City Commission Conference Meeting on 2025-09-16 1:30 PM - Sep 16, 2025

Welcome to the City Commission conference meeting this September 16th, 2025. I appreciate you all being here today. We have a number of things to discuss and we have quite a few guests visiting with us today so we'd like to accommodate their schedules and probably take them first so we can move forward with our meeting. As soon as my computer warms up, be ready to go. So normally we take up communications at this point and we don't have a communication from any of the advisory boards today but I would like to take this moment and invite the people that have been working on our behalf with regard to the intersection and crosswalk controversy and Howard, if you'd like to come up to the podium, introduce yourself and give us a little update on what's been going on. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Howard Dubasar, Weiss Sirota Helfman. Happy to be here. Yesterday I had the privilege of representing the City of Fort Lauderdale in an administrative hearing at the Florida Department of Transportation. As I'm sure everybody understands, there was a memorandum issued by the department and a letter sent demanding that the city remove what they thought were 11 locations but 10 locations and various types of street art. And you were given the opportunity to file what's called a petition for a formal hearing. The difference between a formal hearing and an informal hearing, informal, you go and you have an argument, there's no presentation of witnesses, there's no judge, there's somebody who's a presiding officer from the department itself. In a formal hearing, it actually goes to an administrative law judge who runs the proceedings if it's a trial. You'll have witnesses, you'll have exhibits. Because we think there are material factual disputes, not the least of which is whether, as Fort Lauderdale has in its contract, that these are traffic calming devices versus the state taking the position that these are detrimental to public safety. We had requested a formal hearing and filed that petition. Nonetheless, the department maintained that we needed to appear for the informal hearing that they set, and that was yesterday, where I was joined by various city representatives, including your city manager, assistant city manager, and Miloš, whose department I should know off the top of my head. Transportation and mobility. Thank you. It just doesn't roll off my tongue like that. So in any event, the first part of the hearing, the presiding officer who is a 20-year member or employee of the Florida Department of Transportation invited us to argue why it should be formal as opposed to informal. This is the third hearing that I've done of this type. I did it for the cities of Delray Beach and Key West. The same thing occurred. We went to Orlando, to the rest stop at Turkey Lake, where they have an office building, and we argued why it should be formal. The presiding officer took a 10-minute recess and consistent with the other cities came back and said that request is denied. We then went forward with the hearing. The state actually goes first, even though it's our petition, and the FDOT had two lawyers there and then the assistant secretary of transportation. They made their legal argument. Again, there was no evidence, no presentation of witnesses. And then I made mine, and I was given the opportunity. They rebutted me. I gave rebuttal to them. What happens at the end of this hearing is we're invited to give written closing arguments as opposed to actually presenting a closing argument there. The deadline for presenting our written closing argument is Thursday. We're doing that at the close of business on Thursday. If experience proves to be accurate in this case, prior experiences, we'll have that order probably at some time on Friday, Monday at the latest. There, as you probably know from the city of Delray Beach and from Key West, within hours of the order having been issued, FDOT was on the scene with Florida Highway Patrol shutting down the streets. They painted over the artwork. In Delray, at first, they painted over the mural between weather and automobiles. The paint went all over the place. Then they went ahead and sandblasted. So putting it in the context of your case, unfortunately, we're going to expect a similar outcome based on the informal hearing. And that leaves the city with some options at this point, one of which is, and again, because this is not executive session, I'm not going to get into what we call work product or strategies on how to deal with this or anything that would be privileged, but I can tell you procedurally what could occur at this point is we could file a notice of appeal. Arguably, there is a rule that might result in staying the action without a hearing. Usually, you have to file a motion, which we would do in an abundance of caution anyway. In addition to that, the city can bring a declaratory judgment action in circuit court in Broward County, seeking to have declared that A, the memorandum which gave rise to this was effectively a rule, but the department didn't go through the required rulemaking process. And there are a whole host of other issues that we can raise in there, including the fact, and this is something we argued vociferously at the hearing, the statute that this is predicated on in part is 316-0745 Florida statutes. That statute specifically contemplates that the department can give you a directive, and you're required to comply with it, and there could be some financial implications if you don't. What it doesn't do is it doesn't enable the department to come out and do the removal itself. So that would be something that I think a circuit court would have jurisdiction to consider as well. The other thing that's worth pointing out is both the memorandum, 2501, which gave rise to the proceeding and the statute that I just recited to, subsection 8 in particular, contemplates that you could possibly be entitled to a variance or plead a hardship and put on facts to support that. They summarily precluded us from doing that, so that's another important issue that raises questions of due process and compliance with the statutes. So with that, that's where we are procedurally, and I'm happy to answer any questions. So what would be the, explain to us the sequence of events. So if we get an adverse ruling on Thursday, are you prepared to immediately file an action? At what level? Is it circuit court? Is it DCA? What level is it at? So there's two different things that would happen. One, if we do a notice of appeal, that goes to the fourth district court of appeal because the appellate court with jurisdiction where the party is. If we file a circuit court action, a declaratory judgment action, which would be a new lawsuit, that would be in Broward circuit court. Okay. So, um, and we would, and as part of the lawsuit, we would ask for, uh, an immediate injunction to prevent any further actions, any further state action so that the merits of the case could be, could be examined and resolved at the judicial level. Is that kind of what you're talking about? Correct. Because under the declaratory judgment statute, it contemplates ancillary relief, including injunctive relief, and we would be filing a motion for temporary injunction. Okay. Uh, okay. Any questions from the commission? I do. Uh, first of all, thank you for your work on this and also with the other municipalities that you've been working with. Um, one question. So whether we do that notice of appeal and, or the circuit court with the declaratory judgment, and I'm fine with whatever you think is the best way to go, how do those interface with what we've already done in terms of petitioning for DOA with the Department of, um, Administrative Hearings? They're really parallel proceedings. Um, what could happen, again, without getting too much into privilege-type information, theoretically, the state might bring an action to stay a circuit court case based on the pendency of the DOA proceeding. Uh, and let me just explain for those, you know, I didn't mention that as part of what's transpiring. A separate petition was filed by the city with the Department of Administrative Hearings based on the rulemaking issue that I alluded to earlier before, and that has been filed. An administrative law judge has been applied, uh, appointed, and that case has now been consolidated with a similar petition filed by the city of Miami Beach. So that proceeding will happen fairly quickly, probably within the next 60 or so days. Uh, the state court, though, is parallel. The appeal of yesterday's hearing is also something that runs parallel. So it's fine to go down all of those paths at the same time? Correct. Okay. And if, in fact, we prevail at the DOA hearing, that would render yesterday's hearing moot. Okay. And when do you anticipate hearing something about the petition for the DOA hearing? So we will have a scheduling conference within the next week or so. Typically, a DOA hearing takes place within 30 days unless there's going to be discovery. We are going to seek discovery from the state because we think it's important to get into internal communications that gave rise to the issuance of Memorandum 2501 and some of the conclusions that they included regarding safety without getting into everything. Scratching the surface, we expect to ask for discovery. That tells me the hearing could be out 60 to 90 days from when we filed the petition a week ago. Okay. Great. Well, again, thank you and look forward to following the work. Thanks. Very good. Anyone else have any questions? Commissioner? Yeah. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks for your work. Um, what, what have the other municipalities, Delray and Key West, done at this point in their respective cases? At this point, they're not going to be taking any further action. Okay. So they're not filing a notice of appeal? They are not. And why is that? Couldn't get into that. Okay. Does what action in your sense, does, does action, do we need to decide upon action today or is it beneficial to wait until the decision comes out Thursday or Friday? Well, it's my understanding that our office is directed to file a notice of appeal as soon as we get that order. Okay. So that part doesn't need to be discussed. Okay. Once the notice of appeal is filed, if it's determined that we're going to file the circuit court case as well, that may require some further discussion and executive session. Okay. So in other words, the DOA case continues. No, you don't need anything further for that from us. Correct. The appeal, should, should the, um, decision come out Friday that's adverse, then a notice of appeal will be filed, um, within, you know, minutes of that. Okay. Um, great. So do you need any, anything else from us in terms of action or not at this time? Okay. Thank you. Thanks mayor. When will you need something from us in terms of the declaratory judgment for the circuit court approach? Let me discuss that with council and with the city manager. We'll get back to you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Don't go away. I have another question. Um, so, um, I assume you're in preparation of these, uh, these actions that you've, uh, you've already started preparing, correct? Correct. And, um, um, and has, did the state identify every street marking as a traffic control device? So they've taken the position that everything's either a traffic control device, or now they have a broad position that there can be no paint in the street at all, unless it's part of a traffic control device and the uniform colors of traffic control devices. Even streets that over which they have no jurisdiction. So if I wanted to paint the street in front of my house, which is not federal highway or a, or a one a, I'm not allowed to decorate the street. Is that their position? If they're going to be consistent with their position yesterday, absolutely. Okay. That's why we need a declaratory judgment, right? Exactly. Okay. All right. Commissioner Beasley Pittman, do you have any questions you want to ask? Um, just one clarity point. Um, I'm hearing that Key West and Palm Beach are no longer, um, they have decided to stop with their pursuit of their pill. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So at this point, it's, um, Fort Lauderdale and Miami? Miami Beach. Miami Beach. Okay. No question. I just needed clarity on that. Sure. Thank you. All right. Great. Good luck. Thank you so much for coming today. We appreciate it. Thank you. Paul, I didn't ask you, did you, you, you've been in, you've been in communication, so you had no further questions to ask him. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, okay. Moving on to business one discussion of the 2026 state legislative program. Um, who will be here to discuss that? Daphne? Good afternoon, mayor, vice mayor, commissioner, city manager, esteemed guests. Um, as you know, I always roll with an entourage. So if they can stand up and be acknowledged, it's our state lobbying team. Seriously? Boy, are we in trouble? I swear to God. And I also have a special guest. We have one of our federal firms, Aiken Gump, Maurice Curland is also in the audience. Very good. Where are you? Please stand up so everyone recognize you. Thank you for being here today. Very appreciate it. Thank you from Al-Qaeda and Kincaid. Yeah. Awesome. So we'll begin. I am pleased to, um, present the draft 2026 legislative state program for the upcoming legislative session. You should have it in front of you, the most latest iteration of the working draft. Please note that the numbers in are the department submittals and those numbers would be subject to change prior to submitting with the state legislative session begins January 13th, 2026 and ends March 13th, 2026. Fundamental changes between last year's program and this year's program. Um, begin on page four with an updated statement for economic development to include micro and small businesses and support funding for all sectors. On page five, we have updated the housing and community development statement to say that the commission supports legislation allowing local government to continue to reasonably, there's a, to continue to reasonably regulate short-term rental properties, vacation rentals and sober homes. There is also the question of adding in accessory dwelling units. Uh, Senator Gates has filed a bill yesterday, uh, regulating accessory dwelling units and we can delve into that after the presentation, but so far that regulation seems to be aligned with what we're looking at. What does that mean? Um, introduced a bill to, um, affect accessory dwelling units. Is that to limit them to expand the use of what does that mean? So it's to allow the use of accessory dwelling units. It clarifies the position that we can, uh, a homeowner can homestead have their homestead also rent out the property with certain limitation and prohibitions that the local governments cannot take that they cannot take. Correct. So in other words, uh, in Victoria park, if, um, people started building, uh, accessory dwelling units and using as Airbnbs, that's what's permitted now by the state legislature or will be permitted by the state legislature? The Airbnbs will not be permitted. It has to be more than one month. Those, those, the construction and rental and leasing of accessory dwelling units. So people can rent it out monthly? They could rent it out for 29 days. But that legislation, it was just filed in its original form. So during session, it's absolutely going to change and be amended and modified. So what is the status of the law now with regard to accessory dwelling units? It's just filed. The law now, I don't think there is. Nobody knows. There's no mandate. Nobody knows what the law is? There's no mandate. I know that there's no mandate right now. No, I'm not saying mandate, but I thought that there was, um, I thought that there was previous legislation that provided for accessory dwelling units. Correct. Okay. So there is no restriction then currently on the use of an accessory dwelling unit. Correct. So it could be a daily or weekly, uh, Airbnb. As it stands now, that is what it looks like, but I will research it in depth and get back to you before the meeting is over. Okay. Thank you. So we will go into other substantive changes, um, in updating the infrastructure resilience and transportation fundamental principle, where there is the additional line at the bottom of page six that the commission supports legislation and funding for transportation enhancements focused on pedestrian safety and walkability and improving traffic safety and flow. If we continue on to the actual appropriations requests this year, there are 10 requests. Last year, there were 12, um, there's a request in the tourism marketing, which is the TDT in order to say that the commission opposes proposed expansion of the TDT for uses that don't promote or enhance tourism marketing or economic development. And this is aligned to the statements that the commission provided last session on page nine in education. We received last year, the education enrichment funding. So this year, the request is to have an aviation technical training program. Uh, the requested amount at $1 million, we would be working with the Barrington Irving aviation school over at FXE to conduct that type of workforce development training apprenticeship, um, program. So we'll be working aligned with Barrington Irving and neighbor support services. Yesterday, we received word that the point in time count for our unsheltered homeless individuals has been updated. So that statement will change from 780 unsheltered individuals to 615 on the streets of Fort Lauderdale at any given point in time. When was that point in time taken? January. January of 2025? Uh huh. And they're just telling us now? Better late than never. Well, it could, it's a changing number. Yeah, that's correct. So Chris Cooper, assistant city manager, the point in time happens annually or semi-annually depending on whether or not they're counting unsheltered or sheltered or both at the same time. Um, we did just get those numbers recently. They were presented to Broward County and Broward County provided them to us. So the 780 approximately number that Daphne mentioned was the 2023 number. They didn't do an unsheltered unsheltered count in 2024. So our 2025 unsheltered count was 615 at that point in time in January of 2025. Okay. Thank you. It's 615, not 650. 615. Thank you. And along those lines, there is a new request to fund the substance abuse and mental health treatment program at a request of $250,000, um, launched in March of 2025 DCF funded the substance abuse and mental health treatment housing program. So we would be supplementing that program and continuing it on the city level in public safety. There are two requests, one from PD from the police department, which is the Fort Lauderdale cold case reduction collaboration program, uh, requested at 500,000. That program would reduce the number of cold cases that, um, the police department has. The second request is from our fire rescue department. It's to fund a fire boat replacement at $643,000. And that is to replace a fire boat that is about to be cycled out. Daphne, I have a question on the public safety before you move on to the next one. Thank you. So when do we start preparing, um, in terms of appropriation requests for the fact that we will have a big bill coming due after, uh, regarding the safer grant for the extra fire positions that we've accepted? Um, I guess now we're, we still have maybe two years left on that grant, but when do we start preparing for that? I'm just nervous about that. That is a big, that's a big dollar item. And I just would like to make sure that at least next year, this year is probably a little early because we still have to really think about it is, but I, I just want to put it on the radar. You worry a lot, Commissioner. Yeah. Just want to put it on the radar that I think for the next year, we have to start thinking about it, um, because it will be coming due, uh, pretty soon. Absolutely. And I have fired. It is on our radar. It's something that we have been talking about and we will talk about with the budget advisory board. So we are planning for that. Okay, great. Thank you. So, so, all right. To your point, the safer grant began in which fiscal year? 2025 or 2024? 2024. That's when it was awarded. Um, so the fiscal, it began in fiscal year, 2024. It's a three-year grant, but we really, it began at the end of fiscal year, 2024. Okay. So, and so it doesn't really, it doesn't really correspond to our fiscal year. It's just when the grant began. Correct. So it was the end of 24. So 25, 26. So it ended the end of 27. Mm-hmm. Okay. So we're in 2025. So, so in our budget discussions next year, we would. We've built it into our long range financial plan. So we're preparing for any eventuality associated with onboarding those employees. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Good answer, Daphne. I've got an entourage. I've got my team with me. For resilience and infrastructure on page 10, we have the Fort Lardale, the Galt Mile safety improvements at 1.25 million. That is the request to close out. I believe it is to close out that, that final program. So we won't be asking for breakers strategically to finish out Galt. Once Galt is completely finished out or at a point in time where we can say it is at completion, we will be requesting a remainder for the Galt Mile, for the Breakers Avenue project. So what, what are we deficient at the Breakers Avenue project? Do you know? Who, who would know that? So earlier today, we did release a memo indicating that we have received 3 million through the county's grant match program through the surtax initiative. And so the overall project cost at this time is estimated to be just over 11 million, although we haven't gone out to bid just as of yet. Uh, so we do anticipate that we will have a firmer number in terms of the project costs. Uh, but we can always utilize additional resources should those bids be higher than we anticipate. So to answer my question, if it's 11 million is the estimate for the total cost, how, what is the gap that we have in funding? Good afternoon. Miller's Minnesota is director for city's transportation and mobility department. So we recently received opinion of probable cost. There were some changes and it's actually a little bit low, um, 11, around 10 million dollars right now. So we have about 4.5 of a city funding. Uh, we were lucky to get a grant from FDOT that was for three million dollars. Uh, three, three million dollars that came before city commission back in May. Uh, recently, uh, there was an award by the check yet. Uh, so there is a, there is an agreement already with, uh, with FDOT. Um, we also received another three million dollars through a county surtax grant matching program. So we were one of the municipalities that was, uh, awarded as part of the third amendment. Um, and, uh, there is going to be an additional 850,000 dollars from housing, um, um, and urban development, uh, that will be coming to city commission as well. So we think we don't, I think we're fully funded. We are, we're closing the gap. Uh, now the question will be when we go for a construction solicitation, what those proposals will be. And I think that's, uh, what, uh, uh, manager Williams is pointing out. So what's the timetable on that? So, uh, our construction plans are currently with, uh, a review for review with the county and the state, and we should be issuing solicitation for construction in early 2026. Uh, so whenever we receive, uh, uh, proposals, we will know exactly if we are short and for how much. Okay. I mean, we, we had, we, I believe we had asked that we move forward on this and regardless of whether or not, we had the funding just so that we would anticipate pop, you know, possibility of getting future funding. So that hasn't been delayed in any way, has it? No, it hasn't. Okay. Well, the sooner the better, because every year the costs go up and, uh, if people know how much money we have, that's what they're going to come in at plus 10%. So, okay. Thank you. May I think we're in a good position. Correct me if I'm wrong. We also have dollars, uh, in this year's budget for breakers that would handle any kind of gap, $2.8 million. So I think we're in good shape. Okay. Well, that's, I just want to accelerate the process. I've been asking for this thing from 20 years ago and, uh, when I was in your position. Well, someone had to get it over the line. Yeah, I guess so. Thank God. Thank God. This will be the year of acceleration. Yeah. Yeah. It's all good. Thank you. Ready? Please proceed. Yes. Please proceed. The next project is the roadway resurfacing project, uh, with the requested funding amount at 1.75 million. Last year we had requested roadway resurfacing, made it through to the final iteration of the budget, and then it was vetoed. So we're going back for it at an increased cost. Um, 1.75 should be reasonable because we're giving it to Jared to, to run. He's not looking at you. The next, um, project, which is a new, uh, funding request from public works is the triplex water wastewater pump station rehabilitation. Uh, the requested amount was 5.642 million and change. We will be reducing that number. So it falls in line with what we're looking at with the legislature. We're going to consult with our lobbyists and the city manager to see what that number will be to make it more palatable, to get it through budget committee and, uh, the end of session in the state budget. And this would, um, ensure that the pump pump stations for, uh, wastewater don't fail having sewage in the, in the streets. So it's a health, a public safety, public health concern in transportation. We are going back for the loss of list safety improvements in ADA upgrades project. The requested amount is 5 million. That number will also be reduced, um, to make it more palatable for session. And it goes towards the loss of list mobility upgrades that we're, we're working on currently. We received funding last year for it as well. Okay. So that's what design and engineering. Correct. Okay. The next one is the water trail infrastructure project. The requested amount is $3 million. However, I was made note that that that number will be changing and we would reduce that amount as well. And it's to complete, uh, certain segments of the water trail project. And the last one in transportation is the sunrise, sunrise lanes, district streetscape improvement, say that six times, um, at a request of $1.6 million. And it's twofold to create a more inviting environment, supporting existing businesses, attracting new ones. And it will also challenge the inadequate lighting vacant storefront, um, aspect to it. So it has a strong economic impact. Should we get funding for it? Okay. Does that complete your report? That completes this portion of the report. The remaining pages are full summaries of each of the requests. Uh, again, those numbers will change. So I wanted to get your feedback on other projects or prior how you would like us to prioritize, uh, these projects moving forward. Okay. Does anyone have any questions of Daphne? There being none, I guess if we do have, we can meet with you separately. And, uh, but I think you did an amazing job and I hear only wonderful things about your efforts in Tallahassee and, uh, and your ability to work with our, uh, representatives that come from our area. So thank you for your, your continued good work and let's hopefully we can be successful this next go around and getting some of these projects funded. Thank you. So thank you. And that goes for you too. Okay. Moving on to, uh, business two, uh, city attorney search update. Is that you, Paul or Rhonda? I think I'll open that one up. Oh, yeah. Why don't you? Good afternoon, Jerome Post, uh, director of human resources. Uh, I'm here before you to, uh, announce to you the three candidates that were selected by the search committee to bring forward to the commission. Uh, they include Paul Bengal, Sherry McCartney, and Angela Angel Rosenberg. We do have several members of the search committee present today. We have Paul Figg who is going to speak, uh, if you have any questions about the committee. We also have Jim Dineen, uh, attending remotely. Jim was the, um, representative from MGT, the search firm that conducted the search for you. Sure. Why don't we get him on the line? Is he, uh, is he available? Okay. Let's wait till we see him. Okay. Great. Excellent. Welcome. Um, so, uh, anyone have any questions of Jerome? So, uh, so did you have any, did you have any, any comments that you'd like to add to this conversation? Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. My name is Paul Figg. I'm with the law firm Berger Singerman. Um, along with, uh, Mick Erlinson, Roosevelt Walters, Danella Williams, and Richard Weiss. Um, we interviewed the candidate, uh, city attorney candidates that were presented to us by MGT. Um, of the four candidates presented, we are recommending three candidates to you that were previously referred to. We felt that each candidate met the criteria established by the city and its ideal candidate section of the advertisement posted by MGT. And we feel the difference among the candidates is likely to be a vibe thing for the city commission. You know, selecting an attorney is an important and personal thing. And, uh, that is, that is your job. Our job is to establish the floor. So you feel that the names you presented, and you intend to put forward are equally qualified from a, from experience and academic and, and, uh, knowledge point of view. We believe they each are an ideal candidate. They have different qualities and strengths and that the distinguishing between the candidates is, would be a matter of perfect, personal preference for the client, which is the city commission. All right. Anyone have any questions of Paul? All right. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Rhonda, did you have any comments? I hear it rumbling. So no, no, sir. Surprisingly, no. Okay. All right. All right. So what are next steps here? So the city commission can give us feedback and direction on how you'd like to proceed with the selection process and Jerome can facilitate that discussion. All right. So I went ahead and started speaking with the individual candidates. I, I, I already know Paul and I already know, um, Sherry and I met with Angel. So, um, has, has, have the members of the commission also taken that opportunity to meet individually with the recommended candidates? I have. Okay. Commissioner Glassman. I haven't concluded, but I have begun that because I didn't know if I remember correctly, when we did the city manager search, we actually, during a conference meeting, interviewed the candidates right here as part of the conference meeting. But then for the first go around on the city attorney search, we met individually and then came back and debated that. So I, I wasn't sure exactly which way we were going on this, but I kind of thought we had decided to do it that way. The latter, the latter way individually interview. So have you had a chance to meet with all the candidates you intended to meet with? No, I, I, and I, but I will conclude that if that's what we've decided, I don't remember us actually deciding on a process for this, but I'm happy to do to do that. That's not a problem. Okay. Commissioner Beasley Pittman. Um, no, at this time I have not met with any of the candidates. Um, I didn't get the impression that we were going to do that in between, um, this meeting. I thought we were going to decide here the next direction. Right. So I have not met with any of the candidates and I do wish to meet with them. All right. Very good. And vice mayor, have you had a chance to meet with any of the candidates? No, I was waiting for us to shortlist them before we started arranging for meetings. Okay. So, um, so now they're shortlisted and, uh, so we can now take the opportunity to meet with them all individually. And then perhaps at the next meeting, we can make a decision. Can that be accomplished in the next two weeks? Do you think? Okay. No objection to that. I, I do have, um, I don't want to use the word conflict, but I am traveling on the 20th and I won't be back until the 28th. This is for the next meeting. I'll be in town for the meeting, but I'm just saying my opportunity to meet with the candidate. Oh, you're going to be traveling. Yes. I'll be out of the area. So, um, I'm going to do my best, but I'm, I'm believing that that's going to be a challenge with the timeline. Can we push it to the following meeting? Because my schedule is rather, rather crowded as well. So it'd be a bit of a challenge for me to try and get that in. It could be done, but if, uh, commissioner Beasley Pittman is not available, I'd rather avail ourselves of the opportunity. We've been without a permanent city attorney for a while now. So I think we can struggle on just a little bit longer. Well, the problem that it creates is that, uh, Mr. Spence has indicated he wanted to step down from the position of acting city attorney. And then we're going to be in the process of picking an interim acting city attorney until we get a city attorney. And I think the commission had indicated a, an eagerness to, you know, try to find a city attorney as soon as possible, because in some instances, depending upon the candidate chosen, there might be a lag time between the time they would leave their current employee and when they will be able to, uh, transition to the new position. Now that would only affect really, uh, Sherry McCartney because, um, Angel is currently not working and Paul's already working for us. So, so that would really just affect one, one candidate. But the, the thing is that, um, if you're, you're saying Pam, that you cannot, uh, you cannot between today and October 7th, you don't think you'd have the time to be able to meet with, um, the time, cause, um, it's going to be tight because of the time that I'm going to be away. Um, I really won't be available to do interviews until the 30th. So you're looking at Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and with some things that are on the schedule, I think it's going to be tight. Well, we've got mayor, we've got three weeks from today. So, well, one of those weeks, I'm going to be completely unavailable from the 20th through the 28th. So that's what I'm putting out there. So, but the last week of September and the first week of October, yeah. Cause we meet again on the 7th, correct? We meet again on the 7th. So that gives you almost a whole week. Hmm. Cause I'd like to be able to make this decision sooner than later. Yeah, I think we need to, but let me ask this. We're going to, um, with Mr. Spence's request on the first, we have to implement a interim and a new interim anyway, right? We would have to do that to honor that request because the first is before the meeting on the 7th. So are we going to do that tonight? Well, I think we can probably prevail upon Mr. Spence to wait one more week. Uh, he'll be here tonight at tonight's meeting. Okay. So, uh, I, I'm sure we'll be able to have that discussion tonight, but given the fact that, uh, given the possibility that he could extend his current acting position until the 7th, um, or however long it's going to take, cause again, we don't know who, when we onboard the new city attorney, we don't know when that person is going to be available depending upon who the candidate is. So, um, at least we can have that conversation with him tonight, but this would give you between the 29th and the third to be able to schedule three, three interviews. I'm still looking at what's, what's already also on my schedule. Um, this is tight, mayor. My schedule is tight and I want to, and what I do not want to do is shortchange any of the, I totally understand candidates. I want to be able to give them, um, my full attention. I want to give them a amount of time where I can actually have an in-depth conversation with them. I don't want to do a micro quickie interview. I would like to have a detailed conversation with them. Okay. All right. So if, if we could add the commission, um, I, I'm gonna, I do need additional time. So you need until you need, you want to push us over to October 21st? Um, is that the next meeting? That's the next meeting. I think that's too long. I'm, I think we need to do this on the 7th. That's three weeks from now. I, and I understand that we all have busy schedules, but I, I just think we have to keep this moving. I just, I understand commission, but I ask that you would afford me this time. It's important to me and I understand what you're saying. I understand. And I'm not disregarding the process, but also I would like that opportunity. And, you know, if I would have known that I could have jumped in earlier, I didn't get that impression from my last, um, conversation. I would have started when the list came out of those who were being interviewed after they made the short list. So, um, following port protocol, what I read to be protocol, I waited to today to understand what was the next step. Okay. So please afford me those extra. So you're going to be gone from the 20th to the wind. I returned back on the 28th 20th, the Sunday to 28th. Yes. Okay. So that would give you from the 29th to the 6th of October. And then also with what's already on my schedule. Are you here the rest of this week? I am here the rest of the week, which is already tapped. Okay. Okay. Mayor. So the next commission meeting after October 7th, if I have this right, is October 23rd. Do I have that? 21. It's the 23rd. 23rd. So it's Thursday, October 23rd. Okay. So mayor, let's just, let's, let's all agree to be ready to make a decision on October 23rd. We'd be able to figure out what we're going to do between October 1st and October 23rd. Yep. I'm sure we can have that conversation. Yeah. I think we can figure it out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the consideration. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jerome, for your service. Thank you. I'd also like to point out, we do have a couple other members of the search committee that in the audience, Roosevelt Walters and Danella Williams joined us today. So I'd like to thank them for their help as well. Thank you, Roosevelt and Danella. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to business three, public art and placemaking program, who'll be, uh, Josh, you're on here. No, you just turned yourself off. Okay. Very good. All right. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me today. I'm Joshua Carden. I'm the cultural affairs officer for the city of Fort Lauderdale. And today I will be presenting about the, uh, future of public art in Fort Lauderdale, hopefully. There we go. Uh, today we have the opportunity to realign our public art and placemaking program with the ambitious forward thinking identity of Fort Lauderdale. Today we're seeking commission feedback on funding mechanisms and the revised ordinance to ensure long-term viability, um, of the program. Um, you have all been incredibly supportive of public art during my three years here and I really appreciate it. So I don't need to tell you why public art matters, but of course it, um, continues to reflect our city's cultural identity, um, engage our community, beautify the city, um, educate and inspire our citizens. And of course offers economic development and public safety components as well. From a little background, the current ordinance that was established in 2020, uh, requires 2% of eligible city community investment projects to be set aside for public art. But unfortunately it has many exemptions that have not allowed this mechanism to appropriately work. Um, those exemptions are infrastructure and utility projects, projects funded by grants and loans, um, emergency repairs or reconstructions and interior renovations. So at this point, public art has been achieved largely through outreach, private donations, partnerships, and art installations on public facilities outside of what the ordinance actually requires. So the goals of the proposed revisions, uh, would establish a sustainable and enforceable funding mechanism, uh, realign the ordinance to ensure compliance with funding source restrictions, um, align the city of Fort Lauderdale with other cities that use capital investments and private development to support cultural infrastructure and reinforce Fort Lauderdale's identity as a creative, innovative, and inclusive city. So I'm going to present five different funding options today, just for some feedback on what you would all like included in our revised public arts ordinance. So option one would be to ensure that new public buildings, parks, civic plazas, and major renovations incorporate public art. And this would establish consistency with how other Florida cities applied their public arts ordinances. Um, and basically the rationale is if public money is used to build a space, it should reflect public identity, culture, and creativity. So this would involve a resolution, uh, to direct city staff to include public art or sense of place components, uh, which can be anything from water features to, uh, soundscapes to lighting, uh, artistically designed landscaping, um, and future construction projects. And this would build, um, sorry, this would also include P3 projects. Um, and this would help us to overcome some of the limitations of the current ordinance as well. Option two would be dedicate an ongoing funding program for public art and cultural activities. So thank you very much for including $315,028 in next year's budget. I appreciate it and that will go a long way. Um, and if we continue to do this, this would, you know, allow us to, uh, build upon our public art portfolio as well as cultural activations throughout the city. Um, option three would be to allow design flexibility in exchange for on-site public art. And this would develop a policy that allows applicants to obtain exemptions from certain ULDR, uh, requirements if their project includes art. Uh, for example, if a developer seeks a reduction in open space, the policy could allow for a defined percentage reduction in exchange for incorporating public art into the project. And this would create a link between private benefit and a public contribution and incentivizes thoughtful community-minded design. Option four would be to require a sense of place element for development within planning initiative areas. Um, and this would include the development that's not captured in option three to require the incorporation of a sense of place element, um, in areas of the city identified as planning initiatives, such as downtown Northwest St Andrews, central beach and uptown. Um, and would be a design based approach that activates spaces without requiring a financial contribution on the part of the city. These are some examples of a beautiful sense of place elements that other cities have incorporated into their building codes. Um, and option five of course would be to continue to accept gifts, grants, and, uh, donations, but would also streamline, uh, the process through an updated donation policy and naming guidelines. So eligible uses for the funds, um, would be public art installations, of course, both permanent and temporary, uh, the maintenance and conservation of the city's collection, marketing and advertising for city initiatives and art installations, and the administrative and support that goes into these installations as well. Um, and of course, the city commission would be able to waive any projects allocation, uh, to this oversight and accountability, um, the adoption of concrete policies and procedures to formalize the public art process. The current ordinance does mention guidelines and policies numerous times, but those were never established as part of the ordinance. So this would allow us to, uh, concretize those policies. Um, and of course, for oversight and accountability, the commission would continue to have oversight and direction of the public art pro program, um, as well as continued guidance by the public art and placemaking advisory board. Uh, the adoption of specific guidelines and policies would also allow for a lot more transparency, um, as far as funding, artist selection, site selection, maintenance, donation, and intellectual property. So the conclusion, um, we are here seeking, uh, direction from you all today on what we should include in the updated public art ordinance. So this would expand funding mechanisms, uh, which options should be included supporting the sense of place approach and moving the revised ordinance forward. All right, great. Thank you. Thank you. Um, does anyone have any questions of Josh? Not so much a question, Josh, but when I look at all of the proposed funding options, it almost seems to me like we can do a hybrid. There, there, there are points in each one that I think makes sense. And I want to make sure that we're not just limiting it to the, you know, the strict constraints of each of those options. Yeah, we can do any combination of these. If you like two, four and six or whatever it might be, we can incorporate all of those. I mean, because I think the goal, I mean, obviously we know it's not working for the reasons that you stated in terms of the bonds and the grants and the other restrictions. Um, but that does seem to work. That 2% does seem to work in other municipalities or the county. How do they get around that? Do they not have the types of funding of public projects that we do? Do they, I mean, how do they do that? Um, Broward County does use bond funding for public art. Miami Beach did as well. Um, and it was just, uh, we had to keep the funding within that project. So if we were building a new police station with bond funding, um, that 2% was still allocated to public art. It just had to be kept within that facility. Okay. So why is that different then from, for instance, how the county, um, is able to collect those funds when they have those same kinds of financing options in terms of their public projects? Yeah. It has not been the favor of the city attorney's office. Okay. Um, as I said, because I know this does work not just with the county, but in other municipalities around the country. Absolutely. So, okay. So then we definitely have to go another route because I think it is important that we're able to, to build up that fund. So commissioner, I think we should just clarify the distinction between how this program was initially established and what we're trying to transition to. Absolutely. Yvette Matthews acting assistant city manager. Um, so the way the program was initially established were, was we were transferring 2% out of the project and putting it into a public art fund. What Josh was just explaining is that for other municipalities, what they do is they dedicate 2% of the project to public art. It's nuanced, but the difference is that you're actually using the bond funding or the grant funding on that project to enhance the project using art instead of taking money out of the bond or the grant to put it into a separate project, which may fund art that is not directly related to the project. So I, what, uh, Josh is talking about is if we're going to do a 2% or a percentage or any funding, we would keep it within the project in which the funding source has identified, which would allow us to use that designated funding source. So why are we not going down that path? I believe that's one of the options that is being presented. The idea of keeping funds within the projects in order to, um, dedicate art within those projects. Because isn't it at the end of the day, cleaner than a lot of these other options and they're, they're, I mean, they're not bad options, but they're not quite as direct as here it is 2% within the project. Boom. And it may not be a percentage. I think one of the options that we were talking about was making sure that we're dedicating funding for enhancing art. So it may not be a percentage as we consider some of our really big projects that are coming up, like the new city hall. Um, a percentage may not be the right thing, but making sure that the, we understand the commission's guidance on whether or not we should be actively adding art or place making or any of those things into any of the capital projects that are coming up in the next few years. Okay. Because I think that we can go that way. I, I, especially because, you know, so many times people think of public art as a, as a, as a work of art or a sculpture, but in many instances, there are great examples of public art that are functional public art, where they will be actually built into a project. And although they might not as be as identifiable as a sculpture, um, I, I've seen some really great examples of public art that are functional. Yeah. So commissioner, what you're, what you're going through right now is exactly what we're hoping to get in terms of the feedback. So when Josh talked about option one, he mentioned that the idea is to bring back a resolution based on the feedback that we're receiving today. And so right now we have an ordinance that creates a public art fund that dedicates money to it. It comes out of the project, as a vet said, and then back into the project potentially, and it hasn't worked. So what we're looking for is that feedback so we can craft something in the form of resolution to bring back to you. It could include something that says, you know, we, we want to see a percentage of a project have art. It could say, we want to see these types of projects have public art in it. You know, that's the feedback we're looking for today so that we can then bring you back something to approve that we can then use as guidance when we're developing those project budgets moving forward. Thank you for that. And what about, um, a parallel path for private development? What are, what are our intentions, uh, with regards to private development? Because I've seen municipalities handle public art requirements in private development in very different ways. So what are, what are we thinking about in terms of private development and public art? Yeah. So what Josh referred to in the presentation are things like either incentives or, or trade-offs within our ULDR for certain projects and certain planning areas or, or requirements or, um, intent-based policies about what we want to see in those planning areas. So for instance, in our downtown rack, we talk about the expressive tops on the art, on our towers. So that's why in downtown, you get a lot of these towers that have sort of a architectural feature at the top of the tower, you've got lighting elements and things like that. So that's an example of how we built in an intent-based policy in our design guidelines for those areas to include something, whether it's art or a feature that is an artistic element. Um, that's one way that we can encourage and somewhat incentivize private developments to include that in their, in their projects. Now we have been given guidance from our attorney's office that, that requiring either payment into a fund or, or some other contribution to public art as a requirement of the development is not something we'd be able to pursue. So that's why we're looking at alternatives in the form of incentives or other, other intent-based policies to include those as, those elements into those projects going forward. Although I do believe there are some municipalities that do have that requirement, even though you're saying that our attorney attorney's office saying no. Correct. So, you know, these other jurisdictions may do something that whether or not it's something that we think legally we can do, but their jurisdictions and their developers seem to be okay with. Um, and, and that may be the case. I don't know for sure, but the guidance we received is we couldn't make those requirements, um, for our developers here in Fort Lauderdale. Okay. Well, thank you for that. Thank you both. I think what, uh, what Chris is referring to are statutes that are on the books that impose requirements on developers that take away from their profit margin. Uh, for example, the, the, an example could be, uh, when we used to require affordable housing, uh, units to be incorporated into certain housing projects. The state took our, took our ability to require that away from us. And I think what the city attorney's office is suggesting is that that may fall within that realm. And then the city would end up being stuck with the bill of having to make up the difference in the profit. Um, anyone else have any questions of Josh? Yeah, yeah, mayor, I do. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Um, thank you, Josh. This is great. So let's just walk through these options and see if, um, I don't know, just kind of make sure we're understanding and giving what, what you need from this. So, uh, so, and to Commissioner Glassman's point, I'm, I, I'm hoping that we can kind of combine, we can leverage several of these options at once, or at least give you that feedback and then you see what works from a, you know, legal standpoint and kind of make sense. Okay. So, uh, so I like option one. So can, can we all agree that option one is, could be part of the solution set? Is that, let's go back to option one, the cart menu here. Yeah. Take your time there. Sure. New, new public building parks doesn't manage to incorporate public art unless legally prohibited by bond or loan covenant. Sure. Is that fair? Okay, great. So I think we're all good with option one, option two. Hang on. Not, not all of us. I'm not. So, okay, great. What's your feedback, vice mayor? So I think we can be selective about what projects we want to put public art into. I don't think they're all, they all lend themselves to public art. For example, if we're going to be doing a renovation project at the George T. Lohenmeyer sewer, sewer plant, I don't necessarily want to be spending 2% on putting art into the sewer plant. So I think we can be judicious about selecting them on an ad hoc basis. I don't want an across the board policy. But again, we can't just think of public art as a piece of art or what some people call plop art or sculpture many times. Commissioner, you don't have to convince me. I don't want it. That's all. Okay. I'm just saying, you're not thinking about the options in terms of what public art can do. And actually, even at the George T. Lohenmeyer plan, you'd be surprised. I could show you examples of basically facilities like that, that have been very clever in using their public art allocations, again, for functional purposes, not what you're considering to be. I have no doubt. I'm just simply saying I don't support it. That's all. I don't need a debate. No, I'm so sorry that you don't like the debate. That's okay. I'm not giving you a debate. It's okay. It's okay. Okay. It's okay. All right. So that's great. So, and then go to, sorry, go to, where's the, go to the next option, please. Oh, yeah. Okay. Sorry. Great. So now go back to option two, if you would, Josh. Okay. Dedicated ongoing funding program for public art and cultural activities. So fiscal year 2026, we included the 315,000 towards this option. So it's saying, you know, this is something that we might continue to fund as we, from a city general fund perspective. Yeah. Yeah. What you're saying there. Um, so that's something I'm interested in continuing to explore, consider Chris. Yeah. So commissioner, that's, that's in our operating budget now that the budget is approved for future years. So that would be something that unless the commission decided to reduce or eliminate those funds in the future budget, we would, we would present in our operating budget going forward. Great. Okay. How did that figure align with what we were doing in the past? How did we come to the 315? So there was, there was no funding of this sort dedicated to the program. So working with Josh and looking at what those types of activities that are bulleted here in a general form could look like over the year, what Josh's capacity is. We also added a position to assist Josh because it's just been Josh up to this point. So this was a number that we felt comfortable going into year one that we can manage effectively. There's, there's other funds. Obviously there's a, a trust that's provided smart work that Josh works with as well. Um, and there's other options and opportunities for art that Josh manages, but in terms of what we thought was reasonable for this year, this was the amount that we came to a conclusion on. Thank you. Thanks. And that if I'm understanding it right, this concept doesn't commit us to some certain funding level. It's just the idea that we can continue to fund this as we desire. Right. So good flexibility there. Okay, great. So I think we're good. I think folks are good with option two, option three. I like this because I think the flexibility is important to have as needed, depending, you know, depending on the type of building and so forth. Uh, so option three, good with, with all of us. So it looks good. Make, make sense. Okay. Like option four. That, that, that has to do with private development. That's where we get a little dicey. Yeah. Yeah. So I just, I need a little bit more on this. It doesn't necessarily have to be right now, but I don't. Yeah. Mayor, what, what are your, well, I'm thinking that, um, we need more, we need to think about this more, how we could craft this in such a way that it's, uh, it could be, we need to come up with incentives as opposed to requirements. Right. And I think, um, and, and I think to your point, Josh, you know, most developers are wanting to do something like this. I mean, we had a, we had a, um, we have a, uh, for example, an affordable housing project over there on 17th street, south, southeast, southwest 17th street. And the developer, I think it was, uh, Atlantic and Pacific. Yeah. They put a piece of art in front. No one asked them to do it. Yeah. And, uh, it really is a, it's, it's a welcoming feature. And so, you know, so I don't see developers necessarily being adverse to something like this, but I do think that it should be more incentivized as opposed to imposed. Yeah. And I think this would just, you know, give them that incentive to, you know, offer something more publicly accessible. That's not maybe just in an interior courtyard, but that is, you know, in the public domain. Yeah. I'll give you an example. Excuse me, Ben. Yeah. So as you, as you look, uh, west down Los Solos Boulevard, uh, at the very, very end of the street is a, is a apartment building. And I happen to run into the owners of that building at some point. And, um, I told them, I said, you know, the Vista, you know, is right there at your building. And what do the people see? They see a blank building. I said, can you do something to the side of that building? And on their own without any imposition or even incentives, they created a neon light exhibit on the end and they're proud of it. They're happy with it. And so it creates a sense of place and, and it adds a little bit to the artistic element of Los Solos. But so things like that can be done. Um, unfortunately we have resistance from others, for example, at the society building, the new, the existing building, you know, we're fighting with them over whether or not the, their, uh, parking lot screen is a billboard as opposed to a work of art. So we're going to get situations like that too. So again, incentivization might be a tool that we might look to other cities and see what they've done. Oh, mayor. And in regards to that, um, requirement versus incentive, um, a lot of times in, in, in my district, we don't necessarily see the, um, the artwork being, um, even offered where you say, um, the building where they, they saw this wall and they decided to go ahead and do something. And then a lot of times, um, the murals, they are sometimes in my opinion, they could be a little bit more inviting. Okay. Um, I'm looking at 7th Avenue between sunrise and Broward, which is district two, the artwork that is there is more, um, sometime you see more beachy, you see more, um, yeah. Okay. And then when we come over into parts of district three, and I'm not even saying urban, it's a whole different capture. And it's not even going through a conversation with the community because we are, we're deeper than some of the things that are going up on our walls. And I think that needs to be considered. Um, even when, um, we go through and there's an opportunity, I may be saying this wrong, but, um, the, the name in the company, the name of the organization that does the yearly, um, artwork, um, with, um, Maxon, they do a wonderful job. But sometimes the art that is presented in our community is more urban driven than that also represents the whole district. And when you say requirement, I would like to see an opportunity where, um, it's a little bit deeper than just what one person may think represents the community because our community is so diverse. Well, of course it is. Um, I think when I L Peretz was, was, uh, renovating some of those buildings and building his new construct new structures, I thought he had told me that he had reached out to the adjoining neighborhood associations to get feedback because those are the buildings you're, you're speaking of. Yeah. They, what happens a lot of times it's, um, perceived that the quarter is the entire district. It is not right. I represent a whole district. And, um, also with the diversity in the community, um, there's things that are appreciated. There was some, um, artwork that went up that I got much disapproval of, but with conversation, we, we went through that, but there needs to be a little bit more engagement. Okay. And then also with that, um, um, what I'm saying, yes, we want the artwork as well. Let's have the conversation. Let it be a true representation of wherever we are putting the artwork and, and don't, don't leave us out. Okay. That includes the, um, sculptures. Okay. Includes the murals. Um, we can't necessarily put things on the road anymore, but we can get very creative with what we do have. The jury's still out. The jury is, I said not, I said not necessarily. Okay. But, um, using what we can to represent the district, the city overall. Okay. Yeah. And so if I could, um, commissioner, this is the feedback we're looking for. You know, we talked a little bit in this, I think it might be on the next slide about our planning initiative areas. So you've got the Northwest rack, which is in your district and what, what that district may want to see in their public art program may not be the same as what Uptown wants to see in their public art program, which is also one of our planning initiative areas or the beach or downtown or the south rack. So again, this is the feedback we're looking for so that we can develop these, whether it's incentives or design guidelines or intent based policy to implement this in a way that is meaningful in those areas that are unique and in their own right. And, and looking at bullet two here, the second bullet, um, I do say where you see, um, public spaces throughout the city, but you know, I am, um, helping us all remember the south end of my district. It's, it's a, a larger, also Hispanic community. There's things that we haven't even began to do as well as Caribbean as well. And that's the Caribbean is, is really the central and all of that. But that south end, when we get on the south end of Davie, south of, we have a larger Hispanic community. So what my, my ringing of the bell is today when the direction that we go in, that we include, um, everyone for this opportunity. Okay. Okay. Okay. Great. Yeah. So good on four, five. I think this makes sense. Mayor commissioners. Is that, is five willing to accept money? Why not? Right. Well, we have, we've already done that. Right. The layered money, which I want to talk about after you're concluded, but, uh, but yeah, absolutely. I think that's, that's great. Anyone wants to write a check to the city? I'm happy to accept. We'll take it. And was that, was that, was there just five? Yeah, it was just five. Okay. So is that helpful? Is that you got what you need? Yes, sir. Great. Thank you. Mayor. Great. Uh, anyone else wish to comment or ask questions of Josh? All right. Uh, Josh, I have a couple of things. Okay. Um, first of all, let me comment about, uh, some of our public works projects. Um, I guess at first glance, some would say, oh, a sewer treatment plant is not all that sexy. You know, why would we have, why would we want to put public art there? Um, why would, uh, uh, it's not a well-trafficked area. Well, as it happens, our sewage treatment plant happens to be in a highly trafficked area. It's right across the street from the brand new convention center and the new convention center hotel. Uh, lucky then. But, uh, uh, the reality is that it would be nice to have some sort of, uh, artistic frontage there to compliment what the county has invested significantly in. So that I see as an exception because generally like our water treatment plant that we just built, no one's going to go out there except employees. Right. And, um, and I would not want to divert, uh, 2% of monies that would, I'd rather, I'd rather, you know, put more landscaping or more noise, uh, uh, buffering devices out there or, or elements to, to protect the neighborhood. So, so it depends on a case by case basis. Exactly. In terms of, if I just can, and I apologize for interrupting. Oh, you just have to say something. I do. Because again, what you just said about landscaping and buffering areas, there are amazing examples of public art that are done by landscape architects, landscape artists. We can't just narrowly have in our mind what we think public art is. That's all. I'm not going to beat this horse anymore. I'm just saying we have to think outside the box sometimes when it comes to public art. And I also get a little nervous about how are we going to tell some projects, yes, 2% for public art and then tell other projects, no, you don't have to have that for 2%. I don't know how you do that without being inconsistent is all I'm saying. Well, we have to deal with things on a case by case basis. So, um, and, and also the percentage, you know, 2% is a lot of money. You know, if we spend $600 million on a water treatment plant, I don't want to see $12 million worth of art, you know, that's just, that's excessive. So we may want to say, you know, 2% up to a certain value and then 1%. I mean, let's, let's be real about that. Okay. Um, the cost of things has gotten very high now. And, and I just don't think we should be, you know, using money for artistic purposes that are in excess of the need. That's all I'm saying. Um, now we do have a advisory board, which, uh, I, I believe is still, is still, um, functioning and operating. And we, and I believe there are a couple of people from that board that are here today. And, um, and I think that, you know, having citizen input is really, really important. So continue to rely on that, Josh, as we move forward. Um, I don't know the answer to this, but, you know, using bond money for public works project, does that raise any red flags with the bond holders? Are, are we violating the terms of a bond by, instead of using it for windows and, and, and floors that we're using it for artistic purposes? How does that work? So what Josh was explaining, and Josh has done a really good job of educating me on this as well, is when you think about art, a lot of times we think about sculptures, but art can really be incorporated into the building of a facility. And so that does not present a challenge with bonds funds because you're advancing the building of that facility. Um, it's not just the brick and mortar, but it's the full outfitting of that facility. Okay. And, and, and when we start to accumulate money, um, uh, I would, I would imagine that bond money would have to be used for that project that, uh, for which the bond was issued, but it, from other sources, obviously we would have more flexibility like we do with parks bond impact fees, correct? We can use that anywhere in the city. And, uh, so I, we're also looking to do that here as well. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Okay. Um, okay. Uh, finally, let's talk about the layered money. Okay. Um, you know, that was a $5 million gift given to the city, I think three years ago. Almost. Yeah. Yeah. And, um, you know, we haven't done well at spending it. In fact, uh, I get constant calls from people saying there's a couple of projects that are pending that still seem to be stuck. Um, where are we with like, like the Esplanade Park sculpture and, and the, the, the, the beach sculpture? Where are we with that? Yeah, absolutely. The Carlos Luna for Esplanade, um, is finishing and fabrication. So I've been meeting with the GC and engineer to get the final installation drawing so that we can pull a permit. The sculpture itself is in fabrication or the, or the base? The sculpture itself is finished in fabrication and we're waiting on the engineering drawings from the engineer and architect for installation. Uh, hashtag FTL is currently in permitting with FDOT. So far so good. Um, it's not left FDOT yet? No, but it has been, the review has been initiated is the email I believe they sent me. Um, and then, uh, the piece for Huizinga park, the beautiful Manolo Valdez. Um, I've been meeting with architects and engineers, uh, regularly, um, to facilitate the installation of that, uh, which will coincide with the opening of the new Huizinga park. So that will happen at the end of the year, then? Yes, sir. Okay. We're aiming for, uh, late November, early December. Okay. And what, and back to the, uh, Esplanade Park, where are we with, how long is it going to take for that to be installed? I'd say two months ish. Two months. Yeah. Okay. Um, two to three. All right. Well, every month we're paying storage. That's the problem. Yes. So, you know, uh, for, for a piece that's already been fabricated and that's sitting in a warehouse somewhere, you know, money's being spent to store that piece. So, you know, whether it's two months or three months, that's a big, that's a number that we have. I agree. And, you know, it's very challenging, um, to buy a piece of prefabricated art. Um, that's not site specific. A lot of the times we do have to make, you know, changes to the base or figure out how we're going to install this. Um, example, the Mark Quinn was fabricated for London. So it did take and require, you know, a 3d model of it to be rendered so that we could engineer it for Florida. And we also had to modify the sculpture itself, which required, um, approval of the artist at his studio. So there are things happening even while it's in storage. Um, but yeah, it's unfortunate, but when we purchase something that's prefabricated, um, it's just unfortunately going to take some time to get it installed. So have those issues been resolved then? Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. I have no further questions. I think you have direction. Mayor, I do just want to share, notwithstanding those challenges, as I mentioned before, this is the year of acceleration. We're positioning our cultural affairs shop to, uh, be more intertwined in the fabric of the city and other departments. Uh, Josh's group will be in the new community services department. Uh, projects will be implemented with the assistance of the capital projects team. And so we're trying to build out the infrastructure to support this function and make it even more productive. So we thank you for the support that you provided through the budget process. And we're looking forward to getting these projects over the finish line. Okay, great. So we have a few people signed up to speak. So thank you, Josh. Thank you. I'll call your names three at a time so you can be prepared. Uh, Phoenix Marks, followed by Martha Steinkamp, followed by, uh, Brucey Cummings. Is, uh, Phoenix here? Step up to the podium, please. How are you? I'm blessed. And, um, I want to thank you for going through the deliberation discussion today, breaking it down, uh, item by item, option by option, because, uh, as a, um, I should give a little background who I am. My name is Phoenix Marks. Uh, it's been my pleasure to be serving on the public art and placement advisory board for a number of years. Um, I'm from district four and, um, so grateful for this clarity to help us get where we all want for the city. The mayor came to us back in December of 2019, and he clearly said he wanted iconic art in the city of Fort Lauderdale to attract people to come discover us, know us, not just the people who live here, but from around the world. So we want the same. And we, uh, every time we come together, that is always our intention to bring the finest art possibilities. Um, our hands have been rather closed. We haven't been able to open up what we know is possible for our city, and we look forward to that. So I, for one, thank you very much for the discussion and clarity, and we'll do our best to help you get what we all want. Thank you. Thank you for your good work on that committee. Uh, Paul, uh, can more than one person from that board speak today? Because Martha is also on that board. She allowed to, she, if it wasn't posted that they would be here, then I would say, I would suggest not. So she cannot. Yeah. Martha, because you're both on the same board, the sunshine, uh, statute does not allow more than one person from the board to speak, uh, because it wasn't previously noticed. Oh, we were not aware of that. Um, I'm just asked, I just asked the question now, so I'm just being made aware of it now. Well, I'm the chair of that board, so I thought I would be allowed to speak, but that's okay. Yeah. I'm glad you're discussing this. That's all. Mayor, if I may. Yeah. If they don't interact. So if she doesn't address anything that has already been discussed by the other member, but it's a slippery slope. Well, what is the, what's the answer? That's not what we've been told before though. Well, what's the answer? Tell me. I mean, I want to do this right. I'm not an attorney. Well, what were you told before that? Well, the commission's been told several times before when someone comes up, there is a second person from a board that they can't speak. Right. That's what I thought. Exactly. Right. So I, that's definitely, that's the safest approach. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Sorry, Martha. I'm sorry. I assume you and Phoenix are of like mind. You should have gone first, Martha. Brucey, you're not on the board. Are you? Are you on the board? The art advisory board? Are you art? Are you on the art advisory board? Okay. Please come up and it's your turn. Followed by Troy Liggett, followed by Ted and Sarah. Good afternoon. I'm Brucey Cummings from Tarpon River, 830 Southwest 9th Street. And I just like to say that the public art in our neighborhood began with my idea of the Tarpon River Bridge being historic. And I had a muralist come and do the 7th Street Tarpon River Bridge and the 4th Avenue Bridge, and also the Andrews Avenue Bridge. I've had tremendous feedback about how important those were to people. They didn't know about Tarpon River at all and it being historic. And I've tried to get, uh, commissioners, uh, Commissioner Ben Sorenson's, um, neighborhood to pitch in because they have several Tarpon River bridges, but they have not opted to do that. But I find that the public art is extremely important. She's calling you out, commissioners. My neighborhood is not doing what the neighborhood needs to do. And so many places in Florida are making a name for themselves by the public art that they have. And I understand it's a difficult thing to try to figure out how to do that, but I would encourage it whole. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Brucey. Uh, Troy Liggett, followed by, uh, Ted and Sarah, followed by Bill Brown. Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. Um, I I'm here, uh, we have an issue in Middle River Terrace, don't we? We have a little issue in Middle River Terrace. I I'm here to be constructive about this. I think Middle River Terrace supports this. We support public art. Everything you're doing is great. Um, my comments are about the very last slide talking about oversight and accountability. Um, if you're opening up the public arts ordinance, I hope you consider, um, including, uh, community input into sculptures that go into neighborhoods. I think that's very important. I read the ordinance and I don't see that in there. Um, I also wanted to raise the issue just briefly and in a constructive way, what we're doing in Middle River Terrace, um, commission with Mr. Commissioner Glassman's help, we got $150,000 for new sculpture on, uh, the roundabout of Northeast 13th street. Um, the public arts board, uh, did a, and the, with, with Joshua's help did a, uh, uh, uh, an email survey of what the neighborhood might want to see was asking, do you want something colorful, something historical? And they came up with this long list of things. Um, they put out the, they don't cheat you for asking the public. They put out the, the request, the call for artists. They came up with 62 artists and then the public, uh, arts and placement board, um, has the obligation to narrow those down to pick the artists. Um, I, I say this in what I hope is a constructive way that process before the bar board hasn't been fair or transparent from the view of the neighborhood. Um, in the last two meetings, they voted via email before the meeting on narrowing down the selections. They started the meetings by talking about how they've narrowed it down. Now, does anybody want to talk about our decision? We just made a boat, the board voted by email. Correct. Um, this is the, which board? The public arts and placement. They're not allowed to, they're not allowed to, this is violate sunshine. I, I had to request the FOIA to get copies of those at the second meeting. They voted by email. Um, even to get the, who the artists were, we had to make a FOIA request to get the list of artists we had, that they were voting on. We had to make a FOIA request. I had to pay $117 to get the list, to get the submissions. I mean, at the, at the last meeting, they narrowed it down from 11 to four. They voted via email beforehand to get the 11. They voted to narrow it down to four, and then they asked if there was any public comment. So I think they need to work on that process. And I support this as long as we can participate. Well, I think the board needs to understand that they cannot communicate with each other outside of a public forum, which is going by email is not. I don't think that they communicated with each other. I think they were just asked to vote on their preferences directly with Josh. And then he tallied them at the meeting. Josh, what happened there? Anyway, good afternoon. Thank you for having me again. Um, yes, we had 62 submissions for artists. So the board was not for the roundabout on 13th street. Yes, sir. So the board was not communicating with one another. This was done through blind copy. I asked the board which applications they would like to discuss at the meeting. Um, and they submitted which artists that they would like to discuss. It was not a formal vote. It wasn't the end all be all. Uh, if anyone wanted to discuss additional applications at the meeting, we certainly could. Um, yeah, it wasn't okay. All right. That clarifies it. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just conclude that this last meeting, they did that vote beforehand and their first order of business was they put the list up there. They're like, Oh, four of them received two votes. Somebody moved to say our finalists are the four votes are the four up there. And they voted to narrow it down to four. And then they opened it up to neighborhood comments. I had seven people there from the neighborhood at a one o'clock on Monday meeting who wanted to testify before they voted. I had people send me emails. If you can't make it, send me an email and I'll deliver it so they can consider it before they voted. I think they just need to take into consideration that they should get neighborhood comp comments before they vote. Well, isn't that what this was though, from what I'm hearing that it was a, it was a, it was a, um, it was an effort to solicit responses from the public through a blind copy email and that you're saying that the board voted before the committee, before they met. The emails that he's talking about went to the seven board members and the seven board members got a blind copied email from Josh saying, pick your top three and send it back to me. Josh tallied from those seven board members their votes. He put it up on the screen to start the meeting and say, this is what the votes are for each one. They, the board saw the four of them got two votes. All right. Well, that, that's not, that totally violates sunshine. That is totally improper and should never have happened because you're not allowed to pre-vote, uh, before a meeting. And, um, um, Josh, you should not, if that's happened, that should not have happened. Yes, sir. I understand it. It wasn't to vote. It was to, for them to relay which artists they wanted to discuss. It's still the business of the board you're doing remotely and the business of the board, just like the business of this board always has to be in the sunshine. I can't talk to any members here about anything. Okay. Relating to business that might take place before us. So, um, you know, knowing that business might take place before them, you're getting like a pre-vote. Okay. And, and then you narrowed it down based on the feedback that should not have happened. That has to all happen in the, in the, in the public eye. Yeah. I'm just letting you know. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. There were 62 applications. So it was just which, which of the 62 would they like to discuss? I understand. Mayor, mayor, we're going to review the entirety of the process and report back to the commission on exactly what happened, how it happened, when it happened, before we draw any conclusions on this matter. All right. Well, again, you know, it, it happened. Okay. So going forward, we just need to be more respectful of the process. That's all. And we can do our due diligence and review what happened so that we can improve upon our process going forward. That's exactly right. Thank you. And mayor, we can, we can also weigh in, uh, going forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Josh. Uh, tenants, Sarah, then Bill Brown. Anyone else wish to speak on this item? Actually, I just got a question. So do we do sunshine training for staff periodically? I thought we used to do that. Anybody that's a board liaison, I thought had to go through sunshine training. Yes, we do offer it either once, uh, might be twice, uh, twice a year. And also if there's a new liaison, we offer it as well. Okay. I thought so. All right. Thank you. Yes, Ted. We're good. Ted and Sarah, president of the river Oak civic association. Um, for one thing, there is also funding option six, which is what river Oaks did. We paid for it ourselves. So that's always a, uh, something to consider. And I cannot stress enough how much I agree as usual with commissioner Beasley Pittman and with Troy back here about it's, there's need of more neighborhood, uh, input. Um, you know, we painted our murals in, in river Oaks, two murals. We did not want to put it above a call to artists and 62 artists. Well, the problem with you is you went ahead and painted it without city permission. Sure. Cause that's not an option. Well, we didn't want you to tell us what we were going to paint. Sorry. That's what it was. Time out, Ted. We knew what we wanted to paint in the neighborhood. It was a resident of river Oaks and we painted it ourselves. Well, I know that river Oaks is, is a neighborhood, uh, chalk with Picassos, but the reality is that there are certain expectations that other people in the community have, and they can't, we can't go willy nilly with a paintbrush going around putting together artwork that we think is great, but has not been approved by the city. But then how does community engagement and feedback attract 62 people that don't live in our neighborhood, putting together what they want in our neighborhood, in the center of our neighborhood that don't live in the neighborhood, have nothing to do with the neighborhood. Where is that? Well, that didn't happen. That didn't happen. I know because we cut that off. We weren't about to let that happen. No, but you have to let the city get involved and see whether or not you, that the artwork is approved, it's using right materials that, you know, there's a process. I know you're eager to, you know, improve the neighborhood and, you know, thank you for all the great work you're doing for your neighborhood. But there, you know, there's certain rules that we need to follow that, you know, are minimum expectations. I mean, it did, a lot of these things that did cause, it caused, uh, we had community engagement on what we wanted to paint there, civic pride. What is community engagement? You? No, no, there was a neighborhood, it was a River Oaks, very thorough, you know, uh, project. We had beautification. I mean, it's now known as the heart and soul of River Oaks. And, uh, Josh wanted to come and paint it over. And, uh, well, we were never going to allow that to happen. But, uh, but, but I just, my, the only thing I'm really trying to say is more community engagement is what I'm stressing. I agree. Every neighborhood is different. I agree. I applaud you. Oh, and plus, in my opinion, the greatest piece of public art in the city of Fort Lauderdale are the trees along Los Olos Boulevard with their lights and all of that. That is public art. Okay, since you brought that up, I just need to clarify something. Yes, sir. You continue to rail against people on this commission who want to take down the trees and it's, and it's really not true. Oh, I've been to these meetings, especially the ones at the park. I'm going to tell you, look at me, look at me. Oh, I have never said, take down the trees in the median. Yet you continue to accuse me of that. So I would appreciate it. If you'd stop saying those things that, that are a disservice to the community, because all you do is anger people and cause disquiet within the community for a city like ours, which people love living in Fort Lauderdale. Oh, I do. You do your best to try to rile people up, make them angry. And it's not based on accurate information. It's based on misinformation. So let it be heard today. I'm talking. Let it be heard today. You still have time. Okay. Let it be heard today that I am totally in favor of maintaining the median trees for as long as they are alive. Okay. There you go. And when they die, which our arbiter, our arborist said is going to be within eight to 12 years. We need to plan for their demise with planting additional trees. And that's what I've always said. And so I just want you to know that. So when you go home tonight and you start tapping away on your computer, reviling me and others on the commission, you've now heard it from the horse's mouth. That's what I wanted to hear. Exactly. You heard it a year ago, but you still... No, I know what I heard at the Parker Playhouse too, when Warren was our commissioner and you had a very different take on that. Always my position, always, since day one. That's what I want to hear. That's what I appreciate. Thank you. And with that, thank you very much. You're very welcome. I didn't cut you off, did I? No, not really. Okay, good. Okay. Can't win here. Go ahead. Yes, Mr. Brown. Mayor, Vice Mayor Bill Brown, President of the Council of Civic Associations. First of all, let me begin by saying timing is everything. We've all heard that. And I think we're at a point the timing is a good time for this discussion. I was at that meeting of the arts advisory committee that Troy referenced. Josh explained the process. I came away with that there was a lack of communication on both sides, both the city and the neighborhoods and the neighborhood leaders not understanding. Troy then came to our last civic association meeting council and as president of his neighborhood explained it, did very well. He very complimentary of Josh. It was, there was no bashing back and forth. And then, so I had the, from input that they wanted Josh to come in, other members of neighborhood leaders and explain the process. Then I, the agenda came out for this meeting and I saw this presentation and that's why I said timings, everything. So I think we're at a good opportunity. I've asked Josh to come in next month's meeting. He's going to be the guest speaker. You're going to get community engagement. You're going to get community involvement. You're going to get community feedback from all the neighborhood leaders of this community. And that will help you make some decisions, some great discussion points, a lot of positives. There are some that could raise some concerns from civic leaders. So I think that's how we're going to vet this. We're going to work with staff, work with Josh, come back, give good feedback to staff, good feedback to this commission. And on a personal note, as president of the council of, or not council, but president of Central Beach Alliance, on the Saline project, which was a planned proposed development project. Not only did the city work on the sea turtle project, which is the public arts on the handicapped lot. They're at Sebastian and A1A in that little parking lot between Seabreeze and A1A. But then also on the other parcel, that's a city piece of parcel. The CBA worked with the developer to get what's going to be called, and it's been approved by the, in the, in the agreement to put a piece of public art for the community called Anchors Away. But it looks like, we chose it because it looks like a propeller and we thought it'd be a good opportunity to kind of bring in the marine industry or the marine flair of the community. Where's that going? In that, in the, in the handicapped parking area? No, the sea turtles are going in the handicapped. Yeah. If you go Caddy Corner, there's, you know, where Wedgwood Court Condimentium Building is? Yeah. Then there's a little sliver of parcel there that Seabreeze comes down that the city owns. Okay. And there's been a snag recently because of the Ritz-Carlton development having some property rights to that, but we're working through those issues. That's where that sculpture is going. Beautiful piece of art, Saline Culture Group agreed to that as part of the development. So those are, those are the type of some of the projects that, options that were pointed out. So there's many options, you know, for, and I sat there and I listened on the 2%. My first thought was, do we really want $2 million of public art going in on a hundred million dollar police station? Now we're at a 40 million cost. So, so I agree. There might be some stair-stepping limitations that we might be able to come compromise and put as input. So we look forward. You're going to get the transparency. You're going to get the community input. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on this side? No, you didn't sign up. You're speaking on business four. You're on business four. I know you have a lot to say about art, but okay. Um, moving on to business four, which is a one-stop shop discussion. We'll be discussing that. Mayor, I'm going to just ask for a point of information on this one, if that's okay. Business four? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Before we begin, because I do want to, I think, save the staff some time on this. Um, so as you know, I've been very involved in this project almost five years now, and I, I've been supportive of this project because I've always felt it's a really good project for the district, uh, and also for the city. Um, and, and before I go into these remarks, I wanted to thank, uh, the Flagler Village Civic Association for its email of support. I also want to thank ArtServe today and my conversation with Jason Hughes, uh, for his support as well on this. Uh, but I'm going to be very honest with you. Um, and this is not easy for me to say, um, but because of the fact that for a long time now, I've been asking the development team to show us that good faith money that you talked about, the $250,000, uh, and also a timeline to get to DRC. Um, I have been very insistent on those two pieces of information because I believe that that's the only thing that was really left, uh, from the partial cure that was issued by our city attorney on August 27th, everything else. And I will tell you that I did sit in meetings all summer. There were four meetings between our staff and the development team. Uh, one, I was out of town, could not be there. Erica sat in for me, but I was present for the other three. So I've watched this discussion a long time. Um, I have concerns on both sides, uh, but I'm going to tell you, but because of the fact that that money was promised by this meeting today, along with the DRC timeline. And I also want to thank Mr. Benjamin Bean, who's here on behalf of Ponza, uh, Mora, who, uh, did respond to the, uh, partial cure letter. Um, I am at this point in time asking that we consider a termination of this, uh, of this agreement. Uh, I'm asking that because throughout all these requests, the development team has not come through as I have requested. And I have gone above and beyond in my support for this project, as everyone knows. Um, but there comes a point in time where you have to be able to have a trust factor and I no longer have that. Um, and so I don't want to waste staff's time for this presentation. I don't want to waste Mr. Bean's time for his rebuttal and his explanation. Uh, and I am very reluctantly saying that I do believe, uh, again, this is not easy for me to say, but I, I think that we need to ask our city attorney's office to prepare, uh, some sort of termination agreement, uh, or letter. Um, but I, I no longer have confidence, uh, in the ability for this project, uh, to move forward. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, does anyone else wish to comment? I have a few comments I'd like to make also. Um, I agree. Uh, and I think we need to explore our, our next, uh, options from a legal standpoint. Thank you. Commissioner Beasley Pittman. Um, yes, I do agree. I, um, the direction of the notice of termination was something I would hope, I was hoping we would discuss today. So we're going in a direction that, um, I am in agreement with. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Um, I just want to say a few things. Um, wasn't expecting that, but, uh, the thing is that, um, last night I, um, had dinner by myself and I read the 45 page comprehensive agreement. Um, that's what I do for fun. And, uh, uh, and it had no pictures in it too, except the appendix. So anyway, I read it and, um, have it here with me now. And we, you know, before, before I would want to make a decision, whether it's in an agreement with you, commissioner Glassman or not, I, I just wanted to go through, you know, you know, we've, there was an op-ed piece that was written in today's paper, accusing the city of not acting in good faith. And in fact, the contract itself says we must all act in good faith and trying to fulfill the purposes and intent of the agreement, which was from day one, I thought was a really great proposal. I mean, I supported it. Um, I, uh, we took a lot of heat for it. Um, and, uh, I thought it would be a tremendous contribution to the quality of life of those that live in Flagler Village. Um, but I noticed that, uh, quite a few, you know, discrepancies start to materialize over time. And I think it all began with, uh, the funding part. And according to the comprehensive agreement, correct me if I'm wrong, Paul, but according to the comprehensive agreement, evidence of funding was supposed to take place within 90 days from the date that this document was signed. The document was signed, I believe in November, I think I signed the, I was the final signature November of 20, uh, 2022. So sometime, you know, uh, January, February, we were supposed to receive evidence of, of funding. Mr. Spence was, uh, was the city attorney at the time. And, um, he showed to us what was a representation of evidence, which we accepted at the time. Uh, and then as time went on, we discovered that those people were now being substituted for other funders. And we also discovered that one-stop FTNL no longer owned the project. They were the people that we were in privity with, uh, one-stop FTL LLC now is a 48% owner of this property. And there's another company, uh, Susan, what was the name of the other company? What is it? Good afternoon, mayor and commission. Um, Susan Grant, city manager's office. Um, although we're not privy, privy to that agreement, what was indicated to us is Aries 2811 would have 52% of one-stop FTL and the, they would have the remaining 48. Right. So according to this contract, anytime, now they don't have an ownership right in the land. They just have a contractual relationship with the city. So in order to sell a contractual relationship, you know, you have to, it's done by assignment. So when you look to the assignability of this agreement, it says that it could only be done with the written consent of the, um, written consent of the, um, written consent of the city after it was brought to the commission for approval. And neither of those, neither of those opportunities were ever provided to the city, yet they sold the bit, they sold the project to somebody else, 52%. So there's a material breach of this agreement in that alone. So between, so let's get back to the funding. What concerns me is that a representative from one-stop FTL, um, FTL came to the city and stood at this podium with another gentleman who claimed to be the financial, um, a financial supporter of this project. And it was kind of cumbersome and embarrassing that they couldn't even tell us the name of their company and they couldn't tell us the amount that they were lending and they couldn't show us any evidence of a formal written commitment for funding this project. We have since been told that, um, that another company was the entity that was going to fund the project. And when Susan Grant did her due diligence, you know, she pulled the side of the curtain and she saw only smoke and mirrors. There was no commitment whatsoever. And, uh, if anything, there was, uh, no due diligence had been undertaken by that proposed lender. And despite continued efforts on our part to get more specific information, uh, we never really got the type of information that was legally sufficient to support the promises that are incorporated in this comprehensive agreement. So all of that taken into consideration, I, I am upset that this project is not happening, but it's not happening. And so I would support the effort to, to direct staff to terminate this agreement because on those, those, those elements alone, I believe that they've long since violated the agreement. Now, why they continue to try to move forward on this, I don't know the motive. I don't know what they get out of this. This has been going on for three years. This project was supposed to have been done by now. And, um, and now we haven't even, you know, gotten to first base. If anything, we've backtracked and we've now find ourselves with a document that has been violated on multiple occasions. And, uh, and therefore I feel that the city is on very strong ground to move forward and direct staff to terminate this agreement. And, um, and I guess we'll see where it goes from there. I have no further comments. I have several people sign up to speak. Yes. Commission. Who is, who? No, that was me. That was me. Oh, is that you? Yes. Do you want me to wait or do you want to hear from me? Well, no, go ahead. Go ahead. Well, I was just going to suggest that any formal action like that be taken at, at an evening. At an evening meeting. I understand that. Either tonight or. No, we can't vote now. I understand that. But several people have signed up to speak. So, uh, I'll let you speak. So, Mayor, before we get there, just, Paul, so can you bring a walk-on resolution tonight for termination? Well, do we have, I guess it has to, you know, I mean, is there a rush? I think, yes. It has to be written well, though, doesn't it? Do you have time to do that? Well, the reason, everyone's so busy. They can get to articulate the reasons for the termination. Okay. Then, then take your time if you need your time. Yeah. We don't want to, yeah. That's why I presented a few of the comments that I did to show the violations of several covenants within the agreement. But you, I defer to you and your staff to be able to, to, to be more specific and, and to be a little bit more artful about, uh, the termination. I just think this really needs to be done well. And I, I don't think it needs to be rushed on tonight. I think it really has to take a little time. I would just caution us. And again, I, I'm going to choose my words carefully because I don't want to place us in any legal jeopardy on this at all. But some of the points that you did bring up mayor were, were actually gone through before the partial cure was issued. In other words, if you read the partial cure letter issued, uh, we have a memorandum from the city manager. We also have a letter from D Wayne Spence. Those concerns that you brought up were okay. According to the, um, partial cure, those concerns that you brought up were, were fulfilled in terms of the developer's response, uh, during the course of time that led up to the partial cure. Cause if you read the partial cure letter, it basically says you are in compliance with the comprehensive agreement, but we have a couple of outstanding points again, being that $250,000 being a DRC timeline. But I would just ask us all to look at that partial cure letter that was issued by D Wayne, uh, because it really dispels some of the things that you said, but I also want us to be careful. I don't want to place us in any kind of situation. And I agree with you. There's this, I'd rather it be done artfully and legally. Yeah. Legally. Yes. Would you like us to evaluate this, prepare a letter for your approval at a meeting? Yes. That sort of thing. Next meeting. Yeah. Commissioner Sorenson, I think that's best. Yes. Yeah, I agree. So October 7th. So you'll, Paul, does that make sense? Yes. October 7th. Okay, great. Great. Thank you. All right. So we have a few people signed up to speak. One person signed up, but didn't put their name. So anonymous, uh, Chris Nelson, Marilyn Momano and Mark Dickerman. So mayor commissioners, Chris Nelson and, uh, my wife and I and our cats just moved to beautiful Flagler village. And it is without a doubt, the most beautiful area of Fort Lauderdale and very proud to live there. Uh, thank you commissioner Glassman for coming to that conclusion that it's time to terminate this, but I do understand why you wanted to hang on for so long because I mean, when I saw the layout for this thing at a Flagler village, um, civic association meeting, it looked really cool. I mean, I'm looking forward to it. I was. And, um, because I was going to preserve the trees there because you got some trees and, uh, I definitely don't want what, uh, what you said that at a previous meeting that for it to be more condo buildings and parking lots and stuff. Cause that would mean the trees go and that open space goes and, and, uh, we've got enough of those, uh, going up there in Flagler village right now, I'll say. Um, but, uh, yeah, it's just too bad this happened. And it's too bad that the, uh, this op-ed was written saying, blaming, uh, you guys, or I mean, when, when this guy had years to come up with the money and, uh, and it, and it's really sad. I mean, I think that an apology to the city, um, is owed, but, um, you know, just, uh, thank you for, uh, for finally coming to that conclusion. And I hope that that parcel of land, uh, can be used for something, uh, similar to what, uh, what was envisioned. Thanks. Thank you, Marilyn, followed by, uh, Mark Dickerman, followed by John Rodstrom. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Marilyn Omano. I'm speaking today on behalf of Lauderdale tomorrow, the organization. I'm not going to use it. It was a beautifully written piece. I was looking forward to reading it, but I am not. And what I am going to say, it looks like more than two minutes too. No, probably not. I, I timed it. But what I am going to say is thank you very much. All of you, especially you, commissioner Glassman, I know from personal experience, how hard it is to let go of what you think is a, a fantastic project or a concept and it, it hurts and you're very brave. And I appreciate all of you taking at this time, this step, and I urge you to take it quickly because there's always, you know, within the timeframe that there could be things. So he will sue you and we understand that and we'll have to do, we have to take that, but, uh, it's the right thing to do. And when you find controversy in something, you always say to yourself, all right, I could do this. I could do that. I could do the what is the right thing to do. And the right thing to do is the action you took today to terminate this agreement. And I hope that we will be able to take back this irreplaceable, beautiful piece of property and add it as one of the options for a new city hall and a city hall park. Think of that. Think big like that. There's your part. Thank you so much guys. Thank you. Uh, Mark Dickerman followed by John Broadstrom followed by Barbara Stern. Mark Dickerman, community activist, resident of Fort Lauderdale. Uh, what a difference 24 hours makes, Steve. Thank you. Thank you. Cause this was going on way, way too long. I would like to see the city develop that into something nice, a park, an arts park. We're talking about public art. Let's put an arts park up so people can walk around sit and whatever, but, um, thank you for making the right decision and I will see you this evening. It actually was an arts park. Remember when we had the old city hall, we painted the sides of the building with, we had an all call out to artists, John. Mayor, city commissioners. Thank you. Uh, this is a great result. It's a sad result because I do think this project could have had, could have had a lot of potential, but I think there were a lot of red flags here. Um, you know, your last park slide said accountability and oversight. And that's something that I think may have been lacking over the last three years with this project, but has now come into effect. I hope that in the future, um, the commission and staff really does their due diligence on these projects. I'm concerned with how this contract was drafted. I'm concerned with the lack of outs that you had, uh, the time it took to get out of this contract. And, you know, I'm, I'm an attorney by trade. Contracts are an important thing to negotiate upfront. You don't want to be in a situation where three years later you're having to figure out how to get out of something like this when you see all the red flags. Um, you know, you talk about the, uh, company that took, uh, control over this, this, uh, project. I mean, the guy behind this company has dozens of lawsuits against him for fraud and all sorts of other things. In Oklahoma, he was alleged to have stolen $3.2 million of marijuana seeds. I mean, how does the city end up dealing with something like that? It's, it's kind of unbelievable. Um, and I just hope going forward, we don't see something like this again, because Fort Lauderdale deserves better than that. And this piece of property deserves better than that. So thank you again today. All right. Thank you. And Barbara Stern, anyone else wish to speak on this item? Good afternoon, commission. Barbara Stern. I want to take us back to February 15th, 2022. Uh, commissioner Herbst, vice mayor Herbst at the time was our city auditor. It was a conference meeting, no different than today. And commissioner Herbst, vice mayor Herbst tried to warn about the lack of financial feasibility for this project. And commissioner Glassman, you started screaming at him, thanking, being thankful that you didn't take his advice. The commission didn't take his advice on an auditor for a different project. And vice mayor Herbst said, commissioner, if you've lost confidence in me, my ability to do my job, there's a solution for that. And you said, Oh, we'll get to that later. And that is the night that the three of you, uh, mayor Trantellis, commissioner Glassman, commissioner Sorenson terminated vice mayor Herbst after the adjournment of a publicly noticed meeting. Here we are three years later, everything he tried to warn this commission about came to fruition, no funding problems all over the place. And since he has been on this commission, there has been nothing but disrespect. Every time he tries to raise a financial concern about any project, I would urge this commission to listen to him, his experience as a CPA, his experience as the auditor. He tried to warn, he was the watchdog then he's trying to be a watchdog now. And the bickering and the fighting that has gone on between commissioner Glassman and vice mayor Herbst is an embarrassment. We need to let it go. If feelings were heard over this project, I'm sorry, you have finally come to the realization the deal can't be done. And I congratulate you for that as a lawyer who litigates contracts on a routine basis. This was a horrible deal. They have changed the terms. We didn't agree to that. We didn't agree to be in partnership with their, their new partners. I'm happy this commission is finally ending it. Keep the park. We kept hearing that we're going to have two towers on that site. We don't need two towers on that site. We need open space. We need a park. I studied art in high school. I studied art history in college. We need the art park, but we need a good deal for it. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Okay. Any further comments on this item? Okay. So we'll move on to commission reports. Commissioner, vice mayor. Nope. You have none. Okay. Commissioner Beasley Pittman. I'm going to bypass tonight. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Thank you, mayor. Um, I wanted to thank staff and everyone involved, police and fire for a really, uh, as always very moving Memorial on nine 11. Um, and I just wanted to say how very important it is that we do that every year. Uh, again, thanking everyone. Um, wanted to thank everyone at the international swimming hall of fame, uh, for the award ceremony at the Sinesta Fort Loretta beach on September 13th, where the 2025 aquatics and specialty awards were given as well as the 2024 masters inductees. Um, again, at the beautiful Sinesta hotel with the best views in town. Um, tomorrow, uh, we have the historic Stranahan house capital improvement project groundbreaking. Um, also I'll be speaking at the flight of the village civic association in the evening. Uh, Thursday, we have the central beach Alliance, uh, monthly meeting on Saturday. Uh, this Saturday, we have the urban league, uh, 50th anniversary gala, uh, which is an amazing accomplishment. Congratulations to everyone involved. Um, looking forward to that as well. Uh, Friday, September 26, um, we have been working on a project with historic sailboat bend neighborhood, uh, for a historic walking tour. Um, those eight, eight educational panels have been installed now throughout flat, um, throughout sailboat bend, uh, through a $50,000 grant, uh, from the state division of historical resources, uh, that required no match, um, because of the fact that we are a certified local government. I wanted to thank staff for the work on that. These panels are great and we're going to unveil it at five 30 on September 26th. Uh, when we actually do that walking tour, um, the panels look great. Again, I wanted to say thank you for that. Um, I do want to, just talk about something briefly because I really need staff and everyone to understand how important this is. Uh, Hendricks aisle off of Las Olas Boulevard has gone through a ridiculous number of water main breaks in the last few months. Um, to the point now where these folks are actually losing their mind. I think that my office has documented at least six in the last half of the year where water is shut off sometimes with no notice and then also the boil water notice that follows. So something has to happen here. We have to expedite the projects that we have in areas where almost every day they're experiencing a water main break. Uh, it's just so important. Um, I know that we also recently had one in the central beach by nautical towers. For that, I need to say thank you to staff. Thank you for the amazing work on that because, uh, it was king ties. Uh, we also had, uh, throughout the evening, uh, it was really a Herculean effort that got the water restored for those buildings in that vicinity of the central beach. Uh, so again, I wanted to commend everyone that was involved. So what's the problem on Hendricks then? Is there, uh, is it scheduled for, like, a new water pipe down the center of the street? Well, there is a schedule. We are in design for that. I'm sure we can hear more. My personal belief is that when, you know, those aisles like Hendricks and Venice, um, when they were redeveloped beginning maybe 15 years ago, there was really no thought about the incredible redevelopment on those aisles with no infrastructure work done. And I think now that all those issues are coming home to roost because, uh, these are old pipes, uh, and the infrastructure there on Hendricks is not, uh, able to keep off with the rapid redevelopment on Hendricks aisle. I think it's as simple as that, but we, we have projects in the works, but to say to these residents, oh, in 2026 or 2027, we're going to get to it. It's just not going to fly. Well, should we, uh, well, should we stop approving projects on these aisles until the infrastructure is in place? Well, that's another consideration. I did receive an email from the president of that association saying that we need to take a look at some of the actual, uh, modifications and variances that we are granting, uh, with less setbacks there. There has been that concern, uh, on Hendricks aisle, um, because of the fact that, uh, again, uh, it's not just more rapid redevelopment, but it's also uh, folks are not feeling that it's being done in a smart growth way. So that's something I guess we could talk about, but again, my main concern in bringing this forward in a public way is because it's just too many already. It's too many instances where these people, and I understand their frustration. It's happening almost every, almost every other couple of weeks, uh, they're having another issue where there's no water and then they go through a, a boil water notice. It's too much, too much. Commissioner, if I may, uh, we are looking at some opportunities and strategies to expedite the project, including through our procurement services division. The project is at about a hundred percent design and we are anticipating taking the next steps very soon. We do have that meeting with the community on September 25th. That was brought about through your office. And so we do recognize that the occurrence and recurrence of events on Hendrix, it's just an anomaly. It's, it's, it's very frequent. And our team has really started to look at how we can move this project forward. Excellent. I think the neighbors will be very happy about that. Um, because I do, and I know we're meeting with them all soon. Um, but I, I just know that the level of frustration is really, really high now on, on Hendrix aisle because of the frequency of these events. And I understand it. It's so I'm happy to hear that we're going to be, you know, dealing with this. Thank you, Brad Kane, public works director. So, so based on all of the recent events that have happened out there and, you know, we took a look at what's been happening there over the past five years. Um, there has been a significant number of incidents that have occurred in this year in 2025. So currently, as the manager said with procurement and city manager's office and myself, we are looking at additional ways to expedite that project and may take different measures and approach to it because of the circumstances have been happening so frequently. So hopefully we'll have that resolved by the end of this week and be able to come back and let you know the next steps forward. Okay. No, thank you for that. I appreciate it. I think it's, it's very important that we, you know, we take a look at this and we, and we help these neighbors out as quickly as possible. Uh, so thank you for that. And then lastly, I want to just correct the record. We had a budget meeting on Friday evening and I thought it was great. Um, but you know, because facts matter and the truth matters, uh, there were some statements made about when we were setting our millage rate. Um, the vice mayor asked us to look at the city of Jacksonville. I'm basically quoting here. He told us it's leading the way by cutting its millage rate. They're the largest city in the state of Florida. And, um, there are examples of other cities like that out there that are cutting their millage rate. So I said, you know, I'm going to check on that because I want to make sure that that's true. Cause I know that a lot of people listen to the words of each of us, especially the vice mayor, um, cause it's always said so forcefully. And I want to make sure that we have the truth out there. So what I found out is that the Jacksonville city council, uh, they had a committee that recommended looking at cutting the millage rate. Um, but on September 9th, the council voted not to cut their millage rate. They voted to maintain their millage rate and they don't have their second budget hearing until September 23rd. So as of now, they have not cut their millage rate contrary to what we were told. Um, and by the way, in case anyone's interested in using Jacksonville as an example of millage rate, uh, you know, fabulousness, their millage rate is 11.3169 hours is 4.1193. I just want to set the record straight, uh, and I'm done. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. So just for clarification, apparently you don't know that's a combined city County government. So that would be the equivalent of Broward County and city of Jackson, uh, city of Fort Lauderdale together. So that actually makes them the lowest in the, uh, in the state. Actually, I did add those together. Broward County is 5.4 and Fort Lauderdale is 4.1. That equates to 9.5. Nope. You're missing something because I used to work there and I used to work in the budget office. It's also the hospital district and it's also the children's services council. So add those all together and you're over that. We, we did add those together because we still have those as separate line items in Broward. Um, and, um, in fact, I contacted the, the, um, the city of Jacksonville spoke with folks there. And when we tried to compare apples to apples, we were still under their total military, but that's not the point. The point is that they're not reducing their military. Um, and, and maybe they have good reason. You know, everyone needs, needs money to pay their police and fire and, and all their related services. So it makes sense that, uh, they made that decision if that works for them. But, um, you know, I, again, commend our city staff for their heroic and great efforts to keep our millage rate as low as it is and to, and still to be able to provide the great services that we do provide here in our city. Commissioner Sorenson. Great. Thank you, mayor. Um, it's been good couple weeks. Uh, thank you again to our first responders and city staff for the 9-11 ceremony. That was fantastic. Um, also, uh, let's see this past Saturday with chief waterway officer Marco and our urban forester, Laura and phenomenal volunteers. We're all out at Coontahatchee, uh, planting 40 mangroves. So that was awesome. So we continue to, uh, build our mangrove canopy, uh, in the city. So excited about that. And then we have the university of Florida is donating more mangroves for new river middle school. So we're, uh, partnering with new river around, uh, increasing their, uh, kind of coastal laboratory there right on the river. So that's really exciting as well. And I wanted to bring up a couple topics first. This is something, uh, D Wayne and Anthony and Chris and I have been talking about, and mayor, I know you've brought this up and probably others as well, uh, property wall heights. So the height of walls, fences on property. So this is something that, um, has, has been concerning and, and, and kind of my neck of the woods. And there's various, uh, ways to kind of look at what is allowed for the height of walls and so forth and, uh, save you all the details, but there's, there's times where the wall from a street level can be much higher than what you would think would be permissible. And so I'd, I'd like to dig into this a little bit, um, mayor, and, and we don't have to do it right now, but, um, I'd love to kind of have this as a conference center or something to talk more about. Well, actually what I had brought up at the time was, um, look, us looking at, looking at, uh, not even allowing fences in the front of the yard because it creates a, if every house did it, it creates a wall down the, down the side of the street. And in my neighborhood in particular, I see that happening. So, um, you know, there was pushback from the commission at the time. And if maybe if it's a height thing, maybe we should allow only four feet and that way we can still see the house. But, uh, um, but you know, it, I think it takes away from, you know, the quality of the, the, the aesthetic when all you're looking at is a fence that usually is not kept, uh, is not well kept and it's a wooden fence and it's usually rotting. And, uh, and I think it takes away from, from, uh, the beauty of the neighborhood, but, uh, but yeah, did you want to do this at a conference meeting or how did you want to go forward? Yeah. I open to anything. I don't know, Anthony or Dwayne, if you think there's a helpful way to talk about this. And one of the issues, mayor, that comes up at least kind of, of, of fences or walls that I've seen is where you have the elevated, you elevate a house due to FEMA standards. And so you build the fence according or the wall, according to that new elevation. So you build on top of the new elevation, the allowance that we allow. So that's fine. But then that it's a 10%, exactly from the sit, from the street that's not elevated. Right. Right. And the neighbor who, and the neighbor who's looking across. So, and the sight lines and so forth. So Anthony, I'll defer to you if you, how you think we should best talk through this for harder director of development services. Yeah. I mean, it's a, it's a very complicated issue for something that seems so simple. I think that the best thing we could probably do is bring back a presentation for you and kind of illustrate those different scenarios and, and maybe offer a couple of solutions and see if that helps with the situation. Yeah. I think that makes sense, mayor. So maybe at a conference meeting, if that's all right. Yep. Talk through this. Dwayne, Raquel, sorry to interrupt. You guys have, I've talked with Dwayne at least about this. Does that make sense for conference meeting? It does. Okay. Okay. Great. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, mayor. That sounds good. Sorry. Next up, mayor, if I could have Ben Rogers come up, Ben, I'd like to, you know, we're touching on this a little bit earlier today, but if you can just give us an update and, and just so we're all on the same page in terms of city hall and holiday park, just kind of where we are in the, in the process, what's happening next from a general timeline. Absolutely. Ben Rogers, assistant city manager, uh, mayor commission, uh, on the city hall project, uh, we are evaluating the proposals as we previously indicated to the commission. We are looking at it from a qualifications experience kind of lens, and we're going to be working with Jacobs, our owner's representative for the city hall project to bring back information to the city commission that has a matrix or a comparative evaluation of, of each of the proposals based at that lens. It's not going to have the full financial review. It's not going to rank. It's not going to recommend. It's just going to be a comparative, uh, document with the water plant, very similar to what was done with the water plant. Right. And it will see commission feedback at that time. And right now our, our tentative timeline is to bring that back to the commission in October. Um, as you, that's great. October is our next meeting. October 7th. So in doing so, can I ask you to, I noticed that when I read each of the, uh, proposals, only one proponent had a price tag. So if you could ask each of the proponents to come back with a price tag, that would be helpful. We'll consider that. I think one of the challenges right now, mayors, we have not defined what the building size or the amenities are. We haven't done that yet. No. And so right now the, the qualifications and experience is what we're doing. And so we'll bring that back to the commission to find out if they want us to move forward and do that evaluation and that due diligence on all, with all the proposals, some of the proposals or what the intended direction is. I, I, you, you got me here for the last five years, we have been analyzing our needs and you're telling me we don't know our, what our needs are now. So in early summer, we were prepared to issue a design criteria packet solicitation that would formalize some of the conversations and concepts that we have talked about over the last year. Right. Um, and when Meridian submitted that proposal, we put that on, on standby. And so, because I, I believe there are some conflicting, um, next step. And so what we're looking to do again is get that feedback from the commission on next steps. Simultaneously, we've already started working on the task order with Jacobs to do the initial massing. So how can, how can anybody make a proposal if they don't even know what they're proposing for? This has been a total waste of time. You, you, your staff was supposed to, and we already have done this. I've seen the results. We've already come up with a needs assessment. We did it when we were working with the County and we did it when we separated from the County. And now we're saying we don't have it anymore. What happened? Mayor, some of that preliminary information was provided on our website in terms of how much square footage we utilize for the various functions in our city and the amenities that we would want to see in the city hall project. So it's not that none of that information was made available to the proposers. Many of them reached out to us, met with us. We directed them to this information or they got this information through us in various meetings. And so it's not that they just picked a number in terms of, uh, the size of the building, but that is something that we do need to fine tune going forward. Well, hold it. We're going to make a decision in two weeks. How are we going to make a decision if we don't even know what we want? I don't know that a decision will be made in two weeks. I want to make a decision October 7th and you guys are holding us back because for years we have, we have been listening to staff saying exactly what we need. We had, again, with the County, the joint government center, we, we created a needs assessment down to, I believe, I, I remember the number, but it's not important right now. And then we did another needs assessment. So I don't understand. It's like a moving target here. How can anyone possibly make a proposal to, to build a building at a certain price if they don't know what we want? And why would we impose that on people? And why are we, this project doesn't have to linger as much as, as much as you are now proposing it, that it linger. I do not want to hold back the project mayor and the city has not yet determined its financial contribution to the project as of yet either. And so that's something that would need to be negotiated as we go through this process. That's a change of subject. We're not talking about the financing of it. We're talking about how much space we need in order to function and how that space should be allocated and what it should look like. It's not that complicated. Each one of these proponents have had, almost all of them, I should say, have had experience in this. Why are we, why are we, um, delaying the project by, by just saying, oh, well, I don't know what we need right now. You'll have to come back. The last time I gave a report on this project, I had recommended that the commission shortlist and not necessarily decide at the next meeting. So that was the communication that I gave about what I thought would be next steps. And so if we would like to deviate from that, uh, certainly the commission can pick on the spot. However, I think that I'm going to pick on the spot when we don't have all the information. I would suggest, I would suggest that we continue with Jacobs providing the information. And then I think financial due diligence needs to be done as well, including looking at the massing and the spacing that we need, as Ben Rogers mentioned earlier. Yeah. And so mayor, if I can, I mean, I understand the frustrations. I do think as the manager said, we have a baseline of information and we've already started the, uh, task order negotiations with Jacob to do exactly what you're asking for. I don't think that what they're going to deliver, um, is a lengthy process, but we did have them prioritize this initial review of the qualifications and experience over the massing exercise. So hopefully we can finalize that in the next week or so and get that process working in tandem with the qualifications and experience process. So what is holding us back in terms of determining our need, our needs assessment? So that's what we're going to work with them about. I think last time we, we did a formal presentation of the commission, there was some feedback about, uh, the centralization of all the departments. And if all the departments come into city hall, or if only some of them, uh, I think DSD was one of the departments we discussed, uh, parks and rec. Uh, so we need to fine tune that. And as the manager said, we're working on it. And I think that we can deliver that, uh, without having delays to the process. Well, you delayed the process by not having it done by now. So it's delayed and an applicant can't put a price tag on it and we can't make a decision because we don't have all the information. So I was hoping we were going to be able to make a decision in October. And now you're telling me, oh no, we have to sit in a room and think about it again. You know, that's not progress. So I'm just saying that we need to be a little bit more, uh, aggressive on making a decision here because let me tell you something. Every day we sit here, it costs us more money. All right. We have a, we have an empty site that's been waiting there for over a year. Um, almost two years now since April of 2023, over two years, we've been outside of our city hall. And while we keep waiting to remake the same decisions in terms of, of, of our needs assessment, you know, I just don't understand it, but obviously there are other components. There's, there is experience and there's, uh, you know, all kinds of, you know, elements that go into decision-making when it comes to an applicant. So yes, I guess we'll hear that on October 7th, but we really, really need to not keep pushing, kicking this can down the road. We need to be able to provide the commission with all the information we need so that we can move forward on this project as soon as possible. All right. Mayor. Yes. Um, going back to our conversation before we decided to, um, receive the P threes. That was one of the concerns I cited. Um, why are we moving forward without going through a process as to saying, uh, identifying what we want, how much we're willing to spend. And, um, a majority of this diet decided to move forward. So we're at this point because the decision that was made, not necessarily, I'm not seeing it as a fault of the staff. I believe it's a decision that we made. Wait, wait, wait, we made a decision to use the P three process, but, but, but in order to do use that process, we have to provide, uh, information to the applicant so that they know what they're bidding on. And that's always been, you can't bid on something that you don't know what you're building. So that's not a fault of the P three process. That's, that's something that we fail to provide the applicants, the, or the, the, the, the community, the developer world out there to be able to supply us with what they're going to be, what their proposal is going to be. Um, so it's not that process where I'm going with that. You saying it's not the process. It's not, it's not the fault of the process. The process is, is we've used that process over a dozen times and been very successful with it. And this has been some times we haven't been successful with it, but where I am standing today. Um, I agree with you. We need to be in a different place, but also at the same time, I believe that we need to recognize how we truly got here. And that was a decision that was made by us on the majority that we wanted to move forward without including certain information, because I was stern fast on how much we're going to spend, what exactly we're going to do, um, um, through the P threes. What are we asking for? What did we do? What is it? We decided to move forward and accept P threes. And this is what we got. P threes without, um, dollar amounts that could be provided and without what exactly we will be receiving, but that's not the fault of the P three process. That's because what's the fault? What's the fault? You, I'm not saying is that I'm saying the fault here lies with our failure to provide the needs assessment to the community that's bidding on this. That's that, that's our fault. All right. And let me say this. Maybe I did not articulate correctly that night, but that night I saw a gap and I indicated that this was not the time to move forward without including the correct, um, elements. So we're here today when I saw those P threes and I began to read through them and I, and, and I'm learning this process and I was asking questions. Why isn't this here? And then you said exactly what I said. Why is only one, um, P three giving us a dollar amount? That was odd to me. And I'm like, how am I going to vote on something? And I have, I have no idea what I'm paying for. Well, no one's disagreeing with you, but there's a, but, but we can get to that point without having to, to linger with doubts as to what the salute, what the answers are. We can, we can easily find those answers. We have the, we have the raw data just has to be refined and we just have to make a decision. And, and that's all I'm saying. We need to move forward. City staff needs to move forward, provide that information to this, to the commission and to the developer community so that they can come back to us with more specific response, which includes a price tag. Now financing experience, uh, and so forth, all those things that will be part of the matrix are, are already available. Okay. But, but in terms of our needs, that is the, that is the one variable, which has not been finalized and that relies on city staff in order to be able to produce that, that number. So, uh, and that's all I'm asking for. And I think that everyone's deserving of knowing what the needs assessment is now that, like I said, the needs assessment has been made multiple times from when we were first discussing the joint government center, we had a needs assessment done. We paid a lot of money to, uh, what's the name of that company? HDR. Who? HDR was the one who's done multiple needs assessments. No, but that wasn't the, I wasn't in this case. Um, it begins with an S. So Sovich was the joint government. Who was it? Uh, Sovich. Sovich did it. So we hired S. Sovich to do it back in whenever that was, but in any case, here we are today, let's move forward and let's see how much we can get done as soon as possible. Mayor, can I add to that though? Because I've been through three needs assessments since I've been here and every time we do it, we come up with a different number. I mean, it's, it has changed dramatically. And, and I, I agree with commissioner Beasley Pittman when we were talking about this and we had our first submittal, um, candidly, I think we made a mistake by rushing out there and asking everybody else to submit. I think we should have completed the design criteria package, put it out there so that we could articulate to the development community, what we were looking for with some degree of specificity. Cause this is exactly what I was concerned about is that we're going to get responses that are all over the place. And candidly, that's what we've gotten. And I think we failed to tell them upfront what we wanted, which is why, by the way, I prefer the solicited P3, as opposed to the unsolicited P3, because then it aligns with what we have already decided our needs are. And I think, uh, to, to commissioner Beasley Pittman's point, that's what she was asking for. And I think that would have yielded a better result for us. Okay. Well, I think we can move forward. And once we get our, our needs assessment, uh, solidified and we can hopefully make a decision going forward. Okay. So thank you. Thank you for all your, your input there. Um, and I just want to continue on my, um, continue with the discussion on this. Um, great. So Ben, so thank you. So October 7th, um, combination of staff and, uh, Jacobs will provide, uh, initial analysis, right. Of the six proposals. Correct. Can you share with us some of the, uh, criteria that is going to be used to conduct that analysis? What are some of the components of that? I, yeah, I don't have it, the task order in front of me, but I believe it's qualifications, uh, experience, financial capacity, uh, reference checks, uh, like projects, uh, those, those type of things. Okay. Great. So in other words, an analysis will be done of those components about the six submitted proposals. And then on October 7th, staff will say, here's our analysis and, and kind of grade the proposals based on that criteria or score them based on that criteria. We, we don't intend to have a ranking or recommendation for the commission, but rather just a comparative matrix that makes it simple, uh, simplified, uh, data for the commission to give staff next step directions. Okay. Great. And the idea would be that the commission receives that information on October 7th has a discussion and then possibly makes a decision about, okay, let's, uh, narrow this down to two or three or four or however, whatever the number might be. Is that your sense? Yeah. I mean, it's obviously at the commission's, uh, desire, but one option could be to move forward with all of them. Uh, one could be to shortlist. The advantages of shortlisting is the next processes wouldn't take as long because you don't be working with a select number of organizations instead of six. Uh, another solution could be not to move forward with, uh, the, uh, unsolicited proposals and seek a different alternative. So we'll be, you know, seeking the direction from the commission on, on next steps on October 7th. Okay, great. And if I'm understanding it right, a deeper financial analysis will be conducted of the proposals as well. Is that right? Like deeper than the initial one done on October 7th? Do I have that right? That's correct. I think we envision if the commission would give direction to move forward would be to further define the project as we already talked about with the massing and the building elements and then seek additional, uh, documentation or information from the proposers and then do a review of that information. Okay, great. When the needs assessment, I know, you know, we have done some before. Um, when, when do you think the needs assessment will start and be completed? So we already started negotiating the task order. Uh, unfortunately, I just, I don't want to commit to a timeline at this point until we get that negotiation completed. Okay. Okay. So that, so they haven't even hired anybody yet to do the job. It may or will be using Jacobs who's the owner's rep. So they'll be involved in most of the due diligence process. But you haven't issued the task order, so you cannot hire them yet. That's correct. We're still negotiating the task order. Okay. Okay. Um, the, so as soon as we negotiate that, then that will start. That can be independent of, of any other kind of analysis because that's independent of who's proposing what, right? So, okay. So that'll be moving forward as soon as you, you, you contract out. Okay. Then the financial analysis, the deeper analysis of each proposer, it sounds like that one happened until after October 7th pending commission direction, right? That's correct. Is that okay. So then that would be going on the, I'm assuming with the Massey needs assessment, that would then, whenever that's complete, then whenever that's complete, that would be shared with the remaining propose proposals, um, for them to estimate their cost based on needs. Is that saying that right? Yeah. I think once we get the, um, the Massey done, then we will be reaching out and asking for additional information from each proposer. Okay, great. Okay. So for October 7th, then mayor and commissioners, I want to, um, make sure that we're feeling as though for an initial analysis, one that we're, that staff is including the appropriate components for this analysis on October 7th. And then also mayor and commissioner, what I'd like to hear is, um, that does this make sense from a, uh, October 7th presentation to then short listing or narrowing the field? Just, yeah, I would hope that we do. I would hope that we do and decide how many presentations we want. Guy, how many, sorry, how many presentations after October 7th? Well, they, they, yeah, because they're going to shortlist it. Exactly. See, in terms of defining qualifications and then, um, presenting us with the most qualified. And then hopefully between then and the next meeting, we'll have our needs assessment done. And maybe those qualified candidates can have more to, more reliable information that they can come back to us with a price. Right. And, but just for, just to make sure we're all saying the same thing, October 7th, the staff is not providing a shortlist. They're providing the full analysis of all six proposals. And then it's up to us to do with that list of six, what we would like to do if we want to narrow it down. Am I saying that right, Ben? So you're going to give us the matrix. Yeah. And from that matrix, this commission will, will narrow it down. Okay. That's correct. Yeah. All right. So does that, I just want to go down the line. Does that make, okay, Mayor, Commissioner B.C. Pittman? So, um, the expectation, um, with the shortlist, well, with the metrics. Right. During this conference, we will talk about reducing it to a shortlist. Correct. Yes. Okay. Correct. Yeah. All right. I, I think that's the right next step, but I'm open to, you know, whatever. No, let's just, it keeps the process moving. I think, you know, start with six and then we should narrow it down that day to whatever we think's appropriate. Okay. Vice Mayor Herbst, does that make sense? We'll keep our fingers crossed. Okay. Good. All right. That sounds good. So, okay, great. So I like where we're heading with that. Um, so we'll get the matrix, narrow down the list from six to whatever we think's appropriate. Okay. Um, concurrent to that will be the massing needs assessment going on as soon as the contract. And then the financial analysis won't happen until the, we narrow down that list. Okay. Fantastic. The, for the financial analysis, do we need to contract out for that then, or is that? So we have two, two options that come to mind. Obviously we can use Jacobs, uh, that's within the city hall owner's rep scope. And then the city does have some financial advisors that we use for other projects. So I think that it, uh, wouldn't be a full solicitation process that would delay the timeline. It would, sorry, would not be. So do you think after, so on October 7th, whenever we share, whatever we, we share, then that financial analysis are the contracts and so forth in place for that to begin like right after that? I don't want to commit to right after that at this point. Um, I know the urgency of the commission, I'll take that in consideration, but I also want to make sure that I don't give you misinformation this time. That's fine. So then I would just suggest anything that we can do now, cause we know we're going to do a financial analysis of whoever's left. We don't know how many are left. So if we can get those wheels in motion for that to start, you know, as soon as after it makes sense. Okay, great. So Raquel, DeWayne, is this sounding? Yes. And this is in alignment with the phases that have been discussed, um, previously. So yes. Okay. Great. Glenn. Yeah. Good. I think you just reminded me of something. Okay. Okay. Great. So thank you. So that's city hall. Fantastic. Now let's go to the next topic. Yeah. Holiday Park. Holiday Park. So again, if you can walk us through where we are, what's next? Yeah. So holiday park. Yeah. The park, sorry, the parking garage, the parking structure. I'll give two updates. The first one is on the city's parking, uh, efforts or initiatives. The, uh, the city originally hired a firm to come in and do a design criteria package for the garage, uh, in a surface lot. Uh, when we, uh, uh, selected or accepted the unsolicited proposal, we put that on, on, on, on hold, um, and went through the process, the competition period. Meanwhile, staff started negotiating with, uh, with one of our on-call consultants to do straight to design for the service parking lot. At the last commission meeting, the city commission approved the termination of the design criteria package firm, uh, since we're no longer moving forward with the garage component outside of the P three process. So right now, uh, our consultant is working on a hundred percent design for a surface parking lot during our, our conversations with each of the P three proposers, all of them said that they'd be willing to take whatever design that we have and implement it if they were selected. So we're moving forward with the design of the surface lot in anticipation that if the city commission moves forth the P three, that that, that organization would, would deliver the construction components of the surface lot as for the evaluation. Um, we are working right now with PFM, uh, to have them do a full analysis of the proposals. Unlike city hall, the holiday park garage has, uh, defined information in there, a lot of financial information and kind of the whole package. And so there's not going to be a qualifications and experience process like we're doing a city hall. It will go straight to a full analysis. And then we plan to bring that back to city commission consideration, uh, preferably in November. Great. So in other words, what we're doing here is we're for holiday park garage. We're not having an effect on October 7th kind of initial analysis. We're doing a full analysis, full financial scope is understood, massing is understood. And so we're getting kind of final presentation analysis in November is our thinking. That's correct. Okay. So mayor, I'm understanding that. All right. In November, we can hopefully make a decision on which one of the proposals we would like to move forward with for holiday park garage. Is that okay? Before we get to the garage, what about the surface lot? How soon can we make a decision there? So the surface lot design is currently underway. We anticipate having that done by the end of the year and then having the, the proposer of the P three, if you move forward with that, deliver the construction of it. So it's going to take three months to figure out how to pave a, a piece of land. That parcel has a lot of drainage considerations. Right. Um, it floods frequently. Uh, and then we're also working, uh, with the district commissioner on some of the landscaping and neighborhood concerns of, of that, of that parcel. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So mayor, does that make sense in November? So in November, that November, let's just say it's going to be November, that November meeting, there would be staff analysis. It's three proposals. Is that right? That's right. Three proposals. Would each of those proposals present at that meeting? Is that your sense, Ben? I think we still need to evaluate that on the staff side, but if we go with, um, previous practices, the mayor indicated, like the water plant, that's what, I believe that's what happens is they, they all had a five minute or 10 minute presentation. Got it. And then the commission ranked, uh, the, the firms at that night. Okay. And then hopefully choose one. So is that, is that all making sense? I just want to make sure we're all tracking commissioner Glassman. Yeah. You're good. Commissioner Bezos. Okay. Great. Now let me just go back one last question and then I'll, I'll turn it back over. By the way, commissioner. Yeah. Um, if we have three proposals, right. So we could make a decision. There's, there's four decisions either. Right. Yes. On one, two, three, or no parking garage. Right. That's always an option. Okay. Understood. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, thank you. So then for just one last question on, um, the city hall, October 7th city commission meeting where staff provides its matrix do as a, as a commission, I'm asking you all, do we want to have a presentation by each of the proposer proposals that day for the parking garage for city hall? Now I'm back to city hall on October 7th when staff shares their matrix. And our goal is the short list to narrow. Do we want proposals? Well, maybe I'll start with you. I would recommend against having all six firms do a presentation. Yeah. I think once there's a short list based on the initial criteria, I think if the commission wants to then have a presentation of the two to three, then I think that would be more appropriate. Okay. Yeah. I like that. I agree. Is that commissioner? I just want to make sure we're commissioner. That's good. Okay. All right. So October 7th, no presentations. Um, maybe they proposals can be here for questions. I guess if we have questions that we want to ask them, um, but, but no presentations staff does a presentation and then ideally we, we make some decisions on city hall. Okay. Thank you. Great. Appreciate it. Keep up the good work. Um, and, and, and look forward to October 7th. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks mayor. Remind me never to ask you if you have comments. Keep your comments to yourself. Come on. So much, so much fun. So much fun. Thank you. Um, all right. Just, uh, comment on a few things here. Uh, participate in the investiture of, uh, the new president of Broward college, Tori Alston. Uh, I think he's the eighth president now of, uh, uh, uh, yeah, I'm sorry. The eighth president of Broward college. Um, let's see. Uh, I do want to comment on the nine 11 ceremony that we had at the, at the, uh, fire safety museum. Uh, very, uh, bittersweet moment to be able to reflect on what happened in nine 11, but at the same time to appreciate that the community comes out and, uh, continues to, um, to remember those lives we lost and the, and the heroism that was exhibited during that, uh, during that moment. So, uh, thank you chief Golan for helping to put that together. Your remarks were amazing. And, uh, we appreciate, um, everyone who participated in that event. Uh, just, uh, just want to narrow this down here. So bell Harbor park, did you mention bell Harbor park, uh, September 27th, we're doing the dedication of the park space that has now been dedicated at the entrance of bell Harbor park. And then on the 29th, of course, we invite everybody to the state of the city address. It's good. There'll be a reception at six o'clock and the address will be at seven and the, and the event will occur at, uh, at the Parker. Um, again, that's September 29th, uh, reception at six and the address at, uh, we'll begin at seven. And then October 4th, we have Carlton Moore friends and family day. And, uh, um, last year I attended that and, uh, hope everyone can come out. I think it might've rained last year a little bit, but, um, but anyway, um, that's, uh, a great community event and, uh, looking forward to seeing everybody there. And other than that city manager, your reports. Thank you, mayor. So today I just really want to highlight our amazing staff, our team of competent, talented professionals. First, I'd like to highlight Laura Reese on the heels of our budget approval process. She just got named the chair of the GFOA budget committee. So congratulations, Laura, for representing our city. What is that Raquel? For those who might not know. Government finance officers association. Don't you know? Slip my mind. I'd also like to highlight our parks and recreation team. Uh, actually when we were in Orlando yesterday for the DOT hearing, we realized that parks and rec was going to be represented there in Orlando at the Florida recreation park association conference where the city of Fort Lauderdale picked up some hardware for various awards that we've received, including the golden shovel award for Susan Riestra excellence in sports tourism award agency excellence award for community building and public relations award for electronic media. So congratulations to our parks and recreation team. That's why Carl isn't here today. Uh, we also have some significant appointments to our senior leadership team. These are all promotions. And so when you see these individuals, uh, out there or on various meetings or in briefings, uh, I want you to understand who they are and what they're doing for our city. So we have, uh, Steve Greenlaw. He was promoted from major to assistant chief for Fort Lauderdale's, uh, police department. We also have Gary Martin promoted to assistant chief for FLPD. We have Jermaine Frazier promoted to deputy chief for Fort Lauderdale fire rescue. Kevin green also being promoted in Fort Lauderdale fire rescue to the position of assistant fire chief. We have Jason Miller promoted to assistant fire chief and fire marshal. We have a Kite Akwere, our new deputy director for transportation and mobility department. Todd Hyshut, our new deputy director for public works. Ella Parker, deputy director for development services. And we have Parth Patel, our new assistant director in the office of management and budget. And so all of these are internal promotions. We have a deep bench of talented professionals, and I just wanted to give them their due and acknowledge them today. Lastly, we have great news coming from our finance department. A memo went out today noting that S and P global ratings assigned us triple a rating for our special obligation bonds that the commission recently approved. So big shout out to our finance department, as well as under the leadership of Linda Short. We also had participation from OMB and our public works teams. We all came together to make that happen. So I'm extremely proud of our team. And I always want to highlight staff when we have the opportunity. So thank you. Thank you. Raquel, may I ask a question? Are we going to soon get a report on the situation with the Bahia Mara CDD in terms of our locations for the new basketball courts, the pickleball, when that's going to start? Can we get some information on that as a commission? Yes. I would prefer to put that information in writing through a memorandum. We have made some progress. And I think that the commission will be very supportive of what we've come up with in collaboration with the CDD and the local developer. So stay tuned for that. We're going to be providing that information very soon. I look forward to it. Thank you. Mr. Spence. So I have completed my civic duty. I was not selected. But, you know, I did have an opportunity to monitor portions of the meeting. And I know that Howard came and spoke to you about the hearing in the Florida Department of Transportation matter. Part of that discussion had led me to kind of look back at the action taken by the commission at the special meeting that we called on August 27th. And there was a motion that I may have misinterpreted, but the action agenda reads that it's a motion authorizing the city attorney to explore and take actions on all legal remedies in concurrence with the administrative challenge in the event that that action needs to take place prior to the next commission meeting. So it's kind of giving me pauses. The next commission meeting, I thought it was the commission authorizing our office to take actions in between if the time frame isn't sufficient between commission meetings. And that can be clarified when the actual minutes come before the board for approval. If that's it, because I know that the the action agenda items is just that kind of a summary. The reason I raise that is with regards to one of the solutions that Howard had mentioned to you in terms of the deck action may need to take place prior to and I'm going to request a closed door session for the next meeting. But the timing on that may need to take place prior to that. And I just want to make sure I have some authority to move forward with that. So I think when Howard was here, we understood his recommendations. And I think we agreed with them, which included a deck action. Okay, which has to happen this week. All right. So I will. So I will now request a closed door meeting just in case for the next city commission meeting. Uh, on this matter of the city of Fort Lauderdale versus the Florida Department of Transportation with regards to, uh, trap the issue with regards to, uh, alleged traffic control devices, both the administrative and the DILA proceedings. And how many, how much time will you need? Uh, I think about 30 minutes. Okay. All right. Do you have any further? I think. Okay, great. Okay. Any further business recount? This meeting is concluded. Thank you.