City Commission Conference Meeting and CRA Meeting on 2025-11-04 1:30 PM - Nov 04, 2025

Everybody, is my mic on? Can you elevate the volume? Can we elevate the volume? Is that better? Okay, great. Thank you. So today we're here for the conference meeting for the City Commission of Fort Lauderdale this November 4th, 2025. Thank you all for being here today. So let us begin. We start with communications with the City Commission, the Education Advisory Board. They sent us a communication asking for a partnership between the City and Broward County School District to find a location for a public safety training facility. Not quite sure what that's all about. Would someone from staff like to educate us as to what that means? Sure, Mayor. Our fire department is interested in potentially having a public safety training facility at a school board site. And so I'll turn it over to the advisory committee. Are you Janet? Hi, Janet Galtieri. You want to turn your mic on by pushing the button at the bottom of the speaker. Got it. How are you, Janet? I'm wonderful. How are you guys? I'm good. Mayor, commissioners, I'm Janet Galtieri. I'm chair of the Education Advisory Board. And I'm here to present a report from our board. At our last meeting on October 16th, the Assistant Fire Chief Michael Owens made a presentation to the EAB presenting the need for a facility to house the public safety training center. And as a result of his presentation, a motion was made at the meeting to recommend that the commission support a partnership between the City and Broward County School District to find a location for the public safety training facility. As part of that discussion, all parties considered the impact it would have on current students and families, as well as the broader communities around the campus. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. I thank you for your attention and support. And Assistant Fire Chief Michael Owens is here to answer any questions that you may have about the program. Okay. And where is this exactly, did you say, the facility? Is there a specific place there? We did not ask for a specific facility. We left it open to the many empty facilities that are going to take place with the new re-evaluation of the schools. Okay. And how many square feet do you think such a training facility would require? So we, right now the school board has offered us a Segal School at 424 Southwest 28th Street, just off of 84, just off of State Road 84. It would be a shared campus with Witten Rogers there as well. As far as what our needs would be, that is, that facility, all the buildings that it encompasses is somewhere in the neighborhood of, I think, 20, high 28,000 square feet, something like that. But a lot of that is portable buildings and things that it's not all one huge facility. It's several different buildings. Does that work for us? Yes, sir. We'll make it work. What about the building next to Fire Station? What is it, Commissioner Glassman, the one in Poinsettia Heights, that building that's next to the Fire Station? What's the Fire Station in Poinsettia Heights? Do you remember? Station 29, you mean? Is it Station 29? And the training facility that was built there years ago for the Fire Department? We just abandoned that, Mayor. The Fire Union gave that back to us. The cost of rehabilitation was proving to be excessive. There was leaks. There were air conditioning problems. They had brought in an architect to look at it. I believe it was the original architect of the building was looking to do it. And they eventually all just threw their hands up. A current fire union president brought it back to us, I want to say two months ago, and we canceled the, they gave it back to us. All right. So I don't know what, how cost effective it is to, you know, we don't have any numbers yet, right, with the school board? That's correct. We haven't gotten into what the cost is going to be or what that partnership would look like. Is this something that the police department is eager to investigate? A fire department is eager to investigate? Yes, very eager. We are definitely in need of some sort of facility, some sort of training facility, especially offices and classroom space, along with space to build training props. And there, it would service both the police department as well as the fire department. Okay. So, well, the thing is, obviously, there's going to be build-out costs. So weighing that against the rehabilitation costs of the Station 29 training facility, I'm just, you know, I just want to make sure that we're saving money and, and, and, and ensuring greater efficiencies that we don't otherwise have. Do we have a training facility now? Been here real quick. Yes, Chief. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioner, Stephen Gould, and your fire chief, good afternoon. So I, I just wanted to bring to the attention that, first of all, thank both of you for your outstanding work in bringing this project forward and meeting with the school board to get to this point. Through our accreditations on both police and fire over the years, one of the outstanding things that has routinely been identified is our lack of a facility to adequately train our personnel. With over 470 firefighters and over 700 police officers, one of the key components that we're missing is a facility that we're able to do not only didactic training, but also tactile training, getting them out, getting them in the vehicles, driving around a burn building, things of that nature. For many of years, we've used areas that we've been able to squeeze it in. You know, currently we have a training facility that's located out in the well fields and it's made out of shipping containers that's utilized just in a back corner back there. As the new treatment plant comes on online and, and as various parts of the city, we're, we're looking for that, that joint relationship where we could put police and fire together, teach classes, not only to our firefighters, but also to the community and also get students in the community interested in, and possibly a career in public safety. Um, there's also the opportunity to join in with some of our marine partners that are out there and to do shipboard fire training. Um, so we've identified a lot of, of opportunities that are there and just lacking the one piece of that is the classroom base and the facility to do that in. As Broward County Schools is looking at surplusing some of their, their locations, this would provide us the opportunity to move into a school that already has a facility assessment with it. We already know exactly what we're getting into and what the cost would be associated with it. Uh, right now, uh, the school board has identified what property that they may be interested in, and it would now be up to take it to the next level, uh, to see what exactly that cost would look like. Um, so we're excited, uh, to potentially move forward with that. Okay. Anyone have any questions? Yeah, Mayor, I think this is great. And also, and chief, I don't know if this changes based on our last conversation, but a facility like this, we could also possibly use as, um, a revenue stream to other agencies that are interested in training. Could that, is that still, could that work here as well? So most definitely, uh, as briefly mentioned there, we've been in contact with some of the marine training facilities in the area, uh, to do shipboard firefighting classes, which are required on an annual basis. There's also the opportunity for classes like CPR, uh, hands-only CPR, stop the bleed classes, things like that, that I feel we'd really be able to elevate, uh, what we're offering to our community. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Um, you said that this was one of the, um, identified items through accreditation that we do not have currently as law enforcement. So this would be, I'm hearing this as a benefit if we were able to identify a location for our training where it's spelled out. It's no, it's not like we're using space that's not connected with, um, a facility all in one place. Yes, ma'am. You, you're correct. Um, so this would combine both police and fire into one centralized training location and allow us the opportunity to utilize those resources. Uh, Chief Schultz, I can have him come up and talk about what they're currently utilizing for training. Uh, we're currently using the emergency operations center, uh, as well as mentioned that we use, uh, conics shipping containers that have been put together and we have those out at the well field currently. So this would allow us to move all of that into, uh, into one centralized location. Our, our offices for training are currently out of the FXC building. Uh, so all of our training officers that are in that building would all be brought into the centralized location. And just to clarify, this would not hinder our status when it comes to accreditation, but it's a note that we receive when we're going through the process. So it's something that could be helpful and advantageous, but it would not limit us from continuing to be accredited. Absolutely. So I thought that the, the new police station was going to have a training facility. Why would the police department be partnering you with you in this endeavor? Good afternoon, mayor and commission. Good question. Chief of police. Very good question. Um, yes, we have training portions of the new building, uh, primarily classrooms and the largest addition will be our, uh, firearms range, but, uh, we still have needs for, uh, emergency vehicle driving training, which we currently have to rent the track at Broward County College, uh, community college. I'm sorry, college. And we also have, um, uh, some field force training, some quick response training. We need large response, uh, large areas, large open fields for that. So there's a lot of outdoor training that we won't have the facilities at the station to do. It takes, uh, expansive area. And then also, um, indoor training during inclement weather, uh, the ability to put those trainings underneath a large roof would be, uh, extremely helpful for us, uh, as we annually train and sometimes monthly train these officers. Okay. All right. Any questions of, uh, the chief, either chief, neither chief. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. So what are next steps forward than, uh, city manager? We would continue conversations with the school board. And recently I had a conversation with the superintendent along these lines, as well as with other partnerships that we have in the city. So we just want to make sure that we have informed the commission. And I think we've briefed all of you on this potential opportunity. At first it was the Pine Ridge location, but it has since transitioned to the Segal location. And that's where the school board is most amenable to this partnership. So we will come back to the commission with additional details, particularly should there be a fiscal impact to the city. Okay. Very good. All right. Thank you. And thank you, Janet. Where are you there? Thank you so much. And thank you for all your work on the education advisory board. We appreciate it. Um, next comes up, uh, business one prospect lake clean water center update. Who will be talking about that? Uh, thank you, mayor, vice mayor, city commissioner, Albert Carbham, the utility service director. I'm just here to introduce, uh, Joe Patron, uh, one of the managers of the prospect lake, uh, water treatment plan. And let me jump in and say, welcome back, Albert. Thank you, Albert. It's only been 20 years, but that's okay. No one's counting. That's how long I've known Albert. Is this worth doing it? Click it forward. Good afternoon, everyone. Glad to be back. Uh, last time I was here, it was about June of this year to give an update. So I'm glad to be back to give another update. Lots of happened in the last, uh, five months as we, uh, head into the next, uh, phase of the project. Uh, so this update is a brief update, uh, really some good pictures. You know, we, we fly a drone every week. So lots of pictures for me to choose from when, when I wanted to share. So I wanted to share some pictures that, uh, I can kind of show kind of where the water's coming in. So this picture is a great picture. This is essentially where the water comes in from the wellfield. That very large, uh, 54 inch pipe that you see there, uh, is where the water comes in from the wellfield before we begin to treat it. Uh, so the picture, the building to the right is the admin building. It's nearing completion, uh, and getting ready for, uh, habitation soon, uh, from, from the team. The big building right in front is the nano filtration building. So up to now, you've been seeing the, the nano, uh, membranes themselves that the, the actual, uh, vessels, uh, that were uncovered. So now we put the building on top. And so this is the cat five building that will protect, uh, the, the filter, uh, membrane vessels, uh, from any potential weather in the future. This is the great site from a great picture from up above. Uh, you could see that the site really starting to, to, to come together. Uh, all of the major equipment is on site already, and we're really starting to enter, uh, the next phase, which is, um, connecting everything together. So I, this is just another great picture from, from afar of the site. Um, this next picture, this is kind of where I wanted to, to share the, the, even though all the major equipment's on site, that the very detailed work is, uh, beginning to start, which is basically connecting all of the equipment together. So this is a great aerial photo from above of the pre-treatment, uh, filters, but all of that has to get connected with piping above ground, uh, uh, piping. So that's what, where, where a lot of the work begins to, to take place now. And the upcoming activities, because of this, the onsite craft worker has, has risen to about 200 workers on site. So we're essentially at our peak in construction as we begin to put everything together, uh, once everything has arrived. Uh, just a quick update on the, the second injection wall, because the first injection well is completed. Uh, the second injection will be completed in December. So come January, we'll be, we'll have two fully functioning injection wells, uh, ready for, uh, full commissioning. Uh, like I said earlier, the upcoming administration building is near completion. There's already furniture in there. We're working on a temporary, uh, CO, uh, for the building. So we can start working the control rooms in there and that's where we'll start commissioning activities from there when it's ready. The next major phase, which is really what I wanted to, to, to bring to light is, is the startup and commissioning. Our, our goal, the big milestone is this month, we will be introducing raw water from the wellfield into the facility for the first time. As we begin to flush the facility through and begin to start testing system by system, uh, systematically throughout, uh, the entire site over the next, uh, seven to eight months, uh, great news. The first set of, uh, city employees set to arrive in January, 20, 26, there'll be 10 of them. Uh, six have already been, uh, uh, named and four are on the, are actually, uh, working through interviews to be hired by the city. So that's great news there. Um, the next set after that comes in May. So it'll be 10 in, in, in January, another 10 in May and so forth. Just the last two points I wanted to, to show the picture on the bottom right is, is our, is our OCCT pilot, uh, that the full pilot is going to start in January, 20, 26. What you see there is, is we're essentially created a small, uh, miniaturized distribution system for city of Fort Lauderdale. And what we're doing is we're, we're conditioning new pipes to mimic the, the pipes that are in the distribution system now. So we can analyze how the new water from the new facility will impact those, those pipes. We're doing that on behalf of the city and the city will be the beneficiary of all of that reporting. The last step is the PFAS pilot that arrives, uh, later on this month. And that pilot will full, fully begin to operate in December of 2025. And of course, this is the pilot that's going to understand and analyze how this new facility will handle the PFAS coming from the well to, to make sure that we are ready for 2031. Well, we'll be ready before 2031, right? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Any questions? Um, I have a couple of questions, but go ahead, Ben. Uh, sure. Thanks, Mayor. DeWayne, thank you, Joe, for your work on this. DeWayne, how are you doing on some of the items we were working on, the plotting issue and so forth, um, progression? We're, we're moving along really well. Uh, we've, uh, met with council, uh, worked down, uh, a number of the issues. We have, you know, one issue probably outstanding that we're going to work through with them. Okay. Is that still a cost of the? Yes. Okay. Um, great. Uh, Joe, remind me, maybe you mentioned this. I'm just not seeing it, the coming online fully September, 2026. Great. Okay. Anything hindering? Absolutely not. All looking good on time on schedule. Great. And give us again, just for folks who maybe haven't been paying attention, just again, bottom line and, um, millions of gallons per day. And just give us the, what this is going to be doing. It's, it's, it's, it's of course a state of the art, 50 million gallon per day facility, um, that will provide, uh, the residents of Fort Lauderdale and it's, and it's surrounding, uh, communities, um, that the current utility serves now. So it really is a state of the art, um, using the latest and greatest technology. Great. Thanks, Mayor. Are the enabling works in place yet? Yes, we are working through, uh, so the, the biggest one, the one that everyone kind of, uh, uh, looks to is the 48 inch pipe connecting this facility to the existing distribution system. And that is complete. The city has done a great job managing that, uh, with its partner Mancini and Sons to execute that. And that's, uh, the reports that I'm getting in there and the, the drawings that I've received indicated is complete. So that's a, that's a major enabling works, you know, without that, obviously we can't get the water to the, to the residents and that's complete. That's why I'm asking the questions. Okay. All right. Any else, anyone else have any questions? There being none. Well, thank you so much. Keep up the good work. Thank you. Yes, sir. Moving on to the Fort Lauderdale police department headquarters update phase two and construction status. Who will be talking to that? Anthony Fajardo, development services director. Good afternoon. Uh, mayor stepped out. Good afternoon, vice mayor and commission, Anthony Fajardo, development services director. Uh, just wanted to give you a brief update on the police department headquarters. I didn't put together a PowerPoint presentation based on the feedback I received from the last meeting, but just to let you know, um, what's in the cam is still accurate. The project overall is 90% complete right now. We are putting in furniture in the building. Um, they're installing the final finishes on the, on, they're all installed on floors three and two, I believe. And one is still under construction. There's a little bit of finishing work that's being done in the phase one area. All of the phase one remediation design and implementation work is complete. So phase one is officially no more work has to be done in that other than closing it out through the end of the process. Phase two, the only things that we have left over are regarding the lateral load issue. This is the testing that's going to the outside engineering firm NV5. We're waiting to hear from NV5 on the response on building the model. The, uh, our outside engineer firm WJE has provided feedback on how they would like to see the model constructed. There are multiple models that will be constructed and put under the pressure test to make sure that those connection points that are designed by TT can meet the load requirements for category five hurricane rated building. Um, just to let you know, I also did do a presentation to the ITF. Uh, I think that was in August and I gave a tour to, uh, Mr. Zeltman and Mr. Labrie of the police department headquarters so that they could see the construction work firsthand and report that back to them. Other than that, I don't really have any more updates. We are staying in close contact with AECOM regarding the, uh, proposed amendments to the contract. I did speak to Tim Blair with AECOM this morning. He is, um, him and his counsel are trying to, uh, work with Rhonda still on getting the finer points of that. He asked for some additional information of me this morning. So I'm going to try and get that over to him regarding details of our contracts with WJE and LYE so they can see all the cost breakdowns and how that worked. Uh, so I'll get that to them probably later this week. Other than that, I don't really have much more of an update. Is there any questions or anything that I can answer? Any questions of Mr. Fajardo? Yeah, mayor, if I could go ahead. I just, Anthony, again, just want to just summarize a high level. What are we working towards in terms of what AECOM is going to be responsible for financially? So our request is that they are responsible for a hundred percent of the deflection in phase one and a hundred percent of any of the results of phase two. So that's the, probably the negotiations that's happening between legal counsel. I've not been a party to those discussions, so I would probably rely on Rhonda to give you more, um, details about where they are in those conversations, but that's been our expectation all along. We had that two percent, uh, notation in the contract, so we would like the deflection issue and the phase two issues to be taken out of that, and then we apply the two percent to everything else. Yeah, great. Excellent. And then future monitoring, where are we in that? Because we had talked about the, um, AECOM, uh, providing the cost for that as well. Yeah, they're already doing that. That monitoring has, has started. We've gotten the first two officials, so we had our baseline, and then we had another measurement, and there's been no variance in those, and, and what the model, sorry, what the monitoring is showing in terms of any movement. Great, and we had talked about a, you know, time certain to continue that monitoring being five, ten years. What's the latest discussion on that? They've agreed to that, so they've agreed to do it, I believe, for 15 years. I have to go back and look. Okay. I've been getting that wrong, but they've agreed to what we requested. Great. Okay. So city manager, is that, this is exactly where I think we need to be to remedy what, what happened. Is that your sense, or? I think we're on track. It remains to be seen if we'll get to where we exactly want to be, but I think we're on track. Okay. All right. Yeah, I think the biggest takeaway from the phase two, for the testing, we're very hopeful that it's going to give us results that are positive. If it does, we can stay on track to move into the building, as we had always discussed with this issue, you know, manifesting itself. Yeah. So that'll be towards the end of this year, the beginning of next year, with the entire project finished sometime in June of 2026. So when is move-in date? Right now, it's looking like it's going to be probably in February. February of 2026? Yes. Okay. All right. I've been sharing spring 2026. Yes. I always have to put a year to that because I've learned from previous mistakes by assuming that that if the, it's a certain year, it isn't always a certain year. Okay. Thank you so much, Anthony. You're welcome. Thank you, Anthony. Okay. Is Joseph Padron here? All right. Moving on to business three, we have the International Swimming Hall of Fame projects update. And before we conclude, there'll be two people who have signed up to speak, Mary Pelequin and Carla Albano. Susan Grant. Yes. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Commission, Susan Grant with the City Manager's Office. Today, we're going to have speakers from Hall of Fame partners and also PFM, who we've contracted with to do a financial analysis of some updated numbers. But before they come up, I wanted to just provide a little update or a background so everyone's on the same page. If you remember, the project was approved in September of 2023. And the way the project is structured is that the city leases the property at the Swimming Hall of Fame site to Hall of Fame partners. Hall of Fame partners would construct improvements in phases and that those improvements would be leased back to the city, who would sublease that to tenants. The revenues from those tenants, as well as other revenue sources, are designed to offset the master lease payment that we would have to make to Hall of Fame partners. As I mentioned, the project was designed to happen in phases and we did close on phase one in October of last year. Phase one includes a seawall around the entire peninsula, as well as the city's ocean rescue building. And under that master lease, the city is obligated in this particular phase to about $2.8 million a year to pay for those improvements. Future phases are subject to city approval, and some of those will be presented today by Hall of Fame partners. Given that they are proposing some changes in the financial part of the contract, the city did reengage PFM to do an additional financial analysis. And if you remember, PFM also did the analysis in August of 2023 prior to the project being approved. So after Hall of Fame partners, Mario Caprini and his team present and PFM, we have Kevin Plenzner from PFM. Staff will come back and provide some additional observations and then look forward to the city commission's feedback on next steps. So with that, I will welcome Hall of Fame partners to the dais. Thank you. And I'll see you at the end. Mayor, vice mayor, commission, city officials, new city manager. It's good to be here. We're happy to be presenting the update of the project. So we have some visuals, but today we really want to focus on the financial aspect of this. And just to set the tone, normally a P3, the way most people understand them is it's government subsidizing what they need. And usually the private sector benefits a lot. Our approach is complete opposite. Our approach is the government needs a facility. Let's use the private sector to pay for it and try to make the goal of making it a net zero for the city. That's been our goal from day one. I reiterate that because I'm going to walk you through all the steps of how we got this done today. So can we go to the next slide? Oh, I have to do it. Sorry. All right. We're going to talk today about the project background, the P3 project structure that we already have approved and signed off on closing phase one, the evolution of the project, the project financials, and then the phase two closing next steps. This is the new look that we're proposing. As it was mentioned before, there are new pieces that we added to the puzzle here, and part of which is creating shade, part of which is a new promenade, and we're going to go into details. This is the original project. And as you know, you have completed the base flack, you have completed the south building, and now we are in phase one under construction of this third phase of the project. The project structure quickly. Remember, as Susan has mentioned, the city of Fort Lauderdale, it involves Hall of Fame partners, all the companies mentioned here. Here are all the roles that each company plays. The company plays, okay? This is how the financial structure is done. There's a ground lease, there's a master facilities lease, and there are subleases all through ISHOF, because there is a deed restriction. ISHOF must be here. So all the subtenants are of ISHOF. So ISHOF, in order to protect their 501c3, is keeping the museum under ISHOF, Inc., and all the non-museum operations that don't relate to the non-profit are all created in their only owned subsidiary called ISHOF Peninsula LLC. And all the subleases of every tenant go under there. These were the dates of each occurrence. So you have it all here documented. We've been at this quite a while. This is the project structure for the subleases and the dates. These are the subleases that are going to be happening. And what we're going to be proposing is still that 100% of the lease space revenue, so all the leases that are signed by the tenants, all go to the city 100%. Originally, our agreement is signed and closed that 2 million, the next 2 million of revenue goes to the city. And after that, the remaining gets split with ISHOF 50-50. Because of the cost increases, we sat and negotiated with Susan that a more equitable approach and more favorable to the city would be to increase the cap to 4.75 million that the city would get exclusive payment for before any splits happen after that. The construction update, I'm going to let our partners at Intel Phelps give that quick update. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Commission. I wanted to give you guys just really an update overall on the first phase of construction. That is inclusive of the new Ocean Rescue Headquarters building that the fire rescue team will be able to use for the lifeguards, as well as a seawall improvement. So if you can go to the next slide. You can see here on the right photo, really some progress being made coming out of the ground and going vertical on the Ocean Rescue Building. We have completed the foundations. We have completed that first lift of the structure. And right now we are preparing for our second level deck placement. I believe we are scheduled for that tomorrow. And then here shortly, you'll start to see that second vertical lift and the remainder of that floor level going vertical on the Ocean Rescue Building. Currently anticipating a completion of these improvements by the end of June. So if you can go to the next slide, I'll give you a little bit of update on the seawall. For the seawall, we really try to coordinate with the public as far as some of the impacts. I know the last time we met here at Commission, there was some concern with the spring break duration, as well as just the public interface with this. And this is one thing that we've spent a lot of time to kind of find the best solution overall. Now that the boat show has wrapped up and they're starting to demobilize, we are focused on trying to get going on the seawall improvements for this property. The existing seawall is about 60 years old, so definitely due for some updates and some upgrades. So we'll be starting that here in the next couple weeks. The goal is to wrap that up here in June as well. If you go back one more slide, I did want to just give a little bit of notice and mention to the fact that we have pursued the fine grant for this improvement being the seawall. This is something that we've been working with the Florida Inland Navigation District on. It's really an effort of an application the city has done. So this is one thing that has gotten approved for this particular grant for these improvements. On the phase two updates, we are really underway on the design. This is one component that we are in on DRC for. I believe we are scheduled to do a planning and zoning board meeting this month and I think it's November 19th. So we'll be going to that agenda meeting and then I think the goal right now is to really go get an approval on that DRC in the December commission meeting. So that's currently our target. We've been working with DSD and the building department collectively on this. Things are going well. We're on track and then just starting to get ahead of some of the master building permit efforts. Coordination-wise, we've been doing what we call bi-weekly meetings with the aquatic staff as well as the coaches on site. This is just really allowing us to communicate what construction is going on, what impacts there are to the aquatic center and then for us to kind of stay in the loop on what events they've got taking place and then just really the upcoming events that are in the area. From a community outreach perspective, we've done several meetings not just with the aquatic staff and the coaches but also with the Venetians, the Central Beach Alliance and some of the local residents. So we've been doing multiple meetings more on an as-needed basis but just to keep everybody in the loop of what's changing on this development as well as some of the construction that's coming their way. All right and then really just to break down phasing of this project, for phase one as we've noted before, this is really the ocean rescue building that you can see located behind the dive tower as well as the improvements to the existing seawall. So this work is underway. This is part of the phase one effort that we closed on last year. The second phase is really the focus of the new west building which will include an aquarium, it'll include parking decks, it'll include the ice shop museum as well as some exhibit space in a rooftop restaurant and also the public promenade that will surround that that building on the west end of the property. Here you can kind of see the evolution of this design. A lot of this is based on input from the public with the overall height, you know, some of the views are concerned as well as just noise and lights. So we've made a lot of accommodations in the design to really incorporate some of the feedback that we've heard and what you see on the far right is where we are at currently and what's been the latest submitted to DRC. Elevation-wise, you know, we started much higher back in the day when we were doing some of the design initial concepts. A lot of the programming has been kind of accommodated around this when the aquarium was added and then since then there's really just a lot of public input to help really bring down that height and try to maintain as much of the views as we can while still providing the components that have been agreed upon by the agreement. And overall as you can see this is really just kind of laying out some of the stats of the height, the square footage, the far right column is really where we're currently at today on this proposed west building. So that's about 85 feet tall. This podium is at 65 feet, which is in accordance with the code. These are the components that we've mentioned are in there and there's a total of 180 parking spots in the two decks. These are just some renderings as Mara is going to click through that you can kind of see the look and feel of the overall west building, trying to find some cohesiveness in the design as well as some of the existing improvements to help tie this all together. And this is really what that welcome entrance will be like to that west building under the portica share. This will be located on the north road so you know there's been a lot of discussions as we've been moving from phase one to phase two on well what does the experience feel like showing up to the property and how does the vehicular experience feel like with the pedestrian. Our goal is to try to separate that more from a life safety perspective so that is part of the updated slides you'll see here shortly. Phase three is really some of the bigger updates that we're here to present on today as well as the remainder of the project. So phase three will be inclusive of the east building, the dive grandstand, the dryland training, the teaching pool, and the public promenade. Inclusive of this is just because we're aware of it and meeting with the aquatic staff on a regular basis. We know how important some of these aquatic components are so these are a priority for our design team right now. And as you can see here what was initially contemplated on the east building was really knocking down that existing east building that was built back in the 80s. As we've been working with FDOT and some of the permitting agencies we realized that there's some land that would need to be dedicated and therefore there would be an opportunity to lose some of the leasable space. So now we're just reconceptualizing what that is and starting to find the most efficient use so that we can get the most revenue back to the city. This is just some stats summarizing some of those changes. Overall keeping the existing building still have a good chunk of leasable space and the goal is to really make this more of a retail and restaurant feel on that east building as well as incorporating some aquatic improvements beneath it. This is a little bit of the east building look and feel. If you're on the east building and you're looking on the aquatic center towards the west building this would be that viewpoint here. And then this would be part of that terrace on that east building looking across the promenade towards the ocean on the opposite direction. This is part of the improvements for the aquatic center that we're working on incorporating being the teaching pool which is important to the aquatic center as it is to Aisha for the Every Child to Swimmer program. And then some of the dry land training or some of the components we're starting to evaluate as well and how to work that into this improvements. The grandstands is a bigger part of what the aquatic center does not have today for the dive pool. So these are some of the conceptual ideas we're considering on the north building as well as to the west. I'm trying to look at that from an aspect of entertainment but also competitive because that is part of what is the need right now for the aquatic center dive program. And this is really what the look and feel of that elevated promenade would be. So this is really to really put an elevated walkable surface above the north parking lot. As it stands today there's a lot of folks that tend to walk in there by nature. Everybody goes the easiest route but really trying to separate that from a life safety perspective to make it compatible for the overall property and the different uses. This is really just a west view if you're on that elevated promenade. There will be some kiosks up there to allow for some food and beverages as well as some retail. And these are just some additional photos to kind of give you a feel of what we're pushing for in this design. You can keep going. And so our goal is to really tie this all together so that it is easy to get through. We've considered some wayfinding and just really easy access for the public to these improvements and these properties for all to use. This is really our connection from the west buildings to some of the improvements we're proposing with phase three really being that elevated promenade. And then the last phase being phase four is really to capture the public water dock which will have access for public vessels for pickup and drop off as well as the water taxi dock as well as some of the shading that we've started to discuss with the aquatic team and staff that's going to be needed just because there's lots of events that take place on this property. There's about 1500 seats on that that stand and they could definitely use some shade here in Florida. And these are just some visuals of what we're starting to anticipate and design for the public water dock as well as for the shading aspect of the the grandstands. Can you back up? Go back. Is that covering sun deflective or just decorative? Sun deflective. So what is the material that you're using to deflect the sun? So there's a there's multiple options that we're going through right now with several manufacturers. I think the goal is to try to make sure we're one not affecting sports lighting that's currently on site but we want to make sure that it's reflecting the sun as well because as it stands today a lot of that sun direction is more on the south so we've got a little bit of a challenge on how we go capture that to protect the shading on those seeds. Okay. Still in design. This is some early conceptual stuff so we're working through some of that. Totally understand. Totally understand. So I'm going to let Mario kind of shift gears a little bit to talk to some of the financials that help support these improvements. There has been a little bit of shift so I'm going to let him have a talk through that now. Thanks Michelle. All right so interesting before I get into the financials. So the economic impact of this project and this was prepared by Business Flair. This is the summary of a report and we are going to provide a full report to the commission. 394 million of economic impact, 3,280 jobs for construction, 319 permanent jobs, a reoccurring yearly 30.2 million dollars of economic impact. Property tax revenue about 34 million. Sales tax revenue about 77 million. That's over a 30-year period. And Broward County sales tax about 13 million. So this sets the tone of why this project is important and why we structured it the way we did. And now I'm going to go a little bit back in time. If you look at the original column of August 2023 with no phasing, we were going to do one big project. And the reason we changed that multiple folds, but one was in order to get all the plans that take forever to get all approved at one time to be able to start, it will probably take three years if you put them all back to back. So we figured we can break it down by piece and let's just keep the same overall project and show the budget broken down by piece to make sure that overall we're still in the ballpark. So when we were selected, we were at 190 million. When we closed phase one, after we showed and demonstrated the actual cost of construction increases and all those other things, then we broke it down into phase zero and one was the closing, was 42 million. Phase two, which is the phase two building that Michelle has shown you is 97 million. And then the phase three, which is the East building and the promenade is 35 million. And the design costs and core TI for all the tenant improvements, because we're not going to start 10 improvements at the beginning is 41 million. So the total that was projected was 217 a year ago. Today, we are at $218 million. So that's really the difference between then and now. So Mario, it's not to interrupt you, but it seems a little difficult for me to digest how a much smaller building is costing the same amount of money. Okay. So would you, would you go into that please? Yes. I'm going to go to, to this slide here. So we have documented 36% of construction costs increase up to 2022, which is when the city wanted a justification for the cost increase, but we all know from 2022 on the construction cost per square foot did go up. Right. But you're, if you go to the previous slide before that, uh, we're talking October, 2024, which is two years later, only a year ago, you're projecting 97 million on phase two, and now it's jumped up to 144 million, which for a much smaller building, and there's, it's clearly not that much of a jump in construction costs and labor. Okay. So if you look at the efficiency, Oh, sorry, mayor. If you could explain that. Yes, of course. So the efficiency of the original building was about 25%. So we build a lot of square footage for very little income stream coming in, because at the time that's the way it was designed. As we were challenged with cost increases and all that, we decided to redesign the building based on community output to lower it. But we increased increased the leasable square footage to reflect what it is today. Um, so that's how we went from 97 to 144. So the size of the building is different. Do you guys want to explain? Yeah, but the size of the building shrunk significantly. Yeah. So how does it, how does it shrink footage? How does it shrink and cost 50% more? I mean, this isn't the police station. No, no, no. Yeah. Um, good afternoon. Help me out here. Uh, I'm Matt Kristolak with Hensel Phelps. Uh, so there, there's a little bit of a combination, uh, mayor, when you look at the construction cost, and then also the, uh, the TI, those are the, what's TI, the tenant improvement, the tenant improvement cost improvements. Okay. And, and again, remember the overall structure of this is to get the waterfall effect is the incentive of the private sector on those leases. What can you explain to the public what the waterfall effect is? Yeah. So some of the revenues that come in, we give a hundred percent of those revenues, the first batch to the city. Then the next batch for the new proposed waterfall is 4.7 million that goes exclusively to the city. And then the next waterfall after that, it, it gets split 50, 50 between the international swimming hall of fame. And you're talking, you're talking about, um, overrides above and beyond the lease payment. Is that what waterfall means? It's all the revenue streams coming in and how they get distributed out to them. Right. But I mean, the city gets all the lease payments, correct? Yes. Right. But then the, but then the, um, the, the, uh, profit override, is that split with the swimming hall of fame and the city? The first 4.75 proposed today is exclusively to the city. And after that, after you get all the lease plus the 4.7, then it's split 50, 50 with the international swimming hall of fame, but it's still okay. But I'm just, I'm not understanding how a building we're just talking about before we even open the door, it's a hundred and it's 50% more, another $50 million. Mayor, I think you're looking at it the wrong way with all due respect. I'm sure I'm looking at it the wrong way. So help me out here. Yes. So you got to look, we're breaking it down. So we're doing certain parts of the building sooner, certain parts later. You got to look at the whole bottom line. It's 217 million versus 218 million. So this is just how we allocated the cost of the different portions of the project. So example, in phase two, we had a lot of construction costs was originally for the, uh, teaching pool and the dry land that was on the second floor and a whole bunch of things. So because of the design, we updated our costs at the bottom line. At the end of the day, you add all of the different phases. We broke them down so that somebody can track how we break down the phases. But at the end, you got to add them all up for there's no making up numbers here. They all add up to 218 million. I know it's a, it's a fifth of the billion dollars that we're being asked to, uh, we're being asked to, uh, you know, guarantee, but I just want to get back to some really basic rudiments, Mario. It's a smaller building, smaller footprint, smaller construction, yet it costs more. It costs the same amount of money. And mayor, let me just, can I jump in just to make sure I'm tracking what you're saying? Cause I, I think I'm understanding what you're saying. So, but just so question, Mario, is where I see the column that says phase one closing and then current proposed. What, is there a square footage differential between those two? Uh, yes. Okay. I don't have them here, but okay. What is that about them here? Okay. But there's some delta. So, so all of the square footages that there's about 10 tabs of, of Excel spreadsheets that summarize to this one page. We have provided that to Susan and her team, and we have provided that to PFM and they validated that these costs were reasonable in line and that we are overall in the same ballpark. If anything, I would mention is Susan didn't bring up to my attention that there was $49 million of tenant improvements that she thought that we could finance on our own. Well, part from day one, ever since we started this, the entire leasing program was based on the landlord providing the tenant build out money up to a certain point. And then the tenants paying additional rent. And that's all reflected inside of every lease that sign or every LOI. And inside these leases, it also says that past a certain point of sales point above and beyond their base rent that they're obligated to pay every month, they have to also do revenue share with the city, which is part of your income stream. Is that in addition to, is that in addition to the, the, the amortization of the tenant improvements, the, this, uh, this shared revenue versus lease, then their shared revenue. And is that including the amortization payment every month for the tenant improvements? So is, is phase one closing, uh, 86 million. Does that not include tenant improvements? No, the only tenant improvements that we have there in phase one is ocean rescue. So we're giving you a full turn key for ocean rescue. So there's $40 million of tenant improvements. No, we have to design in phase one. And when we explained it, we explained that part of, of closing phase one is we had to prepare because this is a one big project that was originally supposed to be designed as one, one project to close all at one time. So we closed phase one when the drawings were fully completed in that budget, there's an amount of money to design all of the building of phase two. And in phase three, there's going to be an amount of money to this, to design the building of phase three and four. So all of the, each phase as a pre-development portion of it, and we pay for the tenant improve the design of, of those buildings. Ben, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. Yeah. No, I mean, so I'm looking at PFM's analysis and if I'm seeing this right and Susan, maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but I'm seeing additional tenant improvements, 36.471 million. So maybe that's what you're, maybe that's what the mayor is talking about. Right. Is that, that delta? So that 36 million. Hold on, let me just jump in. So mayor, if I'm understanding you right, but here's what I'm hearing, mayor, is there's a square footage difference between phase one and the current proposed. Correct. Right. And significant, significant square footage. And it sounds like we don't know what that square footage difference is. But you're just looking at a picture. Okay. Well, I just asked and you said you didn't know. I don't have it by heart. Right. We don't know what it is. I provided the report to your team. Okay. We don't, okay. We don't know exactly what it is, but it's significant. And so if I'm hearing you right, mayor, you're saying why just go to the summation. You're saying why is 217 million so close to 218 million when there's a delta in square footage? Is that what I'm understanding? You're right. Okay. But a lot of those costs are allocated in phases three and four. No, I'm looking at the summary. I'm looking at the bottom. Well, that's why it's still 217. Right. Right. Right. Well, construction, he just said went up 36%. Interest rate went up. There's a lot, but I'm one year. Yeah. Well, in one year, it went up. Yeah. So just on the hard cost, and maybe I think the PFM presentation will show you some of those deltas. When we look at just phase one, keep in mind, that's just ocean rescue and the seawall. So there's not necessarily square footage change on that one. We're not questioning that. We're looking at number two. Yes. Phase two. And one of the bigger deltas on that is the tenant improvement. So when we were there in August of 2023, that number was about 8 million. That's one of the bigger ones. And again, I think you'll see that as far as deltas go. And you'll see that on the PFM presentation. Right. That's from 8 million to 36 million. Yeah. So that was one of the bigger deltas and not necessarily tied to square footage. So why are we paying for tenant improvements? You're not. So that... Well, yeah, go ahead. Well, the way it's designed, although again, we can talk about if there are any ways to make changes to that, as Mario alluded to, that there's tenants, they amortize those improvements and it comes back as rent. Yeah. Amortize. Oh yeah. What happens if they go out of business after one year? Okay. Let's talk about that. We're stuck. So let me, let me go back to, to, uh, to the budgets, right? So each tenant is given an allocation for the base rent. Then after that, they pay additional rent for any improvements above and beyond that at a profit center for the city. So there's, they're paying at least 1% more on the cost of money, uh, to amortize that risk. So let's go back to what happens if an apocalypse, the entire building is empty. First of all, is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. It's like saying the most prestigious, highest demand piece of real estate in Fort Lauderdale is going to be completely empty for some reason I can't even think of. Well, I'll tell you the reason because sometimes businesses don't always make it. And if you're talking about a restaurant, maybe it's not, it's not a destination restaurant and there's not going to be enough business. So with all the millions of dollars we're putting in for tenant improvement and we find out that it's not working, that's a very common, uh, experience that people have. I'm not talking about the aquarium. I think the aquarium is going to be successful. That's a tenant. That's 14 million of, of those tenant improvements are for the aquarium. It's a lot of fish. Nothing, nothing of quality is cheap. So, but, but let me finish. This is important. And you're onto something here that we've addressed and we've considered the risk on it. So when you look at the area here and you say, okay, what if the tenants go out of business? So there are plenty of restaurant operator, as you well know, in Fort Lauderdale, but not all of them make it. So in our selection process, mayor, what we did was we made a list of all the best restaurant operators and then we went way deeper. We looked at their history. So our food and beverage operator, which is supposedly the highest risk, uh, deal on any real estate, right? Is usually the restaurant. They've been in business for 30 years. They have locations in three different States. They've been in the same building, renting in Manhattan, uh, for 30, 28 of those 30 years. They went through recessions. They went through COVID and we all know COVID shut down New York completely. They never defaulted on payments. They never didn't pursue their deals and they never not honor their deals. That was a big factor why we went in there. And then to add another layer of protection, I've asked if I could be a minority investor, why did I want to be a minority investor in these deals? Very simply to have a look on the inside. Most real estate deals are reactive. The tenant stops paying rent. Then they get an eviction notice. Then the legal battle starts the way we have it in our leases. They have minimum, minimum criteria to, to live up to. And if they don't, there's no legal battle. We step in and bring in the next operator. And that gives me the ability to see everything on the inside and gives me all the legal protection as a minority investor. So if, if you think that, and I fully disclose that when we closed, I think that is the most appropriate thing that I can do to help mitigate the risk, which is probably one of the highest factors of concern from the commission, rightfully so. But I'm telling you, those are all tools that we put in place to help mitigate those risks. So are all these partners willing to sign personally? Should there be a default on the, uh, they all sign corporately and their corporations are 30 years old with deep pockets. We have financials sign personally. Well, I didn't ask that. I don't think that's appropriate. You don't think it's appropriate? No. Let me tell you something. I've written about a hundred commercial leases in my practice over the years and I get a personal guarantee on every single lease. Okay. So to say it's not appropriate, corporations find ways to file bankruptcy and, and, and, and avoid, uh, those kinds of obligations every day of the week. Mayor, you would have to agree that it depends on the financial strength of the corporation. Hey, they change all the time. So you think that Bill Gates signs the, uh, personally on the leases of the building? Is, is, is his company going to be a tenant here? No, no. Don't use him as an example. But if he was, hold on Trump, Trump signed personal guarantees. Look where that got it. My point is well taken. Thank you. So anyways, I believe that we did a great job mitigating the risk. We're bringing now a net positive result. So when you did the parking garage on Las Olas, you had no tenants. You knew that by doing so it would provoke economic impact. You would knew that it was going to bring additional developments, which it did. You have the, the, the, the new mega yacht center, you have the restaurants and we all know through the history of Fort Lauderdale, there's never been anywhere on these restaurants or bars or anything like that, or aquarium that's been a hundred percent vacant forever. Right? So this is the highest demand place in a place where you get 15 million visitors a year. I think the risk, um, here's my concern, Mario, and you and I talked about this yesterday is the city, the master lease payment requires 13.6 million to be paid to I shop every year, not to I shop, to the lender, to the lender. Yeah. To who Susan, to be paid to hall of fame every year, regardless of correct. Right. So that's a huge mayor. Here's my concern. This is just a huge risk to the city, whether it's fully leased, not fully leased, regardless, we are on the hook for 13 million a year. And that's where this is different in my view that some of our other projects, you know, Mario, you mentioned the, um, the Marina, I'm just not familiar with us being on the hook for 13 million a year. So, and you know, I'm, I'm great with the revenue. If that's how you feel and you feel very strong about great, then let's have, let's adjust that 13 million to have a significant chunk of that based on revenue rather than just non-revenue. As you know, loans, we closed on phase one, the loan is closed. If you wanted to change the terms of a loan, we would have to refinance and repay 30 years of debt of that phase one closing. I don't think that's very, we can look at phase two. So if we look at phase two, then we have to have the ability to put a first mortgage and we'd have to have the ability to finance, uh, these pieces. We've explored that with Susan. We discussed, uh, I'm pointing this way. I lost Susan. So we looked at that in order to get financing, even if it's in the private sector, you will know that they will require a first, uh, uh, position on the property, which you cannot give. Yeah, that doesn't work. It's not constitutional in the state of Florida. You can't have a security interest on, on government property, but there, but there are, there are lenders that lend into the governmental sector without having a security interest on property. It's very common, happens with schools all the time. They do certificates of participation. Yes. So there are ways to get there. Yes. But this is part of, I'm sorry. I apologize for interrupting. You know, basically it's just been, it's based on a covenant to budget and appropriate. I mean, there, there are other ways that we do this, you know, quite frequently. And vice mayor, other ways we do what just so I'm tracking just, just talking about there, there are ways to, to do loans on property that don't have a pledge of an underlying security interest in the property. Okay. In fact, when we were just looking at one stop, that was actually a question about the underlying financing, you know, about how we're going to do that when they don't own the property underneath it. So that, that getting financing on something where you don't own the property is not necessarily an impediment. Great. And then vice mayor, hold on a minute. Sure. And then vice mayor, this idea of some degree of more revenue sharing, does that, is that possible from a, from your view on a financial? So, so, so, and I had a very similar conversation with the folks today. Um, you know, when, when this project was proposed years ago, um, I was uncomfortable with the idea that the city was the guarantor of the debt. Okay. This is, this is, and, uh, I was never a big fan of that. Um, one of the things that made me a little more comfortable with the project as a whole actually was the inclusion of the aquarium, because I thought that's actually going to drive a tremendous amount of foot traffic to, uh, the peninsula. And it actually, I think, makes the Aishoff museum potentially a lot more viable than it has been in the past. I think that combo ticket concept that they were talking about, um, makes Aishoff really a more attractive position. So I think, I, I think it gives me a little bit more comfort that it's going to generate enough revenue to cover the debt service. But, you know, my comments to staff today were, I'm sorry, to, to the team today, we're, we're very similar with what you've all expressed that, uh, I'm not interested in going back and trying to renegotiate the deal that we already, well, let me, I wish we could, you know, but, you know, that, that, that horse has left the bar. So I'm not trying to do that, but I, I'm not comfortable with the idea that, you know, we put the city further at risk for more debt, um, and, and shoulder more of that obligation. You know, as, as I said to the development team, the whole idea of a P3 is risk transfer. The private sector gets the reward and the private sector should take on the risk. I don't know where that number is. And I said, you know, perhaps we need to be willing to forego some more of that revenue in order for them to be able to go out and finance that debt themselves. And they asked me candidly, they said, you know, what does that number look like to you? And I said, I don't want to negotiate, right? You know, we we've got a great team. Um, I'm happy to let Susan do that and wrestle that to the ground with them. And I think they can come up with that number. Um, right at the end of the day, and I shared this with rich and I share this with, with Mario, I'm just not comfortable putting that, uh, that onus back on the taxpayers for another 30 plus million dollars of potential obligation over the lifetime of the agreement. Um, you know, maybe there's some negotiated number in between, but certainly I don't think it should be the totality of that debt. Yeah, that that's exactly how I feel. And again, you know, it's better than I do, but my concern is just the exposure of risk to the city. And I just feel like 13 million a year is big, a significant exposure. Is that your, my tracking that right? Okay. And then on top of that, and Raquel, you and I touched on this just, and is, I just, I'm interested in finding a better deal for both of us on this of how we can work. And, and I know when Mayor, you and Commissioner Glassman brought this up the other day of just the concerns about the aquatic center performance right now, you, you both shared, you're very concerned about the aquatic center bringing individuals there and events. And I think this will help do that. So I think this is going to be a positive, but we're running a, a $2 million deficit right now at the aquatic center. Raquel, I mean, we're, we're less than that. So our fiscal year 2025 actuals reflect a deficit of 2.16. Oh, it was 2.1. Yeah. So I'm just, that, that's my concern, Mayor, Vice Mayor. Well, it's a tremendous concern. And the problem is the master lease payment went from a maximum of 11 million to almost 14 million, you know, and. But also, Mayor, the, uh, improvements to the community went from 35 million to 53 million. The improvements to the community. Yeah. So we're talking about adding shades and bleachers. If, if you wanted us to stay within the contract that we have, just remember where this started. We closed and at the, you know, pretty much at the closing of the approval from the commission, the condition was added, which was a great, great decision to add the aquarium. But because of the aquarium, we had to scrap all the plans and start over, right? So that costs time and delays and the cost of money and everything else that comes with it. With that, we redesigned it so that we can go from our original plan of having 30,000 people a year to potentially 300,000 people a year. And there came the idea of, we can mix people. There was life safety issues. Then there was the setback of these buildings. So redesigning all of this, and we have an open book with the city. They, we're already working with the auditors to check construction costs, to do everything by the book. We're not, the numbers that we're presenting are today's current numbers. So we are trying to stay within that envelope. But one of the requests that was made to me was make sure that this is cashflow positive, contrary to the first closing, where the city exposure could have been minus 3.5 or 3.9 million. I'm doing this from memory. Well, Mary, the only thing I'll say to that is two things. I would never have supported that deal in its initial construction. And secondly, I would never have supported this deal without the inclusion of the aquarium because the only way this project makes sense to me is with the aquarium. That peninsula, with all due respect to Aishoff, nobody wants to look at Johnny Weissmuller's jockstrap anymore. Okay. Point well taken. That day is coming and gone. Speak for yourself. Yeah. So you'd be surprised. So let's, let's talk about. All right. Nobody under 60. Yeah. So no, but, but, but, and, and, uh, trying to introduce some levity to the conversation, but, but my point, my point is very serious about that, that the only reason that I was, you know, reluctantly supportive of this project in the first place was because I think that the aquarium puts Fort Lauderdale on the map as a unique location in the South Florida market, that, that amenity at that location creates something different down here that I think will attract a huge number of families and give them something else other than the beach. Right. So I think it's, I think it will drive foot traffic to, to that area. And I think really when you incorporate that into everything that's going on over there with the Bahia Mar and the Shirley and the Marina village, I think all of this comes together in a very unique way. I think that's going to be just incredibly positive. So I think it's all great. It all works together, but without that component, I would never have supported this project in the first place. So hold on if I may just finish. So any costs related to the redesign of that project to incorporate that is the only reason this got across the finish line in the first place. Okay. So point well taken. And I'm going to really dig into that point specifically because of the aquarium and rich can testify here to that. And by the way, if rich could just bring more money back from Tallahassee, we can probably close that gap. So, so let's talk about, you know, how creative our team is. So we're not looking at taking here. We're looking at always what we can contribute to help the project. We weren't asked to go get grants. We did that on our own. We worked it in concert with Susan and everybody else and said, we believe that we can go get this. And then the team came together and we did it and we got the first 4.2 million approved. And hopefully the promenade is 50% eligible of the cost for that. But let's go back to the aquarium. The way we had it and we incorporated the aquarium and I agree it was a great decision, but that took a redesign of, of the layout because the aquarium did not fit on the footprint of 10,000 feet that we had on, on the floor one of the original building. It's 20,000 feet. So in order to do that, and then you were told by the experts who run aquariums, who've developed tons of aquariums that we're going to bring in a minimum of 300,000 people a year. That's a whole queuing. That's a security. That's a whole bunch of other things. All that is part of making this project viable. And you know what? We did the study based on the city manager asking us, Hey, I understand you have this vision about the promenade. Forget the promenade. How does it look without the promenade? I said, that's a very good point. We did the renderings and we did the math without the promenade. We're going to be under the 11 cap and you're going to have a five point something million outlay to respect the contract as we have it today. We are going out of our way to make sure that we're looking after the best interests of the city and protecting you. So we will spend a time with the city manager, with Susan and everybody else to demonstrate that the 49 million spent on tenant improvements that are quality people that have never failed in their businesses are the right people to do business with because they are subsidizing the $53 million that we're providing for free to the community. So that stays with the community. That's going to enable Laura to have nicer, better paying events to come to, to FLAC. I have attended the tier event and it was a great event and I was excited. I was there, I was cheering on Matt's daughters who made the finals and then we had to leave and come back. I'm telling you, I am listening to you. I understand you. We have looked at every possible angle, the least amount of risk for the city. It's higher risk to be under the 11 cap and we don't ask you for anything. We just continue with our project and just do the aquarium, the two floors of parking and, and the iShop museum. The cashflow will be very negative. We need these additional tenant improvements because they are the ones paying the rent. They're the ones paying off the mortgage. The last people you want to go touch or cut or upset is the tenants. Right. But the, their, their monthly nut is pretty high for a new business. So they're not new businesses. They're established businesses that know what they're doing. Established businesses in other locations. So, and I'm looking at your, your, the slide now, net zero, a million one. If my, based on my quick math, it's only like an 8% differential, um, in that it could swing either way. So, you know, it's, it's just a small margin of profit that we're looking at. If it's fully rented and fully operational and, and we're able to still get, um, you know, financial override, you know, from, from profits, we don't even know if they're going to make a profit. If they're, if they're losing money every month, still paying our base rent, we don't get that, uh, that percent override. So, you know, there are all these factors that we, we, as, as people who are supposed to be responsible for the public purse, have to make sure that the risk to the public is, is zero. Well, there's no such thing as zero risk. Well, as close to it as possible. We're not in the business. And that's what we're trying to do. We are not in the business of being in business. No, we are in business of creating jobs, creating tax base, creating opportunities and improving the life of the community. I get it. I listened to you on your, on your, uh, commission meetings and I, and I really appreciate you guys. I don't know how you do it, you know, day in and day out doing this stuff, but I'm telling you, we are, and we will listen to you. We will do a work session and we will do it with no tenants, no tenant improvements. And we're just going to put what you've already approved in phase one and the numbers will speak for themselves. And then we'll see where that takes us. But I'm telling you, uh, I already did that math. I already did that analysis. It's not good. Yeah. I'm not in favor of that approach either. So I agree with you. May I, may I just say a few words, man? Are you the district commissioner? I am. If I may say a few words, it'd be great. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, so first of all, thank you for your work. All of you, the entire team on this have appreciated the work. I've appreciated the communication. Susan, thank you for that. Um, PFM as well. Um, so I agree with a lot of what I've heard today, but I'm, I'm not going to be as nervous as some of my colleagues on this. Um, I feel very confident in the fact that you have these commitments and correct me if I'm wrong for almost all of the tenants. 100% of the tenant space. Um, that to me says right then and there, what an amazing job you've done and how people are responding to have a location on this peninsula. Um, as vice mayor said, this is a holistic approach on that beach area. We're doing amazing things in that stretch from the re-imagining of the humor, uh, to every development along that way. Uh, and then this particular peninsula. So I wanted to address, first of all, the mayor's concern about the increased cost, even though the square footage has decreased. I think a lot of that can easily be explained. If you look at all of the tenant improvements, the square footage and the uses, a lot of that have shifted to phase three and four. So then when you look at phase three and four mayor, you see the incredible decrease there, which compensates for the incredible increase. Can we go back to that slide? Can I just finish? And then you can go back to the question. I just want to see the slide. Oh, there you go. So that's the difference here. The difference is the fact that again, tenant improvements, square footage uses have shifted to phases three and four that originally were in phase two. So it makes sense. That's why you see those dramatic decreases on phase three and four. And then the overall total is only about a less than a million. Correct. And that can easily be explained by increasing construction costs. It was verified by PFM. Yes. And I want to add something else. When this discussion started and we did come to a comprehensive agreement and developers agreement, we signed off on all of that. So all of those terms have been in place. But then after that, I want to just refresh everyone's memory. We heard a lot, a lot of communication from the swim community and the diving community claiming that for four years they were unaware of what was going on. So we reopened the conversation. You guys went into a lot of meetings with all of these people. And all of that has resulted in a dramatic, a dramatic reimagining of this peninsula. That's not cheap. That doesn't come without a cost. That is an incredible almost about face in readjusting to what you heard from the swim community and the dive community. That feedback was taken very seriously. And you've incorporated all of those changes. And you've done it in a way that I think not only makes the swim community and dive community more pleased with this project, but you've done it in a way that also adds things like that promenade, adds things like the other aesthetic improvements, adds things like the shade structure. We can't go back to the original because I think what we're looking at now is an incredibly good plan for this. Remember, this is also a site that has incredible site constraints. Incredible constraints. I think the way you've navigated those constraints really shows an increased efficiency. And I'm really very pleased. Susan sent us a list of the tenant mix. It's a really good tenant mix. So I would say to my colleagues that I understand. I understand the cost that's in front of us. I understand the risk. Of course, there's risk. But again, as the vice mayor and others have said, that aquarium is a game changer for this site. And I do believe that we're going to be fine. And I want my one last point. At the end of 30 years, who do you think owns all of this? The city of Fort Lauderdale owns all of this, all of these improvements, all of this investment. And not only that, but we're getting revenue along the way. Can you tell me of another P3 where you get revenue along the way and you own everything at the very end? Does that happen typically in a P3? No. And we have shown that real estate values go up about, they double about every 10 years. If you discount 25% in 30 years, it'll need a renovation. The city's netting $400 million of new value that didn't cost the city anything. Correct. So I don't know, you know, am I held to an impossible standard? I mean, this has been the tone of this meeting, of this project since day one, you know, the theme song of Mission Impossible. It's not a Mission Impossible. We have done the impossible here. Honest to God, we got the tenants. Which phase is the East Building? Is it three or four? East Building, three. Three. So the renovation is still going to cost $25 million. And what is four again? That will drop from $41 million to $5 million. What's in four? The dock. The dock and the shade structure over the grandstand. And that was $40 million originally? Are you sure? They're not apples to apples, Mayor. They're not apples to apples. I didn't think so. The project in phase one, when we had 2024, the plans, if you put them side by side, they don't even look the same. And a lot of the phase four previously as of last year had included some of the tenant improvements. Now, because that's part of phase two, we're trying to keep that in line with applicable phases taking place. So it's really just more of the phasing and the scheduling that had been recontemplated. So it's really a lot of that $34 million you see in phase four for the construction and TI had included some level of tenant improvements. That's now shifted back to phase two. So there's been a little bit of a reallocation, but there's also an increase. And so I think when we shift gears and allow PFM to kind of go through their study, you'll kind of notice some of the offset of the revenue that's going to help compensate for that. So it would have been helpful to us had some of that detail been explained, because this is very, very, your, your columns here are not matching apples to apples. And that's, what's confusing to us. Understood. That's correct. And it made it look completely different than what you've just explained to us today. So when you first see it, it raises the question of how we could, you know, again, anticipate less square footage, but the same amount of money. It didn't make any sense. Fair comment. All right. Susan, tell us in the final analysis, what are you recommending to the city? So Mayor, I think it would be helpful to have PFM go through some of their presentation. You'll be able to see kind of the flow of that waterfall that we've been talking about, as well as they ran several scenarios that I think it'll be helpful to see that. And then I will come back up and talk to you about that. So is that all right for us to bring up? And I'd like to see that too. Yeah, I'd like to see that too. Because, you know, Mayor and my colleagues up here, I think one of the things that's important about this, when we talk about the revenue, you know, there's some sensitivity analysis to this revenue projections. If the revenue targets are not met, then the city has to make up the shortfall. If we have a Goldilocks scenario and everything works out well, then we could actually make some money on this. So it really depends on how successful this project is over the entire year 30 life of the project. So if we don't meet all of our targets over the lifetime of the project, we could be, you know, on the hook for writing a check. If the project is successful throughout its entire life, then we could actually make money. So I think that's the important thing to recognize. We might make money, we might lose money on this. We are truly a partner in this in that respect, that we share in a little bit of the upside and potentially a lot of the downside. You just killed your argument. But no, I think that's, but I do think it's important when we talk about 14 million, that that 14 million dollars is going to go primarily to debt service. It's not going to come to the revenue as general fund revenue or anything else. Primarily most of that is going to go to debt service. Well, most of it again, and I think PFM will kind of expound on that, if you will. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Please continue. Yes. Good afternoon. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commission, appreciate the time. For the record, Kevin Plensler, PFM. In the interest of brevity, I'm going to just touch on a handful of slides. Could you tell us what PFM does? Yes. PFM, PFM Financial Advisors is a municipal advisor to cities and counties. So our main goal is ultimately providing, you know, municipal advice in terms of typically, you know, you'll see some of our colleagues, Sergio. I'm sure you've seen Sergio. We do, we assist in bond structurings and, you know, financial advice for local government. And on whose behalf are you serving as a consultant? The cities, the local government. Okay. Just want to straighten that up. That's correct. Okay. Please proceed. Sure. So I think we've been focusing on one element here of costs. So this is a chart that we developed here. This is slide five of our presentation that kind of breaks down the differences in terms of, and we were really comparing from our analysis. We were looking at 2023 compared to 25 because at the time of our study, we didn't have the 2024 close data. So from our analysis, we were kind of looking at an understanding what were the differences in costs from, you know, that period of time. So what we did is we did a quick analysis and looked at, you know, escalation and construction costs from 20, basically 2022 to 23, all the way to 25 and looked at that Delta. And, you know, over that period of time, construction costs increased, you know, pretty dramatically. And then we compared it to the other estimates here. You can see there's an increase of about 14.9%. You can kind of see the breakdown of the various elements and changes as our best apples to apples, as we kind of looked at them. And you're correct, Vice Mayor, that there is this change in square footage. I think the rough numbers was there's approximately, you know, it's because we don't, we're not engineers on our part, but from just a total square footage, there's about 100,000 square feet, less square feet, give or take. But what we don't know is kind of where those dollars had to be allocated because at the time you didn't have a raised promenade either in the first scenario, how much that cost was, et cetera. So we didn't have a breakdown of specific, you know, all the elements there, but ultimately just wanted to, you know, create a comparative here. So that's what we've done on this slide. And you can kind of see the various Deltas. It seems that the most significant Delta is the tenant improvement of the aquarium, correct? That's correct. So there's $28 million difference, and we're basically building the aquarium, and then they're financing the building of the aquarium, and they're going to pay us back through revenue generated. Is that the concept? That's the concept, correct. Okay. And then one other element that we wanted to touch on as well was looking at the current market. You can see kind of the real, you know, comparative numbers here is if you look at the information via CoStar, looking at lease rates in the one mile radius, you'll see it's about $83 a square foot. The numbers that are being provided to us per Hall of Fame partners is about $85. So they're right in line with the market overall. So there was comfort there that the retail lease numbers that were being provided. You can see there's, you know, post-COVID, COVID, pre-COVID, you see a pretty big, you know, volatility in the overall growth rates kind of bouncing around in the market, just as the market kind of came back into equilibrium. And it looks like we've kind of stabilized here over the last year and a half as kind of the annual growth rates have started to come down to something more normalized going forward. But we wanted to test those as well, just to make sure that they were generally in line with the market that we were kind of looking at. So that was consistent as well. And I think one other slide I wanted to touch on was our slide 10 here. And this was kind of getting back to, you know, as it was mentioned, transfer of risk, right? And understanding the various scenarios we ran. So you can see in the very first column, the 2023 numbers that were provided and looking at, you know, the total city revenue, the lease payment, the Delta, and then we have the various scenarios going forward. We have the new 2025 base case, which shows the increased city's preferred return and looking at how that math works and what the net would be assuming a master lease payment of around 13.6 million. And then we ran a series of scenarios trying to understand where is the risk in this, assuming everything else kind of works, what happens if things don't work as planned because things aren't going to be perfect. And we wanted to see how that impacted the net revenue to the city, you know, given various scenarios. And you can see in really the kind of the, I call it the purple scenario, the 25% reduction in occupancy. Occupancy is probably the biggest risk to the project, which is not a surprise because that's where a lot of your revenue is tied in your lease based revenue. And that's the revenue that goes directly to the city. The city preferred return really does insulate the city from any swings with revenue associated with the revenue share from your tenant partners and the other kind of peninsula revenue, which is usually split 50-50. So that preferred return does insulate the city from those revenue streams being a little bit more volatile. So that's why you don't see, you know, when you look at the very bottom line, those other scenarios aren't as impactful as it is on the occupancy side. So we wanted to kind of just touch through those to kind of give an idea of where the big risks are under the current structure. Kevin, thanks. What's the, remind me again, what makes up the city preferred return, that 4.75? Yeah. So from a revenue perspective, you've got your lease based revenue from your tenants, which is kind of that 8 million. Right. And then the next sets of revenue are the revenue share that comes from the operating tenants. And then you have your other peninsula revenue. So think of your dive shows, naming rights, docs, you know, doc activation leases. And I don't have the whole list here, but that's kind of the other, you know, pot of $8 million, give or take, that's being preferred, being shared. And the city gets the first 4.7 of that 8 million. Great. Great. And all of that is subject to fluctuation and risk and change. Sure. So it's not like that's a fixed amount. No, no. And what you do have those in some of that's going to be some of that is going to be naming rights. And you'll get like signed contracts for naming rights to kind of lock numbers in. Other things are going to be dive shows that are going to be subject to attendance and revenue and things like that and kiosks and et cetera. So really understanding a lot of it's going to be, you know, how many people are coming to the site and what's really, you know, activating the site and, you know, the operator being nimble to go what's working, what's not to continue to obviously, you know, drive revenue into the project. And the base case is 100% occupancy? Is that right? Oh, the base case has like, yeah, I think it was like, I think 95 or, yeah, but it was a very high occupancy. So really high. Yeah, it was assumed it was going to be fully tenanted. And then, okay. And which is, again, that's very positive, hopeful thinking, which hopefully it would be, but at least oftentimes initially, you don't get that. You don't sustain that 100%, 95%. And then 25% reduction in occupancy. That's saying, another way to say that is 75% occupancy. Correct. Correct. And you can kind of see what happens as a result. That'd be, oh, wow, you're still making your master lease payment in the city's short 1.4 million. So now we're subsidizing to that 1.3 million. Right. Yeah. So ideally, if you're, you know, at 15%, you know, 15% reduction in occupancy, you're probably doing break-even-ish, you know, you're kind of there. So that's kind of really trying to understand, you know, where, you know, where the risks are. And it's still less than we're losing today without any of this. Yeah, but this is on top of that. Yes. This is on top of the loss that we're currently sustaining. This only has to do with the east and west buildings. This has nothing to do with the operation of the aquatic center. Well, they are related, but that's okay. I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead. Well, let me ask you this question. Yes, sir. I mean, a lot of this is hinging on the success of the aquarium, right? And everyone's saying that the aquarium is going to be a great, you know, crowd attractor, right? And I think it will be, okay? And I'm very hopeful we'll get it. I'd love to see aquariums. If it's such an obvious, if it's going to be such an obvious financial success, why are we underwriting the tenant buildup? Oh, I'd have to, that one I wouldn't be able to find out. Susan, have any thoughts on that? So this goes back to how the deal was originally structured and how the project company was able to secure the financing. But that's how that has always been structured. We're just guaranteeing the financing, correct? Correct. Correct. So we are not borrowing the money. Correct. Okay. All right. And the 25% reduction column, how many, we don't really have that many tenants, do we? We have the aquarium, we have the restaurant. I think, yeah, if you look at the detailed performance, there's about seven or eight kind of lease-based tenants, one being the aquarium, another being a, and you have your other, you know, restaurants and a handful of retailers. But yeah, it's not a, it's not like a list of 50, it's like eight. So, so 25% reduction means like, you know, a significant tenant would be gone. Correct. A significant one or two, more likely, more like two, which, you know, and now all those leases are actually signed and executed for those tenants. You have those leases in hand. Which is great. No, I think they, hey, look, I'm not, I don't want to take away from that because they, they put a lot of work into getting that done, even to the point of getting signed leases as opposed to LOIs. Mayor, I just want to clarify, we have two signed leases and the balance are letters of intent. Oh, so we have two signed leases. We have two signed leases. And executed letters of intent. Mario wants to jump up. But that also, that also goes for, it's not just those tenants, but it also, we have LOIs, we have the kiosks, because we've added the kiosks now. Correct. We also have, we also have VIP suites that we've added now. Again, plus the naming rights. So there are other, there are other leases and LOIs, not just what originally was intended. Yeah, and you, as the city manager said, what we were provided was two signed leases that represent about 65% of that total lease, of the lease based revenue. Yes. The remaining were two LOIs and one was for a portion of the West building. The other was for the East and that represented the balance. In addition, we were provided LOIs for pretty much all the kiosks that would be on the elevated promenade, two of the VIP suites, and an LOI for a million dollars of naming rights. You know, the pro formas that are up there have two million of naming rights in there. So when you look at that fourth scenario where it says only a million in naming rights, that's what we took because, again, we had a million, an LOI for a million, and their pro forma had two. So that's why we selected that one. A couple observations. You know, the purpose of the sensitivity analysis, as Kevin said, was to find out where the biggest piece of the risk was, right? So you can see the biggest piece of the risk, the biggest fluctuation happens when we have changes, maybe in occupancy, and hopefully that's taken care of with leases. Naming rights, you know, the remaining, you know, half of the revenue is from leases, the other half is from these other revenues. So year one, there's 2.8 million of revenue share. That's that first scenario because in the first year startup, we might not be hitting all the revenue share. So we wanted to show what that might look like. The other thing to keep in mind is these are, you know, these are not silos. They're not mutually exclusive. So you could have, in a given year, a combination of these, and so you might see a bigger swing. So, you know, just in closing, you had asked about our thoughts on that. Some of the LOIs I think we've mentioned to most of you were for, with organizations that might be affiliated with this, either the Swimming Hall of Fame or with the project company. But, and then I said the revenue mix, you know, naming rights is 2 million, and the revenue share is 2.8. So those two items are the lion's share of that. Do we know who the, can you disclose who the naming right LOI is with? It is AquaCal, and that is, if you go to SunBiz, the principals there are William Kent, Doreen Goldstein, Michael Dooley, Don, I'm sorry about if I'm messing your name up, Detweiler, Leslie Bordell, and Robert Kolstad. And is that for, what's the dollar amount for that name? That's a million dollars for five years. So a million dollars a year for five years. Right, right. And what is AquaCal? It's pool, pool stuff? Yeah. Okay. What's the duration of the two leases we have signed? Those are 30 years with three five-year renewals. And just for folks who might not be familiar, the difference between a lease and a LOI, what's the difference? More of a binding commitment on a lease versus just an expression of interest is how I would. Is a LOI. Yeah. So, Susan, if you were, in your analysis as you think about this and the, you know, there's always risk. There's always exposure. So ways to mitigate or lessen the risk of the city. What are ideas you would have to better insulate the city? Yeah. Mario had mentioned one that we had talked to them about, carving out tenant improvements and maybe having Hall of Fame finance that and collect that associated rent. Again, that eliminates that exposure. You know, the opportunity to maybe renegotiate pieces, you know, from the post-phase one where there might be a little bit more of a revenue share. So if the city winds up in a negative position, maybe there is an ability for the project to pick up some of that, you know, and then maybe make some changes in the project. So those are things that come to mind. But if the commission, like I said, based on whatever feedback you give us, we will go back and work on whatever those are. All right. Thanks, Susan. I mean, Mayor, so that's my suggestion is that just, I think there's more opportunity to sharpen the pencil. Susan and the Swimming Hall of Fame team get together and, you know, they've heard their concerns and just work on this a little bit more. All right. Susan, how does that affect the original structure of what we've all agreed to already? In what way and what would be the next steps? I'm not saying I'm agreeing with any of this right now, but I'd like to know how it does affect the original structure and the agreement that we have all signed off on. So the comprehensive agreement that was signed two years ago contemplated that we would do this project in phases. So, and we would have closings. So we've closed on phase one, which are those, you know, public improvements, the seawall and the Ocean Rescue, and we are committed to the master lease payment associated with that. So, but the comprehensive agreement talks about this happens in phases and that we get to, you know, agree on what that phase looks like and how much it costs and what the impact would be on the master lease payment. So we have an opportunity with each phase to have those discussions within the confines of the existing CA. However, you know, we were talking about if we were just going straight ahead with this, we would be amending the CA as well to increase the master lease payment. And then also the city preferred revenue, that 2 million to the 475. So we'd be going into the CA anyway to make changes. What would be, when we signed off on the original structure and the original agreements, what was the contemplated net to the city in terms of what we would be responsible for, for the lease payments? So at that point, the cap was 11 million, but we were looking at a most likely scenario of 9.5, but under the 11 million, the cap, I think it was a negative, negative 1.1. 1.13 million. Thank you. A negative 1.1. And the scenarios that PFM ran at that point had everywhere from break-even to a minus 3 point, I think it's 5 or 6. And that was in the original structure and the original agreement. So how different are we now from that? I think the biggest difference is the 3.6, right? So a $2.6 million increase in the master lease payment, which would mean if no revenues came in, let's just, worst case scenario, which I don't believe that would happen, we would be on the hook for that. So I think that is the biggest difference, looking at that change in that cap. But everything I'm seeing, we originally understood that we would be looking at possibly 11 million as a cap, right? And we were looking at a net to the city of a negative 1.1 million. Aren't the numbers that we're looking at now better for the city than that? Yes, they are. But you have to look at the makeup. So as I mentioned, the other revenues that are about $8 million, a portion of that's revenue share. A portion of that is naming rights. So in that original model, I think we might have had $500,000 in naming rights. Now we have $2 million. So there's a lot more work to do to get to some of those numbers. Right. Bottom line for me, I need to know from you. Again, the numbers to me, the way everything's presented today, it's better for the city than it was when we originally intended to do this project. So tell me, in terms of process, if we were all of a sudden to say, oh, we want to start renegotiating, what would that do to the timeline? And what would that do to the project overall? What would we be looking at in terms of time? You know, I think we could go sit at the table and get something done very quickly if that was the direction that the commission gave us. So maybe a month to get something done. Okay. And I wouldn't imagine that would change the project, maybe just some of the financial structure associated with that. Okay. Thanks. Is there more to your presentation? No. Okay. All right. Get out while they're going. Still good. Yeah. Does anyone have any questions of PFM? Okay. They're being done. Okay. Can I make a couple of comments? I wish you would. All right. So the reason we have some LOIs is because they're for phase three, right, which we don't have an approval for. So why would I spend money signing a firm lease when I don't have the approval to go do it? So I said, let's do an LOI to show them that this is for real. And these are from the same people that signed the lease on the approved part that are already qualified financially. So that's for one. Two, saying that we can go at the table and renegotiate the numbers, very, very true. But you cannot negotiate the numbers without physically changing the project. If you physically change the project, it's very simple. Let me give you how simple this is. Let's say Susan says, Mario, I really, really have, you have to stay at 11 million cap. I'm saying, Susan, got your marching orders? Consider it done. Your negative cash flow is going to be a lot closer to your 3.5, if not higher, than what you already contracted to do. So I'm just trying to make it better and easier for the city of Fort Lauderdale. Because at the end of the day, if you're successful, I will be successful. If I set you up for failure, I'm a failure. So I will not have it. So we were going to do this the right way. Not, I'm sorry to say, not the political way. We're going to do it the right way. And it's going to make sure that it makes sense for the community, for me to deliver a financially viable project. We will be flexible. We always were. I think you can attest to our flexibility in the past five years. We went through three different elected officials, two city managers, three city lawyers. We have been flexible and adapting constantly. And we will continue to do that. But it's my duty. You hired us to look after your best interests. It's my duty to tell you you're going down the wrong path. But we will go down that path. And you will conclude to that. Any other questions or Mario? I mean, thanks, Mario, for your candor on that. So, you know, it's concerning hearing a significant partner of the city saying the path we're going is a wrong path. I mean, it just raises all kinds of massive concerns. I don't think he said that. He just did. No, he didn't. No, I'm saying to change the optimum scenario that we looked at, I'm just disclosing that I've looked at 30 different scenarios. You might come up with a 31st that I didn't think of, and we'll explore that. But all of those scenarios, this is the optimum scenario for the city and the success of this story. That's all I'm trying to say. Okay. Um, why don't we have these two people sign up to speak and then the commission can, um, really, yes, Rich, go. Yeah. Sorry, Rich Walzer. Uh, thank you, mayor, vice mayor commissioners. Uh, I am the founder and CEO of the aquarium. Uh, I know we're talking about a lot of numbers today, but I just want to make a couple of comments. This was a vision that I had a few years ago. I love this city, you know, been here 30 years. How can I bring something that's amazing? That's going to be family friendly. It's going to be educational. It's going to provide jobs. It's going to be something amazing for tourists to come here. They go to the beach, they come off a cruise ship or a plane. Okay. We went to the beach. What else can we do? Well, we're on the beach. We can go to the aquarium. This I've already got the special Olympics are going to come. They want to be part of this. I have a special program for special needs children at the age of 18, the age out of all state federal programs. We're going to provide jobs at the aquarium. We're going to have over 300 jobs, probably 50 to 60 people are going to be special needs to give them careers. Uh, we're going to also have a program for, uh, underprivileged families and special needs families. They're going to all come to the aquarium for free. I want to set up a job fair in commissioner Pittman's, uh, district to be able to provide jobs to, uh, underprivileged families to be able to come to the aquarium educational. We have NSU, FIU, the deans and the presidents of those, uh, universities and colleges. They're like, we love this. We're coming. We have a program. We're building a theater inside the aquarium to teach kids about oceanic conservation. We also have a lab that we're building with NSU. The undergraduates are going to teach kids about the turtles and the sharks and everything. It's going to be amazing. So I just want to give you my two comments. What is this going to provide for the city and the families? A mom coming in with a double wide stroller and another kid, she wants to get the kids out of the house. Where can she go? Instead of dragging them to the mall, let's take them to the aquarium. Let's give them education. Let's give the community education, oceanic conservation. We're in the yachting capital of the world. We're going to have a big dock for the, uh, water taxi to come to drop 300,000 people off a year. It's going to be amazing. So I just want to give you those comments. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much, Rich. Um, Mary Pelequin followed by Carla Albano. Good afternoon, Mary. Good afternoon, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners. I'm Mary Pelequin. I'm a resident of Coral Ridge. I'm also a member of the Fort Lauderdale swim masters, um, team. And, um, I spend probably four mornings a week at the aquatic center. If you don't believe me, you can probably see the grooves from my goggles right there. I see the gills on the side of your face. Yeah, right. Um, I get, I want to just say a couple of things. I won't take much time, but I really do appreciate, um, the group for coming and speaking to the, um, members of the, the people that actually use the aquatic center, the swimmers and the divers. They held several meetings. I went to like two of them wasn't, I wasn't president for a lot of them, but they did listen to us. I appreciate the fact that the building is lower. I still wish it wasn't as big as it is, but I get, I guess, you know, you'll have to figure that out. Um, but I am, I'm happy that it's lower. Um, it's, uh, still, I think it's like five feet shorter than the tower. One part of it that kind of sticks up. Um, I do have a question. I think in one of the meetings at the aquatic center, um, it was mentioned that the egress of the cars would be on the south side. Is that still the same? It is. You're nodding. Okay. Everybody saw that nod, right? Well, it's on, it's on the backup. You can see that the, uh, the backup to today's presentation. I, I didn't, I didn't see it in there. The side plan is on there. Okay. It is there. Yeah. Okay. Um, I appreciate also the, on the east side and the renderings that we see of that building, was at phase three, I think, um, that the training pool is there because that was removed from the original site for ocean rescue. So we, we asked about that at those meetings. So thank you for putting that back in and the dry land training. That is very important. I have four kids that learned to swim at the aquatic center over a long period of time. Um, they're all pretty old now. Um, and the one thing I really like, I love that raised promenade. I think that's really, you know, a really great addition and, and, and the shade over the bleachers. If you've ever sat on those bleachers on a hot day, it's not pleasant. So I think that's really good. Um, the one thing I, I'm always concerned about this because this happened decades ago where, um, you know, I, again, my kids are all older. So this is quite some time ago. Uh, the, the, um, pools were given over to the hall of fame. The hall of fame started running the pools themselves and it's just, it did not work. Didn't work. So I just want to make sure that the Fort Lauderdale aquatic center belongs to the city. It is a city park and I know it costs money and it's an expensive park, but it is a public's, uh, park. So I always want to make sure it stays the Fort Lauderdale aquatic center. I want it to be run by the city. I don't want it to be run by any of the leasees or the sub leasees or the sub sub leasees. I want it to be remain in the hands of the city. And then the other thing I think that was, um, mentioned, um, by this group here is that, uh, you know, 300,000 more people coming to the peninsula. That's a significant increase of, of people. And I realized that they won't all come by car. Some will come by boat, but the water taxis a little more expensive than a lot of people realize, or some people park at the garage and walk and et cetera, et cetera. But, um, there was, I remember talk about, there was going to be some kind of a reservation system for people to visit the attractions. I don't know if that's still going to stay in place, but I thought that that was a very good idea. So, I mean, I don't know if you ever were in Disney world pre pandemic when they just, you know, there was, it was so crowded. It was like hard to move around. I don't think we're really there yet. I mean, they talked about it. Yeah, but I, it'll be okay. So it's, listen, it's important to us. No, no, it's important to, yes, I understand that. And I, it's, it's understandable that we don't want to see a rush in all in one hour because it was just overwhelmed the site. But, but having, having appointments, it makes a lot of sense, but I mean, we haven't even approved the site yet. So we're not, I know all this, uh, I didn't quite realize what the conversation was going to be today. So whenever, I mean, you'll hear me say this again, I'll be back all these things. And, um, I do hope that my mother was on the, was very much involved in the original hall of swimming hall of fame. And I do hope that they upgrade their exhibit. I mean, that's got to happen. I don't know if any of them are actually in the room, but that, you know, John mentioned Johnny Weissmeller's loincloth. Well, you know, some of us are old enough that maybe we would like to see that, but there's got to be some other things. You see, John? Stand. Well, here we go. So, all right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Carla. Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. My name is Carla Albano. I swim with Mary sometimes. I'm a swimmer. I want to say that the ability to collaborate with the design team and the entire development team has been a highlight of my year. We've had so many great conversations and that it was a great example that change can happen if you believe in it and if you believe in working together. So it's been really good. And I'm very, very happy with the design now. And I want to just say what I told Mario last week. And here's what I said. The new peninsula honors the sport in a profound and meaningful way. Secondarily, the project reestablishes and fortifies the prominence and leadership of our city for swimming over the past century. Fort Lauderdale remains the undisputed swimming capital of the world. Earlier, we heard the financial analysis and I was sitting there thinking there was no column for swimming revenue. And it's really sad to me that it's not viewed as a revenue source, that swimming exhibitions and competitions are not even considered in that way. And many of us have many great ideas to bring in swimming as a spectator sort of event. So I encourage us to maybe, I've talked to you about those ideas. So I just want to say a couple other things. I was the one that was opposed to location of Ocean Rescue. And obviously, my opinion was not incorporated into what happened with Ocean Rescue. And I still maintain that its location is a public safety hazard. And I will maintain that. And I hope I'm wrong, is all I can say. Because I hope that they can respond from that very traffic-intensive location that has no view of the ocean. And then lastly, the aquarium. The aquarium is a conundrum. As long as you know swimmers, you know that those of us that swim in the ocean like to swim with them in free, in a free space. So I'm very encouraged by the conservation and rehabilitation factors on the aquarium. And as long as these people know me, I'm going to be bugging them that every animal that goes in there has to be rehabilitated and not able to be released or has to be from an environment that would be unsafe for them. So, but thank you so much. I'm really, I hope I live long enough to see the facility built. Well, we appreciate all the time and effort you put into this. I know you've been very much intricately involved in everything that you described. So thank you for doing that. I know it's all done as a volunteer. And certainly from a perspective of, you know, being an experienced and seasoned, you know, swimmer, it's really important to us that we have the community input. I first swam there when I was 14 and that was a long, over 50 years ago. So thank you very much. What do you think of Johnny Weissbill as going? Two thoughts about that, by the way. We have tried to move Ocean Rescue off of that. So our first plan was to move Ocean Rescue up to Fire Station 13. That didn't work. We also, at one point, we're talking about moving Ocean Rescue up to the Natchez site. And that never really seemed to work out well, too. So, you know, we've got to put it where we can. And it may not be the ideal site, but it's the site we've got. And the other thing, you know, talking about the aquarium, as you may recall, years ago, we had a proposal for an aquarium at the Galleria that was really more of a wet petting zoo. So this is not that. Yeah, no, and I'm just happy that I think this is a much better iteration of what this can be. And I think everybody that's involved with this aquarium, I think, really represents what an aquarium really needs to be as an educational institution. I think that's why you see the involvement of Guy Harvey with it, and that's why I'm excited about it. Didn't we used to have a SeaWorld on 17th Street? We did. We did. We did. Okay, so, you know, first of all, I just want to say that I appreciate all the work that's gone into this. Susan, thank you so much for all of your time and effort in putting this into trying to construct the best deal for the city. And I want to thank Mario and Rich and all your partners for all the work that you've put into this. I think you've done an amazing job of listening to the community and building. I mean, the final iteration is so much better than anything you created before, and that happens in the process. So everything you've done, I think, is definitely a benefit to the community and to those that are visiting our community. So I now understand the numbers. They were very confusing the way they were laid out before, and having this opportunity to understand what you had originally presented and now what we're being asked to approve I think makes a lot more sense than when I first saw the raw numbers. So I think it's a great project. I don't want to see you change anything. And like the young lady just said, I hope to live to see the final product because it's going to be an amazing addition to our oceanside experience. Everything on the barrier island that we have done, we've made our best efforts to try to make it more user-friendly and more not just visitor-friendly, but people who live here can enjoy it as well. And I think that while I don't speak for the commission, certainly the commission can speak for themselves, but I think that moving forward with what you presented today I think is the best thing for the city. Anything else? So what's the next steps? So what are our next steps, Raquel? So we were looking for feedback from the commission. It sounds like we've heard some varying points of view, and so one of the suggestions that Susan made earlier was for us to potentially go back and have additional discussions if that's the will of the commission. I'm not sure if there's consensus right now, so I'm listening intently. Are you suggesting that was clear as mud? Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? I'm in agreement that we go back to discuss this more. That's my suggestion. We can sharpen our pencil. Yes, definitely. But don't change the design. I think you did a great job. I think you've worked it so many different ways that I think this is going to be a much more successful final product with the shade structure, with the parking, with the reduced size. Because, you know, we look to the dive tower as being the attraction, the iconic image. But you know what? This is going to be an iconic image too. So I think it all works together very, very well. And I'd love to see it happen sooner than later, certainly before my term is up. Can you get that done? And I think it's a great addition to what the city has to offer. So, Mayor, I just want to make sure it sounds like a mixed message here. And I just want to make sure what we're doing and why we're doing it. I'm not getting a clear understanding of what we're saying here. Because you said just keep going. I'm fine with the presentation as it was presented. So what are we expecting when some others of us are saying go back and sharpen our pencils? What does that mean? I don't know what that means. I'm not comfortable. I think, Mayor, you said that we could sharpen our pencils. That's what I was just thinking. I was just being colloquial on what Beasley-Pittman was saying. Oh, I just want to understand what that means because I'm not clear on what that means. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Because the development team said if we sharpen our pencils, we're going to change the project. Correct. So, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? I'm not in favor of changing the project. Okay. So, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, do you want to be more specific? Thank you. Thank you for giving me the mic back. Thank you both. Way to go, Pam. Come on. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. For what I'm hearing today, I am in agreement where we need to go back and just tighten this up, look at what it is that we're talking about. I have concerns about the dollar amount, what's being the increases. I know it's been explained, but I feel with what has been explained, it could be tightened up a little bit more. Also, in regards to the signing rights, I want to see that a little bit, naming rights. I want to see that a little bit more defined. We said up to 2 million, and we have 1 million that's on the floor that's being suggested. And I'm just not with what I'm hearing today. I am not comfortable with what I'm seeing. So, that's where I'm standing today. And for me, when I say tighten it up, bring it up where it's a little tighter bow. There's a lot of things where, to me, it's not clear yet. Okay. You want to weigh in on this, Vice Mayor? So, I like the redesign of the project. I think it's a much improved one. I like it coming down. I think the visual spacing of the project is a significant improvement to the overall project. As I've shared with the team, and I think I said it, is I'm not happy with the city taking on all the risk. You know, maybe there's something in between, and that's where I'd like to see some negotiation between the city. You know, maybe it's not we pass all the risk back on to the developer, and maybe it's not we take all the risk, you know, to them, to us. Maybe there's something in between. Maybe there's something with the revenue split. Again, I don't want to negotiate, certainly not from the dais. I don't want to eat all of it. I don't necessarily want to put all of it back on you. I think there is, you know, that sharp-in-the-pencil approach. I think there's a way to get to a deal in the middle that we could all live with. Again, I like the project. I'm not trying to redesign it. I'm not trying to renegotiate the original deal. But I do think that there is a better deal to be had that doesn't put an excessive risk back on the taxpayers. That's what I would like to see you come back with, and I'm sure working with Susan, you can find something that will get us there. I know working in good faith we can come up with something. Okay. Any other comments? Yeah, I completely agree with those comments. I think we can find a way to better balance revenue sharing and risk in a way that continues to move the project forward. Thanks, Mayor. So even though the numbers are better now than they were in the originally structured deal, and even though we have a better project now than we did in the originally structured deal, we're saying keep going. We're saying we don't like the numbers are better now than they were. We're saying we don't like the new design. We're saying go back and sharpen our pencils, even though the numbers are better now and the project is better now than the original developer's agreement and the originally financially structured deal. I just want to be clear. Yes? Okay. Okay, thank you. All right. Well, let me add a question, because understanding that this is an opportunity that is set aside and being worked in phases, correct? Right? Walk with me here. Okay? So even with this opportunity through the agreement, it allows us to go back and look at it a little bit more, correct? Yes? I need you all to talk with me. I don't know. Duane, we entered into an agreement. Are we able to modify the agreement? I'll defer to Lynn Solomon of our office. Lynn? Push the button at the bottom of the speaker. Lynn Solomon, Assistant City Attorney. So, as Susan said, we can negotiate as to the new phases. Phase one is pretty much done. It's done, yeah. But as to the future phases, yes, we can. All right. So, with that opportunity, I agree. I love what's been given through the presentation. I like the new design, what has been carved out to make it, you know, more acceptable for the community as well. But I still have that problem with the amount of money. And if there's a way that we can get there without redesign, and I believe we can. It's just like any budget. You look at a budget, you go back, and you kind of look at the numbers, and you make it work. So that's what I'm looking for an opportunity for. Let's go back, come back again, and then move forward. Okay. All right. Anything further? Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, ladies. Thank you so much. Okay, moving on to Business 4, presentation on the City of Fort Lauderdale Unified Land Development Regulation Requirements for the Measurement of Height of Walls and Fences. We had one person sign up to speak, Richard Mercedes, but let's wait until we hear the presentation. We have Anthony Fajardo, Development Services Director. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commission, Anthony Fajardo, Development Services Director. We have a presentation. So as you know, I think most of you are aware, we've had a little bit of issue with how we're doing fences and walls in the city because of fill on sites as well as the base flood elevation change that we made about four years ago. So we think we've come up with a solution that can work for both the redeveloped sites and the neighboring sites who are dealing with these tall fences and walls. So we're going to do a presentation on that. I'm going to turn it over to Carl Ann Devenish, our principal planner over in DSD, who's been working on this, and I'll also be here to help with the presentation and answer any questions. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and the Commission, Carl Ann Devenish with Development Services Department. As Anthony mentioned, this presentation will focus on some of the issues that we've been experiencing with the grade measurement as described in the Unified Land Development Regulations, as well as providing recommendation on how we would like to amend that definition with the hope that we can get that support and direction from you all to move forward with that. And so, as Anthony mentioned, about four years ago, there were some changes to how we applied the grade for non-habitable structures such as fences and walls. In 2021, prior to FEMA finish floor compliance, adding fill and raising the finish floor to comply with base flood elevation was not required. And so, fences and walls were measured based on the neighbor's grade, which was typically resulted in minimal negative impacts to both properties. So if you take a look at the image, you'll see on the left-hand side, property A was the site that would be installing the fence, and property B on the right would be the neighbor's site. So we would take the measurement of grade from neighbor's site, and you can see that from the neighbor's site, you'll get about a seven-foot fence, but on the subject site, you'll get your six-and-a-half-foot fence as required by code. In 2021, however, there were some changes to the regulations from FEMA, which made changes to the base flood elevation plus free board, which now allowed the city to allow fill for the entire site, and that basically raised the grade. So with that, you can see in the image, again, on the left-hand side, this would be the site that would be installing the fence. You'll see that the grade is provided for the entire site, and when we apply the grade for the adjacent property, property B on the right, you'll see that you'll get a six-foot fence right about, and I don't know if this pointer works. It doesn't work. Okay, so you'll see that you'll get a six-foot fence on the neighbor's site, but on the subject site itself, you'll probably get maybe three feet, and so what started to happen is a lot of folks started to go to Board of Adjustment requesting a variance so that they can get that additional height on their property. Overall, that resulted in them getting a six-foot fence on the subject site, but the neighbor's side would have like a 12-and-a-half-foot fence, so doubling the height for both properties. So that became a concern. That's why the Board of Adjustment then, at the time, sent a commission, I'm sorry, a communication to the commission requesting that we amend how we apply grade for fences and walls. So we did. We made that change, and now we apply the fences and wall grade based on the finish floor elevation of the principal structure. So looking at the image again, you'll see that with the fill being able to be applied for the entire site, the property A would be able to install a six-foot fence. But when you look at the adjacent property, property B, you'll now have an issue with having a higher fence on the neighboring side, so the neighboring side would have like an 11-foot fence. So we started having that problem, which is basically having an average height of about 10 to 15-foot fences and walls, causing a lot of issues with how big and how tall these fences are looking. And so what we're proposing is to change the definition to what was previously allowed, which was being able to apply the neighboring fence. And this is because of the change in how we now apply fill to the property. So fortunately, in 2023, there was an amendment to how we apply fill. So fill is now only applied based on the foundation or the structure of the principal structure, so just the house. And then you kind of have to slope out for the non-structural portion of the site. So you'll grade down and basically being able to not exceed one foot of the average grade of the site. So what we're proposing would be being able to apply the adjacent neighbor side, which would allow for the neighbor side having what was done previously, about a six-and-a-half-foot fence. And then on the subject site, you'll be able to get a five-and-a-half-foot fence. But we're also proposing to add an architectural feature with 50% transparency so that the overall subject site will be able to get a six-and-a-half-foot fence and that the neighboring site would only get a seven-and-a-half-foot fence by having that transparency with architectural features. So we feel that this, again, would be similar to what was done in circa 2021, where there were negative impacts for both properties. So this is just some images, and we have Vanna Fajardo in the second image. You'll see that, so Anthony stands at six feet, and you'll see that what the current regulations apply now is almost, so if you're taking a look closely at the image, at six feet, there's about four layers of cinder block there. The cinder blocks are about eight inches, so on average, I believe it was about 32 inches or an additional two-and-a-half feet. So you'll see that you're getting, as mentioned, about 10 feet on average, sometimes even up to 15 feet, depending on the site. You'll see on the right, the fence on the side, you'll see that the fence is basically the same height as the eave for the neighboring site. So that's just how bad the, this is just one of the many sites that we've seen of how bad the current regulations are impacting both sites. How tall is that person there? Vanna Fajardo is standing at six feet behind me. Just for scale. Yeah, just for scale. It was just for scale. I thought it was an autograph opportunity, Anthony. I'll be doing a signing after the meeting. Perfect. So, Anthony, you're standing at the grade level of the improved site, correct? Yeah, so that's on the outside. This is a corner property at the intersection of two streets. So what you're seeing on the far left and the image in the middle are the same wall. It's just a different perspective when we're standing in it. And then the fence on the far right is the same property. It's just on the neighboring side where there is no street. But we, that, obviously that wall's not finished. The finish hasn't been put on it yet. The landscaping hasn't been installed. So it might change a little bit depending on how they grade that portion next to the wall. But I wouldn't expect it to change too much. It's about, it's probably pushing 10 feet. 10 feet? Yeah. Okay. From the adjacent neighbor's site. Okay. And is that fence on the boundary line or is that pushed back from the boundary? So that's on the boundary line. Per our ordinance, you can build right up to the property line for an accessory wall. Okay. And you're thinking of doing some sort of architectural? So what we're proposing, you'll see on this next slide. Yeah. Um, so basically to try and work with this issue and come up with solution, what we developed was a proposal to, to look at only the portion of the fence after the front yard setback. So basically from the corner of a house back where you could do the increased height on a redeveloped site. So instead of measuring it with base flood elevation of the principal structure, you would again measure on the outside of that fence or wall for the neighboring property to go up. The reason we put in the architectural feature, and that could be anything, it could be a lattice work, it could be decorative posts, it could be, you know, scroll work that as long as it met whatever percentage of transparency we, we, we felt was appropriate, that that would give some additional privacy on the redeveloped site. So they wouldn't have a shorter fence and the neighbors wouldn't be looking at a 10 plus foot wall or possibly even taller and have some light and air that came through it and really get it closer to that six and a half foot height that they're used to. And what we've done typically prior to all the changes we had to effectuate because of the FEMA regulations for flood. Basically, what you're seeing on this slide is an illustration of that. So if you look on the image on the left, you'll see five and a half feet for the solid portion of the wall, but it's on a one foot fill that was being graded down, as Carlin mentioned, which would put it at six and a half feet for the neighboring property and then that architectural feature on the top could get it to a height of seven and a half feet for the neighboring property and six and a half feet for the redeveloped site. And then on the right hand side of the screen, what you're seeing is the portion of the wall that we would like your feedback on applying this to, which is basically on all the sides in the rear, unless you're against a waterway, because there's already a 10 foot setback on the waterway that has transparency requirements for fences and walls. So we didn't want to touch that. We felt that that was pretty important to maintain. And that's our presentation. Okay. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. You're welcome. We have one person to sign up to speak, Richard Mercedes. Good afternoon, y'all. I'm here basically because I'm in the process of building a wall on my property on the New River and it abuts a park. And I was just assured from Anthony and from Chris that this probably won't affect me because I'm already in for permitting. But I just wanted to make a suggestion that when you have walls that are like on a park side or a commercial property, you might want to allow a little more height rather than that seven foot, because what happens is if the topography of the of the of the land goes down, you're you're kind of stuck because then you think you're getting a seven foot wall and you're really not. You're getting maybe a five foot wall. But besides that, of course, I see nothing wrong with what you all are trying to accomplish as long as it's not affecting me with my wall. No, but it makes a lot of sense because we had this issue with the publics on Federal Highway and 19th Street where they went in and the Bell Harbor neighborhood was being impacted because the publics refused to build a taller wall. And it would have been nice had we had the opportunity to raise that wall higher because of a situation like this. So but I think that point is well taken, you know, whenever a residential area is abutted by a commercial area, we may want the higher the higher wall, because I know I know the neighbors would would certainly appreciate it. OK, thank you very much. Yeah, that was district one. I'm sorry. Where's John? Oh, he's not here. OK. All right. Anthony, go ahead. Thanks. So to that point, Anthony, any feedback on the commercial? So right now, our code does allow for increased wall height when you're next to residential and non-residential up to 10 feet. It's not a requirement. It is something that we could take a look at if you wanted us to make it a requirement, but that may have negative impacts on other things, too. So we'd probably need to analyze it a little more deeper. Sorry, a requirement to go to go to the 10 feet. You're saying it's an option now. It's an option. Yeah, I think that makes sense, Mayor, just having it as an option, right? If the commercial entity wants to go or the residential wants to go 10 feet, they can. If the resident wants, but from a commercial point of view, I think we should require it. You know what I'm saying? Oh, next to a commercial. Yeah, next to a commercial, it should be a requirement of the commercial property, not the residential property, but the commercial property. So we can take a look at that and provide a report back to the commission on how it would work. OK. That would be great. All right. And then thanks for your work on all this. If you could, could you go back to the Vanna Fajardo in action? Strike it. There it is. Mayor, he just keeps his youthful glow all these years. Well, you notice it was 20 feet back from the camera. It's incredible. There's Vaseline on the line. I think you should hang your swimsuit up. Right. That could cover the gas. So can you walk through, on like this property, how the proposed change would affect this? Yeah. So there's two things. There's one thing that's happened already. One, the one thing that would affect this already is the fact that we don't allow fill all the way up to the property line anymore. So it has to be graded down to the average of one foot at the edge. So you can go one foot higher, but you can't go plus four, plus seven, whatever the BFE is. So and then the change that we're asking you to consider for us to move forward is to reestablish how we measured the walls originally, which was measuring from the outside on the neighboring property up. So you basically take natural grade and you just go up with a tape measure and that's as high as you could go. So six and a half feet is what the code currently says, but what we're proposing is six and a half feet plus a foot of decorative architectural feature. If someone wanted to do that to get a little bit of additional height, but not really have the wall be so kind of impressive on the neighboring property. So in other words, the height you could go to is where your left foot is. It's where you start to measure. Yeah. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. And it would be pretty much just above my head. And so then if I wanted to build as high a wall as possible, why wouldn't I then just try to fill in the land right there? Our code wouldn't let you do that. Okay. And if we change it to the way we change it back to how we used to measure the wall, you'd have to measure from the outside. So you could only go up. Even if we did allow fill, if we did make this change, you'd end up with a much shorter wall, which is problematic in and of itself. Because if you have a differential, the Florida building code requires, I think, at least a 42-inch barrier if you have a differential in height over a certain distance, which I think is about three and a half to four feet. Yep. So we think this is the better way to deal with that because even if we allowed the fill to continue, which we don't, we stopped that in 2023, you'd still have to put some sort of barrier there. You couldn't just have nothing. Got it. Okay. And then what happens if the adjacent property, like where you're standing, if they raise their, you know, if they increase their fill, could then? Again, they would only be able to fill to that one foot average at the property line. Yeah. So then you would still have, it would then match the neighboring site. So if you had a new site here, it would be one foot above the side of the building, and then that would go up one foot, regardless of what BFE is for the structure of the building, which is what Carl Land was explaining. Okay. So for the structure of the building, that would be much higher. Makes sense. In some situations. Okay. Great. I'm sorry. You go ahead. Go ahead. A question in regards to the opportunity with the FEMA money that's being made available for elevation of properties. I'm thinking that this would be proactive because we're going to have our neighbors who are now considering and applying to do this fill to elevate their properties. So with that, this would be getting in front of that opportunity with the new fences going up that we'll be unified and ready to, more ready to answer the code with that instead of being where we are right now. It's a fair point because we have had a lot of people express interest, especially in the historic districts where you have older homes that were, some of them, I mean, are below the crown of the road, which is just kind of strange, even though they're older, of elevating those properties. So they can meet FEMA and still protect the historic nature of the property. So I would agree with you that probably as we move forward, we're going to see more and more raising of property as an option to address flooding rather than just redeveloping the whole site because it might be more cost effective for the property owner. All right, thank you. Okay, any other questions of Anthony? There being none, thank you so much. Is there a consensus to move forward with it? With the suggested modifications that we talked about. Okay, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Anthony, you'd bring this back to us as a first reading? Yeah, so we'll have to draft it up. We'd probably need to vet it like we typically do, give it to the Council for Lauderdale Civic Associations. We'll have to go to planning and zoning board, then come to City Commission for two readings. Okay, great. So it'll be a little while before we get to you, but we're going to keep working on it. Thanks for your work. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have a closed-door session at 430, but we do have commission reports. So why don't we begin with that? Vice Mayor? Have none. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. I'm going to pass today. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Okay, thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to congratulate the chef and the folks over at Cafe Del Mar on October 24th for setting a Guinness Book of World Records. Did we set it? Did we set it? Set a record. The most variations of tiramisu. I know that was high on everyone's mind. It happened right here in Fort Lauderdale. Right here in Fort Lauderdale. We saw it. It was incredible. Congratulations to them for that. They made a big deal of it. I've been reading a lot from all over the world in Italy. Really? They had Italian news there and doing reporting, and it was very interesting to see all of that. As we all know, we did just come off an amazing week in Fort Lauderdale, the 66th annual Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show, with the ribbon-cutting at Pier 66 on October 29th. Always the very incredibly informative global business luncheon at the Superyacht Village. I find it so informative when they bring these young entrepreneurs in there that are so creative, so knowledgeable, what these young guys and women are doing. It's incredible. Very, very informative, very educational. This year they had the folks from, a gentleman from Zillow and also from Marine Source, and just to hear their creativity and their knowledge is very inspiring, as well as hearing what everyone always has to say about Fort Lauderdale. So it's really tremendous. Did a podcast. Never have done one of those, but Amelia and Frankie P. have something called Hidden Florida. All young folks sitting around a table, and that was a lot of fun, actually. I think that they thought they were going to get something different, but then we had a good time. And it was really very informative. These young folks, these young residents, know so many of the issues that are happening in our city. It was a great discussion, very intelligent, and it was really a pleasure being with them. This podcast appears everywhere. So iHeartRadio, Spotify, Apple, it's all over the place, and these guys did a great job. They have their podcast broadcasting from downtown. Mayor, great soiree at Super Yacht Village. I'll let you, I'm sure, elaborate on that. And then I just wanted to say that there were so many events, so many great things happening. The World Cup of Pickleball was here at the fort. Stopped by there Saturday evening. Just an incredible energy. 68 countries were participating in this facility. And just walking around and hearing all the different languages and watching all of these young folks play an amazing level of the game. Seeing the shirts and on the back of the shirts, all these different countries from everywhere in the world. It was really great. So they've done such an amazing job there in a short period of time of really developing a brand. And really, really bringing folks there and getting quite a reputation for, number one, not just the only stadium of its kind in a pickleball facility, but also the number of courts. The restaurant's great. A young, award-winning husband-wife team have opened what's called the Florida Room there. I would describe it as really excellent comfort food and a really very creative menu. So, again, congratulations to everyone out there for bringing all of those nations here. Same week as the boat show. Really quite amazing. November 6th, I guess that's in two days, we have the state historic marker for Diana Nyad on the beach. Also, we have, there was an article in the paper, three major cruise ships are coming to Fort Lauderdale this week. That's an amazing economic impact for our city. Disney's bringing a new ship, Princess is bringing a new ship, and Celebrity is bringing a brand-new ship. Three brand-new ships coming. They're not just docking here. This is their port of call. This is their port of call. This is their home port. They're all arriving within the next week, which is incredible for our tourism economy. So we should welcome all of those folks here. That's going to be a really big boon for our port, Everglades, and also for the city and region as a whole. It makes a big difference. The economic numbers, the economic impact numbers are incredible. The millions and millions of people that cruise. You know, we actually have the three top cruise ports in the world. Port Canaveral, Port Miami, and Port Everglades are the three busiest cruise ports in the world. So that's very important to our region. November 19th, I guess, the Light Up the Beach. But actually, the Light Up the Beach starts on November 6th, and we have them all through the month and the following month. So looking forward to all of those. November 6th, I believe, is the first. November 20th, I'll be looking forward to the next Central Beach Alliance meeting. November 21th, that's a brand-new lighting event. Marina Village at Pahir Mar is going to be lighting, I believe, the tallest tree in Fort Lauderdale and the second tallest tree in Broward County. So that'll be November 21th. What's the tallest? I believe the tallest is at Gulfstream in Hallandale Beach. I believe they have the tallest. This one's 45 feet tall. It's still quite tall and should be really nice at the Marina Village. November 22nd will be the annual Grocery and Turkey Giveaway at the Sanctuary Church, and we always look forward to that. And the thousands of people that start lining up so early in the morning all around Federal Highway and Sunrise Boulevard to make it to the church for that. It always is a great event and so helps the folks that really do need a little help at this time of year. I want to thank the police department and code. At the last commission meeting, I brought up some issues, some crime issues with Airbnbs and Victoria Park and some serious issues. I want to thank them for the work that's been going on and ongoing for the two major areas that were extremely unhappy, and I understand why. But I will say that our police department just jumped right in. Chief, thank you very much and to your team. That's ongoing. But I do want to say that the work that's been happening is really excellent, and I'm just so appreciative of that, as I know are the residents of Victoria Park. Mayor, I would ask that this evening, when we open the evening meeting, that we think of Hal Barnes in our moment of silence. I'm sure we were all shocked to read of Hal's passing. An amazing public servant, so many years in our city. It was a pleasure to know him, not just as an employee of the city, but also as a constituent in Victoria Park and also as a friend. So that's it for me, Mayor. Thank you very much. You're very welcome. Commissioner Sorensen. Thanks, Mayor. I want to, again, congratulate Boat Show. Great, great Boat Show, and thank you for first responders for helping with that, making it a success again. Also, Halloween is always, in my part of town, always a big thing with a lot of folks. And Chief Schultz, great job with the FLPD team, navigating a lot of folks during Halloween across the city and making sure it's safe, so thank you for that. We have coming up Veterans Day, so I want to thank all our veterans. Jeanne, I see you in the audience. Jeanne, I see you in the audience. Go Navy, thank you for all who have served and look forward to our Veterans Day celebration. So we've got the annual celebration, 11 a.m. in front of Huizinga Pavilion right here, just at the Sandy Nininger Statute, Mayor, 11 a.m. on the 11th, Veterans Day. So I just want to make sure that's on everyone's calendar, if they can make it. And also, we're kind of excited to be kind of celebrating the opening and some of our reopening and some of our parks in District 4, and so we're going to be doing that this weekend, which is exciting. And lastly, Raquel, I wanted to talk, just check in on electric bikes. So this is just an increasing prevalence of electric bikes kind of in neighborhoods. I coach soccer at Holiday Park, so there are a bunch of them in Holiday Park. I just want to review what electric bikes are allowed and what capacity where. So I just want to refresh what that is and, yeah, go from there. Thanks. Okay, we'll get that to you. Okay. Like now or? I'm not sure if we have that information now. Okay. Carl looks like he's coming. Yeah, maybe we'll just start with parks and then we can kind of go from there. Thanks, Carl. Good afternoon. Carl Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. Yes. So we do have a park rule that does speak to electronic vehicles, and I believe those e-bicycles fall under that category. I was made aware of this through a resident, and I did reach out to our police department to take a closer look at that particular park to curb that activation. So, and it's happening in other parks too, in my Virginia Young Park, in my neighborhood and others. So, okay, so our understanding is it's not permissible to, what, be in a city park on an electric bike? That's correct. You cannot operate an electric vehicle. Vehicle. Which that would fall under in a park. Got it. Okay. And then, so it's an enforcement mechanism of police and or park rangers, I'm assuming? Yes, sir. Is that? Okay. Great. And then from, Raquel, from a street legality, do we, and maybe this is Chief Schultz's question, but what's the legality of electric bikes on streets? I'm assuming they're allowed, or I just don't know how this all works. I'll defer to the chief. Thanks. It's like my first time up here. Good afternoon again, Commissioner Bill Schultz, Chief of Police. It's like any other vehicle on the street. We have electric bikes. We have electric scooters, which I've seen, I'm sure you've seen. They have to obey all the traffic laws that everyone else would obey. The bicycles do not necessarily require a license. I'm sorry, a license plate. But bicycles will frequently go into a realm of a moped or a slow speed motorcycle, and then the rules could change. But it's just that they have to obey the rules. Thank you. And then remind me, motorcycles, what types of, you know, like motorcycles are allowed or not? Like, for example, I think it's dirt bikes, for example. Are those allowed on city streets? Motorcycles that are street legal will have brake lights, turn signals, and they must be licensed. Okay. So dirt bikes that don't? Correct. Most, what you're talking about is probably what you've seen on the streets as groups. Most of them do not have rear lights or even sometimes front lights. Okay. So if they don't have that, they're not allowed on city streets? Yes, correct. And your bicycles that you were talking about, they'll either have reflectors on them, or they'll have usually blinking LED lights on them to make them legal. Okay. Great. Thanks, Chief. That helps. Thanks, Raquel. Mayor, that's it. Thanks. Okay. Great. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Ben, if I could just pick back up for one of the questions. Carl, if you could come back. In regards to the electric bikes being not allowed in the parks, that's kind of broad. Are we saying that they should not? What is the limitation? Because I can imagine someone riding a bike to the park, getting off of it, and utilizing the amenities in the park. So that was a little broad. If you could bring that in for us. Yeah, so I think in this particular instance, we're talking about actively utilizing it within the park as opposed to using it to get to the park. Like on the track, on the grass, in the playground area? Any kind of athletic fields, anything of that nature. Okay. All right, just wanted clarity for that. Thank you. And now we'll play with that one more. So what if they turn off the electric part and they're bicycling because you don't actually have to have the electric turned on the whole time? It gets very difficult. And I'm joking about this, but I'm looking over at my chief over there, and I'm thinking this creates a very, very challenging enforcement problem for our park rangers and everybody else. Because, you know, if somebody's on a bike, first of all, you can't always tell when they're electric. They're not always visible when they're electric. And then you're not always able to ascertain whether it's under pedal power or electric power or both at the same time. So I always worry when we start making rules that are very difficult for our law enforcement to actually enforce because it encourages rule breaking when it's hard for them, and it puts a burden on our officers to try to enforce stuff like that. Yes, sir. That's a valid point as well. I think there will be a certain level of discretion, but, you know, I'll defer to the chief and his expertise as it pertains to that. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to do it. And I will just add that that is correct, exactly what you said. You can turn the electric totally off, or the electric can totally go dead while they're riding it, and then they go to pedal putter. So that is absolutely a stipulation of electric bikes. All right. Thank you so much. I just have a few things I'd like to bring out to people's attention. October 24th, we had the ribbon cutting at the Adderley Apartments. It's a great event, another good example of investment people are making in our community, and which added more affordable housing units to the city of Fort Lauderdale. Let's see. Some of the things that we did not mention. The next day, October 25th, the Winterfest had the kickoff party at the Marriott Harbor Beach Resort. Great turnout, wonderful event. Very noisy, but always a good time for everyone who attended. The next day, October 26th, I attended the opening of the Ocean Exchange Forum at the NSU Art Museum. This is an opportunity for young people and adults to come together and talk about new ideas on how to manage our waterways in terms of operation, cleanup, and regeneration of marine life. It was a great forum, and I want to thank the Art Museum for hosting that event. And, of course, that began what we know as the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show. It brings together so many different aspects of marine life and marine education and marine recreation. So Fort Lauderdale is at the epicenter of all this, and we're very happy to be able to host that in all of its various forms, which I'll go into in just a moment. The following day, Monday, I attended the retirement celebration for Tam English, who has been the head of the Fort Lauderdale Housing Authority for so many years. He has now retired. And that same day, I had a wonderful meeting with the mayor of the city of Gold Coast, Mayor Tom Tate, who came all the way from our sister city of Australia to participate in the boat show events. So we're very pleased to be able to have hosted them that night. Tuesday, the October 28th, I hosted a town hall meeting on the Galleria. It was attended by several hundred people, I think approximately 200 in person and between 200 and 250 online. It was the beginning conversation, I think. The vice mayor was there as well to start the discussion on next steps and the vision for the Galleria project. Let's see. Wednesday, the following day, as mentioned by Commissioner Glassman, we had the opening of the boat show. That's the opening night, a party that Peter 66 and a former co-host, co-sponsor. It was a great event. I think 700 people RSVP'd for that event. And to me, it was just a great way to really start the excitement and the show that we feel is the greatest, what is it, the biggest in-water boat show in the world, right? Yep. Yeah. The next day on Thursday, I signed $100 million worth of bonds. And this goes for a lot of the things that the city commission has approved, including roadways, sidewalks, and various other improvements, which we are finally getting off the ground. And we all decided that we're not going to wait for just the million or $2 million every year for CIP grants. But, in fact, we're going to be more proactive in trying to get these infrastructure projects up and started. And Saturday, this past Saturday, Fort Lauderdale once again hosted the Day of the Dead program. This year it was at Esplanade Park, since Heisinger Park is still under construction. Dia de los Muertos, as I guess we say in Spanish. And we, yes, those of us who are multilingual. Yes, we. We, we. Oh, sí, sí. Claro, sí. So, it was, there was a huge turnout. Hundreds of people showed up. I got my face painted again, and it was really fun. And it was a great turnout for a community that once again recognized this cultural and religious celebration here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. Let's see. Yes, we do have a number of light-up events as we, as we kick off the holiday season. We have the light-up Lauderdale at Esplanade Park on November 6th. We have, are they all listed here? Let's see. Light Up the Galt. Light Up the Galt, November 12th. And we have. Light Up the Beach, November 19th. Well, that, we would have that at the next meeting. But yes, the 19th. Just in case you want to mark your calendar. Okay. You know, as we say in Spanish, muy bien. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, on Sunday, November 9th, we will have, uh, we'll be celebrating the New Hope Baptist Church 100th anniversary. Hope to be able to attend that. It's on my calendar. And, um, yes. I'll see you there, Mayor. We'll see you there. And then, uh, as Commissioner Sorensen said, Veterans Day, November 11th, we'll be celebrating at 11 a.m., uh, in front of the Sandy Ninager statue that's at the Marty Heisinger Pavilion right down there. Uh, let's see. Uh, November 12th, we're having a ribbon cutting for the Garden Hotel and Resort. That's at 3711 North Ocean Boulevard. That's just north of Ocean, Oakham Park Boulevard, I believe. And then on November 14th, which is a Friday, the fifth annual prayer breakfast, which honors the legacy of, of, uh, um, uh, Chaplain Ron Perkins, who has recently passed away and supports public safety, uh, chaplaincy. And finally, also at the NSU Art Museum, we have the opening of the Robert Rauschenberg exhibition, which I understand is going to be a very important exhibition of Robert Rauschenberg's art. So it has been a busy couple of weeks. It's going to be continue, uh, to be an exciting next couple of weeks. So we're very happy that, uh, having all of us having made these announcements so that people of Fort Lauderdale will know that there's so much to do here in our city. Um, if there's nothing else, I guess we'll just turn it over to the city manager. Thank you, Mayor. My comments will be very brief and staff focused today. I just want to highlight all the members of the team who helped to facilitate the boat show that we all experienced. So we have, uh, from a permitting and public safety perspective and beyond, we've had several members of our team dedicate significant amounts of time to making that show successful. We also have, uh, Randy Layton with our public works department. She was recently named the government engineer of the year by the American society of civil engineers, Broward County branch, as well as the entire department was awarded the small project of the year award and the branch will be coming to a future commission meeting to recognize the team. But I just wanted to highlight it because it's so fresh. What was the project? The 48 inch product water main infrastructure improvement project. Exciting, sexy, much needed infrastructure. Yes. I also want to thank and acknowledge our parks and recreation department once again, uh, for the sandbag distribution. We just had our final iteration last weekend. We distributed over 4,000 sandbags from May through the weekend. So I just want to thank Carl and his team for making that happen seamlessly. Well, this is especially important since today begins another King tide season. So for those homes that are, um, that are low lying, uh, we're hopeful that at least, uh, some of their property can be protected through, uh, through the use of sandbags. Thank you. And finally, I just wanted to highlight the six month report that was issued last week. Uh, that will be transitioning into a quarterly report of the milestones, accomplishments and activities of our team, just to give you a refresher on all the work that we've been doing on a quarterly basis. And thank you and congratulations. Thank you. You hit the ground running. Thank you. All right. City attorney, do you have any report other than the fact we're about to, uh, convene our closed door session? Yeah. Earlier today, I, I, I shared with you all that the fourth district court of appeals, uh, dismissed the appeal of the Florida department of transportation and that their challenge of a non-final order, um, with regards to the preserving status quo, um, and that Matt, that matter is concluded. So that's one of three. Okay. Very good. Yeah. All right. Anything further? Mayor, if I could just add one more thing. I just want to, um, acknowledge everyone on our team, uh, that has been impacted by hurricane Melissa or if their families have been impacted in any way. I want to thank our team for pulling together a Caribbean relief effort with the help of our neighbor support team and our fire rescue team, uh, we're working with food for the poor. And so I, I can share that I've been personally affected because I have family, uh, in Jamaica and I know that several members of our team also do. I know D Wayne does. Uh, so I just wanted to mention that and thank the community for their support thus far. We have the relief effort going on a continuous basis. So donations can be made at any of our fire stations, as well as at our police headquarters up at Kaplan. So just wanted to, um, highlight that. Thank you. Okay. Raquel, by the way, uh, I had sent you a, just a quick note on that. Any update? So, um, I don't know if y'all know this, but Ignacio, who owns W Aviation, has offered to make two of his planes available to ferry supplies down to Jamaica. So any update on that, uh, uh, uh, initiative? So I know that our team is looking into how they could assist us probably through food for the poor more directly, uh, as opposed to through the city. Uh, I don't know that we have that update right now. Chief Golan or Chris. Good afternoon. And Chris Cooper, assistant city manager, we've reached out to Food for the Poor to try to make that connection with W Aviation and see if there was interest and a need for that service. So we'll follow up with them and make sure that those two get connected and can work together if they can. Okay. It's not, it's not often somebody offers up a couple of planes, so let's not let that fall through the cracks. Thank you. Okay. Um, that concludes our conference meeting. Do you want to do the, uh, CRA board meeting right now? And, or do you want to, let's do the CRA board meeting. There's only one item on the agenda. Um, Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll for the CRA board? Vice, Vice Chair Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Here. Commissioner Swartz. Here. Chair Trantos. Here. Um, we have M1 motion approving the minutes for the October 7th, 2025 Community Redevelopment Agency Board Meeting Minutes. Do I hear a motion to approve? So moved. It moved and seconded somewhere. Second. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Vice Chair Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Chair Trantos. Yes. And M1's now approved. R1. This is a resolution approving the amended and restated development agreement regarding the Aldridge and the Larimore Mixed Use Project. Anyone have any questions with regard to this? There being none. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduce. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency amending Resolution No. 21-16 CRA and Resolution No. 22-06 CRA to the extent inconsistent herewith in ratifying Resolution 25-02 CRA, terminating a vacant land contract approving a ground lease between the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency and Sistrunk Apartments LLC approving a declaration of restrictions, approving an amended and restated development agreement, approving a non-profit grant agreement with Sistrunk Lender LLC, approving a recognition attornment and assent to leasehold mortgage and landlord estoppel with the senior lender investors, sponsor lender, and subordinate lenders authorizing the executive director to execute. And in all documents related to and incidental to this transaction, delegating authority to the executive director to take certain actions, providing for severability and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Chair Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Chair Trent House? Yes. And R1 is now approved. Any further business of the CRA Board? There being none. That meeting is concluded. We'll resume at 6 o'clock. But now, am I giving a speech? Yes. Oh, here it is. You buried it. Okay. All right. At this time, the City Commission shall meet privately to conduct discussions between the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Commission relative to pending litigation pursuant to Section 286.011, parentheses 8 of the Florida Statutes in connection with the following matters. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Department of Transportation, 4th District Court of Appeal, City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Department of Transportation, 17th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, and City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. Present at the attorney-client sessions would be myself, Mayor Dean Trantalis, Vice Mayor Commissioner John C. Herbst, Commissioner Stephen Glassman, Commissioner Pamela Beasley-Pittman, Commissioner Ben Sorensen, City Manager Raquel Williams, Interim City Attorney D. Wayne M. Spence, Senior Assistant City Attorney Paul Bangel, Assistant City Attorney Kimberly Cunningham-Mosley, Outside Counsel Howard DeBosar of Weiss-Sirota, Outside Counsel Jeremy Rosner, also of Weiss-Sirota, and Certified Court Reporter from Bailey Enten Court Reporting. The estimated length of the session would be approximately 15 minutes each case for a cumulative length of 45 minutes.