Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the city commission meeting, conference meeting, this April 1st. Yes, this is real, not an April Fool's joke. And we are moving forward with an interesting agenda this afternoon. And thank you all for being here. Are we all seated? Oh, not yet. Okay. So hold on. Let me get to the right agenda. So we have a number of presentations this afternoon. And the first is going to be with regard to getting a legislative update of what's going on at the legislature, which is currently in session in Tallahassee. And, Daphne, you want to give us a heads up? Not really. Yes, you do. Good afternoon. A lot of things are in flux, though, right? Lots of things are in flux, but a lot of things are moving along. Okay. So this is our mid-session update. All right. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Daphne Sainville, Public Affairs Manager, wanted to give you a mid-session update on what's going on in Tallahassee. Before I get into the policy bills, I want to talk money first, because we like talking about money. The state budget has been released, the preliminaries, with the base budget from the House and the Senate. The Senate budget is looking at $117.4 billion. The House budget is looking at $112.9 billion. So there's about a $4.4 billion difference between the two that they're going to have to reconcile near the end of April during budget conference. Part of that budget release was our appropriations projects that we put in. We put in approximately 11 projects. We are in play for seven out of the 11. So the ones that got into one house, well, one chamber or the other, are as follows. The Galt Mile Improvement Project, we requested $2 million. We have $500. Oh, no. We have $1 million in the House. In the Senate, we didn't get into their budget, but we're working on that this week, next week, and for the remainder of session. We're looking to see if we can bump up to that full ask. The roadway resurfacing project, we requested $750. And in the Senate, we are in the budget for $750. So that's a good sign, because the Senate does control the budget this year. So being in play on their side makes it much easier for the House to come up to that full amount. The sidewalk repair safety project, we requested $750,000. And in the Senate, we are in there for $750,000. So we are in play there, looking very good. The Los Olos Safety Improvement and ADA Upgrades, which is the Los Olos Mobility Project, we are in the House for $500,000 and in the Senate for $1 million. So there's a disconnect there, and we're going to look to bring the House up to the million-dollar mark. What was that money intended for? Is that for design? Do you know off the top of your head? That is for, I believe, construction design. Milos? Good afternoon, Milos Mojstorovic, Acting Director for City's Transportation and Mobility Department. So the funding was actually for construction, a portion of construction funding for Los Olos Mobility, and specifically for shops segment. We are currently working on design, and this funding would help with construction. Well, isn't the budget for construction like in the tens of millions? So what is this going to go for? It is. So I believe the shop segment only is probably around over $10 million. So ultimately, we're seeking any funding opportunity that we can secure in order to advance certain aspects of the project. Okay. Thank you. And should we be successful in getting it in the state budget and then surviving the governor's veto pen, we're going to leverage this with funding that we're going to request during the earmark process on the federal level. Violence interruption program, we requested $900,000, and in the House, we received $400,000, nothing in the Senate. We're still working on that. Growth opportunities program for education, we requested $500,000. And as of yesterday, we were not in play, but right before this meeting, I got noticed that we have $500,000 in the Senate. So our lobbyists have been hard at work. The project's not – or another project that we have is the Homeless Transitional Housing Program. We are being co-sponsored by the United Way with that project to address homelessness. We requested $1 million. It is in the House for $500,000. So some of the projects, just as a reminder, that aren't in play is the Bayview Bridge Replacement Project, the Education Enrichment Program Project, and Sunrise Lane. And there is actually a bridge project that I did not put in here. It's the 13th Street Bridge Project that we have $500,000 in play. Where is there a bridge on 13th Street? It is – Isn't that – Milos, isn't that referring to the one in – Southeast 13th. Lauderdale Harbor. Oh, Southwest 13th. Southeast. Southeast. Lauderdale Harbors. Oh, okay. From Rio Vista into Lauderdale Harbors. Okay, got it, got it, got it, got it. Daphne, any idea why no tracks are on the Sunrise Lane Project? No, but I can find out when I get there tonight. Yeah, that would be great. Okay. I'd just like to have a little clarification on that. Thanks. Now we can go into some policy bills. In the exhibit, you'll see a list of all the bills that we are flagging. About 1950, so 1,950-some-odd bills have been filed this session. Out of that, we are following approximately 305 that have some relation to local government, municipalities, or somehow affecting city operations. Those bills have been divided out by departments. I send them out to the departments for comments, so that way we know how to let our members know to ask questions, to clarify, or to file amendments for us. So we've done that with some of the bills. So the first one, bills that don't give me heartburn, like I affectionately title, is House Bill 11, which is the municipal water and sewer utility rates. This is the one that has been filed previously where if you have a utility in another municipality and you're providing that service to the other municipality, you have to charge equal rates. You cannot up your surcharge to that 25%. It's a North Miami Beach versus Miami Gardens fight that has been taken to the legislature. So it doesn't affect us. We can still charge our surcharges because the utilities are in – the utility plant is in Fort Lauderdale. Right, but what about surcharging Wilton Manors and Oakland Park? You can still do that. Why? You just said we couldn't. No, that is only if the utility plant is in Wilton Manors or Oakland Park. So because the utility is here, it's located in Fort Lauderdale. So the water plant is located in Fort Lauderdale. Right. We provide water to Wilton Manors or Oakland Park. We can still charge our surcharge. Had that plant been located in Wilton Manors, we could not charge an additional surcharge to Wilton Manors residents. It would have to be the same charge as Fort Lauderdale residents. So our Peel Dixie plant, which is not in Fort Lauderdale, it's in unincorporated Broward surrounded by plantation. Would that be subject to restriction if we wanted to surcharge our neighboring communities that we're servicing? That's a good question. I thought it was in Fort Lauderdale. It's not in Fort Lauderdale. I thought it was in unincorporated Broward. We're going to give you a tour of the city, Mayor, before the end of the day. Right, right. Okay. Was this your April Fool's joke? Because, you know, it wasn't supposed to give me heartburn. You keep moving the boundaries, Daphne. The next bill is the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program. Representative Lopez has filed an additional measure to streamline participation into the program while ensuring compliance with the safety standards and prioritizing projects that enhance hurricane protection for condos. So this is just an enhancement to what Representative LaMarca had filed last year. Another bill that doesn't give me heartburn is the Municipal Clerks and Staff Bill. Actually, these two are similar. The Public Records Exemption for Municipal Clerks and Public Records Exemption for County and City Administrators and Managers. I believe these public records exemptions would provide those exemptions to municipal clerks, their staffs, city managers, county administrators. So their addresses would also be exempt. They haven't received any traction, but they are filed annually. There is a Broward County bill that is filed by Rep. LaMarca. It does affect Holiday Park. So the proposed exemption from Florida statues would apply to special alcoholic beverage licenses issued in specific areas in Broward County, which include Western Sunrise, Entertainment District, Holiday Park in Fort Lauderdale, and the City of Coral Springs. So it ensures that activities involving manufacturers, importers, distributors, or vendors related to these licenses aren't subject to the restrictions outlined in a certain Florida statute. So what does that mean? Does that mean they can serve alcoholic beverages in public parks or cannot? They would be able to. They would be able to. Yes. Under certain conditions? Correct. Under certain conditions outlined in statute. Okay. Then there is a bill filed for structural integrity reserve studies. This did come up in Agenda Prep the other day, so I looked it up. We are following it. So it hasn't been heard in its first subcommittees, which are house, housing, agriculture, and tourism, house, housing, yes, and Senate-regulated industries. So the recent amendments to the Florida statutes, they redefine and regulate structural integrity reserve studies. So this legislation would mandate that associations with buildings six stories or higher conduct a structural integrity survey reserve study every 10 years to estimate future repair costs for critical components, like roofs, foundations, and load-bearing walls, while also requiring adequate reserve funding. Buildings five stories or fewer would be exempt from mandatory studies, but may reduce or waive reserve contributions through majority votes in association meetings. Wait, wait. Repeat that? The five stories and under what? So buildings five stories or fewer would be exempt from the mandatory studies. Right. But you went on to say? But may reduce or waive reserve contributions through majority votes at association meetings. Okay, so multifamily housing that's five stories and under may not necessarily be subject to the 100% reserve requirement that's now in place? Correct. Okay. What are the chances of that happening? So because they haven't been heard in their first subcommittees and session is bearing down on us, they may not succeed, but there is a good chance that they'll be filed again next session. Is that the Senator Osgood bill? Yes, Senator Osgood and Representative Bruce Antone. Is that the only bill that you know of that's been filed? These are the only two. With regard to the reserve requirements? That I am aware of, yes. Okay. So now that I've gone through the bills that don't give me heartburn, there are some bills that do. The first one is House Bill 301, which is suits against the government, fondly known as the Sovereign Immunity Bill. This bill would increase the statutory limits on liability tort claims from $300,000 from the current $200,000 to $1 million. So it would raise it from the current standard to $1 million. And then it would raise the limits from $300,000 to $3 million per incident. And after 2030, that $1 million will then be raised to $1.1 million, and that $3 million will then be raised to $3.2 million. We have been working diligently with the league to see if any amendments could get tacked on that show maybe a percentage in gradual increases because it has been noted by all members in the committees that it has gone through that the rates or the caps do need to increase to some extent, but not to the extent where local governments would be severely impacted. And we did work with our interim city attorney, D. Wayne, to write an amendment. We've submitted it, and now we're just shopping it around to see who will take it into committees. Another, and if the amendment doesn't get on, we're just straight up opposing it and trying to kill it in both the House and the Senate. Another bill is construction regulations. So this one makes several changes to the procurement of construction services. And it requires action after receiving a price quote for a change order issued by the local government. The bills mandate that a local government has 30 days to approve or deny a price quote and send written notice of the decision. And they state that any denial notice must specify the alleged deficiencies and the actions necessary to remedy them. I'm sorry, what hospital number was that? 683. And it's also Senate Bill 712. Thank you. It would also prohibit us from regulating synthetic turf installations on a single-family residence area, one-acre or less in size. Tell me again your analysis on that in terms of likelihood. Because so it also – I was going to go on. Go ahead. So failure to provide that information, it results in the local government being held liable to the contractor for all overhead associated with the change order. So we would be liable to the contractor if we don't provide a reason for denial within that 30 days and they had expended any overhead. And it also prohibits local government when contracting for public works from penalizing a bidder for performing a larger volume or rewarding a bidder for performing a smaller volume of construction work. It also prohibits local enforcing agencies for building-related activities from requiring any ancillary documentation between a permit applicant and its client as a requirement for submission of an application or for the issuance of a building permit. So it does have some severe implications on our building officials and on our development services department. We are looking – some of them seem to be stalled out, but we're still monitoring it closely and we do oppose this legislation. Another one that has caught our eye that we are working on is the Live Local Expansion. The correct name is the Real Estate and Land Use and Development Bill, but we call it the Live Local Expansion by Representative Lopez. It revises the current law of the Live Local Act and local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. And it risks cities' ability to plan for and regulate housing development within their jurisdiction. It prohibits local governments from restricting affordable housing developments through zoning density or height limitations and mandates administrative approval for multifamily and mixed-use residential projects meeting affordability criteria. It requires local governments to allow accessory dwelling units, reduce parking requirements, and prioritize permitting for affordable housing projects. It preempts local ordinances that delay or restrict affordable housing development, provides incentives such as impact fee waivers, and expedites foreclosure proceedings for abandoned properties. It also introduces reporting requirements for local governments to track actions related to affordable housing projects and prohibits building moratoriums on approved developments. It also goes on to ensure that affordable housing units receiving state incentives meet affordability standards and protects property owners' vested rights in administratively approved projects. That is it in a nutshell. and infrastructure needs for over six years. And the methodology requires local governments to utilize localized data to project growth impacts and identify necessary capital improvements. It also amends provisions related to discretionary sales for taxes, broadening their use for infrastructure projects, such as public facilities, emergency response vehicles, affordable housing, and energy efficiency improvements. So, it also limits the ability for cities to increase impact fees. It was heard and voted down, but the motion to reconsider happened today, so it's actually being heard today at four o'clock. It was heard yesterday and voted down. And we just need to see what happens on its reconsideration. Another one affects our CRAs, so it would require all CRAs in existence as of July 1st, 2025 to terminate by the earliest, either that being the charter expiration date, or by September 30th, 2045. The bills also prohibits CRAs from initiating new projects or issuing new debt after October 1st, 2025, and prohibits the creation of any new CRA after July 1st, 2025. We are looking to get some clarity as to what they mean by the charter date, because I know we're looking to extend, and we need to see if that extension would be considered the charter date, or if they mean the original charter date. And then we are looking to see if they'll accept an amendment that we did right that would give us enough time to expend any dollars that we have in the bank that hasn't been encumbered as of 2025 to let us encumber. And put those monies into the new fiscal year budget. The Senate bill and the House bill are far apart in what they mean by new projects. So the House bill defines what a new project is, where the Senate bill does not. In the House bill, a new project is defined as anything that has been put in after the fiscal year 2025. So any new project where money has not already been encumbered, the Senate bill doesn't define that. So we're looking to clarify, we are still speaking with Senator McClain. He's been very gracious in listening to us on the Senate side. Representative Gio Lombardo, he has been gracious in listening to our concerns as well. So they have been very receptive to certain amendments or certain language that we would like to see. So we will be talking to them again this week, our contract lobbyists that are working on it. Daphne, with regards to Senate Bill 1242, there was supposed to be a hearing today on the CRA item. Do they have that yet or what time is that scheduled? That is scheduled for 4 o'clock. Can you just let us know how that's going by tonight's meeting? What happened at that hearing on the Senate side? Yes. The next one is a Senate bill called Building Permits for Single-Family Dwelling Units by Senator Angoglia. While it streamlines some permit applications in areas affected by a state of emergency within the past 24 months, in streamlining it, it's because it allows applications signed and sealed by licensed architects or engineers to be deemed compliant with the Florida Building Code without further review, provided zoning and land use regulations are met. Local governments must approve or deny the applications within two business days and are indemnified from liability for claims related to these expedited reviews. So, it also ensures that permits issued by local governments do not expire before the effective date of the next edition of the Florida Building Code. The Building Code is updated every three years. So, there have been some grumblings about that because of the expiration dates and then the new Building Code being issued every three years. So, we're looking and working with the League of Cities for that as well. The next one is recovery residences. So, there is a bill out there where it updates the requirements for recovery residences and their administration. They require cities to allow the establishment of a recovery residence in all districts zoned for multifamily use without any additional requirements. It also provides that a building permit issued by a local government for a single-family dwelling may not expire before the effective date of the next edition. Actually, no. Yes. Before the next edition of the Building Code. So, they are plugging different things into different bills, even though that one goes into my next one. The other one is local option taxes, which may or may not affect us. It requires local option taxes in effect by June 30th, 2025 to be renewed through voter-approved ordinances. Generally, those local option taxes don't need to go through voter referendums, so they're changing that up. What's a local option tax? It's a discretionary tax. Like a discretionary tax? This is for counties? Our cities are not in power to assess taxes, right? No. But this had something to do. It also mentioned some bonds and bondholders, and I know we bond out projects, so that's why it was flagged. Okay. Yeah. We're monitoring it. That one is a monitor bill, just in case. Okay. Usually, when they talk about counties and what they can do with their taxes, they sometimes slide some local municipalities in there, so we tend to monitor them and see where they're going with it. What was the date associated with that? The local option tax? Yes. Regulations required certain taxes in effect by June 30th, 2025. So, it revises Florida's regulations on local option taxes in effect by June 30th, 2025. I have three more, two more, and then I'm promising I'm done with this one. Well, we're not done with you. Just my luck. The next one is Senate Bill 420, which is official actions against local governments. It would prohibit Florida counties and municipalities from funding, promoting, or taking official actions related to DEI, including establishing DEI offices or officers while requiring potential recipients of local government contracts or grants to certify they won't use public funds for DEI-related activities with violations by local officials considered misfeasants or malfeasants in office. So, lucky enough, the Senate version is being held, like, heard today at 4 p.m. in Judiciary. I'll give an update on that. It's its second committee stop out of three. But the House version has not been heard in its first subcommittee meeting, which is the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee. So, given the fact that the House bill has not been heard, it may not make it out of floor action. But we do know we can't say never until they drop the handkerchief at the end of session. So, we are closely monitoring that bill. There are actually several bills with this type of language that have been filed, I would say about six or seven. Most of them are not moving, but there was the Senate bill that was heard earlier last week where there was a lot of opposition to it, at least public opposition to it. So, the sponsor of that has been told to clean it up a little bit because it had some unintended consequences when it came to what it meant to be DEI because it went into some local preference bills as well. Well, that's what I'm wondering because I know sometimes when we do – what's the word I'm thinking of? When we're soliciting vendors to do certain projects. With minority builders. Minority business. So, we would not be able to do that anymore. Well, that was one of the points that Senator, I believe it was Pizzo, had made where you would be affecting even some nonprofits that specialize just in servicing women or just men or certain communities, and that was not the intent of the bill. The intent was to fall in line with what federal administrations have been doing across the board when it came to DEI activities. So, we do know some amendments will be tacked on in order to make sure it's the ill-intended consequences. Has that been defined at the federal level yet? No. No. Okay. And my last one, which is not moving, that we are monitoring, is the display of flags by government entities. The House version hasn't been heard in any committee. It would prohibit governmental agencies, local governments, and other units of local government from erecting or displaying any flag that represents a political viewpoint, including a politically partisan, racial, sexual orientation, gender, and political ideology viewpoint. So, that bill is not moving. We don't think it's going to move. But, like last year, it had been filed again, so we wanted to flag it and monitor it in case it had any movement. And now, I guess it's time for questions. I just have one quick question. I understand that there's discussion about immigration, and what is your information with regard to the progress of any immigration bill that is moving through either of the houses? You've illegally crossed the border. That's going to be the next. That's the next thing we're going to talk about, right? That's the next item. But from your perspective, has that been part of any conversation as you're talking with our lobbyists? Yes. Yes. Yeah. There have been some bills filed on enforcing what they had passed, but some of them are moving slowly through the process. Others are not. So, we'll take that up in the next slide. Yes. Okay. Okay. Anyone have any questions of Daphne? Mayor, I do. Yes, go ahead. Thanks, Daphne. The next steps with Live Local, what's happening next? Right now, it is not on the agenda for its next committee. 943, we looked today to see if it would be on the agenda for today. It is not on. So, the next meeting, and I cannot remember the committee off the top of my head, but the next committee it goes to meets on April 9th. So, we would know on April 6th, yes, April 6th, the night of April 6th, whether or not it would be placed on the agenda for April 9th. Is that a House committee or a Senate? It would be a House committee. House, yeah. So, it will keep working through the House? It has two committee stops. So, this committee that it's in now, and then its last one before it goes onto the House floor, and then on the Senate side, it has two stops. Two committee stops as well? Two, yes. Okay. I want to say two, three, but don't quote me on three, because that one was agended in four committees rather than the normal three. Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't know. Is it just me that I see a certain irony here, where they're pushing the Live Local Act for the whole purpose of trying to create more opportunities for affordable housing, yet at the same time, they're trying to eliminate CRAs, in which affordable housing has been an absolute priority, especially in our CRA. But, anyway, just a comment there. Any other questions or comments for Daphne? I do. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you, Daphne, for the report. Any traction, there was a bill making its way, and I don't know where it is, in terms of denying condominium associations the ability to receive insurance from citizens if they didn't comply with any of the laws right now with regards to the structural integrity reserve study or reserves, things like that. Not that I have seen that we have flagged, but I can go through all the bills that have been filed and look to see what insurance-related bills have been filed that are moving. Because I know some of the ones that we did flag early were not related to what we were looking for for y'all. But I'll go back and double-check and make sure that we didn't overlook anything or if anything got filed a bit later, committee-wise. Thank you. Again, it would deny the ability to receive insurance from citizens for condominium associations if they didn't comply with any of the laws that have been passed with regards to the reserve studies, reserves themselves, maintenance, everything. Any onerous bill in terms of the vacation rental issue that we always fight every year? Is that all quiet this year? It was the one that gave me the least amount of heartburn because it was all quiet on the eastern front. Excellent. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Thank you again. Any other questions of Daphne? Daphne, this thing I read in the paper today about the governor now looking to give $1,000 credit on property taxes. Do you know what – do you have any details on what – is this just adding to the homestead exemption? What is your information on that? I did see it this morning as well. I have not had the opportunity to delve in a bit deeper with it. I was preparing for today. No, I understand. It seems very fresh. Give me until tonight, and I can give you a roundabout answer about that one because I'm not sure. I do believe this is part of the disagreement that the governor is having with the House proposal or the legislative proposals when it comes to property tax and sales tax and all these taxes with the tax package that's going to be rolled out either this week or next week. And looking to see – because he doesn't agree with the tax package that the legislature is going to put out or that I believe has been put out. And this is his reaction to the tax package that would be put out. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. We'll keep up the good work. Thank you so much, Daphne. We appreciate it. Thank you. Back to Tallahassee. Yay. Okay, so let's now go into CF2, which is the discussion about the state special session C on immigration legislation. Who's going to be talking about that, Dwayne or you, Daphne? Me again. Oh, okay. Daphne's going to start, and then we have some other folks that will chime in. Where's my backup? Where's the chief? The fire? Fire? Fire? Needs to come closer. Oh, okay. I've got one. Security. All right, so we get to talk about special session C, better late than never. Before we actually get into it, special session C was the third special session that the legislature had at the call of the governor to go over immigration after the elections. And this was held in February. It lasted for about a week or two weeks because they were called back after they gaveled out with a bill that he did not like and that he said he would not sign. And so they gaveled back in for the third special session where they compromised and came out with two bills, but one in particular that we're going to talk about. Before we talk about that, we're going to talk about what it comprises of, which is a 287G, the federal procedure for an immigration detainer. So an immigration detainer is a request from ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that asks a federal, state, or local agency, enforcement agency, including jails, prisons, or other confinement facilities, to notify the requesting agency as early as possible before they release a removable alien. And that is the new term that immigration, and we no longer say deportation or deportable, hold the alien for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would ordinarily release them. So DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, has time to assume custody in accordance with federal immigration law. So a detainer request is just a request until a judicial warrant is issued. And with a judicial warrant, that is where we would use law enforcement agencies in order to assist ICE pick up that particular person for committing a crime, whether that be being here illegally or committing a crime, and we pick them up while in the committance of said crime. So whether it's, what, broken taillight? No, misdemeanors or felonies. Right, but Chief, it says confinement facilities. We don't have any confinement facilities, so this doesn't really impact us, does it? So the confinement in this regard would be primarily the sheriff? Yeah. Yeah. It's okay. No, but right now, I'm just saying in the immediate situation, the only confinement facility that we have here in Broward County is the Broward County justice. Extended confinement, yes. The local agencies, including ours, has what we call a booking facility, and those will have temporary rooms to place someone in, but it's a matter of moments, usually an hour maximum. In Broward County, it's Broward County main jail and its subsidiaries. Right. It's okay. I just want to clarify that. I don't think any other city has a holding facility or any confinement facility as defined here in 287G. I'm just wondering how that would impact us. So once we book somebody and they are at the county jail, they're sort of out of our jurisdiction, right? They're in the jurisdiction of the sheriff's department. Remanded to them, yes. Right. Okay. All right. Thank you. So in general, before we get into the some specifics, is the new state law would make it mandatory to honor a detainer request, even when the 48-hour timeline lapses, and the alien will then be processed for the crime that he or she was originally detained for. So the overview of the state law, and I apologize for all the words. It's not my normal style. For Senate Bill 2C, which is now Chapter 2025-1, this is the main bill that outlines what we need to do, the mandatory participation in ISIS-287G program, is that there's the creation of the state-level crimes for the undocumented status, the increased penalties for crimes committed by undocumented officials, so they added in some crimes in there. And then it outlines the requirements for law enforcement agencies that have custody of a person subject to an immigration detainer issued by a federal immigration agency. And then they also allocated nearly $300 million for the law enforcement implementation, so that would be the grant program that they have. And then it outlines the penalties for noncompliance by anybody within the state. It also says that a state or local government law enforcement agency or their staff cannot ban or limit police from acting on someone's immigration status, and that is related to a sanctuary policy, and I'll let D. Wade go into more about that right now. Good evening. So existing law provides a prohibition against any state entity, law enforcement agency, or local entity from adopting or having, in effect, any sanctuary policies. In this last session, the term sanctuary policy has been expanded to include actions that would prohibit or prevent local law enforcement from participating in any program or an agreement authorized under Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as required in the statute. So the statute itself expressly provides that sheriffs and those who operate county detention facilities are required to enter into the 287G memorandums. It does not expressly require local entities to do so. However, the Attorney General has taken a position that the refusal to enter into such a memorandum with ICE is an indication of the municipalities preventing law enforcement from participating, and that violates the – well, that would constitute a sanctuary policy. And so at least one municipality, the city of South Miami has sought a declaratory judgment in circuit court. That doesn't have any presidential value for us, but it will be persuasive in terms of how our jurisdictions would look at that law. They're addressing two issues, and I sent that via email to you all earlier this afternoon with a copy of the actual complaint from South Miami. But they're seeking clarity on whether or not local governments are required to enter into these 287G memorandums. Some of our neighboring municipalities have, but, again, the statute does not require you to do so. But, again, there should not be any expression by the commission to expressly refuse to enter into this agreement. Well, we haven't been asked yet, have we? No. Okay. So it's really when they tender the request, that's when the commission has to make a decision to respond. So we're not there yet. Correct. Okay. All right. Anything else you'd like to add to this? Of course. Please continue. I can be long-winded at times. You're only on page three. I'm sorry. I know. Usually it's my last page. So the next Senate bill outlines the Senate Bill 4C, which is Chapter 2025-2. It outlines the crimes of illegal entry. It also outlines the affirmative defenses that can be taken if an undocumented individual is taken into or being detained. It requires law enforcement to notify ICE and other relevant entities upon arrest of unauthorized aliens and legislates that they are convicted of capital felonies would automatically face the death penalty. I believe that portion of it is being contested as well, but I'm not sure how that would go over. And then increased penalties for crimes committed by undocumented individuals is further outlined in that particular bill. So there were two bills that were filed and then immediately signed by the governor in February. Key provisions that are affecting law enforcement, just generally looking, is the mandatory notification of federal authorities for undocumented individuals in custody, training of local officers as immigration agencies under the program, enhanced penalties and mandatory sentences. And the incentives for officers participating in immigration enforcement is the bonus amount of, I believe it's $1,000 that the grant program was going to issue with also the reimbursable grant that can be given to law enforcement agencies for training those officials. Additional provisions that would affect law enforcement, when you look at it, when you look at it, could be the increased costs. So it looks upon the unfunded mandate aspect of it outside of the grant program. And this year there haven't been any bills filed, and I haven't seen any proviso in the budget looking to allocate any additional funds. But again, the budget is preliminary, and they may be putting that in a bit later. So to my earlier point then, mandatory notification of federal authorities for undocumented individuals in custody, who must take the affirmative act to notify the federal government? Is it the sheriff's department in this case, or would it be us? Because we don't have them in custody. They do. Well, this is referring to an incident where we would have them in custody for some other crime. And then we would notify them. There's instructions given to us once you run an individual through the database. There's instructions listed as to who you need to contact. So we would make that affirmative act? We can make that contact, yes. Okay, all right. Do you feel that's it? Would that be any significant burden on us, you know, this new requirement? Does that really impose any real burden on us? The notification? Yeah. No. No, I didn't think so. Okay. So further impact on police operations include increased workloads, risk of bias-based profiling, and legal liability. And I'll start from the bottom up. With legal liability, there could be lawsuits that are included, including Section 1983 civil rights claims and state tort actions. With race bias-based profiling, officers may lack proper training to distinguish legal residents, increasing the risks of wrongful detentions. And then with an increased workload with the additional responsibilities for identifying individuals as undocumented when stopped or detained for violating a state infraction identified in the law, that that's an additional workload, as well as a strain on resources due to enforcement mandates. There was something that was mentioned in the state immigration council meeting yesterday morning, where they said that you can't be detained if you're – an undocumented individual cannot be detained if they're reporting a crime when crossing at the border. And they identified the border as either Alabama or Georgia for Florida's border. So when crossing Alabama or a raft in water. So if they're reporting a crime at that time, they cannot be detained. So I thought that was an interesting note to say. So there could be a potential impact on fire rescue operations, which include a fear amongst undocumented residents to seek help during emergencies due to potential immigration checks. So emergency response could be a bit slower in that aspect when there is an emergency. And then resource allocation, where budget reallocation towards immigration enforcement could limit funding for essential rescue operations, in addition to an increased workload and, of course, again, the diversion of resources. Some of the broader applications – broader applications – you can tell the caffeine is wearing off. Operational challenges, community safety risks, and financial strain, and erosion of trust, and, of course, legal challenges. So where unfunded mandates divert a focus from not only criminal investigations and emergency services, but regular duties, where there's reduced cooperation from immigrant communities and damaging the trust between law enforcement and immigration communities that have been longstanding or harder to build. And then the financial strain, and even though it includes a grant program, there's still an increased enforcement activities that are mandated by the bill, which lead to increased costs for police and fire, creating budget pressures. Some of the recommendations that we are going to advocate for is establishing immunity for 287G actions, both on the state and federal side. Clarify some language, clarify some language, reform probable cause standards for ICE detainers, so set a clear national standard for probable cause in ICE detainers versus what they have now, and ensuring constitutional compliance for removing some ambiguity. And then, of course, federal and state funding for any increased financial impact that may be caused on both police and fire rescue. So, and that is, in conclusion, the new immigration law introduces significant changes for law enforcement and rescue operations. It results in an unfunded mandate on municipalities to enforce federal law, and balancing enforcement with community trust and public safety is critical for the city's police and fire departments. And we would be looking at potentially losing state and federal funding if we don't comply with the state law and federal law. Got it. Questions? Chief, you want to add anything to this? I think my colleague did a fantastic job of presenting today, but I am available for questions if anyone has any. Okay. Anyone have any questions? I was just wondering, has anyone even tried to think of what a possible financial cost this would be between police and fire with everything we've just heard today? Do we even have an idea, or is it just too preliminary for that? I would start saying too preliminary at this point. We're monitoring. It's changing. And so we'll follow up again. Today was more informational. No action required today. But we will probably have a follow-up once we have more information like that. Okay. That $300 million that's been allocated statewide, what would that basically break down to for the municipalities in the state? They have a grant program, and there's an application process associated with it. And, Daphne, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you would have had to have signed one of these MOAs in order to be part of the pool. But you can correct me if I'm not correct. Yeah, we'd have to look into it. I thought that you had to sign one of them in order to apply. Daphne has heard that you may be able to apply without the full MOU endorsed at that time. So we would have to look into that. Is there a timeline for us to eventually evaluate everything, or do we know when we're going to be asked to comply, or when the chief would sign a 287? Is it 287G? What is the timeline that we're seeing going into the future? Right now, again, we don't have, and we haven't been given. As we said, no one has sent us a request to sign one. So, again, we're going to continue to monitor and keep you updated. Okay. And do we have any idea in terms of the lawsuit that was filed by South Miami what the timeline is on that before we would get some sort of conclusion to that? So it was just filed, actually, on March 27th. So it's a deck action. It shouldn't take that long for the circuit court to address, but I don't have a particular timeline. It's in the Second Circuit in Miami. I'm not familiar with how they process things. Okay. Thank you, everyone. Do we know if South Miami has a detention facility of its own? I do not. Okay. I know I've been following the case in Fort Myers as well as the developing one up in Jacksonville right now, and I know the Attorney General has written a very strongly worded letter to Fort Myers, and they reconsidered their opposition. And I believe Jacksonville is moving forward with theirs, although I'm not sure if the mayor is going to sign it or not, but the city council up there is certainly moving forward with it. My concern is I know the law makes specific reference to county detention facilities, but I am concerned that once we stand up our own detention facility to address the homeless issues that we've codified, that we will now have a detention facility. And I know in reading the Attorney General's letter, he is also making reference to the fact that municipalities that have law enforcement agencies that don't receive the requisite training in immigration law are implying that they are not then capable of enforcing immigration law because they don't have the training to do so. And that is, in his mind, implying that those cities are, in effect, establishing themselves as sanctuary cities by not taking the training necessary to enforce the immigration law. Is it an expectation that they are going to send a letter to every municipality in the state of Florida asking them to sign 287G agreements, or is it incumbent upon us to do so proactively if it becomes an obligation for us? So the agreement's not with the state. The agreement's with the federal government. And so it would be ICE's prerogative to reach out to us. And I just want to explain a little bit more. The 287G program, there's three models. And so the statute that was adopted contemplates the jail enforcement model, and that model is really designed for ensuring when individuals are arrested and detained that the local and state law enforcement agencies cooperate with ICE in identifying and dealing with the removal process for those individuals. The other document, which is the task force model, where local agencies participate in limited enforcement actions with ICE, is what these other entities are contemplating. That's what Fort Myers actually did, an affirmative action to reject, which arguably has an issue with the state law. And what South Miami, they haven't taken an action. They're seeking that action to say, hey, we're hearing what the governor's office is saying and the attorney general is saying in terms of us not entering into these types of memorandums. And they're asking the court to weigh in and say, hey, you're not violating the law if you don't enter into it. Or if you are violating the law, you don't, if we deem it to be violating the law, that you don't incur as individual elected officials any liability for that. Right. So as I understand the federal requirements, from the federal perspective, it is a voluntary agreement, which we can enter into or not enter into. That's correct. So I don't anticipate ICE is going to be reaching out to every city and asking them to do so. I think it's the state law that makes it incumbent on law enforcement agencies to proactively enter into these agreements, if I understand this. And that's where we would argue as attorneys, because they expressly say, hey, if you run a county jail, you have to enter into these agreements. And they're silent on that when it comes to the task force model. Right. And now, you know, someone's kind of hinting to the fact that that's where they would like us to go, I guess. But they should have expressly stated that in the legislation in my opinion. I think perhaps because of the rushed nature of the legislation, as we always say, as Mr. Stewart used to say, Florida statutes are not a model of clarity. Yeah. And I know when I was in Jacksonville, we constantly filed J-bills, glitch bills, to fix things from one session to the next. So I wouldn't be surprised if we see something in this current session that addresses what we're seeing in this lawsuit, specifically to say, oops, we missed that, and we should probably fix it. But, again, I think you're right that it specifically addresses county detention facilities, whether the omission of the municipal detention facilities was an oversight or an intentional action on the part of the legislature, I guess, is up for debate at this point. I suspect more likely that they just weren't thinking in terms of municipalities having their own jails, since most of them are run by county sheriffs around the state. But, you know, that remains to be seen. But I guess my question is, if we go through this DECA action, and let's assume for purposes of discussion that the court sides with the governor and the attorney general, are we then obligated to do something affirmatively as opposed to waiting for somebody to contact us and ask us to enter into an agreement? How would we be viewing that? I think that it would all depend on what that court says in their order. Okay. And you also mentioned task force model. I know that the city engages in a number of task forces on a regional basis for a variety of actions, drug enforcement actions, things like that. Oftentimes we've been the lead agency in some of these things. Sometimes we've been a participating agency. How does that tie into this task force model? If we're asked to participate, and I also know we've had a number of instances where we have had immigrants wash up on our beaches and boats. So clearly this is a destination for people that are being transported here illegally. So how does all that work together? So when we work with other agencies, and the chief can kind of speak to that a little bit more, we have mutual aid agreements that we enter into and that dictate that relationship. But we don't necessarily need to have mutual aid agreements to operate within our jurisdiction and to coordinate with other agencies when their function or their jurisdiction in terms of law enforcement kind of crosses over into our territorial jurisdiction. But then referencing Mr. Uthmeyer's contention that our officers need to be trained in immigration law in order to effectively carry out the provisions of 287G without signing this agreement, we don't get the requisite training. Is that correct? Apologies. Let me clarify the task force because that is, you're right, Commissioner, that's a bit confusing. Most agencies, especially ours, do have officers full-time assigned to various task force with various agencies in the federal government. But none of those officers have received this specific immigration training. So in regards to this MOU, if we were to enter into it, it would provide that specific training to whoever we designate to get that training. That could be one of our current task force officers on another task force, or it could be a patrol officer. It would be our discretion. Okay. I would just make the recommendation that we enter into the agreement and we fully support the governor and the president's actions on this and allow our task force-designated officers to be able to carry out the appropriate actions related to immigration law. So it's my recommendation. Well, I hear what you're saying, but I do think, based on what we're being told, it's a little premature. And I think we should be prepared to respond consistent with what the directives are from the state and the federal government. But I don't know. I personally think it's a little premature. Based on some of the stories I've been seeing in the paper, it seems like federal authorities haven't really defined what proper immigration response is themselves. I mean, they're arresting people that courts are finding to have been illegal arrests. So before we start participating in this action, we should certainly have a better understanding as to what proper enforcement procedures we should be exercising as opposed to just guessing at this point, as everyone seems to be. Hence the need for training, Mayor. That's kind of the point that we're getting there. Well, who's training the same people that are doing the illegal arrests? ICE. So, yeah, ICE. Yeah. So, nice ICE. They're arresting people that the courts are finding to have been illegal arrests. So I think it's still a very fluid situation. I don't want to start violating people's rights, and I certainly don't want to frustrate the federal government and the state government's expectations. But I still think it's a little fluid right now, and until there's a little bit more definition. I mean, that's my opinion. I don't know about the rest of the commission, but I don't think now's the time to be acting in any way whatsoever. Anyone else have any opinion on that? All right. I also think it's a bit premature based on my questions and the answers I've gotten from staff tonight. I think we're in the evaluation phase, and we're waiting for a little bit more clarity, and I think that's really the prudent thing to do. Okay. Anything else? You're good? I did want to say one thing. This is going to be my last session with the city. Oh, are you taking another job? Perhaps. Okay. Is that April Fool's? April Fool's. Okay. See? Nice, nice. See? This is what the mayor gets for giving me heartburn. Nice try. Be careful what you wish for. All right. Thank you so much. All right. Business one, discussion regarding rules of parliamentary procedure. What is this about? Would you like me to approach the podium, or are you fine with me sitting here? I'm fine with – well, I don't know. What does Robert's Rules say? So from time to time, the discussion of parliamentary procedures comes before the city commission, and so I just wanted to visit this discussion in a more formal setting. Traditionally, the city doesn't have any formal parliamentary procedures for the commission or any of its advisory boards or committees. We, as I like to say, we loosely follow Robert's Rules. And in that sense, we look at it when there are questions that are kind of novel that come up within a proceeding and look to it for guidance on how to handle those items. But the city has operated like this for a while now. But what we did was kind of survey municipalities throughout Florida, and we found there to be four main models of how that is done. Some municipalities have adopted complete customized parliamentary procedures that they rely upon, that adopted and that you can look at. Others have adopted Robert's Rules as their guide for parliamentary procedures. Some, like us, have not codified anything. And then you have a hybrid model, which I think is useful, where you adopt some parliamentary procedures, and then you can rely on Robert's Rules to fill in the gaps in those procedures. So I just wanted to bring it forward for the purposes of discussion and see if the commission is desirous of visiting the parliamentary procedures and doing any types of revisions. Okay. Anyone have any comments or questions? Yeah, Mayor, this is something I brought up to dialogue on. So, Duane, thanks for your work on this. So your recommendation is looking at the hybrid of custom rules with Robert's Rules, right, the combination. And can you give us, and you're articulating the cam, but just for folks listening, the reasons why you think that makes sense for us as a city, and then what would be the process to begin developing that, and could the public be part of that discussion? Well, by developing our own rules in the hybrid model, we can actually provide for the specific needs of the city, kind of tailor the parliamentary procedures to how we've customarily operated our meetings and dealing with the nuances that are specific and special to the city of Fort Lauderdale, while still using as a formal guide and adopting Robert's Rules as a secondary backup as a formal guide to those questions that we don't necessarily address in those parliamentary procedures that we've adopted. I don't know in terms of, I haven't given any thought to a public process for developing parliamentary procedures, because the nature of those types of rules are kind of already defined through custom. I don't know necessarily the value of a whole public process, but I'm willing to do that. I want to know, what problem are we looking to fix? Mayor, I think, in my view, it's important for not only the city commission, but also city committees to have a process of how do you vote, how do you ask questions, how do you make motions. We don't have a defined process. It's just kind of loosey-goosey what seems like the right thing. So I think it would be helpful for greater clarity and structure. Okay, the loosey-goosey thing, I'm not quite sure I agree with. I mean, we have very defined procedures that either are ensconced in some black-letter law, or we have followed it by tradition. You know, ever since I've been mayor, you know, we follow the same exact procedure. I don't know anyone who's complained about it or found it to be either confining or too liberal. So maybe at the board or committee level there may be some need to perhaps tighten up how business is conducted at that level. But tell me, that's why I'm asking, what is the problem we're looking to fix at this commission level that adopting some set of rules or regulations that we don't already follow are going to enhance our productivity as a commission? We don't – so we don't – my understanding, Dwayne, correct me if I'm wrong, but we do not – do we have a written procedure for how meetings are conducted? We don't. Right. So I think we should have a written procedure for how meetings are conducted for us. That's the reason. I'm not adverse to it. Yeah. But I just – I don't know, you know, spend a lot of time and effort and going out for neighborhood outreach and all that. I mean, I invite you to shepherd this process and be happy to have you come back with results. Yes, Commissioner. My question, you know, that term loosey-goosey really is kind of – didn't fall very well because that makes it – it appears that our city is just doing any and everything, and I don't agree with that. Before becoming voted to this position, being on different boards and committees, there is structure in those meetings. Maybe I don't – I didn't realize that there was a – not a protocol or written instructions of how to follow those meetings, but those meetings have been structured. Each one had an agenda. They had a new and old business. They had some protocol in place. So I'm kind of confused when it's being suggested that meetings, board meetings and commission – excuse me, committee meetings are just lax in going in different directions, if we can get some clarity on that. Sure. So the clerk's office and the city attorney's office for years has put together a book, Better Meetings Manual. I don't know if we still use that as the title, but it's – you know, that manual is on our website, and we've conducted these trainings for board and – advisory board and committee members on an annual basis in April and the liaisons to describe what is the general policy of how the boards and committees run. That book does contain – and it's not an officially adopted book by – or the procedures in it aren't officially adopted by the city, but they contain the customary and traditional way that our boards and committees operate, and we – that's how we conduct those boards and committees and rely upon that manual in terms of how the chair chairs the meeting, how the agenda is set, how motions are made and dealt with on the advisory board and committee level. So that's how we've kept order with regards to our advisory boards and committees traditionally through that mechanism. All right. Would that be considered a hybrid situation? Because you're giving way at some point to Robert's Rules and then what we are utilizing for structure. Would that not fall under a hybrid format? Yeah, it's – in a sense, because we do in that training suggest that we use Robert's Rules as a loose guide to how to conduct meetings. But our code also provides for boards and committees to recommend their own rules of procedure. And I think only in the last – the communication at the last commission meeting, I believe the – one of the CRA advisory boards brought forward a communication saying, hey, we would like to revise our rules of procedure, which is – they were following the code in that sense. And I think the consensus with the commission was to allow them to go ahead and address that internally as a board. All right. So what would be next steps that you would recommend? So my suggestion would be to – for D. Wayne to work on a hybrid Robert's Rules approach and bring that back to us would be my suggestion there. Do you understand what that directive is? So to develop a rules of procedure based on the hybrid model, so develop – And put it in writing. And put it in writing. Let me interject this, because this I think may be helpful. Because I spoke with D. Wayne about this a little bit, and what I had asked, and I'm not expecting that right now, is I think we should have a comparison between where we follow Robert's Rules of Order and where we don't. And I think that might be helpful in determining if we're comfortable with that. I know that there have been times through the years where certain things have not been consistent with the general parliamentary practice in terms of calling a point of order and things of that nature. And I think it would be helpful for everybody to know when we deviate from Robert's Rules of Order and when we are consistent with it so we can figure out what that hybrid model should look like. I don't want to put that burden on the attorney's office to figure out how we're going to function. I think that's a policy question for us, and I think it would be very difficult for a charter officer to tell us what we should be doing. So I don't want to ask them to do something that's difficult for them to do and probably even inappropriate in the grand scheme of things to be telling his bosses how they should act and behave. So I think it would be more useful for him to describe to us what we are doing and those areas where we deviate and we can decide on a case-by-case basis if we're comfortable with that deviation or if we want to adhere more closely to the prescribed parliamentary procedure. Well, the thing is, you know, Robert's Rules is a book, and I'd hate to have him spend his time, you know, going page by page, you know, trying to differentiate the nuances between what Robert Rules prescribed and the kind of practice that we engage in. So unless there are very specific subject matter areas that you want him to differentiate, I think that's more appropriate. Otherwise, he could spend a whole year doing this just doing nothing else. So we don't really want him spending his time on that. I think he'll be in the same position if you ask him to write our rules for us. I think he's got to have to go through the whole book and do the same thing. Well, no one's suggesting to do that either. I mean, that was just a suggestion. But I think that if there are certain things that, like I said at the beginning, what is the problem we're trying to fix? Is it just the fact that not everything is in writing? Then let's put everything in writing. If there's a specific procedure that you feel we should not, that we should no longer practice because Robert's Rules says it should be done this way as opposed to that way, then let's give direction to the city attorney so that something can be brought back to us in some defined fashion that we can either approve or disapprove. I think that's the only fair thing, right? I agree, Mayor. Okay. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. So that would be next steps. Any recommendations that you have, give them to Duane, and then he can differentiate between what Robert's Rules says and what we've been practicing, and then we can come back with some kind of modification if we agree to do that. So, yeah, Duane, is that making sense or should we better clarify? Does that make more sense to you? I think we're clear on that. Okay. All right. All right. Good. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Anything to improve the efficiency of the commission is I'm in favor. That's right. All right. Well, we're all the way down to commission reports. Do you guys want to take a break before we do this? I think we missed New River Crossing. Oh, I'm sorry. Forgot. How did I forget that? New River Crossing. So the county has, just to recapitulate, the county has approached us starting with a letter that was submitted to us by the mayor of Beam Furr in which certain expectations were made of the city and wanting us to come with a resolution that they could agree to and we could collectively submit to the federal government as we seek to apply for funds for the funding of the New River Crossing. As I'm sitting here during this meeting, I'm watching the New River Crossing and how many times that Andrews Avenue Bridge has stayed open, denying the vehicular traffic the time it needs. Let's look at it. It's bumper to bumper. Anyway, so attached is a draft resolution. I hope you've all had an opportunity to review it. Commissioner Sorensen, you've had some direct conversations with the mayor. Do you want to fill us in on what you've been able to come up with? Sure. Thanks, Mayor. Appreciate it. And appreciate it. I'm sure you're having conversations as well. But Ben Rogers, thanks for your work on this. I know, Ben, you've been working with county staff to help develop this resolution. I know you've been getting their feedback, not that this is going to be their resolution, this is our resolution. But, Mayor, I think just that dialogue is helpful and important in this conversation. So in my conversations with Mayor Beam Furr and sharing kind of where we are with the resolution as you all see it now from the city's resolution, Mayor Furr expressed appreciation and support for where we're heading, Mayor, on this resolution. The one ask that Mayor Furr had is on our, if we could add, his ask is in the county's kind of language, this is what's his suggestion, that something along this line, Mayor, and can I share with you what that is, what that thought is? Yeah. Is that correct? Okay. So something along the lines of the Fort Lauderdale City Commission understands that if a viable tunnel alternative cannot be provided, the city acknowledges that the city acknowledges that the county may elect to include a bridge crossing as part of its locally preferred alternative, period. And, Mayor, why they're seeking that general sense, and then I'll share with you why, I think that's okay, and we should consider including that, is they're interested in the city acknowledging that it is possible that the tunnel might not be a viable option. Now, I don't think that's the case, Mayor. I think we're going to get proposals that are going to show this is very viable, but the county is interested in that caveat. I don't think, Mayor, that that limits what we would, our options, limits our forward progress that I think we're really all have been making great progress on the tunnel. It just acknowledges that the county may elect to include a bridge crossing if the tunnel option at some point becomes not viable. So this phrase that you just said, not viable, has been a sticking point for, I don't know, I've been working on this since the beginning, okay? And every time that we try to come up with a methodology to secure the viability of the tunnel, a roadblock is put in front of us by the county. So if you're saying that we should include a phrase that says that if it's not viable, then we will allow the county to go ahead with the bridge aspect, you know that this is not an attempt to create a partnership between us, okay, to together try to put together a viable new river crossing by way of a tunnel. It's like, here, prove it to us that you can do it, and if you can't, we're going to just move on without you. That's exactly the phrasing, how I interpret what you're asking. And I don't see how we could ever, ever, in my opinion, now we may not have the unanimity of the commission, but I'm hoping the majority would agree that we would never agree to a bridge, ever. Yeah, and I'm not wanting a bridge, and I'm not proposing that we agree with a bridge. What we're just acknowledging is that the county may elect to work towards a bridge, which is the kind of state that we're in now, I mean, and we always would be, is the county may elect at some point in the future to head towards a bridge. That's fine. That doesn't commit us to it, doesn't commit us supporting it. But it's just acknowledging, I feel like, Mayor, just the – But it sounds like we're acquiescing to it. I don't think – so I completely understand your perspective on that. I don't think we're acquiescing because we are driving all systems ahead towards a tunnel, and I think we're making progress that we've never made before. Mayor, this – let's see, today's Tuesday. This was yesterday I was able to set up a meeting with the chief of staff of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to talk about the tunnel, and they're very interested in talking about the tunnel. And I suggested, hey, just if we could get 15 minutes, and they want to talk for an hour. So I just lift that up as just one tiny example, Mayor, of I am not going to acquiesce to a bridge. I'm going to – just me personally, going to keep driving towards the tunnel. I think we've got great traction. All this does is just acknowledges that, hey, at some point, if the county wants to, they can – you know, they might move towards a bridge if they feel like we're not making progress. But I'm confident we will, and I'm confident we'll make progress together. Who makes the determination as to whether or not we're making progress? So I think that's where we have wide latitude, and Mayor Furr has repeatedly expressed to me and is happy to include in the resolution, in their resolution, the county's resolution, that we will be keeping them updated and that we can request a further timeframe to continue to show that progress. Yeah, but who makes the final decision as to when the progress, in their eyes, has been achieved or not? Well, so I think ultimately they would make the determination if they view there's progress, just as we will determine if we think there's progress. And I think they're going to be very open to embracing the progress that we've made and already have made. Well, they've done none of that. They've never embraced anything we've done. They keep pushing back on us, and the county administrator keeps putting more roadblocks. I mean, let's go back to his March 3rd letter, okay? Yeah. Let's go back to that, which I just happen to have in front of me. Yeah, yeah. So after all of our attempts to try to partner with the county in trying to achieve a locally preferred alternative that was acceptable to the city of Fort Lauderdale, look at the things that they insisted upon, okay? Number one, this is on page two, has extensive and demonstrated experience designing and building railroad tunnels within a 24-month period. Now, why would they have put that in a letter to us? After everything that has been said to them and submitted to them, we submitted to them a proposal where it was going to take 4.1 years to build a tunnel, and now they said, oh, well, we'll only accept it if you can do it in half the time, knowing that they can't possibly build four bridges over there and take down two within a 24-month period. But somehow that's a requirement on us, all right? Secondly, we have to show that we have to pick a company that has experience to successfully maintain an operating railroad tunnel under navigable waterways for a period of performance for no less than 30 years. How can we possibly do that? In fact, they're the ones who are responsible for the operation and maintenance of any new river crossing. So it's their responsibility, not our responsibility. We'll commit to no less than a 99% annual tunnel availability scheme that minimizes disruptions to all passenger train operations. In other words, if a train breaks down or if there's some problem with the tunnel, then we have to guarantee that that will never happen. Well, we can never guarantee 99% certainty that there would be no obstruction with the tunnel. They can't predict that with their bridge. So why are they imposing it on us as a tunnel? And it goes on and on and on, all of these unacceptable and unattainable milestones that they expect us to deliver on. And then they're saying, oh, well, we're going to give you the opportunity to prove that you can build a tunnel when they're already moved the goalposts so far away that it's impossible to achieve. I don't feel that that language that you want to include is going to ensure that our goal of building a tunnel instead of a bridge is going to be assured. In fact, it will be interpreted by the federal government as our acquiescing to a bridge alternative, especially since these kinds of hurdles are put in front of us. Let's not be naive as to this, okay? I've been dealing with the county now for eight years on this, and they have continued to come up with reasons to try to defeat our effort from the very start when they first said that the maintenance every year, when Monica Shapiro wrote an op-ed piece in the Sun Sentinel and said that the maintenance of a tunnel would be $30 million a year. $30 million a year. No basis for it, but insisted that that's what it was going to be. And therefore, over a 30-year period, it would be $900 million to operate a tunnel. The absurdity alone bears witness to the kind of lack of good faith that they were showing to us. When the FDOT proposed cost estimates as to what a tunnel would be when this whole thing first started, okay, their range was from $2.8 to $4.1 billion. Where did that come from? Again, these were efforts to try to put hurdles in front of what we feel is an opportunity, a transformative transportation project that's going to allow Fort Lauderdale to continue to grow downtown. It's going to continue to connect communities. It's going to continue to enhance transportation opportunities here in our downtown, and yet they continue to bypass everything that we try to do that never once have they said, let's work together with you to make this happen. It's like you proved to us that you can do this. There's not one scintilla of wording here that ever says that we're going to help you do this. We're going to partner with you. We're going to make sure that this happens. No. It's like if you can't make it happen, too bad. We're going to go on without you. And that's not a position I wish this city to be in. Sure. So I completely understand. And so I'll agree to the resolution, but that language can't go in there. So Broward County may choose to move forward with a bridge at some point. You don't want to include that. I can't, Ben. I can't. I just have a question for both of you, though. Go ahead. Last night we received like a 10, I don't know, 1020, the latest drafts. So the language that you just mentioned, Ben, is already in this. It's Section 6. So I want to know, Ben, maybe you can help me. Ben Rogers, maybe you can help me. Let's look at that document we received. It went to David yesterday at 6.28 p.m., and then we received it at 10.21 p.m. last night. So there's a resolution, and then there's a document that says city draft resolution. Who crafted that? So first off, Ben Rogers, Acting Assistant City Manager. Good afternoon, Mayor and Commission. If I go back to the last meeting, there was a conversation. There were some points of uncertainty between the commission, and so at that point we interjected, and we had some staff-to-staff meetings with the county. We walked through all of these different bullet points and tried to get a mutual understanding of where we were at, what the intent was, and really understand how we can move forward. During that process, city staff drafted a resolution and shared it with the county staff so they could opine and provide feedback. Is that the document that's labeled and read city draft resolution? Yes. Okay. So we provided a draft resolution. They provided comments back. We did that a few times. Okay. The document entitled county feedback, did we draft that, or did they draft that? That is our baseline resolution that they provided their feedback into. They did. They drafted the document that says. They redlined our version. So that's the document that they drafted that says county feedback. That's correct. And, Vice Mayor, we just provided that to you as an informational email just so you would know what the county was saying back to staff. Okay. Because I just wanted to mention, because the information that Commissioner Sorensen just requested from Mayor Furr is actually Section 6 in that document. If everyone wants to look at it, the words are right there. But it is Section 6. So that was what the county came back to. Correct. So the county did request the language that Commissioner Sorensen alluded to. That was Section 6 of the county feedback draft resolution. If you look at the final resolution that staff put forward, that language is not in the proposed resolution. So the final resolution then is actually the Exhibit 2? That's correct. Page 3? Three pages? That's correct. So that's not in there? Correct. Okay. And there's other components. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ben. Let me just pull up the county feedback. There's other components of the county's suggestion that are not in our resolution, right? That's correct. And there's also, within the city staff proposed resolution Exhibit 2, Section 2 and Section 4 have blank lines. So those are deadlines. You know, the county has, again, expressed an interest for us to meet those deliverables by October 1st. City staff, you know, not knowing what the full scope of the project would be, not knowing what level of due diligence a proposer may or may not put into their solicitation or their response, didn't feel comfortable with putting a date in for this commission. So I think that's another item that the commission would need to discuss if they're going to move forward with the resolution. Yeah. And so, and, Mayor, to your point, there's several suggestions the county would like in our resolution, some of which you read in the mayor's first letter. I don't think those should be in our resolution. So the only addition I'm suggesting is that the county may move forward with a bridge at some point if, you know, the tunnel is not a viable option. And so, Commissioner Glassman, to your question, that's the one suggestion I'm suggesting adding. And to help with some background on that, you know, I think the position of county staff is that they're putting the pencils down right now on the bridge, right? They're allowing us more time to develop the tunnel opportunity, but they know they can't put the pencils down forever. And so what they're asking for is us to deliver a date, October 1st is their preferred date, that we would have substantial progress and update. So that way they know if their pencil's down on a bridge because we're moving forward with the tunnel, or if they could pick the pencils back up and start working on the bridge concept. And what if they, by October 1st, they say, you know what, I don't really think you've lived up to our expectations, and we're just going to move on without you. You've already given us the authority to do it, so we're just going to move on without you. What's to prevent them from saying that? I think, just candidly speaking, I don't know if they have that ability to do that right now. And I think that's what Commissioner Sorenson is related to. And we acknowledge that progress needs to be made, and in their eyes, they're the only ones making this decision. If in their eyes they decide that we're not making enough progress to satisfy them, that they're going to point to the sentence in the resolution saying, you folks acknowledge that we can go ahead, move on without you, because it's right here in the resolution. That's what I'm afraid of. Can I interject a question here? Go ahead. Because I thought they've had that authority all along. This is the county's project. We don't have the ability to stop this. We can't stop them from making an application. I must be missing something here. So, Ben, tell me how we can prevent the county from submitting an application. Okay, so this is how it works. You're absolutely correct in terms of the process. However, the federal government has indicated to us time and again that they will not move forward with any funding for a new river crossing unless there is county and city collaboration. I understand that, but we still can't stop them from submitting the application. We can't say to the federal government that you can't reject it for that purpose, but there's absolutely nothing, Mayor, that stops the county from submitting this application. You're implying that we've got some veto power over this and we don't. I'm not saying we have a veto power. I'm saying that we don't have to acknowledge what their – The reality of the fact that they can submit it without us, right? That's all we're saying here is that we recognize the reality. But this is exactly the resolution that was passed when Commissioner Sturman was here, and I'm not going to go down that road again. Mayor, it's not. We have to be firmer. We have to be more resolute, and we have to make it clear that we're not accepting – we're not even – the word bridge should not even be in our vocabulary. We are not going to put a bridge through the middle of our city, destroy our neighborhoods, destroy the historic district, put a roadblock in the middle of the river walk that we have. You can't keep thinking that way. We have to end the whole discussion about a bridge. If they want to go ahead and apply with the federal government and try to get a bridge, that's their choice, okay? But we're a cooperative government. We have a lot of things going on in the city that we should be working together with the county. There's a lot of projects we're doing together. And why they feel that they can work against us on a project that is so significant. This project is considered of regional transportation importance. It's going to take us into the next century. And here they're really not partnering with us at all. But, Mayor, they are partnering. Where does it show that they're going to participate in making this a viable option? Show me where it says that. We have never had the degree of collaboration towards a tunnel that we've had with the county commission as we do now. Where does it say that they're going to collaborate with us in making this a viable option? Show me where it says that. I'd be happy to acknowledge that. I don't see anywhere. It just says you've got to come up with a plan. And if you don't by a certain date, see you later. So I'm looking at Mayor Furr's letter, third paragraph. As we discussed during our recent meetings, based on conversations held by you, the city of Fort Lauderdale has asked the county refrain from identifying a bridge system as a preferred method for crossing the new river as part of said resolution and to allow the city additional time to present an alternative tunnel crossing. Right. Period. Yep. So period. But then it goes on for two pages. Great. Yeah. Putting all these restrictions and milestones that are completely unattainable. We do not have to affirm and acquiesce to those expectations, Mayor. We're not doing that in our proposed resolution. We're not validating them. This resolution that we're proposing, this is completely different than any other resolution the city has ever created before. Not entirely, but the Exhibit 2 is much more consistent with the policy that we've now established. Right. Agree. Completely agree. So I have a suggestion. Go ahead. In Section 6, which we're all reading and what you read and what the mayor of Broward County would like, I would like to just ask if we can add these words. So the last sentence is the city. Wait, wait, which, which, I'm looking at Exhibit 2, which is attached to the. No, go to the one that says County Feedback. It's not attached to the agenda. Yeah, he, he, he doesn't, he's not looking at that. That was, that was the email that we had sent out on Friday. We got this at 1020 last night. No, last Friday, the, the county version. Oh, well. Thank you. Okay. This is, yeah. So it says County Feedback on the top, the one with the documents we got last year. Go ahead. So, okay. So it says 6 and 6. The city commission understands that if it cannot provide a viable tunnel alternative consistent with Mayor Furr's letter to the county's consideration by October 1, 2025, or such later date as may subsequently be agreed to by the county, the city acknowledges that the county may elect to include a bridge crossing of the new river as part of its locally preferred alternative for Broward County. I'm sorry, for Broward Community Rail. Can we just add, which the city does not support? Can we? Can we just add? Well, don't you see the poison pill in that, in that section? I do. I'm just trying to find out. Tell me, tell me. The poison pill. It says consistent with Mayor Furr's letter. I just read to you the letter, which has all of these unattainable goals. So if we can't produce a viable tunnel alternative based on all these unattainable goals, then strike, Mayor, let's completely get it, a fair point. So what if we just said, cannot provide a viable tunnel alternative for the county's consideration by October 1? Just strike the reference to the mayor's letter because I'm with you on that. Strike the reference, but I also want to add the words that which we will not support, which the city does not support, which the city does not support. Yeah, I'm fine with that. This way it makes it very clear that you go ahead, may elect, but we don't support it. So that would be my suggestion, just to find the middle ground, and it makes it very clear. Yeah, I like that. And, Mayor, here's one other suggestion because maybe the word may might infer what you don't want to infer. So maybe the city acknowledges that the county could possibly elect. May is the same thing. You're fine with may? Okay, great. Because I didn't know if you felt like may was giving permission. In law, there's only two words, may or shall. Okay. There's nothing else. Okay, great. Delete consistent with Mayor Furr's letter for the county's consideration by October 1. Well, wait a minute. There's more to it than that. Okay, go ahead. In Section 6, it should say, okay, the city commission and the Broward County Board of Commissioners agree to collaborate on attempting to achieve a viable tunnel alternative. That's what it should start out by saying. Okay, great. Keep going. All right. And shall report back to their respective boards by October 1, 2025, or such later days may subsequently be agreed to by the parties. Okay. And let's put a period right there. Okay. So, Mayor, on Exhibit 2, which is the city staff's proposed version, that is more or less what you're saying aligns with Section 2. Section 2, city commission directs the city manager to continue collaborating with Broward County staff on the tunnel concept with periodic meetings, provide an update to the city commission and the county on the items listed in the March 3rd letter, on or before blank, which illustrates the city's progress and define the remaining timeline and next steps. Okay, we've got to continue – we've got to keep removing any reference to Mayor for his March 3rd letter. Right, and that's in Section 2, what the mayor was just talking about. So that needs to come out. Because then you're saying that we're going to acquiesce to do all those things. Right. So, the city commission directs the city manager to continue collaborating with Broward County staff on the tunnel concept with periodic meetings and to provide, to the extent possible, a viable tunnel alternative, period. Now, but I still think that the language that I propose should be added. So, again, for Section 2, I don't think – providing an update on a list of items doesn't behold us to adhere to those items. It's just an update on the items. But, Commissioner, keep reading Section 2. It's very clear where it says the update is on the items listed in Mayor's first letter. In other words, all those conditions that he said. Provide an update. So an update can be, hey, we've met this expectation. We haven't met this. We've done this. We've done this. We'll never meet these. But then we're acknowledging that we think those are attainable. Are they all attainable? We're acknowledging nothing. We'll say we're providing an update on these items. But we have to – We're not saying these are – we will meet these objectives. But that's the whole point, Ben. They want us to not meet them. That's not true, Mayor. The county wants us to succeed for a tunnel, Mayor. For 24 months? For 24 months? They are willing to move that to 48 months. Why don't – This is – We need another letter. This is a negotiation. This is an evolving process where they are going to be partners open to working together. I know you don't believe that, Mayor. I don't believe it because I've done this for eight years more than you have. And I'm telling you, this is not – this is so consistent with everything they've done so far. They have no desire whatsoever to build a tunnel and forth. Why do we need this resolution? That's another thing. Why do we need this resolution? Why? Because it's a helpful step to the county showing where we are and how we're working together. I would rather we just work towards the goal than get caught up in the minutia and the weeds of these words. And the county is asking for a response, a resolution that is helpful so that they understand our feedback and that we receive the letter and we're working together. Well, this is the thing. To John Herb's point, they don't need us. And if they want to go to Washington without us, they can do that. They could have done that a long time ago, okay? And the only reason why they're asking for this resolution is to appear as though we are collaborating on a solution with the county and that this would make us eligible for federal funding for the transportation project that's envisioned, okay? But nowhere should we say that we want to adhere to the requirements of the March 3rd letter, nor will we ever say that we support a bridge approach to the new river crossing. That has to be made very clear in whatever resolution we pass. But to Commissioner Glass, the vice mayor's point of view, what do we get out of this? What do we get out of this? Why are we even doing this? Because we're working together with a critical partner that we cannot get the tunnel done. We cannot get the tunnel done without the county. Agreed? We have to be working together. I totally agree with you. But they can't get the bridge done without the city. Agreed. Nothing happens without both of us, I think. The bridge doesn't happen without the city participating, in my view. The tunnel doesn't happen without the county participating. So what this does is just shows a continued collaboration together. So, Mayor, look, I am fine. Again, let's take out references to Mayor Furr's March 3rd, 2025 letter throughout our – in our resolution. Okay? And let's add your – Can we add the language that I had asked for in Section 6 fund? Was someone taking that down? And for the record, I still object to all of that. Okay. All of your language, Mayor. Just to be clear, this is not unanimous. I object to it 100%. Okay. It's okay. No, I want to be on the record, Vice Mayor Glassman. I don't need you to help me out here. Okay. I'm perfectly capable of communicating my intentions all by myself. Thank you. We understand that. Trust me. And, Mayor, some of what you had suggested for our Section 6 was really incorporated into that Section 2. But to read back, you had said Commission and Broward County Commission agree to collaborate on viable tunnel alternative and shall report to back to expect respective boards on progress. I think a lot of that was incorporated into – Yeah, but it needs to be repeated. Okay. Okay? Because it takes it to the Commission levels beyond the city manager levels. Okay. And then we heard from you as far as taking out the references to the March 3rd letter, perhaps leaving it in the second whereas clause just because that creates context? Anywhere where it's referenced, it's referenced in multiple sections. Yeah, I'm just talking about in the whereas where it just is referencing – Anywhere where the March 3rd letter is referenced needs to come out. Got it. Go ahead. And then – Wait, except the second one just acknowledges receipt. Yeah, that's what I was referring to, that second whereas. Yeah, that just acknowledges receipt. Okay. And then on the dates on Section 2, that the county had indicated that was a 1031 date or 10 – 10-1. 10-1 date. I don't know if we want to commit to. And that's to give updates. Okay. It says in Section 2, the city commission directs the city manager to continue collaborating with Briar County staff on the tunnel concept with periodic meetings and to provide an update to the city commission and the county on the items – We would take out that reference. We would take out that reference. Right. So to provide an update to the city commission and the board of county commissioners, okay, on or before – and then I think October 1st was a date that was suggested, which shall illustrate the city's progress and define the city's remaining timeline and next steps. I'm fine with that. Okay. We can put the 10-1 on there. Right. So – and you're going to say something about the tunnel in that sentence as well because we're not really on the tunnel concept. Okay. Got it. And Section 3, the city commission directs the city manager to promote the city of Fort Lauderdale's desire to advance the tunnel concept only. Got it. And then what's Section 4 say? And Section 4 is direct the city manager to engage Brightline and the FEC, F.MPO, as may be required, written documentation from each entity on their respective positions regarding the proposed tunnel project on or before. Well, I think it just has to say project, period. I don't know if we can put a date because we can't control what the other entities are going to do. Okay. Ben, I think I got enough feedback. Did you? Ben, are we adding that Section 6 to this original resolution? Or not? Are we adding that? Yes. So we would add a new Section 6. As amended. As amended. Well, our Section 6 has just any other resolutions, parts thereof. So we would have a new Section 6, which is basically the commission and the board of county commissioners agree to collaborate on a viable tunnel alternative and shall report back to respective boards on progress, something of that nature. Right. So we're not referencing the county may elect to include a – we're not referencing that language at all? No. Correct. No. Okay. So we will add Section 6 to ours, and then our Section 6 will be 7. 7 will be 8 on the one that we've put in there as Exhibit 2. All right. So can you summarize – you want to type that up? Go bring it tonight because we need – Oh. Yeah. This will be a walk-on for tonight, and we'll start – Give us some time to look at the final version. We'll start working on it with a goal of getting it to you before the evening meeting. And then, Ben, you can – we can see if the language fits with what your expectations are and what you feel is a cooperative effort with regard to our city and working with the county. Okay. Sounds good. So, Susan, can you – again, you just tell me what the changes would be, so I'm tracking them. Okay. This is to the Exhibit 2. Yep. On Section 2, it would say the City Commission directs the City Manager to continue collaborating with Broward County staff on the tunnel concept with periodic meetings and provide, to the extent possible, a viable tunnel alternative update to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners before 10-1-25. Okay. Which shall illustrate City's progress. Yep. And define the timeline for the next steps. In Section 3, after the word tunnel concept on the second line, adding the word only. In Section 4, on the fourth line, it would be project period, and we would take out the honor before. And then in Section 6 – and just someone made a good point. We initially said the City Commission and Broward County Board agree to collaborate. I don't know that we can make that statement on their behalf, but the commission would agree to collaborate with the Board of County Commissioners. How's that? Because they're not signing this. Right. This doesn't – it's not for language for the resolution, but I do have to chime in and share the voice from a majority of individuals in my district. There's still the conversation about who's actually paying for this and how that financial burden is going to affect many of the neighbors within the district. So the conversation so far – good question. The conversation so far is that they're going to seek 50% funding from the federal government, 25% funding from the state government, and the other 25% would come from the surtax money that the county is collecting. Okay. And then – There's no city – there's no – at this point, there's no city contribution. Okay. All right. So for the record, wanted that to be repeated so that the neighbors understand because we are – we all know that the culture that we're in right now, financial burden as far as taxation, is climbing in every platform that we are connected to. So that was a conversation that we had on last evening. So I wanted to also air that so my neighbors know that I did address their concerns and understand that the process is moving this way. However, we needed to know funding, how it's going to play out, and then the actual financial burden when we get to that point in this conversation. Okay. All right. So you're going to bring that – you're going to put that together, and then we'll make a decision on whether to go forward with it tonight, correct? Yep. We'll have that as a walk-on, and we'll hopefully get you a draft before we start our 6 o'clock for you to work at. Okay. Commissioner, yeah, did you – no one signed up to speak. Did you want to speak? Do I need to speak? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Ben, is there anything – Ben Rogers, anything else you wanted to add? Thanks a lot. Okay. I'm speaking on Lauderdale Beach, HOA. Yeah. Where you said viable – I'm sorry, viable tunnel alternative, it's not consistent with you taking all of the references to the bridge out. Make it viable tunnel solution because it acquiesces. There is an alternative to other things. That's all I'm getting at, I think, the wording there. Viable tunnel alternative, viable tunnel solution. Okay. But that's just the word that they use because we have to have a local preferred alternative. I know what you're saying. Well, it's an alternative to a bridge is what it implies, right? An alternative? No. Because alternative references something else. One alternative, another alternative, or just a solution says, how do we get across? Okay. I'll leave – It's just their language, the locally preferred alternative, meaning what do you want? I guess it's a term of art because locally preferred alternative is the language they've been using. And so we're choosing the tunnel alternative. I guess that's the context in which it's being said. All right. Commissioner reports. Commissioner Herbst. The only thing I want to bring up is to David Solomon just to let you know that I'll have an appointment replacing Mike Weymouth, who's term limited out from PNZ, as a walk-on for tonight. Thank you. He's term limited? How many years can you be on PNZ? It's four now. Four? Four terms or four years? Four years is a term. Okay. And you have two terms. Okay. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. So you have eight years? Correct. Eight years total. Mike's been on for eight years. Wow. That sounds right. No, remember that we recently changed the term of office to four years. It was three years. Great. He was in for two three-year terms, and then we did the extension to coincide with the commission terms, so he got one additional year, so seven years in total, as I understand it. All right. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman wants to be called back. So, Vice Mayor, are you prepared? Why not? Okay. Thanks, Mayor. Okay. Thank you very much. It was an honor last Thursday, March 20th, to present a proclamation from the mayor's office honoring Pearl and Stanley Goodman at the Goodman Jewish Family Services of Broward County for their many years of philanthropy in our city and in our county. That was a very well-attended event over at the Marriott and Dania Point. I had the pleasure. I want to thank Rufus and everyone over at FXC. I had the pleasure of speaking with the city school principals that gather, I believe, quarterly. All of our Fort Lauderdale schools, and that's a great group of principals, had a really tremendous evening at Allied Kitchen and Bath as we honored the kickoff of Fleet Week. Commissioner Sorensen, the mayor, you were there as well, and it's always such a great spirit for our community, and it's great that we're welcoming back this event to Fort Lauderdale. I guess that's April 22nd through the 29th, I believe, but we did have that kickoff at Allied Kitchen and Bath, and thank you to them for always doing that event. Wednesday, March 26th, I want to thank Transportation and Mobility, Milos and Karen, for the event at Artserve. As we know, we've been working on solutions for Northeast 15th Avenue. We had a really nice turnout of residents from the Lake Ridge neighborhood and the Poinsettia Heights neighborhood, and it was a pleasure to address them and be present for that really well-attended meeting and a lot of good input, and I look forward to us moving forward with that design and implementation. That was a grant coming to us from the MPO. Tomorrow evening, I will be speaking at the annual meeting of the Birch Finger Streets Association on the Barrier Island, and they always have a great turnout for their annual meeting, and that will be at the Beach Community Center. Which group is this? That's the Birch Finger Streets. Oh, Birch Finger Streets, yeah. Yes, and that's tomorrow evening. I'll also be speaking to a group at Bonnet House during their Orchid Festival this Saturday, and then we'll be looking very much forward to speaking at the Council of Fort Laurel Civic Association's meeting on Tuesday, April 8th, and I understand that our incoming city manager will be joining me and speaking to that group as well on April 8th. I'll be part of a discussion, a panel discussion of beach development at Bonnet House, in particular talking about some of the new projects such as Bungalow East coming to the Barrier Island. Saturday, April 12th, that evening is the beginning of Passover, so everyone that is observing that holiday wish a very good holiday for the duration. What date does Passover begin? That begins this Saturday evening, April 12th. A week from Saturday. Is that a week from Saturday? Yes, sir. So that's not this Saturday? No. April Fool's. Okay. So that'll be April. I wanted to make sure I was observant, so I want to get the dates for a second. Get out your matzo, Mayor. Just have a ball. Okay. So that will be – Am I dreidel too? No, that's the wrong holiday. That's Hanukkah, but thank you for trying. Okay. Okay. Anyway, moving right along. Let's see. Just a few comments. Oh, happy birthday, Fort Lauderdale. We celebrated last week our 114th birthday. Wow. Happy birthday. Yes, exactly. Happy birthday to all of us. I believe that was March 27th, I think. And, again, I know that this is your last meeting. So, Susan, thank you so much for stepping in and taking us through all of these months. It's greatly appreciated communication, keeping everything going. And, of course, tomorrow is the first day for Raquel Williams and wishing you nothing. She hasn't walked out yet? No. Wishing her nothing but success. So thank you very much, Mayor. That's about it. Okay. That's about it. Commissioner Sorensen. Thank you, Mayor. It's been a good couple weeks. Spent some time at Community Court, which continues to go really well, and just city staff, everyone that's involved with helping support our homeless and the service providers that are there. I mean, it's just amazing when you go there, you see how many agencies are working to, you know, lift up folks with challenges, and Chris Cooper and others do a great job to help and lead that effort. So thank you for that. Spoken multiple HOAs this last couple weeks, Coley Hammock, Lauderdale Isles, Lauderdale Harbors, Oceanage. We had District 4 Presidents lunch, which is great. I've also been working with Miami Water Keepers. I've just been spending a lot of time on our waterway quality, so I went out and sampled our water quality, Mayor, with Miami Water Keepers, which is great, and great opportunities for what I think are expanding the number of testing sites we have in the city, as well as some... Haven't we been rotating them? There is 10 or 11 that we, yes, we rotate through these 10 or 11, and I think it would make sense to explore possibly increasing that number so that we capture more of our waterways to 15 or 20, so we capture all parts of the city. No, what I was saying was we did like 10 the first time, and then we moved to 10 others, didn't we? So not 10 others, but we, I think, three dropped off, and then another three were added, and that happened probably about almost two years ago. Okay, so I thought we had moved. And how come Sweeting and Annie Beck Park are, like, always, like, the worst? So, yeah, it's a great question. So that's, I asked the same thing, and there are some areas in District 4 that don't perform as well, too. And so one of the advanced testing metrics that we could engage on, it's basically called MST, which is basically source tracing. Another component is that, is DNA tracing, to identify where, why are the, whatever the contaminant is, where it's coming from, what is it, what's the source of it, source tracing? And so that's one of the suggestions, and the staff's looking at that as possibly increasing our testing capacity so that we could identify, hey, maybe it is bird fecal matter, for example, and lack of tidal flow, so in Sweden it states, for example, there's not as much tidal flow as when you move really far east. That could be a component. It could be dog material. There's a whole host of things. So the source tracing would help really better identify what's the issue, and then how can we remedy it. So that's part of what Steph's looking at. You know, ducks and birds, yeah. And also, if it wasn't shared with you when I had the conversations, there is encampment, homeless encampment, along the stretch of the New River near Sweden and Delivaux, yes. So that has been discussed as well as being a problem. Yeah, and that, and part of the source tracing will identify that as well. Is it human in origin and so forth? Yeah, yeah, exactly right, Commissioner Beasley-Penman. So, and along those ends, also working with several groups to increase the planting of mangroves in our city and just identifying areas where we could put mangroves, and staff's been working on this and doing a great job. And so a couple of the parks they've identified some opportunities are George English and Cunahatchee. And so we're exploring that possibility. And I forget, whose district is George English? Is that, that's one? District Club. Okay. So, Commissioner Harps, I don't know if you'd be interested in kind of partnering on that, on mangrove possibilities at George English? Okay, great. So, let's see, Anthony, if you can just give us a quick update on that. I think Anthony's been working with the state to just, we have some entities, Commissioner Harps, that are willing to donate the mangroves to us. But one of the pieces we have to make sure is obviously the state approves it. And I think, Anthony, we're making good progress, or we've got permission from the state or county. Can you give us a little update? Sure, Anthony Fajardo, assistant city manager. So, I did reach out to the state today to try and get an appointment with them to have a discussion. They delegate a lot of authority to Broward County, and our staff has talked to Broward. It doesn't seem like it's going to be a problem. But after speaking with Mike Lambrecht, we felt that it was a better part of Valor to just include the state. So, as soon as I hear from them, I'll schedule that. I put Mike on it as well so that he could answer any questions related to the mangroves. Okay, perfect. So, Commissioner Harps, they've looked at certain parts of George English that might be viable and appropriate. So, is that all right, Susan, for Anthony to give Commissioner Harps updates or as we're making progress? Oh, absolutely. In addition, we've been talking to a group from UM about sea hives and an installation also there and in collaboration with the students at Bayview Elementary. So, we have a couple things going on as it relates to there that we're just exploring. Yeah. Okay, great. And then we've got, yeah, some living seawall components we're exploring. So, okay, great. I think anything else, Anthony, from that perspective? I think that's – No, I think staff is okay with it. We got some feedback from parks. So, as far as George English is concerned, we've identified areas where they could go in. And then we had also talked about Coutinho as well. So, there's some spots they can go in there. Okay. I have a question for you, and maybe, Anthony, you can help with this. Someone actually recently said to me that – and I don't know if this is county policy, city policy, but is there any truth to the thought that municipalities or other entities would be encouraged to remove mangroves? That – have you ever heard of anything like that? No. As a matter of fact, the state has pretty strict regulations on the pruning of mangroves, and then you have to get a special permit to remove mangroves. Okay. Because that was just mentioned to me, and I said, that doesn't sound correct. I've never heard of that. Okay. I just want to run that by you because it was mentioned, and I was kind of surprised to hear that. I'll let you know if I do hear it, but, yeah, I've never heard of that. But definitely not city policy. No. And not, to your knowledge, county, either encouraging the removal of those. No. Not that I'm aware of. Okay, good. Thanks. I just want to make sure. Thanks. Great. Thank you, Anthony. That helps. I appreciate it. Then I'll just wrap up with a great city employee family fun day at Snyder Park. So thank you, all the city staff that made that possible. And that was great, great cotton candy and barbecue, and it was just a great celebration. So that's it. For me, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, did you have – or go ahead, Vice Mayor. No, we're good. No, actually, that's right. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, back to you. Thank you very much. Thank you. This has been a very productive several days on our in-between meetings. I'd like to share that on Thursday, March 20th, I had the pleasure of attending William Dandy Elementary – excuse me, William Dandy Middle School. They have a program that's called Girls' Empowerment Shades of Pink. And I was one of the invited guest speakers, along with several others, individuals from our state attorney's office, public defenders, some also entrepreneurs, speaking to the middle school female students, encouraging them to follow their dreams and know the power that they have within. So I was very honored to be a part of that. Also, on the 20th, our pastors and police forum was held at the YMCA, had the pleasure of being there with our District 2 police, Captain Will August and our NAT team, addressing the concerns from the pastors and how they could also be more involved in bridging the gap and building relationships between neighbors and law enforcement. Well-attended, great opportunity. Also, that same evening, we were at the – it was hosted by the NAACP, a meet and greet for our new city manager, Raquel Williams. It was hosted by the NAACP, Marsha Ellis is the president, and then also Cheryl Dickey at the Midtown Commerce Building. Great event, great event, our new city manager was smiling and enjoying all the opportunities in the introduction. So I want to thank Marsha Ellis for implementing that and putting that out for the community, great event. So thank you for organizing that, Marsha. Also sharing that on March 24th, I had the pleasure of attending what is the 362nd Police Academy graduation. We had 14 officers that were sworn in. They're now on the street. They'll be going through their probation period. But to be there to witness the passion and enthusiasm of those individuals who are ready to protect and serve. So thank you to the recruiting department, to the training division, and welcome to those 14 new recruits, or I should say employees now, right, officers. Also, on the 26th, March 26th, through a coordination of a nonprofit, which is named Unified Central Neighborhood Alliance, they put together an excursion with middle school students during spring break, and they entitled it Cruising with the Commish, and I was the Commish. It was organized, and they were given through the water taxi. So thank you to Bill Walker for coordinating with them, taking an excursion up the New River, being able to introduce them and expose them to the marine industry. So that was very exciting. And they were, like most of us, excited to learn the opportunities and how we are the yachting capital of the world. Well, 141,000 opportunities for us careers are offered through the marine industry. Wow, right? Right here in our backyard. So that was encouraging. And also thank you to our fire department and their union. They provide lunches for our youth, and there were 30 kids that was on this boat. So we want to thank all of those who collaborated with Unified to make this possible. Ms. Gina Ellis and her family, they donated T-shirts. It was a beautiful day. The sun was shining. No rain. So it was a great day for them on the event on spring break for them. Also on that very same day, Tamika, I'm sorry, I always forget your last name from, yes, there was a conference, a luncheon, a roundtable with the company VM executive roundtable where they were discussing the opportunities that's offered to secure cyber, help me out. Security. Security. Security, that's the word, cyber security. And while they were here giving this luncheon, they also identified a nonprofit in the area by the name of KP Cares. And this is an organization, nonprofit, that is working with youth within District 3 citywide also, introducing them to the financial literacy and preparing them to be productive with working with finances. And VHAM and also the other company, Tamika, yes, they donated 20 laptops to ensure that these young people be able to continue with this program. So thank you for that connection for our youth in our city and in our district. Also, 6 o'clock, I was busy on the 26th. I was all over the place. A chief's community focus group. It was held at the ICE Plex Arena at Holiday Park. It's an opportunity where stakeholders in the city, they come together to discuss with our police chief matters of the city, getting information about different programmings that are coming, and then also to give insight of things that we could see that need addressing. So that was a great opportunity also, well attended. Let me go back here. I also want to share some upcoming events in our city that are being hosted through District 3 Parks and Recs on Friday, April 11th, at Riverland Park. My Spanish is very weak, so it's Friday Music House. So it's on Friday at Riverland Park. Our band is Latin Music. Good opportunity to come out, get your salsa on. You can dance that. Yes, yes I can. You can get your salsa on. It's a great event. It has been well attended, and we look forward to it expanding and growing. Traditionally, Carter Park Jam, it is back. That will be April the 18th at Carter Park, 7 p.m. Come on out and join everyone and have a good time. And then also I would like to take this time to thank you, Susan, for you stepping in and doing an amazing job. And I have a term that I don't use often, but I will say you were working in the spirit of excellence. So thank you for what you've done, okay? And then also welcoming Raquel Williams as our new city manager. That's it for me, Mayor, and thank you for the time. Great, thank you. A lot of the things I attended have already been recognized by my colleagues on the commission, so I just want to speak to a couple of them. First of all, on the 26th, I was busy too. I met with Commissioner Lamar Fisher, and we went out to the port to do a tour of the bypass road that is now under construction. The reason why that's important is because as we continue to move forward on the completion of the Convention Center Hotel as well as the Convention Center itself, the city is under agreement with the county to ensure that a bypass road is operational by the time those buildings are also operational. So we're looking forward to a completion date by the end of the year. I'm not sure what date. I think it's like November, I think we're looking at. It's October? Yes, sir. Okay. So October of 2025. So it's very exciting, and I think the great thing about it is many of us who have lived in Fort Lauderdale, and I used to actually live on 17th Street, used to use the port as a bypass. And then, of course, when 9-11 occurred, that access was cut off. Now we'll be able to once again use the port as a bypass, but a special road is going to be built to avoid all of the checkpoints. So you could drive to and from State Road 84 area to Eisenhower Boulevard without having to go through 17th Street. So hopefully it'll siphon off enough cars to make 17th Street Causeway a little bit more passable than we've experienced in the last few years. Also, the next day I attended the St. Anthony's Gentleman's Dinner, and we presented a proclamation to William Murphy, a great gentleman who's contributed so much to the community and was recognized by the organization that night. I would say maybe 300 gentlemen were there and all puffing on their cigars. Thank God it was outdoors. But it was a great way for St. Anthony's and the rest of the community to acknowledge Mr. Murphy. On Saturday, many of us attended the City Employee Family Fun Day. I was there with Susan and others serving beer, serving foam. I don't know if it would ever turn out to be beer. And it was great working with the fire chief was there, the police chief, and everybody. I don't think it was the police. Yeah, yeah, everybody was there, and we had a great time. And I think this was probably the most well-attended of Family Fun Days that we've had in recent memory. So it was really great. Also, last week, the Brazilian business group had a reception, the deputy council general from Brazil. It was in attendance. We had another opportunity to welcome folks from the Brazilian community, Brazilian-American community in the business community to come to Fort Lauderdale and embrace them and bringing more and more opportunities for trade and commerce between our two countries. Let's see, so coming up this weekend, this weekend, Tortuga Festival, April 4th through 6th. So looking forward to that, and I understand it's sold out, so we're very excited about bringing, you know, the Country Music Festival to Fort Lauderdale once again. It's a great weekend out for everybody to come. Let's see, I'll be doing a ribbon-cutting for Tremble Gym, 1511 North Federal Highway. That will be April 8th, and, of course, April 12th, Imperial Point Spring Fling. That starts at 8 a.m. at Dottie Mancini Park. Yes, and so that will be a great way to get together with the folks in Imperial Point. A couple of announcements I'd like to make. First of all, we used to have musical entertainment at the Tunnel Top Riverwalk on Wednesdays, and that kind of ended. But we were able to partner with a related group through Andari Residences, and they're going to fund a program called Tunes on Top, which will be featuring local artists who will be playing every Wednesday from noon to 1.30 for the business community that works or the visitors who come there during lunchtime and to be entertained by various members of the community who will be playing musical instruments. There will be other artists featured. There will be all kinds of things happening to help activate the Tunnel Top Park, and I want to thank the related group for agreeing to participate in this and continuing to activate the Las Solas Boulevard corridor. Let me see. I've got a couple of things here. We have a call to artists to celebrate Riverwalk and downtown Fort Lauderdale. This is going to be – let's see. The original artwork has to be submitted by Friday, April 25th, correct? And that's to be submitted at Riverwalk Fort Lauderdale at 888 East Las Solas Boulevard, Suite 210. Let me see. Okay, and I want to talk about One Stop. Several years ago, we entered into an agreement with some folks to reimagine the One Stop shop three and a quarter acres. And I don't think we've been able to make much progress there. I think the folks have still been working to secure financing. We've never really gotten a site plan or any kind of development recommendation or proposal. And I think we should put it on a conference agenda. So I think we need to have a discussion as to what we want to do going forward. Should we continue to try to work with them? Should we put it out to bid? We need to do something to not allow this site to languish as it has for the last several years. It's disappointing that I have to even bring this up. I was hoping it would be completed by now. But there are various influences in the financial markets, which often influence development aspirations. And so not that I'm looking or asking to cast any aspersions on the developers. But I do think that we need to find ways to move this project forward or look elsewhere to try to revitalize the One Stop shop. And I think that's it. That's it for me. Mayor, I would agree with that. One of the problems with that comprehensive agreement is, unfortunately, it was not drafted in a way that required the developer to ever commence the project. Essentially, they've got site control for 99 years without any obligation to actually build anything. So I would love to see us move forward and do something with that to reclaim that site and repurpose it at some point. So thank you for bringing that up. Okay. Mayor, if I might, I just wanted to add to that conversation. I met with all of the principals last week in my office. I'm being told, and I haven't received confirmation yet, but the financing that was supposedly to come in originally was part of a package. And that package fell apart because it was not just the One Stop Shop project. It was others also. So that was taken out of that mix. And I'm being told that actually, and this might have already happened today, but I requested a letter go to the entire city commission explaining exactly where that team is on this project because they had told me that by April 7th they were going to close on that deal, and they actually told me today that they thought that that deal was going to close today. Then the movement to DRC would be able to happen by June. So that's the latest that I know on this right now. All right, so let's just ask them if they could come to a meeting so we can see that because their financial commitment was supposed to be in hand a year ago, January, and here we are in 2025, and we're just now hearing that they're just now closing. So I'm just concerned that it's being tied up, and I don't know if there's anyone banging at the door trying to get in there now. I just think that we need to revisit it, see where we are. I'd like to see something concrete. I'd love for their project to move forward. I think it was a great project. I think the whole comprehensive agreement brought in a lot of factors that were going to help the city preserve that site as an open space. So I would just like to – but we just need to move forward. We need to figure out where we are. No, I understand. I just want you to know that I had met with them. I wanted you to know the latest and the greatest as I know it just so everyone was being transparent, and I just wanted to give you that update as I know it. That's all. Okay. Very good. And, Mayor, one last thing before you finish up. Folks in my district are hoping to get an update as to what's going on with your negotiations with Inter-Miami and how that relates to the redevelopment of Lockhart Park. Yes, and we'll bring that up at a future conference meeting because I'll have some things to report by then. Okay. How many meetings have you had with them so far, Mayor? I've had two. Okay. Are we seeing progress at least? We are seeing progress. In fact, we're seeing such progress that I think we're going to be able to save the city several millions of dollars. So, anyway. Yes, Susan, it's your turn. Absolutely. Just a few things. In addition to the New River Crossing resolution, we do have a walk-on that is a reformat of CR7 from the March 18th meeting relating to the FIND grant, and that's just changing a few of the words to be consistent with FIND requirements. Remind you that the Lexus Corporate Run starts tomorrow here at Esplanade Park. And as a few of you have mentioned, today is my last meeting in this seat. Although I am not going anywhere, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to serve you, the community, and our wonderful employees. You've heard me say it before. It's not only been an honor, it has been a joy. And I look forward to working with Raquel and our leadership team going forward. So, again, thank you so much. I will look back at this as certainly the pinnacle of my career. So thank you. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor, did you bring the gold watch? No? No. Oh, I'm sorry. You left it at home? Yeah. Okay. It was so nice. Thank you. Thank you. Dwayne, do you have a report to make today? No, sir. Nothing today? All right. So I guess that concludes our conference meeting. Anything further? If not, we'll move into the CRA board meeting. So that concludes that meeting. And, Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll? Commissioner Herbst? Vice Chair Glassman? Yeah. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yeah. Commissioner Sorensen? Here. Chair Trantos? Here. So moving into our agenda, M1, motion approving minutes for the March 18, 2025 Community Redevelopment Agency board meeting. Someone would like to move to approve the minutes? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. What is this? Okay. It doesn't say R1. Okay. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Vice Chair Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Chair Trantos? Yes. And M1 is now approved. Moving on to R1, resolution providing a $1 million development incentive program forgivable loan to Wright Consulting, LLC, for the Nexus Live-Work Mixed-Use Development Project located at 2219 Sistrunk Boulevard, authorizing the executive director to exercise – excuse me, to execute any and all related instruments and delegating authority to the executive director to take certain action. Anyone have any questions? Someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Kurt, you're just here for questions, right? Where are you? Where are you? Oh, there you are. The light is – I can't see your face. You're just here for questions, correct? Okay. Anyone have any questions? There being none, someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. It's been introduced. Please call the roll. A, resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency approving a forgivable loan of $1 million to Wright Consulting, LLC, under the Development Incentive Program for a mixed-use project located at 2219 Sistrunk Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33311, authorizing the executive director to execute any and all documents related to this transaction, delegating authority to the executive director to take certain actions in providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst, Vice Chair Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes, and we'd like to also say thank you for bringing this opportunity to District 3. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Chair Trentos? Yes. And R01 is now approved. Good luck with it. Thank you so much. Is there any further business of the CRA? There being none, this meeting is now concluded, and we'll resume our evening meeting tonight at 6 o'clock.