singer with Bills and Sundberg. I'm outside P3 Council to the city, and I'm just going to share some highlights of the interim agreement term sheet that's part of your package today. So the manager already shared that this is non-binding. This is really just the CliffsNotes version of what the ultimate interim agreement is going to be, just the material points we've been discussing so far. You'll see that the counterparty is Fort Lauderdale City Hall Partners, LLC. They formed a special purpose entity to develop the project, which is completely standard and, in fact, required for financing purposes. Project site, you know well. Local and small business considerations will be fleshed out in the final interim agreement that comes before you, and there's going to be two phases of local and small business considerations. First will be participation during the interim agreement process, which is primarily a design and engineering process, as the city attorney just shared with you. And then second, what will be in the comprehensive agreement itself for the actual construction of the project? So there will be measures and participation requirements for both of those phases. Sorry, is that for, like, subcontractors, or what does that mean? Exactly. So for the design, it would be subconsultants to the architects, the engineers, and for the construction, it would be subcontractors, correct? Okay. Are we exploring possible preferences for minority-owned businesses and veteran-owned? We are. So our expectation is that attached to the interim agreement will be a fully fleshed-out plan, but both of those have been discussed as something we're looking at. Great. Thanks. And by the way, if that legislation passes in Tallahassee, we would have to erase that, wouldn't we? He doesn't know the answer to that. Well, I believe we would have to. Commissioner, there are goals that we can use as a standard, goals, as opposed to hard numbers, and I think that would work. That would work. And all of these would be voluntary proffers by the developer, so not something that we would be dictating through the agreement, but that the developer is proposing on a voluntary basis, but that we would be looking at the contract as a way to monitor that. Thank you. All right. So term of the interim agreement, I think you heard in the timeline that we're expecting around nine months to be able to get to a guaranteed maximum price and a final comprehensive agreement. We have a 12-month term for the interim agreement, just to build in some time to, if more time is required, to hammer out the details, to add the legislative process to approve the comprehensive agreement. And if more time is necessary, we have an additional 12 months of mutual extension. So the interim agreement could go for as long as 24 months. You heard that part of the process is diligence on the site. Sometimes diligence results in more diligence. And so we need to build in some time just to account for unforeseen diligence activities and resulting changes to the design. And once we have a final executed comprehensive agreement, the interim agreement goes away. It will have served its purpose. All right. So you have heard a lot about the work streams in order to move this project forward. And there's been a lot of meetings, a lot of activity. You saw the timeline for getting this project out of the ground and completed. Part of my job as lawyer is to dump the bucket of cold water on everyone and talk about, well, what if things go wrong? And so that's where we get to the termination section here. So throughout the term of the interim agreement, the city will at all times be able to terminate the project for its convenience. So until we get to the marriage of the comprehensive agreement, using the city attorney's analogy, the city will have the right to move in a different direction if it desires. Except city termination, reimbursement to developer plus a developer fee. So normally when you break off an engagement, you're not paying people to go away. I've been divorced. I've paid somebody to leave in that context, but I've never paid, like, a girlfriend to go away. So I think you have discovered the outer… Times have changed. Yeah. Maybe. It depends on… The law has changed, but that's besides the point. But did that girlfriend pay? Let's move on. I might pivot to a different analogy to avoid that discussion, but I think the one thing to keep in mind for the reimbursement is that the developer is going to be designing and engineering the city hall for the city, and if the city decides to move in a different direction, the city will own all of that work product. And so the reimbursement is not to allow the developer to profit or anything like that. It's really to reimburse them for their actual out-of-pocket expenses to design the city hall for the city. But, no, you've got profit. I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. You have profit in there. You've got 5% developer fee. That's profit. So they are making a profit. If they were just getting reimbursed for their expenses, I would agree with you. But there is profit in there. So I'm not sure I would characterize a developer fee as profit, so that's really meant to capture their overhead. And I think 5% is a pretty standard percentage for that. So their allowable expenses don't include overhead? There is a portion of costs that are for certain internal professional time, but it's not a full compensation. I'm not sure I would characterize the 5% as profit. All right. Typically, when I look at construction costs, I've done construction auditing. Developer fee usually includes profit. What is the developer fee? Like what's the dollar amount of that? So it's 5% on whatever has been expended. And so it really depends when the termination takes place and how far along they are in the process. So if you were to get all the way to the end of the line where they have buildable plans and then the city pulls the plug, I believe the maximum budget they've shared, which is still being vetted, is in the teens of millions. But that's going to come in the final interim agreement. If you were to pull the plug much earlier, it would be a much smaller number. So it's 5% of the total, but that's a sliding scale depending on where we are in the process. 5% of the total they have spent? Yes, of allowable expenses. So there will be a maximum for each line item. There will be a maximum cost that the city is responsible for. And so they can't exceed that, but whatever they have spent up to that cap in each category, yes. So they get 100% of their expenses and then 5% of the 100%. Correct. Exactly. Yes. So Eric alluded to a number in the teens. So we've been provided with some preliminary information as to what it might cost for those allowable pre-development expenses. We're still working through that to see what is reasonable. We're looking at the overall target project budget of $200 million as discussed by the city commission at the conference workshop about priorities. And we're looking to see what is a reasonable estimate of what those pre-development expenditures should be. That will guide us toward what the potential developer fee would be at the 5%. Now, all of this is subject to continued negotiations and discussions. So, you know, the feedback that you're providing as to the developer fee would be incorporated as we continue to sit with the developer. So right now we're estimating, based on what the developer has preliminarily provided to us, that that number in the teens is close to $18 million. If we look at an overall project budget, which the developer has not yet put together for both the interim and the comprehensive agreement, but if we're looking at that $200 million target budget, and let's say we estimated that a 6% to 8% cost for the pre-development expenses or soft cost, planning, administrative fees, you know, that would put us anywhere between $12 to $16 million. Now, that's a little bit different than what we've already seen, but we're continuing to have those discussions as to what the overall cost should be during the interim phase, and then we will identify what that developer fee would be at the 5%. I'm still not tracking. At what point would that $18 million be reached? So throughout the term of the interim agreement, the developer will be expending dollars on plans, designs, everything leading up to being able to start construction under the comprehensive agreement. And so we have not yet identified the timeline for the milestones. So in my initial comments, I went through maybe eight things that are still left to be fine-tuned for the interim agreement. And one of those were the budget, and another was the milestone schedule. So that still needs to be talked through with the developer so that we can estimate at what point we feel that these expenditures would take place. They've given us a preliminary, I guess, burn rate or schedule for when they think some of these costs might be incurred, but we have not yet finalized that aspect of the agreement, but it would be an attachment or an exhibit to the interim agreement once we do have that information mutually agreed upon by the parties. Okay. So in other words, from April 2026, when the interim agreement would be possibly entered into, until November 2026, when the comprehensive agreement would be entered into, possibly per the milestones, the allowable expenses during that period from April to November would be 100% reimbursed if there is a termination. Is that right? Is that right? Yes. And there's different types of terminations that really dictate how the reimbursements or payments would work. And Eric will go through the different types of termination scenarios and what that would mean for the city and for the developer. Okay. So I don't, if we're allowing, if we're reimbursing 100% of their expenses, I don't think we should be giving them another 5% of the 100%. Well, let me just ask a question then. The counter to that would be is, would we expect someone to work for a year at cost? Is that fair? Again, this is not my business, Eric. This is your business. Is that the reason why there is a fee there? Because we're saying, well, if everything goes down the tubes, we understand that for 11 months or just a year or whatever that is, until the comprehensive, that we don't expect you to be working for cost? Just cost. Yeah. Just cost. Just cost. Right. I mean, is that why that fee is typically there? I mean, is this standard? Is that, help me understand why that fee is there. And if it is standard, and if that is, again, I'm just simplifying this. This is not my lane, but it seems to me that we're just saying we recognize that you've got these expenses, but you've also worked for a year, and, like, so you just get your expenses at cost, and that's it? I think it's recognizing that their out-of-pocket expenses are not why they are here to be our partner. They're here to deliver the project, and the out-of-pocket expenses does not make them whole for their executive time, for their effort to deliver this project, to get it to the finish line where they're able to start construction. And I would say the 5% developer fee is certainly in the range of what I see for developer fees. And in this case, I think it's fair to say that the flexibility that the city is requesting in terms of how the project is financed, either developer financed versus city financed, and the city's ability to step in and take over the architect and engineering contracts and the ability to determine for convenience all the way until the very end, I'd say the city is getting more flexibility than is customary. And so in that context, the 5% developer fee, which, again, I think is in the range of market for a developer fee, certainly doesn't offend me at all and I think is consistent with the risk structure we're creating here. And I just want to... That's a good point, though, because let's back up on that, because this isn't an RFP. This is a P3. This is all about risk transfer. That's the risk I expect them to take. Again, risk transfer is a hallmark of a P3. You take on risk as the private sector entity in this relationship, okay? If this was a straightforward RFP, design, build, you know, I would conceive that point. But it's not. It's a P3, risk transfer, risk transfer to the private sector. They are taking on the risk that they're going to be delivering a product that we're going to be happy with at the end of this year-long process. So I'm not inclined to agree with you on that, that they're entitled to a developer fee. They'll be reimbursed their costs out of pocket, but they take on a risk that they're going to be able to deliver a product that we're going to be happy with. I don't think that's what the risk-free means. Well, it does for me. That's what the risk is. I'm not sure what risk they're taking on. I don't think risk-free means that we expect anyone to work for a year for free. I want to be fair on both sides here. So, I mean, again, you know better than I because you know what else is going into this in terms of, like you just said, the executive time to work. Because basically, without that fee, we're saying you need to work for a year for free. Yeah, I think that sort of the concept of risk transfer is that risks that the developer can control are transferred to the developer. And what we're talking about for this developer fee is the narrow instance where the city, for no reason at all, any reason or no reason at all, decides to cancel the project and take all of the work product that the developer did for us. So that's not really a risk that they can control. And so I think that's really – Or be responsible for it. But I think that's unrealistic because if we back out of this, it's going to be because the building is unbuildable or unaffordable. It's not going to be because we don't like the builder. So if they come up with a product that is unworkable for us or unaffordable for us, we're not going to build it. We're not going to take those plans and say, hey, these are a great set of plans. I'm going to go and turn around and go to somebody else and say, hey, guys, would you do this for me? That scenario is about as unrealistic a scenario as I could possibly imagine. So that's not the risk we're talking about. The risk we're talking about is that property tax reform passes, and guess what? We can't afford the building anymore, and we're not going to do it, in which case we all lose, right? So that's a different scenario. So I think it's a very good observation that there's a number of different scenarios where the city may elect not to move forward with this project. We've been focusing on one scenario where the city terminates for convenience. We also have this termination for impasse concept. So I think where you started is, you know, it's too expensive or the design doesn't work for us. We have the ability to raise that early in the process, so we're not kind of waiting all the way to the end. And if we identify a material point, like the cost of the project, and we're not able to work through it in 30 days, then we can terminate and not pay the developer fee. So the developer fee is really the scenario where I think you've indicated is probably unlikely, or at least it may not be what you're thinking is the likely scenario, but it's a scenario that the developer has indicated that they wish to protect against, that sort of the city for no reason, you know, and even using your example, you know, hire another developer or, you know, deliver the same project but a different way. And so that's really where that very narrow scenario where that comes into play. So before we go any further, this is not our first time using an unsolicited proposal relationship to build something for the city. And I'd like to know, you may not know the answer right now, but I'd like whatever we've done in the past to be consistent with what we're doing today. Because, for example, we did a P3 for part of the development of the aquatic center. I'd like to know what the reimbursement program was there for city termination or impasse or any of the other elements of termination. Whatever it is, let's just make it consistent because that's been the policy of the city, and it shouldn't change for this project either. So let's just – I mean, we don't have to make this decision today because we're not voting on anything. But just whatever – to keep the city consistent in the policy that's practiced in the past, let's just replicate that policy in this particular project. So, Mayor, we can do some due diligence on what we've done in the past. I think, you know, some of the P3s that we've done are a little bit different in terms of the revenue opportunity that comes from them. And so there are different considerations. There's different risk factors. And so I want to take into account that this particular project would not result in a revenue stream for the city. And I think that should be accounted for in the way that we look at the overall provisions for the project and for the relationship. All right. Well, the aquatic center is not a revenue stream project. I mean, it was – the portion that was an unsolicited proposal had to do with – I believe it was the locker rooms and, you know, just a component, not the pools or anything like that. So let's just move on from this. And if you can get back to us with that particular information, that would be helpful. We have other examples, too, throughout the city. Yeah, there are other examples of us. P3. Right. Yeah. What are the categories of allowable expenses just broadly? Broadly, design expenses is the big one. Does design expenses, for example, include salary and manpower hours? I'm not sure. I think I'd have to defer to one of the – Sure. So it probably does. Yeah, it probably does. Because designing is drawing, is working, right? It's not a – So it would be whatever their out-of-pocket was for those employees who design certain aspects of the building, correct? Right. Thank you, Mary. Exactly. So built within my business is the cost of my time just as the cost of their time in designing, right? Built within the cost of that work is intellectual, property, skills, and so forth. Built within that in a business is profit. So in other words, when you have a salary that you pay to a team member, they don't – that salary is not just covering – you understand what I'm saying? Yeah. You just understand it includes a profit. So in other words, this is not just the – in other words, the allowable expenses include a degree of profit for the entity. So I think that's a very fair point when we're talking about – so the work is being performed by a number of consultants, and they're going to be paid for their work performed, and that payment will be all the profit that they're going to get out of it. You also have a developer who's not – who's really in a different bucket. You know, the developer is not the architect. The developer is not the engineer. And without the developer fee, what – are they getting paid anything or not? Typically, no, but I think that's something I think – I think, you know, staff and I have heard loud and clear that we have some homework to do on this. Great. Thank you. Please proceed. So just a couple other buckets of termination and reimbursement. First 90 days will be developer's due diligence period where they will inspect the site, make sure that they're, you know, able to move forward and it works, and they can terminate in that first 90 days. Nothing is paid to them if they terminate in the first 90 days, but that's sort of their free look period. After that, they're obligated to meet certain deliverables and move forward with the project. There's also the possibility of termination if the developer fails to meet a milestone or we get to the end of the road at the end of the 12 months. We need more time, and the developer doesn't want to give us more time, which is treated the same way, in which case the developer would be in reimbursed 50% of the design expenses, 0% of the non-design expenses. And you asked about the bucket, Commissioner Sorensen, but there's also costs associated with their financing, their cost to negotiate the agreements with their investors and lenders, and that's a separate bucket of expenses as well. It's also interesting in this proposal, right, the impasse, developer termination, none of those include a 5% developer fee. Yeah, so the 5% developer fee is solely city decides to cancel the project for no reason. Right. So it's a narrow. It's an outlier. It's an outlier. And just for context, so you can just sort of understand a little bit about some of the discussions that we've had, you know, there was a point at which we were at a 20% developer fee in the conversation, and we've looked at other opportunities, including through step and rights that Eric will discuss later. So just know that we have been looking at this from a lot of different perspectives, and we felt that it was fair and appropriate to have that 5% developer fee, but we also are looking for certain protections in other areas, and that's how we found the balance. And then last bucket of termination is we reached the end of the road, and we just can't get to an agreement, and it's nobody's fault, and nobody's defaulted, and the city's not terminating for convenience, but we just can't get the deal done. And that's a case where there is a shared risk where so the developer would be reimbursed 100% of the design expenses, 50% of other expenses, and the logic behind it is both parties need to work together to reach a final agreement, and there's some shared pain if that doesn't happen. And last point I'll mention, the manager just alluded to, is we will have step-in rights, meaning that we can take over directly their design contracts and require the designers to complete the project if the agreement terminates for a developer default or if we terminate for convenience early in the process before making the decision as to how it's going to be financed. And the sort of mechanics around the termination for convenience have yet to be worked out. That's sort of a key point remaining in negotiations. Okay. Does that conclude your presentation? That concludes my presentation. Okay. Who's next? City manager? So we have Quentin Pugh, assistant city manager, to discuss some of the design-build considerations. Okay. Could I also just ask one question? So has Jacobs been involved with this at all? What are we using them for at this stage of the evolution? So Jacobs will be working with the design-build working group on all the elements related to space programming, architectural services, engineering services, making sure that we are within the framework for what is appropriate based on a Class A product. So none of this stuff at this point as it relates to the term sheet or anything else? Not at this point. So Jacobs is being engaged as we further define and refine the space plan. Okay. And then I have another question. So there was one other item in here, and it had to do with the commitment of the minimum of 7.5% of the capital requirement of the project from equity sub-debt placed by the developer or in the event the city elects to issue debt for the project, the commitment of 10% of the capital requirement of the project, which then has a maximum rate of return of 11.5% on the developer's equity in the project. Yes. So Yvette Matthews. Why are we doing that? So thank you for that question. Yvette is going to speak to some of the finance considerations. You jumped ahead for us, Commissioner. Well, I just went from page 4 to page 6. Yeah. So really the project financing section is really intended to be our initial framework for the discussions that we're having with the developer. This is also what we're using for the financial modeling that we're doing with our financial advisor. Okay. It's intended to provide the flexibility to negotiate and start as a negotiating point. So what you'll notice is that it's up to 11.5% as their IRR for this project. And the reason we use the term... Doesn't say that. It says a maximum rate of. Yeah. Doesn't say up to. Right. It says a maximum rate of. The maximum would be 11.5%, which means that we have the ability to negotiate an amount less than that. Okay. Similar to if we still have to make a decision on how we're financing the project, when the developer presented to you all, they presented a nonprofit mechanism that they would use. Right. There's a 501c3 pass-through entity. As we started digging into that, we started asking questions about the bond ratings that those entities receive so that we could compare it to our bond ratings, the interest rates that they would be receiving so we could compare that to our interest rates. And really, it provided the opportunity for us to create a complete look at what the cost would be if we were to choose that mechanism. We have not made a final decision yet. We are still completing our modeling, but you can rest assured that all of that is going into the discussions that we're having with the developer. We talk a lot about, you know, through their mechanism, it's usually a higher interest rate and what that looks like compared to the city issuing the debt ourselves. So, you know, we have a very strong team, including the budget team, our city auditor. All of us are digging in, asking those questions to our financial advisors, as well as looking at the other projects that they've done and looking at the rates of return that they've received on other projects so we can make sure that we are moving in a very competitive direction. All right. Gus, I am concerned. If I'm looking at 10% of the capital requirement and it's a $200 million minimum, you're talking $20 million and they're getting 11.5% on that, that's pretty good. I'm happy to, like, invest alongside them because I'm not getting 11.5% of my T-bills. Absolutely. So I just want to make sure I understand. Is that 10% capital requirement a requirement? Can we finance the entirety of this project? Or are we obligated to take an equity investment from them in this project and help me understand? So one of the things we're trying to be very cognizant of is the developer's business model. So they came to us with a proposal that the city commission has decided to advance. And so part of that proposal, they were very clear in that they would need to have equity in this project. So what we're trying to do is ensure that as we look at the equity that was proposed, we're also looking at that return that they would receive from that equity so that we're minimizing the difference between what our, you know, our cost of capital normally would be versus the equity that the developer would be receiving in the project. So as you run those numbers, I'd like to know what that differential is costing us. Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay, so that's more profit to the developer team that's coming out of the taxpayer. So I want to know how much extra they're making on the financing side of this. Because at the end of the day, P3s make more money for the financing team than they actually do for the construction team. That's why these things get promoted all the time by the Wall Street guys. That's typically who's behind P3s, just in case people aren't really quite sure about this. This is usually some guys from where I used to work up on Wall Street that promote these because it's where they make all their money is on financing. So I just want to know how much the financing team makes on this because the taxpayers wind up paying for it. Thank you. You're welcome. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Quentin Pugh, Assistant City Manager. During the pre-development phase, the city controls both the schedule and the budget. Nothing moves forward without city approval. City staff and the developers team have been working collaboratively to translate department and commission space needs into a practical, buildable plan. This includes individual interviews with department leadership, chartered officials, and members of the city commission as well as their staff about the functional space planning for the building as well as the chambers. We're also doing site visits to key areas such as the wellness center and other areas throughout the city and right-sizing the building to reflect actual operational needs. That also include long-term flexibility. Once the space programming has been completed, the developers, architects, and engineers then decide how the building will be constructed safely, efficiently, and to code. We want to conduct due diligence early so that we can avoid surprises, manage the risk, as well as confirm the site is ready for construction. Through the early access agreement, the city plans to direct the developer to immediately initiate site inspections, geotechnical work, environmental reviews, and surveys, all subject to city approval and the budget. Site remediation was actually covered by Mr. Rogers early on. The only thing I would add is that cleanup remains mandatory by the developer, even if the agreement ends, protecting the city from environmental liability. The proposed interim agreement also tightly controls costs, where the city approves the budget and monthly expenses. The developer backs the work with a $350,000 line of credit, and all pre-development costs are included in the total project costs upon execution of the comprehensive agreement. Through the design-build working group, the developer has already been working very closely with the city's Department of Development Services on the zoning requirements. Building on that work, the developer will develop the conceptual plan for the city review and approval that incorporates the space programming work that we're doing, proven security standards, and best practices. If there's no questions for me, I will... Does anyone have any questions, Quentin? There being none, thank you. I'll go ahead and turn it over to the manager. So I'd just like to recap on some of the feedback that we've received thus far. Mayor, Mayor, you asked for staff to do some research on what we've done on prior P-3s in terms of the developer fee and maybe any other financial considerations. Vice Mayor Herbst, you've asked for us to look into how much the financing group would make on this project and what that differential is. So the differential between whether we were to finance it in its entirety versus this equity component at 11.5%. Okay. And there was general feedback on the allowable expenses. I think, Commissioner Sorensen, you were asking for a little bit of detail. He wanted an itemized list of what are considered allowable expenses. I think we all want to know that. And the equity contribution, the rate of return, I think, Vice Mayor Herbst, you were interested in looking at that as well. I just want to make sure I can end. Yep, I think you're heading in the right direction. And I want to look at eliminating the developer fee. For termination. For termination. Okay. Until we get, until, I think we need to know a little bit more about what that represents. Yep. That's fair. Yep. Okay. Did that cover or summarize all the feedback? Yep. Okay. Well, so going forward, we plan to enter into an early access agreement so that the developer can go ahead and do a site survey as well as to get some geotechnical work started. We don't want to delay some of the milestones of the project, so we want to enter into a separate agreement while we're negotiating the interim agreement. The city team as well as the developer team will continue to work on the space plan. And I think all of you have been engaged at this point. Maybe you haven't had your individual meetings, but we're also continuing to meet with department heads and future users to identify where we can refine the space plan. We anticipate being able to come back to this commission in April, again, with that interim agreement. We are hopeful that if you have any additional feedback between now and then that you would share it with us. We will take all of the points of conversation today and all the requests for information into account as we meet with the developer. And I think that with outside counsel, we've been able to expedite this process significantly. Again, we have from December through proposed to come in April, that's a four-month period to negotiate something that is truly substantial. And so I want you to know the amount of effort that each and every member of the team has put forward toward this project. Thank you. We appreciate that. Three people have signed up to speak. Rusty Warren, followed by Nick Matthews, and then Marilyn Lomano. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak besides people from the development team? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Rusty Warren. I'm the co-founder and co-CEO of Ivy Realty, which I started 30 years ago with my business partner, Anthony DiTomaso, who you may be familiar with. Over the past three decades, we've acquired and managed more than 25 million square feet of commercial real estate in nine states, and we've been investing in Fort Lauderdale since 2010, first with the Yachting Promotions Logistics Center, then One East Broward, where we put up the iconic number one and helped beautify Ivy Stranahan Park and work with the city to do so. And then in 2011, we acquired Tower 101, sorry, 2016. We've been successfully advocating for the city for the past 15 years, and we've brought numerous tenants downtown. Becker and Polikoff, Kemet, Revenir, Ryan Transport, and Quest. Tower 101 is a first-class, professionally managed building, and the city of Fort Lauderdale is already a tenant. They're a partner of ours. We like working with you very much, and I think you guys have been very happy with the quality and reliability of the property. At some point, we recognized that there was a potential win-win here for the city, that Tower 101 would be a perfect fit to be considered as a future town hall and city hall. From the presentation today, it's the right size, 230,000 feet, the right layout, the right location, and has the right infrastructure. This is not a concept. This is not a development. Those are very complicated. This is an existing project. It's a real building that already works, and I haven't been involved with too many developments that follow a straight line timing or budget-wise. Tower 101 has variables, fewer variables, and a clear path to success. And the city can move at its own pace, consolidating without future disruption. The financial impact is significant, and based on our numbers, we think north of $200 million. Further, the city would continue to own its existing site, which would be a productive asset for it, to do other things that the city may have an agenda for. At any rate, we think it would be appraised in the $20 to $30 million range. So today, all we're asking for, we're not asking for blind trust. We're asking just for some due diligence. Just take a breath, spend 30 to 45 days evaluating this idea. We'll be an open book. We'll provide the appraisals, the engineering reports, work with you on the operating costs, and look at side-by-side comparisons, and let the facts and the numbers speak. We just think it's... Please finish. We just think it's not too late for the city to do this. We're confident that the analysis will show that our proposal would be lower risk, lower cost, faster delivery, and potentially a better value for Fort Lauderdale taxpayers. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Nick Matthews. Good afternoon, Mayor and members of the City Commission. Nick Matthews with the Southern Group on behalf of Ivy Equities, who's the owner of the Tower 101. Really appreciate the opportunity here. I certainly want to start by making it clear that nothing from the Tower 1 team or I is intended to impugn your process or do anything or say anything negative about the great development team. There's some credible professionals on that team. It's not about that. I think it's kind of more recognition that there's actually this exciting opportunity. You've got an opportunity in parallel at the same time as you're going through a lot of this really complicated work. You have an opportunity to look at a project or a piece of property on the same block. And the one thing I've said kind of the moment we've been talking about this is, I guess if there were more taxpayers here watching, they would agree. I don't think it's ever a bad time. It's never too late to look at something that could maybe save $200 million. I just, that opportunity doesn't come very often. The beautiful thing about taking a month or change or 30 days or whatever it is to engage Rusty and his team is, there's nothing in your P3 process that says you can't look at something else at the same time. There's nothing in state law that says you can't entertain some additional information. We think the numbers are real. We think this is somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million conservatively that you could save over the life of a project. And that number doesn't even take into account the property you own now that you could monetize. I think that's a piece of the puzzle that has been missing this entire time. Fort Lauderdale has a lot of office space. They don't have a lot of raw land that can be monetized right now. That's what I think the opportunity cost there. I think that's a piece that has been missing in this puzzle is what you could do, what type of, you know, the return you could get there, whether you sold it, did a 50- or 99-year lease on there, what kind of revenue that could bring to the city and solve a lot of the infrastructure needs or affordable housing or you name it around the city. You could have a revenue source on your own property, move in relatively seamless potentially into a property that connects to your parking garage at your own speed. You've already got folks there now that are enjoying their experience in the building. Real quickly, just, you know, one of the highlights of this, the building has passed its 25-year certification. It's never had a hurricane or storm-related claim, and that's been through Irma, Ian, and Milton. You know, we've recently been appraised, so they've been through recent environmentals and appraisals and all these other types of things that Rusty and his team are willing to sit down with your folks and just look through. So, you know, if we close with the analogy, we just want you to flirt with us a little bit as opposed to maybe engage in this conversation. Find out really what the opportunity is on the block. It seems like if there's a chance that we're in the neighborhood of $200 million of savings, it seems highly worth at least engaging at a professional level to really understand that opportunity, and that's all we're asking for. We're not asking you to slow down or stop your engagement with these folks. It's to sit down with our folks and really to take an opportunity to evaluate the opportunity. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Mayor, I have a question. Thanks. Thanks, Nick. Would you all be willing to contribute monetarily to a due diligence effort if it was undertook? Yeah, certainly. I think Rusty and his team have already said, you know, the number $25,000 has been thrown around. Absolutely willing to contribute that if that's what it takes to get a consultant or engineers to look at it. Whatever it is, happy to do it. Yes, they'll contribute that, certainly. Thanks. I just have a question. Why didn't you submit during the process that we went through? Because I, at this point in time, I don't look at it as flirting. I look at it as we would be committing adultery. So I just need to know why you did not submit during that lengthy, lengthy month-by-month-by-month-by-month process, and why now? Why now? Commissioner Glassman, very fair question. I've been engaged recently. I wasn't involved kind of in that early process. But I do know that the ownership team had multiple rounds of communication with city staff as far back as July of last year. Sent in information about the building, even a proposal. So that option was on the city staff's radar for quite some time now. That's to be true. I can get more information about that or firm that up, but I know that. I've talked to the guys. I've seen the e-mails to kind of confirm that that has happened. That doesn't answer his question. There was a solicitation out there for unsolicited proposals, and you guys passed it up. You decided not to participate, and you then, after the fact, you guys started to have meetings with city staff. And when you had the opportunity to participate at a time when we put it out to the street, we were looking for people to make proposals to us. And your client just decided to pass on it. And now, after the 11th hour, you think, oh, well, we've got to stop everything now and look at your proposal. Well, certainly, Mayor. Thank you. I think the team probably thought the intent was a developer-led proposal process. But I would respectfully argue I don't think this is 11th hour. I don't think we're committing adultery. You've got a lot of work to do for this process to become a reality. I mean, your development doesn't even access – We're going to spend a lot of money in the process because that's what it takes to keep going on this. And in good faith, we've committed – the commission has committed itself with these folks to move forward on this, and they're acting in good faith as well. And then all of a sudden, because you guys decide, oh, well, you want to unload your building, we're supposed to stop the process. How does that make sense to us? Well, respectfully, Mayor, I don't think anyone is suggesting you stop your process. I think what we're suggesting is – again, I'm not certain – I can't imagine a scenario where it is a bad idea to take some amount of city resources, so a small amount that we would be willing to reimburse you, to look at an idea that could save you $200 million. Let me ask you this. I can't imagine a scenario where that's a bad idea. Let me ask you this. If – let's say you paid for the due diligence investigation and we decided to go with you, would you pay for the 100 percent reimbursement and the 5 percent developer fee that we'd be responsible for for backing out of the other deal? Again, respectfully, sir, you're not entered into this agreement yet. So, I mean, you're not on the hook for that at the moment. Those are the terms. Those are the terms moving forward. But you don't have a signed agreement with a developer on that. And I don't even know what – I obviously couldn't commit my client live here to whatever expenses that would be. But if they're – Well, your client's here. Yeah, I mean, if there's some level of – but you know what? Good question. All the more reason our folks want to get with your folks to flesh it out and just see what it means. You've had months to come to us. And you wait until after we've already made a decision, after we've already started expending money, after we've already – and because you guys want to unload your building because it's a good business decision for your company, it doesn't mean that we should now subject this process to the whims of your business decisions. So tell me, are you prepared to pay – reimburse us for all the expenses that this developer would be asking the city to reimburse them for while we wait for your due diligence investigation? All due respect, Mayor, just to clarify a few things here. We did approach the city. I personally was here last June, and we did approach the city – Last June? Yeah, a year ago. So why didn't you participate in the process? I think, as Nick said, that was a development RFP-4-specific site. We were in dialogue with the city since last July, actively. Sent them information, building specs. We sent a dozen or so copies in October of our proposals. So it was just a separate line item because it wasn't an RFP to build new. And I'm here today just to say, in the next 30 or 45 days, we're happy to roll up our sleeves with you and evaluate that. But it wasn't – Did you speak with any member of this commission during that time? I personally did not. Not personally. Anyone from your team? I believe so. I don't know if the commissioners, but I believe people in the city. Well, I'm asking – We did submit information and building information. Right. But did you try to get some feedback from any member of the commission during this process? I can get back to you on that. You're saying no? I'm not saying no. I can get back to you on that. Okay. Why don't you get back to us on that? Well, by the way, you had mentioned new build. We actually did have, during that process, an existing building submit to us as part of the process. It wasn't – that was part of the process. You could have actually come in with the existing building. This wasn't all about just new construction. And I wanted to also ask the city manager, because I think at the last meeting you said that the city had spent, for our due diligence, upwards of about $100,000. Didn't you say that? No. What I was referring to was a listing of elements that we would like to undertake in order to do the due diligence on the building. And we were estimating about $120,000. Okay. So that was the reference. Okay. And just to highlight, Ben Rogers is here to clarify anything in terms of whatever those communications were. Yeah. Good afternoon. So, Mayor, I just want to be very clear that we did receive information. We had meetings with Ivy Realty going back to July. But I want to be very clear that it wasn't an ongoing dialogue. We had a conversation with them, I think, in February, where we were talking about the future space planning of the city's needs and how that might impact the 101 tower and if we'll need more space. In July, we did receive some information, a packet from 101 that talked about a proposal to buy. I responded within five days, and I said, thank you for this information, but we need more information. We need to understand the structural, the building history, age of the operating assets, HVAC, windows, et cetera. Did not hear back. I believe there's some staff dialogues back and forth, but not anything substantial. Fast forward to October. We got another packet that was updated with the same information. It did not have a lot of the information that I requested in July. We have met with them since then in the last month or so, again, talking about some of these same things. And since that time, they have completed their 25-year assessment. I think they have some of that information readily available to share. But to date, we have not received any of that information on the building condition and the things that we've asked for. I also want to take a moment just to remind the commission that we came about a year ago. I did a presentation in January of 2025 where we talked about what does the city commission want for the next city hall. And in that presentation, we talked about developing a new city hall. We talked about a land swap opportunity. We talked about going out and doing a market survey to see what buildings would be available for sale. We talked about different options, and the direction or the outcome of that meeting was let's further discuss as part of the goal-setting meeting. So at the commission prioritization workshop of January of 2025, there was a topic on city hall. And at that time, the direction was 26 or 2025, so a year ago. So at the end of that conversation, the direction from the commission was to proceed with the existing site and then consider demolition, also figure out if we should incorporate the parking garage as part of the project or not. Following that, in February of 2025, the city commission did give direction on utilizing the 100 North Andrews site with a potential alternate site as the new PDHQ campus. And then that was memorialized as part of the city commission prioritization meeting minutes that was published and approved in March. So I just want to continue to relate to the commission that it's not that staff ignored the request. It's not that we were fully engaged with the property owner, but we were following instructions that the city commission put forth. And then when we received the information, we asked for more supplemental information to understand if it's something that warranted. We also did make the IV aware that the city commission in July or June created the competition period for the unsolicited proposal and told them that that ended on October 6th. So, again, I just want to make sure that both sides are out there. And were they aware that we were going to make a decision with regard to which company we were going to go with? We were going to make that decision in December. Do you know whether or not they were apprised of that? I'm not sure if they were apprised of this decision in December, but I can tell you that they did follow up with us in August after the competition period closed to find out if there was a decision if we were going to move forward with selecting one or not. Okay. All right. Thank you. And this will be my last comments on this, because I thought actually at the last meeting we already put this to bed. Well, we did. We did. Okay. But we're still talking about it. Well, they have a right to public comment. Exactly. I understand, and we're responding. But, you know, it's not even just a matter of the fact that we went through a process. But prior to that process, beginning in 2023 when we had the unfortunate incident with City Hall, you know, I'm looking. I've dug out documents from the Urban Land Institute, the Infrastructure Task Force. There was so much community input. There was so much data. There was so much information. And then even when the city, when we did our process, we actually put out, you know, a whole section called Building Components, prepared for what we wanted in this building, in this site. And it's actually more than just a building, just so you know. You have a building, but we were actually looking to develop a site, a civic site with open land and a place to gather and just so much more. So my issue is not just with the process that you did not enter into. My issue is also with the process that came way before that when the public spoke. And I watched all of those meetings. And then we also had all of those people come to City Hall. So it's the pre-process even that was basically laying out what we want to see in this site. And, unfortunately, 101, there's just so much. And I'm not going to get into all of that. I have it, but I'm not going to get into all of it. But there's just so much that's missing in what we were looking for with the public's input for a brand-new City Hall. And we called it Reimagining City Hall. So that's it for me, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Marilyn? Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. First, I want to say I am absolutely blown away by the hustle that the city manager and the city attorney and all the staff has put into this comprehensively and so quickly, really very impressive. But I'm not here to talk about that. I was on a conference call with Commissioner Sorensen and all the members of District 4 a couple of days ago. And there was not one person on that call who was not interested in looking at alternatives to building a new, very expensive city hall. So I agreed to be the one to come here and annoy you to death by telling you that I think we're not at the marriage stage. We're not even at the dating stage. I want to go. I'm still sitting at the bar. I want to go talk to those guys. I want to go talk to the guys who are offering me a Class A office building with 400 parking spaces and money that I can make renting out the space that I don't need and space that will be available for me later on to expand into and save me $100, $200 million. The citizens of the city of Fort Lauderdale are not looking for an iconic major new statement. We're looking for an economical, functional city hall that doesn't cost an arm and a leg and will provide us with what we need for the future at a reasonable price. I just think that it's not a bad idea. It's actually a very good idea to take a month. You are not into this. You haven't signed anything. And, you know, you may in fact go forward with this. But you would be negligent in your duty, in my opinion, and the opinion of everybody who was on the call, you would be negligent in your duty to the citizens to not look at this alternative that's been presented to you. Putting aside the fact that we're all, you know, where things happened in the past and why didn't you do this and maybe you should have done that. Put that aside for the moment because that's not in the interest of the city of Fort Lauderdale. What's in the interest of the city of Fort Lauderdale is getting a reasonably priced, functional city hall that we can all move into quickly and not spend a whole ton of money on. And I agree with Commissioner Herbst. If the legislature puts forward a property rights reduction tax bill and the citizens go for it, which I have a feeling they will because nobody likes to pay taxes, okay? We're going to be in very difficult financial situation. So what are we going to do? Fire police so that we can pay the mortgage, the P3 on this new city hall? I don't want to be in that position. I don't think you want to be in that position. And that's my three minutes and I've said my piece. Thank you. So, Marilyn, I just want to, can you just come on back? Because, okay, so at one point in time you were the chair of the Infrastructure Task Force, right? That is correct. This document that I'm looking at now was published by the city. You, as the chair of the Infrastructure Task Force, Dickey Consulting, the American Institute of Architects. That is correct. This is a very comprehensive report. Thank you for your work on that. Yes. But everything you just said refutes everything that is in your document, everything that is in your report. There is so much in here in terms of data. There is so much in here in terms of what you said you wanted in a city hall and your group said you wanted in a city hall that we would never be able to do that in this building. So when you say that we're going to save $100 to $200 million, I have to say that that's hogwash. And here's why I say that's a hogwash. So they're asking for about $86 million as a purchase price. If you try to put in every single one of the components from your report in the Infrastructure Task Force into this, and I'm talking about let's look at hurricane impact glass. Let's look at common area renovations, the lobbies, the elevators, bathrooms, roof replacements, HVAC replacements, deferred maintenance, demolition of multi-tenant spaces, and a new tenant improvement. We need to create a chamber space. We need to create everything. So to get to the point where we have in 101 everything that we've asked for in this entire timeline and everything that was in your report, Marilyn, everything that's in your report, I think we're going to get to about $170 million. So the difference is – I'm not done. So the differential is really not that much. So please – Without a plaza. Thank you. Without a plaza, without a civic engagement, and I'm not going to go through everything that you said, but your committee, your Infrastructure Task Force, talked about all of the spaces that you wanted to see in City Hall. Well, none of that is in 101, but everything that is in your report is in the group that we are dealing with right now as a partner. So I don't want us to have amnesia. I just don't want us to forget everything. It is important to go back and look at our work. It is important to go back and look at what the city said, what every single resident said. And by the way, your report was not the only report that we have. So where's the Urban Land Institute? They did a very thorough thing reimagining City Hall, basically very identical to all of the spaces that you asked for. In fact, they even referenced everything that you guys did with the Infrastructure Task Force. And if you go into the weeds of all of these reports and you look at the gallery spaces and the museums and involving the history of the city and involving local artists and creating a plaza and creating everything else that you talk about in here, whether it's a food court, whether it's the cafeterias, whether it's everything, there's just no way that we're just going to escape by purchasing 101 for $86 million. And I really do believe, again, look at all the building features in your report. Look at all of the energy efficient and weather resilient spaces that you wanted. Look at all the outdoor spaces. Look at all the multi-use facilities. Look at everything. Look at all the retrofitting that we would have to go through. And on top of it, you're getting a 25-year-old building. My God, it's at least halfway through its time life. There's no more time span to this building. We would be, I think, where you're saying we would save taxpayer dollars, I say we're wasting taxpayer dollars. And it's really a smokescreen to say that we're going to save between $100 and $200 million. And I would defy anybody to go back to those reports, ULI, and your infrastructure task report and tell me that I'm wrong here. Because when I go through this and I really look at it carefully, there's just, it's not making sense what you're saying. May I, thank you. Thank you. Okay. It's a fair point. It's a fair point. When you renovate a building, we all know that there are other expenses. And when you renovate an older building to the requirements that are in our infrastructure reimagining city hall, yes, there are going to be expenses. And we have to take that into account. We're not blind to that. But what we're really saying is, let's look into it. I mean, the building has conference, all the conference rooms that you could want to make for community meetings, we can make by knocking down a wall or two. We already meet on the 11th floor, okay? The major expense, I would think, would be putting in a chamber for the commission meetings. That would be a big expense. It has to be factored in. We're not blind to the economic realities. But I don't think we should be blind to the opportunity here. Nobody says we're going to jump into this with, you know, with blinders on. What we're saying is, take a look at it. Take a look at it. You cannot reproduce a 400-car garage on the existing city hall site. You're going to need that parking. We have parking. Yeah, but you don't have enough parking. And you won't have enough parking in the future. You need more parking. That's one of the things that we said in the Infrastructure Task Force report on reimagining city halls. There should be more parking, and it should be free. So there are pluses and minuses. I grant you it's not 100% one way or the other. But look at it. Take a look at it, for goodness sakes. What's wrong with that? I just want to make one more point. You know, there's also a component to this. It's an ethical component. I do not believe that you do business as a city with people, and then all of a sudden you just throw it all out. Like their expenses, their time didn't matter. We had, I guess, six entities respond to a process. And we saw presentations from four of them, and we put those four development teams through a lot, a lot more than most unsolicited proposals would request in a process. In fact, our P3 process almost looked a little bit like an RFP process because we sort of kept upping the ante. We kept throwing more, more requirements to each of the teams. And those four teams did a great job at a lot of time, a lot of expense. We went through a process, and we made a selection. How do you ethically, whether you're in a city government or whether you're in a business, how do you do that? How do you feel comfortable just saying to those people, you know, we're so sorry, but we didn't really mean it? And now we're going to go look at this now. How do you do that? How do you look at yourself in the mirror? How do you conduct yourself as a city? How do you conduct yourself conducting business and expect anyone to ever want to partner with you again or do business with you again if they just think, oh, my God, city of Fort Lauderdale, don't even go near them. It's a bad place. They're ethically bankrupt. How do you say that that's okay? We are not ethically bankrupt. This is a P3 process. You take your chances. They're big boys, you know? They're big boys. Everybody who competes in a P3 process knows what they're getting into. So I do not have your sense of outrage over the process. Really, I do not. I really don't even understand it. But you're entitled. So, okay, you feel that way? That's fine. I don't feel that way. They're big boys. They know what they're getting into. And I think your responsibility is more to the people of Fort Lauderdale than to the developers who participated in the process. That's my end of it. And exactly. And that's why I do not want to spend $100,000 to $200,000 going through appraisals now, going through due diligence on this now. And I know, I know that if we ever thought of purchasing a 25-year-old building, we're asking to go down a rabbit hole of expenses. We're going to pay $86 million, and I bet you we double it with trying to retrofit this building to make it what it needs to be to work for. So you and I are just going to have to disagree on this. Well, and that won't be the first one we disagree on. But if anything, I'm saying we're wasting taxpayer dollars. I'm done, Mayor. Thank you. Marilyn, thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you. And, Cody, you wanted to speak? I'm just going to say I sleep very well ethically at night watching out for the taxpayers and not for developers. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So quickly just wanted to speak about risk transfer. Something was brought up earlier by Commissioner Herbst, and I think it's the one piece we haven't really considered with these two options. So with the P3, we're talking about it like it's just a construction project. You're spending $200 million to get a new building, and you're comparing that to spending $86 million to get an old building. But the piece that the P3 has, which is very important to consider, is that it also comes with a 30-year guarantee of performance, of maintenance standards. An elevator goes down. You deduct that from our payment. You know, a room doesn't have air conditioning. You deduct that from our payment. So it is a guaranteed service. And then even more importantly, at the end of that 30 years, there will be very prescribed handback provisions that we'll negotiate with the city of what the building has to be, you know, what standard it has to meet in 30 years, which is basically the standard that we're building it to now. And so you're not only getting a building right now that's brand new and meets all of your needs, but in 30 years you know that you have a long runway before you even need to think about the next city hall. And I would just ask that in this other consideration, what does the world look like in 30 years with that option? And so, you know, the soundbite of save $200 million sounds great. It's a good headline. But what does that look like if you're not just looking today, you're looking at comparing these two options over 30-plus years? Respectfully, that assumes you're still here 30 years from now. You do understand that if you look at the Dow, there's not one company in the Dow that was original to the Dow, right? Even GE is no longer in the Dow. So remember, guarantees are only good as the company that stands behind them, and construction is notorious for going out of business. So, again, I pray to God you're still here 30 years from now backing that up. But unless you're going to put a bond in place for the next 30 years, which I know you're not because it's prohibitively expensive, it's a promise, and promises are only good as the circumstances that allow you to make good on them. Until death do us part. Quickly, first of all. Back to that marriage analogy again. All right. We're done? Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. So, Mayor, if I could. So I think this great discussion further highlights why we have a great option in front of us. The Tower 101 is offering to provide financial support to do an analysis here. We're hearing some pros and cons to either side. And I say, fantastic. Let's continue on towards our interim agreement with the developer. There's nothing that needs to stop that. Continue the great work city staff has been doing. In a parallel path while we're doing that, before the interim agreement is signed, which won't be signed until April and we will not be, you know, burdened or accountable for reimbursement until the interim agreement is signed. Let's take 30 days concurrently to do a low-cost analysis of Tower 101 so that we're having a great discussion up here. And this way we'll have an independent city analysis of the option. And that way we can make even better informed decisions, whatever that decision may be. All right. I'm just going to say this. Whatever the analysis tells us, many of the points that Commissioner Glassman outlined for us speak so vividly in favor of continuing with what we're doing with core construction. And, you know, at the end of the day, I do not want 101 as our city hall. And, you know, we can manufacture prices and, you know, needs and all that stuff. You know, I take very seriously what the infrastructure task force proposed to us. I take very seriously what the community has asked us to create in a new city hall just because a business interest in Fort Lauderdale wants to unload its building and is trying to push this down the throat of our community and use all these tactics to suggest that this is the best thing for the community. I don't buy it. So unless I have, you know, three votes or four votes to support you, you know, Pam, are you still are you still supporting going forward with this measure? Yes, I'm still supporting going forward where I'm making my decision. I believe I said this before the life of the building that we're talking about. Are we looking at in 25 years talking and having the same conversation? And when I started this this opportunity to represent, you know, the term was kicking the can down the road and understanding that there is a building that's at 80 million. But again, how much are we going to invest in the building to bring it up to a level? And can we even meet that benchmark that we're hoping to achieve? So for that reason, I'm I'm still where I was two weeks ago. OK, moving forward in the direction that we have agreed on. All right. Senior manager, those are your instructions. And can we agree that this is the end of this discussion for now, at least for the next month or two? April till April. OK, maybe in April we can revisit this conversation. But can we just not have this conversation anymore? All right. Well, I appreciate all the work you did in and what you presented to the commission today. Thank you for doing that. Thank you. All right. It's five. It's five thirty. Can we do commission and all of our reports after tonight's meeting so that we can break for our dinner and be back? Mayor, I'd like to do the reports in the beginning of the meeting, if we can, because you've held them to the end previously. And sometimes I get it's late. So, yeah, you want to do it after the presentations? Yeah, if we could, that'd be great. OK, no problem. Thank you.