City Commission Regular Meeting on 2025-09-16 6:00 PM - Sep 16, 2025

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Fort Lauderdale City Commission meeting this September 16th, 2025. Hello. Can you hear me? Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Fort Lauderdale City Commission meeting this September 16th, 2025. Thank you all for being here today. We have a very energetic crowd tonight. I guess they're all here to see you, Pam Beasley Pittman. So thank you all for being here. For those of you who are here for the first time, welcome. Welcome. We have a certain order of things that we do here before we begin the meeting, and it starts with the Pledge of Allegiance, and we do agenda announcements, and then we have presentations. The presentations are normally designed to recognize individuals, events, or organizations, and tonight we are going to have six of such presentations. Six? Yes, six, yes. So let us all begin. If I can all ask you to please rise. So for the Pledge, and can I invite Connor Giles and Reziah Riley of Riveland Elementary to join me to the podium. Sir, put your right hand over your heart. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all. Very good. Don't they come up? Come on up. Come on up. Come on up. Come on, Mama. How do you have bags? No bags tonight? Hi there. Hi, Mama. Goodbye. Your mom? Mom and mom? Okay. Thank you for coming tonight. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Connor, and thank you, Reziah. Thank you. Before we begin, also, I have a couple of retirement announcements. Alec Lassman, who's been a police officer with the city of Fort Lauderdale for 23 years. Congratulations. And Melody Whitelock, who is a public safety aide in our police department, has been here 22 years. Thank you so much for your service to our community. Okay. So, please join me for a moment of silence to respect those who have passed away this past week. Okay. Thank you so much. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst. Commissioner Glassman. Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Here. Commissioner Sorensen. Here. Mayor Trentonis. Here. So, we have a few walk-on, one walk-on matter, a resolution approving the city's participation in the Intergovernmental Transfer Program for Medicaid Managed Care Patients with the State of Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration. And we have one agenda revision. OSR 1, Exhibit 4, the resolution was revised to correct the Scrivener's error in the header and to add the ordinance number C-25-34. Okay. Having said that, someone please move to approve the minutes and the agenda as amended. Move. Move and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trentonis. Yes. And so, those items have been approved. Could you turn down the mic just a little bit because I'm getting feedback. Great. Okay. Great. Thank you. So, we have our first presentation, which includes State Representative Chip Lamarco, who's on his way. So, we're going to pass over that until he comes tonight. So, this is then passed. We'll go on to presentation number two. Commissioner Sorensen here to present a proclamation recognizing Rogers, Morris, and Ziegler, LLP's 100th anniversary of the city of Fort Lauderdale. Commissioner. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. With the RMZ team and family, come on up here. We have former Commissioner Romney Rogers leading the charge. Oh, yeah. Give him a hand. Come on up here. Come on up here. So, Mayor and Commission and neighbors wanted to recognize Rogers, Morris, and Ziegler for their amazing service in the community and the duration of service. So, here's a proclamation to you as a firm, whereas the law firm of Rogers, Morris, and Ziegler stands as Broward County's and the city of Fort Lauderdale's longest established law firm, founded in 1925. 1925. In 1925, Dwight Rogers, Sr. and John Morris, Sr., both South Georgia natives and law school classmates, were drawn to Broward County during the land boom of the era. Despite the devastation of the 1925 hurricane and the subsequent economic collapse, they chose to remain, recognizing the enduring promise and opportunities the region held. In 1928, both men supported George Tedder, Sr. for Broward County's sole circuit court judgeship. Though incumbent Vincent Gilben resisted stepping down, Tedder ultimately assumed the bench. Rogers and Morris often joke that had Gilben remained, they would have left town, meaning the storied history wouldn't have happened, but history chose differently. So, whereas following their military service in World War II, Dwight Rogers, Jr. and John Morris, Jr. joined the firm, continuing the legacy of their fathers, lifelong friends, classmates, and fraternity brothers, together they strengthened the firm's foundation. John Morris, Jr. served as a municipal judge and attorney for the Broward County School Board, while Dwight Rogers, Jr., during his tenure as assistant state attorney from 1948 to 1952, was responsible for shutting down the notorious Colonial Inn Gambling Casino. There's some good stories there, I'm sure. Whereas the next generation carried forward this legacy through Romney Rogers, son of Dwight Rogers, Jr. Romney served as city commissioner for Fort Lauderdale from 2009 to 2018, while also remaining active in numerous community organizations. In 2012, Romney, Jr. became the fourth generation to practice law at the firm, further extending the firm's proud lineage. So, whereas the firm has represented countless individuals, businesses, and institutions across Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, and beyond, upholding the highest standards of professionalism, while helping to shape the growth, stability, and progress of our city and county, now, therefore, we as city commissioners of the city of Fort Lauderdale, hereby proclaim this is Rogers Morris-Ziegler Day. In this city of Fort Lauderdale, signed, your mayor, Dean J. Trantellis. Commissioner Rogers, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you. Well, mayor and commissioners, thank you so much for this honor. I thank you for your service as well. And as I said earlier this morning at the county, who was gracious enough to honor us as well, in 1925... But our proclamations are more attractive than theirs. I agree, yes. The blue coloring is perfect. Thank you. But in 1925, I've got a picture of the original law office there with lots of cars on Andrews Avenue, Model Ts, and lots of people walking down the riverfront. So this town was booming 100 years ago, and it's still booming, right? And you all have to minister to this boom, and we're glad you're here, and we're glad for your service. And this is my team that serves our clients and the community, and I'm obviously proud of them, and I'm glad they're here today. Why don't you introduce each one of us? Why don't you introduce each one of them for us? I would be happy to. So let me start from this side. Lori Pedley, all right, happened to go to Strannan High School, cheerleader, right? Cheerleader. And it's worked for me longer than she wants to admit, and it is outstanding. Lisa is our real estate paralegal, Lisa Temple, and she is what they call a crackerjack, right? She knows what to do, when to do, and how to do it. And so next to her is my lovely daughter-in-law, who is our operations manager. That's Kelly Rogers. My son is a smart man. He married her, and she runs the show. This is my longtime partner, Mark Booth. He's a fearless fighter of anything that comes in front of him, but he always has a smile on his face, which is always appreciated. Charlie Hambrook, Pompano boy, third generation, his grandfather's a dentist, his dad's a dentist, and he chose the right profession. He's a lawyer. And my son, Cam, who just turned 39, but he's burning it up, I'll tell you. I wish I had as much energy as he did. But this is only part of the team. Some of them couldn't make it tonight. We didn't want to pay him overtime. No, not really. But this is an honor. As I said this morning, you only turn 100 once, right? And we're having a lot of fun with it, and we think we're going to do it again next year. So thank you all for honoring us. And I have to introduce my wife. She didn't want to come up here, but the love of my life, 48 years of marriage, and she hadn't walked down on me yet. Candace, you'll be getting a proclamation next week. Thank you, folks, and congratulations. So I understand State Representative Chip Lamarca is in the house. Yes? Come on. Come on forward. He's here to present a check to the city of Fort Lauderdale regarding the 13th Street bridge replacement and the Galt Mile safety improvements. I'd like to invite Vice Mayor Herbst and Commissioner Sorensen to please come to the podium to accept the check. Better be a big check. That's it. Good evening. Good evening. We're on? You're on. You're on. You're on. We've pressed the button because if we hadn't, I know from all the meetings I watched, Steve would tell me where the button was. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager, leadership team here. I have a – I'm very proud to bring a check for a million dollars for multiple projects for the city, but also some – This is better than a publisher's clearinghouse. Right. I didn't bring the balloons. And to be clear, I had – I was on a flight back from Chicago. We diverted to PBI and took a cab to Fort Lauderdale to get my car, and here we are. Was it weather reasons? Lightning. Lightning, yeah. Thank God Justin had the check. So in this particular check is the Galt Mile, $500,000, and the 13th Street Bridge in the aisles for $500,000. In addition, there are other great city of Fort Lauderdale projects not represented in this particular check, but worthy of mention. The Strandingham House, I believe that was $380,000. Handy, which was $950,000. The Urban League, which was, I believe, $350,000. And the Friendship Circle at the Las Olas Chabad, which was around $300,000. That's a wonderful program. We had some funds from them for last year as well as this year. And I want to – I want to say that it's always a pleasure to be here. But I also want to say that I have some concerns with next year. I know we want to talk about legislative update and possibly other things, but with the specific stance of the fact that there's now a case of Fort Lauderdale v. FDOT, most of my projects that I ask for dollars for are with the Florida Department of Transportation. That's going to make it a little difficult for me. The comments, quite honestly, the comments about Tallahassee, those include me. I know that we always say present company excluded, but that includes me and includes the governor. And it makes it hard to get a project not only across the finish line in the House and the Senate. A lot of times my partner in the Senate is Senator Osgood or Senator Pizzo. But it also makes it hard when we get to the governor's office to make sure that projects don't get vetoed. So with respect to your mission, I know you have a lawsuit and you have things going on. I'm going to do my best. And the only commitment that I have moving forward for this year outside of legislative work is that I've committed to our friends on Galt Mile, the Galt community, to try to pull some more dollars back for that. And I'm going to keep that commitment, but I'm going to tell you it gets more and more difficult. I know from extenuating issues outside of just the city of Fort Lauderdale, I've got seven cities that I represent, and three or four of them are having debates with the sheriff's office. And the lawsuits here don't help. But, look, my job is to go there and make sure that we do our best. And I know we have the vice mayor and Commissioner Beasley-Pittman come up, and we hope that you all come up and advocate. Kate, it's going to be an interesting year, and I understand. I read the papers. I read the comments. And it's our job to work together, and, you know, that's what I would ask you all to do. So with that, I'm going to present the check for $1 million to the vice mayor and Commissioner of District 4, I guess. Did you want any thoughts on what you think might happen in this legislative session? You mean with regard to the – Just – no, just the legislative. So this is – It's not often the Marine runs in the direction. So let's have this conversation. You know, we do everything we can to work with other levels of government, whether it be the county, the state, or the federal government. And we do what we can to try to protect and preserve the rights and the quality of life here in our community. And in doing so, we have worked collaboratively with the Florida Department of Transportation in the past, which resulted in all these street markings that they're now complaining they were never in favor of, when, in fact, they're the ones that authorized it, helped design it, and partially funded it. So we, too, are eager to work collaboratively with the folks in Tallahassee. And – but, you know, from a home rule perspective and in speaking with other mayors and commissioners throughout the area, many of them have come to me and said that, you know, we feel that, to some extent, the home rule concept is being threatened, and there has to be an opportunity for us to work together to ensure the independence of cities like Fort Lauderdale to be able to carry out the mission and the imperative that our voters have charged us with. So I understand what your position, and I understand that there are people in Tallahassee who may think that our position is incorrect. But we need to let the courts decide as to, you know, what is proper and what is not. And I think that that's all the city of Fort Lauderdale is interested. We're not looking to pick a fight. We didn't bring this subject up. The state brought the subject up. We thought they had better things to do, like trying to help homelessness and affordable housing and trying to get the insurance crisis resolved. But apparently painted street corners are more important to them than those issues. So we're happy to work with the state at all levels. And, you know, if the secretary would like to, you know, sit down and talk things through, I'd be very happy to entertain him here, or I'll go up to Tallahassee and talk to them there. But that offer has never been made to me, and I would love to continue to have the opportunity to work together with our government. Well, if you would, commissioners and mayor, if you would, you know, reflect back that those constituents are my constituents as well in the House seat. They were my constituents when I was on the county commission. And they were, you know, a lot of them were my constituents. Maybe not here at Fort Lauderdale, but when I was on the city commission in Lighthouse Point. And the challenge of home rule has always been there. The conflict of do we get what's best for the entire state, or do we, you know, look at city by city what some of these issues are. And there's 411 or 12 cities, 67 counties, and one state. And ultimately, we go up there, and we'll take a piece of legislation. And the committee that I chair is economic infrastructure. So any and all of the transportation infrastructure, telecommunications, utilities, electrical, things like that will come to that committee. A lot of that work is blocking and tackling and not necessarily running offense and deciding what comes through there, what doesn't. What we do try to do is make sure that we protect Floridians' cost of living through those areas. And ultimately, you know, we have 120 members in the Florida House from very different places around the state. I think you all realize that we have a much different legislature than maybe, say, the county commission or Broward County. And it's my job to try to balance that and play, you know, mediator in some cases. And, look, this is not just about one issue. But ultimately, there will be 3,000 bills probably filed this year. About 300 of those will get through. There will be $1.5 to $1.6 billion in appropriations asks. A significant portion of those will get through, and some won't. So it's my job, and it's my charge this last year in the Florida House to make sure that we do good things. I mean, there could be changes in live local and the public camping issues, affordability for housing. Those are all important issues that people that meet in Tallahassee that come from other parts of the state work on every year. So I would just ask that if we can be helpful and there will be times, whether it's Broward Days or other times, to come up there and be part of the conversation. I think that's always welcome. And, look, again, I'm happy to bring this check. I know there are other projects in there that we didn't get across. There are some that we'll try to put back in, as I mentioned, with Galt Mile. But it's a game of working together, and it's my job to make sure we bring as much back and we do as much good for the community here in Fort Lauderdale as well as the rest of the coastal district that I serve. All right. Well, thank you so much. We appreciate that, Chip. Thank you. So, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman is here to present a proclamation regarding Florida Hurricanes Day here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. It is Johnny Gaines here and Pamela Greaves. Good evening, everyone. And this is for the Fort Lauderdale Hurricanes Football League. So let's get excited. It's not about the weather. I have the honor this afternoon to present this proclamation to the Fort Lauderdale Hurricanes. They have been just doing, I'm being mean, they've been doing their thing for a while in our city. And we have an opportunity to acknowledge their success and what they have been doing with so many of the young people within our city. So I am just truly excited that I have this privilege to present this proclamation. So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and read it. Oh, yes. Office of the Mayor, City of Fort Lauderdale Proclamation, in recognition of Fort Lauderdale Hurricanes, requested and presented by Commissioner Pam Beasley-Pittman. Whereas the city of Fort Lauderdale is proud to honor organizations that show dedication, discipline, and teamwork, as demonstrated by the Fort Lauderdale Hurricanes Youth Football and Cheer Program. And whereas in the 2023 season, the Hurricanes cheerleaders shined on the national stage, they won first place titles in the 5U, the 6U, and the 7U divisions of the National Youth Football and Cheerlead. They also earned a grand champion honors in the 6U and the 13U divisions. They received the Covenant Orange Bowl top score, and they were named national champions. And whereas that same year, the Hurricane Football Program excelled, the 6U and the 7U teams were crowned Florida's youth football league Super Bowl state champions. The 11U teams swept the league state, national, all-American titles by defending teams from across the United States and Canada. The program itself is also honored as part of the year. Come on, give them a big clap for that. Whereas building on success, the 2024 season brought even more triumphs. The Hurricanes cheerleaders, the Hurricanes cheer team brought home additional national titles, while the 8U and the 10U football team celebrated division victories, and the 12U team captured back-to-back state and national championships. And whereas on June 1st, 2025, Florida Youth Sports Forum ranked the Hurricanes' 9U football division number one in the state of Florida, a testament to the continuous strength and growth of the program. Whereas beyond trophies and titles, the Fort Lauderdale Hurricanes serve as a model of excellence, sportsmanship, leadership, and instill discipline and teamwork in young athletes, while fostering community pride and fostering and mentoring the next generation both on and off the field. Now, therefore, we ask the City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim September 16, 2025 as Fort Lauderdale Hurricanes Day in the City of Fort Lauderdale, dated this day, the 16th of September, 2025, signed by the Honorable Mayor Dean Trantales. Thank you, Mayors, Commissioners, on behalf of Fort Lauderdale Hurricanes. Thank you. Good job, Doug. It's amazing, outstanding. We're so proud to be here today. And on behalf of all the cheer, the football program, all the volunteers at our park, we are ecstatic to be here. We thank you for this proclamation. It's amazing how where God has taken this program. So on behalf of myself, Johnny Gaines, the president, I have Ms. Pam here, Graves. I brought my wife today. It's such a special event. I want her to be a part of this. And I want to also add Felicia Roberts. She couldn't be here today, but she's the president as well of our park. And together, we try to come together and do what's best for these kids. So I thank you tremendously from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. And if I may say, I would like to recognize the fact that our home field is Mills Pond. Okay? All right. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, folks. Our next presentation, I'd like to invite Commissioner Glassman to present a proclamation regarding Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep Month. And since the commissioner doesn't want to be lonely up there at the podium, I would like to invite the following people to join him. Please come to the podium. I also asked Louisa George if you could, oh, you are here. Very good. To help hand out certificates. Is everybody here whose name I called? Waiting for Ken. Commissioner. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, everyone. This is a proclamation from the office of the mayor, city of Fort Lauderdale, in recognition of Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep Month, 10th anniversary. Whereas the Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep was established with the mission of keeping our shoreline clean for the environmental, recreational, and economic well-being of our community. And whereas sustainable stewardship is a shared responsibility that safeguards natural resources, protects marine life, and sustains the vitality of our coastal economy for the benefit of future generations. And whereas the Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep embodies this commitment by uniting volunteers to remove harmful litter from our shoreline, fostering civic pride, environmental awareness, and a culture of care for our beaches. And whereas on Saturday, September 13th, 2025, the Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep celebrated its 10th anniversary, honoring a decade of meaningful service, civic engagement, and community pride. And whereas over the past 10 years, Beach Sweep volunteers have removed more than 850,000 cigarette butts, 8 tons of trash, and nearly 2 tons of recyclables, significantly improving the health, beauty, and safety of Fort Lauderdale Beach. And whereas more than 40,000 hours of service have been donated by students, families, schools, conservation organizations, corporate teams, first responders, alumni associations, and neighbors, representing an estimated $600,000 in time and effort invested in the community. And whereas the Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep, in partnership with the City of Fort Lauderdale, has provided volunteers with the tools and resources necessary to carry out their mission effectively, and in 2025, expanded its reach and strengthened its impact by merging with the Rotary Community Corps of Fort Lauderdale, an affiliate of Rotary International. And whereas the Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep continues to offer inclusive opportunities for individuals of all ages to engage in hands-on coastal stewardship with monthly cleanups held on the second Saturday from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. at 300 South Fort Lauderdale Beach Boulevard. Now, therefore, we, as City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim September 2025 as Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep Month in the City of Fort Lauderdale, and encourage all residents and visitors to support and participate in the Fort Lauderdale Beach Sweep's ongoing efforts to preserve and protect our treasured coastline through service, responsibility, and shared purpose. Dated this, the 16th day of September, 2025, and signed by our Mayor, the Honorable Dean J. Trentalas. First of all, I want to thank the City for supporting us, for being our partner, and allowing us to do what we do. People are always amazed at... We are allowing you to do what you do. We are blessed that you do what you do, so thank you so much. Nonetheless, you also support us in an amazing way with George Hershka. George, you know, as a matter of fact, I was seeing the police cars, and the police, on the side it says, we build community. I can't think... I think of the police department, the fire department, Parks and Rec, all help with building community. But if there's any individual in this city that builds community, it's George. And for 10 years, there's four original directors still doing this, getting up at early hours, Saturday morning, which I'm sure you want to join us, Mr. Mayor. And it's a, you know, it's a love, it's giving back to the city, and we enjoy it. And again, thank you, and thank all the volunteers that come out and help us. Again, thank you. Thank you, folks, and thank you, Commissioner. Now I'd like to invite Vice Mayor Herbst to present a proclamation regarding Constitution Week here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. Thank you, Mayor. Is Mary Margaret Kilmeyer and the members of the Daughters of the American Revolution here? D-A-R. Looks like we'll be doing a solo then. All right, so we are going to issue a proclamation in recognition of Constitution Week, whereas the United States Constitution, America's most important document and the guardian of our liberties, stands as a testament to the tenacity of the American people to preserve their freedoms and fundamental rights. It serves as the foundation of the nation's dedication to liberty and equality, and whereas September 17, 2025, marks the 238th anniversary of the framing of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention, and this year is also the 250th birthday of the Marine Corps, so just let you know that. Whereas Constitution Week, celebrated annually, commemorates the Constitution's history, importance, and continued relevance today. It was established after the Daughters of the American Revolution petitioned Congress in 1955 to set aside this observance, which was adopted by the United States Congress and signed into law on August 2, 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. And whereas the aim of Constitution Week is to emphasize the responsibility of citizens to protect and defend the Constitution, to inform people that it is the basis of America's heritage and the foundation of our way of life, and to encourage the study of the historical events that led to its framing in September 1787. Now, therefore, we, as city commissioners of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim September 17th through 23rd, 2025, as Constitution Week in the city of Fort Lauderdale, dated the 16th day of September, 2025, by our Honorable Mayor, Dean J. Trantelis. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So, Mary Margaret is not here? She is not. So, we'll make sure we get it to her. Thank you. So, now it is my honor to present the final presentation regarding National IT Professionals Day, because everybody knows how proficient I am in IT, and I'd like to invite our IT Assistant Director, Angela Marinas, and the IT Department staff. Everybody who's here, please join me at the podium. The brains of the operation, huh, Raquel? Well, I have a proclamation here in recognition of National Information Technology Professionals Day. I know you knew it was coming, and you were all excited about this, so here it is. So, whereas National Information Technology Professionals Day was established in 2015 and is celebrated each year on the third Tuesday in September to honor the contributions of IT professionals across the nation, the city of Fort Lauderdale proudly recognizes 77 skilled employees of the Information Technology Services Department whose expertise ensures that our computers, networks, software, and systems operate safely and reliably. The IT Department is comprised of four divisions, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Data and Digital Services, Security and Governance, and Infrastructure and Operations. Together, these professionals keep the tools we depend on every day working seamlessly for our residents, businesses, and visitors. The professionals of the IT Department demonstrate their diverse expertise by strengthening public safety with reliable communication in lifeguard towers, enhancing community engagement through live streaming events from FXC highlighting a Blue Angels flight, and supporting hometown pride with major celebrations like the Panthers Parade, delivering the essential technology that enables our city to operate at its highest level. The employees of the IT Department further showcased their innovation by developing the city's homeless outreach application and teaching families online safety through the CyberSmart FTL initiative, standing as unseen heroes whose behind-the-scenes efforts enrich the lives of our neighbors. Finally, National Information Technology Professionals Day highlights the essential role these professionals play in supporting a thriving Fort Lauderdale. So now, therefore, we as the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale do hereby proclaim September 16, 2025, as National Information Technology Professional Day here in the City of Fort Lauderdale. And we encourage all residents to join us in showing appreciation to the IT professionals who support our city and keep us connected. Signed by myself, Mayor Dean Trantels. Congratulations. Who'd like to hear a few words? First and foremost, Mayor, Commissioners, and Manager Williams, thank you so much. Thank you for this recognition. This team is incredible. They're resilient. They're always in the front lines, and no matter what challenges is thrown at us, we've always stepped up. So without a doubt, thank you. Thank you. We appreciate this recognition. We appreciate the value that you are demonstrating, and we look forward to continuing to support the city in every aspect that we can. Thank you. Okay, that concludes our meeting. Good night, everybody. No, I'm just kidding. Okay. So that concludes our presentation portion of tonight's meeting. So now we'll get on with the agenda items. At the beginning of our agenda, we have what are called consent items. And this is a time when all the consent agenda items are voted on at once by the commission. And if there's anyone that a member of the commission wishes to pull and discuss and approve or deny separately, it's at this time I will ask them if they have any items they'd like to pull. Vice Mayor? No. Commissioner Beasley Pittman? None. Thank you. Commissioner Glassman? None. Commissioner Sorensen? None. And, Mayor, y'all can sit down. Everyone is standing up. Yeah, come on. Grab a seat. Yeah, get comfortable. They're shy, Commissioner. Yeah, I know. There's seats right back there, too. The commissioner doubles as our head usher at the Brown House Senate. That's right. We've got snacks and drinks. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. None. None for me. Okay. And I have none. So no one has signed up to speak on any of the consent agenda items. So would someone please move to approve the consent agenda items? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Okay. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Hallis? Yes. And all the consent agenda items have now been approved. Moving on to M1. It's a motion approving an agreement for request for proposals number 427-5, Las Olas Garage Lighting Facade. No one has signed up to speak. Someone like to move the item? So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Any questions? There being none, please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst? No. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? No. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Hallis? Yes. So M1 is now approved. M2, motion approving an amendment to the interlocal agreement with the City of Wilton Manners to extend the initial term and manages to extend the initial term by one month for fire rescue services. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to move the item? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Hallis? Yes. M2 is now approved. M3, motion approving a change order number two for additional construction services for the George T. Lohmeyer wastewater treatment plant force main replacement with Rickman construction. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to move the item? Moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Hallis? Yes. M3 is now approved. R1, the appointment of board and committee members. Mr. Clerk, would you please read the names into the record? Yes. For the October 7th resolution, Beach Business Improvement District Advisory Committee, Molly Caro, that is the primary representative for the Four Seasons, Jenna Borzine, and that is the alternate representative for the Four Seasons, Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board, Kimber White, Commissioner Glossman, and for tonight's resolution, Budget Advisory Board, Norbert Bells, nominated by Mayor Chantalis, Christine Jones, nominated by Commissioner Glossman, that's for Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board, Historic Preservation Board, Kim Roberts, nominated by Vice Mayor Herbst, Marine Advisory Board, Courtney Day, nominated by Mayor Chantalis, Sam Mitchell, nominated by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, Nuisance Abatement Board, Mark Dickerman, nominated by Commissioner Glossman, Avigdor Pemper, nominated by Commissioner Glossman, and for the Parks, Recreation, Beaches Board, Rochelle Coatsay, nominated by Commissioner Glossman, and Patricia Zeiler, nominated by Commissioner Glossman, and that rounds it out. Okay, thank you. Are there any modifications or additions? There being none. Assemblyman, I introduced the resolution. Introduced. Resolution's been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution in the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or nominating, if applicable, Board and Committee members as set forth in the exhibit attached here to and made a part hereof. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Hollis? Yes. And those appointments have now been approved, and I want to thank everyone who has committed themselves to volunteering for these boards and committees. Thank you for your service. R2, this is a resolution repealing Resolution 17-81 and adopting a new vacation rental registration fee structure. No one has signed up to speak. Oh, wait. One person has signed up to speak. Charlie King. Mr. Airbnb himself. So I have three Airbnbs, and it seems like you guys are raising the annual cost about over 300% per year, and it's, to me, it'll be like an extra $1,470 or something a year just as an extra cost, where we're also getting huge water bills from time to time, taxes go up, all this other stuff. It just seems like that's a big jump. It seems like this company that you contract with went from $25,000 to $75,000. I guess by law, you're only allowed to charge, like, your reimbursement costs for what your costs are. So, you know, it's just, you guys are supposed to be the stewards as keeping those costs under control, and it seems like you're jumping them way up, causing, you know, it's basically sort of tax and spend type thing. So, you know, do you think that's reasonable, 300 plus percent on an annual basis? I saw in the backup, they have just the initial registration one, and they have the other cities and what theirs is, but they don't show what the annual, like, re-upping is for those cities. It might be much less or something. So, you know, it just seems like a lot of money. I guess there's, the number of Airbnbs is like 13,305 units in the city now. It was 300 back in 2017. It just seems like you're getting lots of money for this, and maybe it doesn't have to be that much, because it's coming out of local people's pockets. Okay. Who's in charge of that department? We have Portia Garcia coming up. Hi, Portia. So, there's a question regarding the charge that we are ultimately imposing on Airbnb or vacation rental owners, and how these charges relate to the actual cost of monitoring and managing the program here in the city. Do you have any comments on that? I do. So, good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. The cost that we're, the cost increase that we're proposing would be the cost of full recovery for the program. As it stands right now, we do not have all operators that make payments. If you have units of four or less under one roof, you have one registration payment, and so we're not technically receiving full cost recovery at the $350. What we're requesting is based on the additions to staff, as well as the changes to the registration program that does the monitoring on the city's behalf, and the 24-hour customer service line. So, there is no profit. It is full recovery. And no more? Yes, Mayor. Okay. And, Portia, how do we stack up with our neighboring municipalities in terms of the short-term rental registration fees? So, the cities that we compared ourselves to are Pompano Beach. They have a registration fee of $675. The City of Hollywood has a registration fee of $850. And Lauderdale-by-the-Sea has a registration fee of $750. And we specifically chose those locations because they would be comparable to where visitors would look for if they're looking for, like, a coastal city. And some of these cities also have the number of units or a comparable amount of units. So, in the past, we've taken some elements of the City of Hollywood's registration program. Most recently, things such as the noise monitoring devices was something that we took from the City of Hollywood, and when we compare our registration requirements, it's very similar to some of these other municipalities that we included here. So, for eight years, roughly, we've been way under the cost recovery cost for this program. Correct. And you just read three neighboring cities that range from $675 up to $850, our registration fee, and we're currently at $350. That's correct, Commissioner. So, it seems like it is in order to increase it to match the other municipalities and also make sure that it's full cost recovery for us. That's correct, Commissioner. Thank you. You're welcome. The question I have, Ms. Portia, the registration fee, that is like a first-time registration, and then there's an annual amount? The renewal. The renewal. Okay. So, we're asking for the registration fee to be what amount? It would be $880 for the initial registration. For the initial registration. And then the annual renewal? I believe we have $650 would be our renewal. And we typically have a lower renewal fee because at that point in time, we've previously physically inspected the interior of the property. And so, we do a more passive renewal. And also, for homesteaded properties, with their renewal, they're typically not required to have an interior inspection. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Portia, when we're talking about these dollar amounts, which are like $600, $700, $800, do we have any concept or do we have any data on how much a typical or average vacation rental produces an income in a year? We can. I would need to follow up with that information. It varies based on the size of the rental. So, we have some operators that they may charge a few hundred dollars for rental. And then we have some rentals that are larger in size or in locations such as the beach that are more desired. That may be a couple thousand dollars per night. Per night. And this is per year? Correct. Okay. So, I mean, I certainly don't want this to be something onerous for the owners of vacation rentals. But it seems to me that it's not that onerous if you factor in what everyone else in the county is doing and also how much income is produced in these vacation rentals. I agree, Commissioner. And when we were doing the time study, we made sure that we were not including anything that would be duplicative. And so, we wanted to make sure that we did not cover anything over the basic requirement to do cost recovery. I mean, we're not in this to make money. Not at all. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And, Portia, the part of the cost recovery, what those dollars go to, if you could just explain what the service provider does in terms of 24-7 customer service call center and so forth. Because in, you know, I think a lot of our city, we have concerns from neighbors when they have a vacation rental next door where maybe someone's not behaving well. And so, help us understand what these dollars go to to help those neighborhoods when they face a challenge. Absolutely. So, one thing that we incurred a couple years back, Commissioner, was actually a 24-hour customer complaint line specific for vacation rentals. So, prior to this hotline, those calls were going through the city's customer service line. And they weren't necessarily the priority for that line. And so, this dedicated vendor is able to provide real-time response to any types of complaints. They have the direct contact information for the code inspector. So, they dispatch our nighttime code officers directly to the vacation rentals. They also have the contact information for the responsible party and or property owner for vacation rentals to notify them and to make them aware of any types of complaints. So, that's one of the major values is the faster response time. In addition to that, when we initially started this program, we had a couple hundred vacation rentals citywide that we were aware of. At this point, we have more than 1,300. And so, with those 1,300, between the seasonal new rentals that pop up and then the maintenance of the existing ones, we regularly see where we have to have enough staff dedicated to the program. Not just for inspections, but for complaints related to trash, related to parking, related to maximum occupancy. A couple months back, we had a shooting at a vacation rental. And so, we had our staff working very closely with the police department during that investigation. We also dedicate a decent amount, at times, to the special magistrate's cost when we have to take unlicensed or illegally operating rentals before the magistrate. And so, a lot goes into this program. And as it has grown over the years, we've had to contribute a lot more to manage it properly. Great. Thank you, Portia. Thanks for your work on this. And Portia, if I could just add, I also want to say thank you, because for you and your team, maybe five, six years ago, we used to get a lot of concern, a lot of emails, a lot of complaints in my district, a lot of hot neighborhoods in District 2. And this was a hot topic. And people were very frustrated because of some of the bad actors in the industry. And I will say that also being limited from the state in terms of what we can do and cannot do with vacation rentals, I think you guys have done a great job navigating around those strict rules from the state. And at the same time, educating the neighborhoods. A lot of our neighborhoods now are very savvy when it comes to checking on properties, making sure that these properties are good neighbors. The number of complaints that I've received in my office have dramatically fallen over the years. And I just wanted to say thank you for that. It's not perfect, but we continue to work on it. And I just wanted to thank you and your team, because I think we've made incredible strides, and we've accomplished a lot with regards to this issue. So thank you. I agree. Thank you so much, Commissioner, for acknowledging that. I really want to acknowledge Katrina and Community Enhancement and Compliance, and also our partners in the police department, because they're very instrumental in the success of our enforcement. Yes. Thank you. So thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Would someone like to introduce R2? Introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution is the City Commissioner of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, repealing Resolution 17-81 and adopting a new fee schedule under Article 10, Vacation Rentals, for vacation rental fees, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Bittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And R2 is now approved. Moving on to R3. It's a resolution approving and ratifying a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Teamsters Local 769, effective October 1st, 2025 through September 30th, 2028, and authorizing the execution of the collective bargaining agreement. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Introduced. Any questions? There being none, please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commissioner of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving and ratifying a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale and Team sters Union No. 769, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, effective October 1st, 2025 through September 30th, 2028, and authorizing execution of the collective bargaining agreement. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Bittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And R3 is now approved. We congratulate our staff for negotiating that and for doing it in advance. So thank you, everybody who is connected with that effort. Let's see. R4, this is a resolution considering a merit salary increase for the Interim City Attorney's Annual Performance Review and amending Resolution No. 24-233, appointing D. Wayne M. Spence as Interim City Attorney. Anyone have any questions with regard to this? There being none. I'm sorry, ma'am. I did have a technical question, just so I can understand it a little bit. Okay. A little bit further. So, Dwayne, if I read through all of this, and I think I pretty much understand all of the issues, but I do have one question, because I know that you did email us in terms of some of the differential part of this for the 6.13% contribution, but help me understand, is it allowable to take monies from past salaries and include that in a 401A, or does it only have to be a current year's salary? Are you able to go back and do that and add that for past years? I don't know, to be honest with you. Is that what he's asking? It's what I'm... Yes, but it's sort of the ask, isn't it? It is the ask. And I've been getting different opinions on this. So, it's the ask, but you don't know if it's legal. Maybe we should pause on... So, it's legal to provide the 6.13% contribution. So, whether or not I can apply it to the 401 as I'm requesting, honestly, is not an issue that I've researched. But if you're willing to provide that as a one-time contribution or a lump sum contribution that I can apply, that's fine as well. So, I just want to make sure we're on legal grounds here because, again, I don't know if it's allowable. So, I just need to know that for sure. Jerome, do you want to chime in on this? Do you understand the question? I do understand the question. I do recognize that there are some limitations as to what can go into a 401 or 457 retirement plan. I would have to double check on this one. I can't give you a direct answer tonight. So, why don't we not vote on that aspect of this and just vote on the rest of it? Does that make sense? Mayor, I had a couple of questions, too. Okay, go ahead. Whenever. Go ahead. So, that makes sense for... And, D. Wayne, you and I talked about this, but if I'm tracking, Mayor, D. Wayne's asking for four considerations, I think. And I'm going to label that as the fourth, which I agree we should... Let's wait until we get clarity on that, the 6.13. Um, the first is, um, customary 3% annual merit increase for the remaining, um, month of his appointment as interim city attorney, which will last. Now, um, D. Wayne, your one year as interim city attorney is, what, October 1st? Is that your... What's your one year? No, I set my appointment to start, um, October 30th of 2023. It coincided with when Tom's, uh, first year would have, uh, concluded. Right. Okay. So, October 30th will be your one year. So, the attached, uh, proposed contract has my termination being October 31st of 2025. Okay. So, based on our conversation this afternoon, I think, um, we're going to need you to stay as interim, possibly longer than October 31st. We basically choose. Sorry? 23rd of October. So, we're going to make a choice on the 23rd of October. Oh, and it takes a while. But it takes a while. Yeah. Candidate will not be able to start. There's only one candidate that won't be able to start immediately. The other two could. Paul Bengal can start immediately, and, uh, Angel can start immediately. Oh. She's not, she's not working now. Okay. They both have said that to you? Yeah. Okay. Well, I know Paul, I just assume Paul. So. But, yes, Paul said yes, yes. And, and, and, um, so did Angel. Okay. So, Sherry would share, I haven't asked her. Okay. But she's currently employed, so I don't know what her lead time would be. Okay. Okay. So, um, there's a chance then, I would say, that we might need you to stay as interim beyond October 31st of this year. Do you agree with, or do you not want to do that? Like, it's like a month to month tenancy. Yeah. So, so. Like an Airbnb. So, you know, we're proposing this employment contract for, for a month. And there, there are conditions that I'm asking you to consider, um, adding to it. I, I, I get the, the question that, uh, the commissioner Klassman raised with regards to the 6.13% contribution, uh, we, we can amend that to just be a general contribution and recognition of that, um, that, uh, a one, one, a lump sum payout. And in terms of that, I would be willing to amend the contract to provide for until a permanent city attorney is appointed with the understanding that, that, with our understanding that you guys are committed to appointing one of the three that, that you're considering and, and we can go from there. Yeah. I mean, my concern is that we extend beyond. Continuing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's fair. Um, I know it sure is my intention to pick one of the three. Um, so if you're willing to, uh, adjust. I'm willing to make that amendment. Great. Thank you. Um, until city attorney is, is selected. So it would be, it would be October 31st, 2025 or until a permanent city attorney, um, is seated or is appointed, right. So your process is to your process of your, if you recall would be to, um, authorize someone to negotiate a contract with the city attorney and then that person would be appointed by a resolution. Okay, great. So does that, does that, I have a couple other points, but does that point sound okay to everyone? I just have, um, I have a question and, um, in lieu to what we experienced the last cycle, um, where the, the group of candidates, that whole pool was dismissed. I understand what you're saying, um, commission service and that you are, um, committed and thinking you can make a selection from where, what we have here. But my concern is, um, we have, um, I'm going to use the word odd way of doing some business sometime and, and I, I'm, I'm, I'm not sure what's going to happen. What happens is, um, someone decides that they don't want to go with this pool and we, what's going to happen with Mr. Spence's position? Um, because I'm hearing, we haven't made a decision, right? And you're basically asking him to commit to a timeline where it may, something may change, where this diet may decide to go in a different direction. So with that, how do we safeguard, um, having an interim? Mr. Spence just said he would continue until, until the new person is seated. Yeah. And I, and I think we move the process forward as fast as possible would be my suggestion. Didn't we also create a new position of deputy city attorney for when he would return to that position or am I getting my timeline wrong? No, you're, you're right, but we're still talking about an interim. So if he's not willing to work in the interim, so give us clarity, give us clarity. If I'm speaking out of turn, but what I'm, my concern is what we experienced, um, several months ago when we decided to, um, the majority decided to, um, dismiss the pool that was there and that puts you back in a position of being interim longer. And I'm understanding that, um, with what you're presenting tonight is that you're ready to move out of that position. So, so, so what I'm presenting tonight is, so I've operated as interim without a contract. So typically your charter officers receive an employment contract in which they negotiate certain benefits. I didn't necessarily have that opportunity. I just kind of stepped into the role of interim city attorney. And so what I've asked for, since we've reached the year point is for the commission to evaluate me and in recognition of the job that I've done in the past to grant certain benefits that are under a contract for a month, what commissioner Sorenson has pointed out, I guess, based on discussions that you all had earlier at the city attorney search. And I, I haven't had an opportunity to really view that my understanding is that, um, the selection is being moved towards the end of October and that there's a concern about seating of the actual person that's selected and the commissioner wants to make sure that there's no gap in the leadership of the office until such time. Exactly. In recognition of that, I am willing under the terms of the employment agreement that's before you to, to stay in that position with my thought and, and at the concern, I do have the concern that I'd be in this role for an extended period of time, but I don't feel like that's the direction that the commission is going. I, I, I anticipate you all making a decision, but I mean, we can put some safeguards in there to extend, make it a two month agreement if that, that could give me comfort or give you all comfort or, you know, to make sure that this happens in a timely manner. But I, by, but I assume you all will, will make the selection in a timely manner. So, thank you for expounding on that. I wanted to hear what you, how you would explain that for me. Thank you. Okay. Andy Wayne, correct me if I'm wrong. When you assume the position of interim city attorney, did that come with an increase in salary? It did. Okay. Was it 3% or typical 3% or was it more? It was more. Do you remember the percentage? No, I didn't calculate the percentage, um, uh, but it was, it was a change in salary from what's, what's, was my acceptable range in terms of a deputy to what's commensurate with someone operating as a city attorney. Um, and part of the ask for the salary increase and the second point that I think commissioner, um, Sorenson didn't get to yet, which is me not asking for a decrease in salary is, my experience during the last time that I served as interim and the year that I, I assisted in the transition of the office to the new city attorney, I didn't see an appreciable decrease in the amount of work that I did and just my function in terms of that role. Um, so I, I just think that the compensation is, is, uh, warranted with regards to the amount of work that I continue to do as deputy, at least for that first year. Um, and, and it would be the city attorney's, once the city attorney is appointed, it would be the city attorney's pleasure to demote me, terminate me, reduce my salary, which is why I have the other ask in the agreement for at least a year that there is a safeguard that doesn't prevent the city attorney from acting. But if they choose to act that I have a, a severance package, um, I, I think it would be the desire of the commission to have some continuity, at least for the first year and after the first year, um, if you know, everything continues on to be moved smoothly, then it is what it is. Um, but aren't we also later this evening considering increasing the range. So there would be that safeguard for you. Aren't we not increasing the salary range for your position later this evening? So you're increasing the salary range for the, if, if you are to approve that, you are increasing the salary range to allow the person that holds that role to, um, be compensated more within that range, but it doesn't increase my salary. It just increases the range for the position and it's no safeguard that whoever comes on board will retain me. Understood. Thank you for that. Thank, thank you, D Wayne. So, um, so going back to, uh, number one, so thank you, D Wayne for that willingness to serve until a city attorney is, uh, assumes the position. So, um, so mayor and commissioners, I think it, so D Wayne went from about 240,000 to where he currently is, is he's at 281,000. Um, so one of the things he's asking for is a three percent merit increase from 281,000 to 289,000, um, which I think we should support, um, him in that ask. I think also the number two point that he's asking is could he remain at that $289,000 salary level, um, when he returns to the deputy city attorney position when a city attorney is in place. Um, so I also think that's a fair request, um, because, and what he's asking for, and again, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, D Wayne, what he's asking for is keep my salary at $289,000 for a year, because during that year, I, D Wayne, I'm going to be helping the city attorney transition. Um, I'm going to be supporting them in a, in a increased workload. Um, so I also think that's fair, but let me just pause there for, are those two points? Well, it's interesting you say that now I'm just thinking ahead, you know, what's going to be the base for this intern for the city attorney, the base for the city attorney. Yeah. So it's a good question. So it's going to be north of three. It's, it's gotta be, it's gotta be above 300, which I think is, you know, our city manager was, was above, above 300. And I think the city attorney is a substantive job that requires that type of pay. Okay. Would be my sense. Just, just, just letting you know that you're, that these decisions that we make tonight are going to, are going to, are going to, uh, influence the decisions we have to make down the road. Agreed. Jerome, let's just touch base on, on that salary range for a city attorney for, is this idea of 300 and above. What's your feedback? That would not be unusual for a city attorney position for a city of this size in this geographic area. We did take a look at some of the salary ranges when we posted and recruited that position. We initially put into the brochure that it, the, the salary was negotiable, but it would start at least in the high 200,000s. Um, and in recognizing that, um, there are at least two communities I can recall off the top of my head that are well above 300,000 for that position. We felt comfortable, um, just letting the candidates know that it would be negotiable north of the high 200,000s. Okay. So I think that's, that sounds fair to me. Okay. What, what resolution do you want to introduce tonight? Hang on, Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. If, if, if, and when Commissioner Sorenson's done, I have some questions as well. Sure. Yeah, sure. Uh, one other, um, point, uh, the, so the, the, but Dwayne, am I characterizing everything appropriately? Is it? You are. So far, so good. The third out of four things that Dwayne is asking for is basically severance payment in the event of termination or, you know, resignation, um, after, um, while he, when he returns to deputy city attorney, um, during that year. Um, this is something that I don't feel, so traditionally, and Jerome, correct me where I'm wrong on this, but traditionally severance, severance payments are for charter officers. Give, give us a little bit of who gets severance payments and yeah. Typically in the city of Fort Lauderdale, it is restricted to the, um, appointees of the, of the city commission. Okay. Um, there is a severance, um, provision in the personnel rules for other contingencies, such as layoff, um, position eliminations, et cetera. Okay. Thanks. So that's where mayor, I feel like we want Dwayne. I don't want Dwayne to, to leave working for the city. Um, so I think by having a salary that's especially during this year of transition, that's commensurate with the time and transition he's going to be supporting, um, is, is appropriate and needed, but the, uh, severance payment moves into the area where really we, we only do that for, for charter officers. So I wouldn't want to, uh, set that precedent, uh, mayor. So those are the points I had. Commissioner Sorensen, can I just address that? So this is actually a very unusual, um, position. Um, so as, as Jerome pointed out, we typically only do that for the charter officers. Right. And the reason for that is charter officers are the only ones that we appoint. Um, the only other ones that we appoint are a deputy, uh, city attorney and the deputy city manager. We've only had one of those in my recent history was Rob Hernandez, I believe was his name, was a deputy city manager for, uh, for a short period of time. So those are the only ones that are actually contract employees. So none of our other employees, our department heads or anything else have a contract. And that's typically why we haven't done severance. So just so we understand kind of the context, our history is just, we haven't had deputies. So there that we appoint. And like I said, in our charter, that makes them virtually unique in our, uh, employee classification system. So other than a charter officer, they're really the only ones that we can make an appointment for and create a contract for. Okay. I didn't realize that. I'd have to ask Strom to confirm. I believe the appointment of a deputy city manager is a ratification of a recommendation from the city manager to, but it's still a vote of the commission, right? The commission is still, they're both by resolution by the city commission, but it's at the recommendation of both of the charter office, right? Not with a contract. Do we have, but they could have a contract that that's the only, that's what that's my point is that there's, they are the only ones that we actually take a vote on. So none of the department heads, assistant city managers, none of those folks, do we get involved in actually approving the hiring? The deputies are the only ones where, where we take a vote on it. So, so yeah, for clarification, the, the commission is involved in the, uh, approval of the hiring of the deputies in both cases, but they are under the non-classified services and under the city and follow the play pay plan as well. So typically they do not have a separate contract. Right. And again, like I said, I can only, this is only the second time that I can recall in the last two decades that we've done this. Sure. We haven't, we haven't, right. We haven't filled these positions in a while, a long, long time. Um, if you're done. Yeah, go ahead. So the, and I'm sorry, Dwayne, you and I did not get a chance to talk about this prior to tonight. And I apologize for that. Uh, I would have liked to have had that conversation on a couple of items, but one thing that did concern me was with the, with the 6.13% on the 401k. And the reason for that is, um, is from a legal perspective, I think it violates the state's rule against, uh, compensation for past services. Um, on the other hand, now, if you are agreeing to extend your employment, that is a prospective action. And if we were to pay you a lump sum in recognition of your willingness to stay on, it seems to me that we have resolved the issue with the state's, uh, prohibition on retroactive pay. And that was kind of what I was hinting to in terms of how to view that compensation. And thank you for bringing that out. Now, the only thing I do have, and again, I apologize. We haven't had a chance to talk about this. I hate doing this in public. So I, again, my apologies. Um, if I understand it, so there's a 3% merit increase now for the next month. Uh, but then there's also, we're proving tonight a 3% increase in two weeks. So I do have a little, a little heartburn over that. I have no problem with the severance because I understand you are at a high degree of risk with a new boss coming in. It's just always that way. Um, but I am a little concerned about the compounding of 3% now and then 3%. Uh, can you, can you give me any thoughts on that? And again, I apologize for doing this in public. No, no, I, I understand. I understand that thought. I mean, I think the 3% is customarily to, to recognize, recognize the, um, my performance over the year, which, which by the way, I, I, I, as you know, I've talked with you, I think you've done an amazing job. So no, no disagreement on that. And, and so I, I would not have any issue in terms of when I go back to the deputy position, um, uh, not applying that 3%. So if, if you want to set the salary for the deputy as my salary now, um, that, that would be, that would be acceptable to me. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. So in other words, we get the 3% merit increase for the remainder of my functioning as interim city attorney. And then when I revert to deputy, uh, we go back to my salary as of now. Okay. And then you would be eligible for whatever the general increases are at that point. You're eligible. Let me think about that though, because, because now we have, now I'm missing both 3%. Well, no, no, I'm not suggesting that you then miss. So we're approving the general wage increase for all employees effective October 1st. And I'm not suggesting that I would be in the, the role of interim city attorney, um, at the time. So, and in terms of my statement about going back to the salary I have now with, with, with, with the 1, 3%, I guess. Right. Point taken. So, so does someone like to introduce a resolution and explain what's in your resolution? Yeah. And I don't, yeah. And I don't know if I need to take these in pieces. Um, go ahead. Also there's, so there's, so the resolution, uh, approves the increase, but it also proves the contract. And so the contract is what has these terms. And so what I'd like to clarify, we do want to have the 3% annual increase as of the effective date of this contract. The contract starts October 1st. Right. Um, and then in terms of the no reduction to our annual salary, what we are doing is a reduction to, uh, my current salary with a 3% increase. Um, we can calculate that and we'll replace that provision of the contract to indicate that, um, the, a lump sum payment of 6.3% calculated for, uh, the time periods set out into the contract as, and recognition of my continuing to serve in the role of interim city attorney and the severance provision stays as, as with regards to termination within one year of the, of a new city attorney being appointed. So do we need more due diligence on the 6.13? It sounds like we do. I mean, okay. Let me, let me just back up just a second. So, so when you became a interim city attorney, you had a bump up in salary of about 40,000. Right. Okay. And when you revert back to that position, you want to keep that salary, right? Plus 3%. Yes. Okay. But that's it. No more, no other 3%. Correct. Okay. All right. What does the six point, whatever percent equal in terms of actual dollars? So for the first term that I served, it's about $12,000, 12, I'll give you the exact number, $12,439. That's for the term I served, um, December 20, 2022 through October 30, 2023, and then $18,646 for calculated for this term through October 30. So that's about $31,000. So for one month you get $18,000? Pardon me? For one month you're getting $18,000? No, no, no. No, for a year. October, October 30th of 2024 to October 30, 2020, 2025. But again, we're talking about the inability to be compensated for past, past, um, past service. Um, so we'd have to revise that provision to recognize, recognize how that payment is, um, to be done. But, but in total it's, uh, $31,085, $85. But let's, let's go back again. Let's break that down. It's $12,000 for what time period? Uh, December 20, 2022 through October 30, 2023. Okay. So for 10 months, 10 months, it's 20, it's $12,000. And what was the end? What was the end date of that? October 30, 2023, 2023? Yes. That's the, that was the first term. That's when Tom Ansborough was appointed. Okay. And what's the second tranche of money? It's from October 30, 2024 through, um, what would have been the end of this contract, October 30, 2025. And that's 18,000? 18,000, six, 40, yeah, 46. So you would have to divide it. You'd have to divide it up to be a 6.13% payment from October 1st moving forward as, as an additional contribution. And then a lump sum payment of, and I would have to recalculate it, but it would be around 31,000. So how was it that this, the issue of the, um, the timeframe at 2023? How's that, why is that coming up now? Why didn't we, why didn't we come up with that two years ago? I, I didn't think I was going to function in this role for this period of time. So essentially after recognizing that I was coming up on a year, said, let's talk about an employment contract and let's talk about the terms that I would have asked for had I negotiated it at that time. So I do understand, I do understand, uh, the commission's reservation with regards to that. I'm willing to take the 6.13% prospectively and just so that it's clearer and cleaner. So from October 1st to the termination of this, uh, contract. Okay. Why don't we do that instead? Mayor here's, here's why I feel like he should get it retrospectively is just because, and I'll ultimately be fine either way, but because I think D Wayne a couple of times has assumed the role of as interim city attorney and really like done it as a team player without pushing for some hard nose negotiation. Um, and I don't want that to be held against him almost, um, for what he's been willing to do to just immediately seamlessly kind of slide into this role, if that's fair. Well, in, in, in, uh, in December, was it of 2022? Yep. December 20. You were appointed city attorney, correct? Interim city attorney, correct. Interim city attorney. And that lasted until Tom was? Yes. October 30. That was about a 10 month period. So I can, if you want American to introduce a resolution that will have a few little caveats to it. I really, I'm very concerned about the legality of it. That's why I think we should bifurcate it. Yeah. Can I leave that portion out? Okay. Okay. Could I propose a resolution that, um, has a legal caveat or a pending, uh, legal and HR approval? Is that, I mean, it's not so much HR approval. It's by, it's by state legal regulation. Yeah. Legal. So let me propose a resolution. Then you all tell me if I'm doing this. Okay. So that's all right. City clerk, I'm gonna propose a resolution here. Okay. Actually, if I made just before I do that, I just want to throw out one, one thought. Um, I think it puts D Wayne in an awkward position if he has to opine on his own race. So I think we should ask one of the other, uh, assistant city attorneys to weigh in on that before. If whatever, whatever your resolution is, I, I, I, I suggest we just nominate, uh, another city assistant city attorney to be involved in that. So, so, so, so, so given the sensitivity of this, the nature of this contract, we, I, I would have no issue with having one of our outside employment related councils review and approve the agreement. Yeah. Great. That, that all makes sense. I, I agree. So, um, I'm going to propose a resolution that has a customary 3% annual merit increase for the remaining time of his appointment as interim city attorney, um, bringing his salary $289,572.57. Second component would be no reduction in annual salary when he returns, to the position of deputy city attorney and no reduction for the year following the reverting to that position. And then at the adoption of the contract. Sorry, mayor. And the adoption of the employment agreement. The sure with these adjustments. Right. Right. Um, not including severance payment and a pending legal review and guidance, a 6.13 contribution by the city to his 401k plan. Prospectively. Prospectively. And that's your resolution? Yes. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Um, regarding this, you said not including the severance payment? Correct. My resolution does not include severance because yes, I don't think that's what, what we should offer non-charter employees. Okay. I'm, um, I need to spin back a little bit, but I, so deputy attorney is not considered, it's not charter, it's not a charter position. No. Correct. It's just, it's like, I don't, I don't know, like Susan Grant, I'm thinking about you at the moment is when you, how sweet, came, came back thinking warmly. Um, I'll tell Anna that. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Um, when you, when you moved from interim city manager to your current role, were you offered severance and some assurance of severance for a year? I just, I don't think that's a normal practice for us right now. I don't, I don't think so. Good evening. No. Um, but I didn't ask either. Right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So that's, yeah. Okay. Yep. All right. So that resolution comfortable with, um, not offering the severance pay because we're still in a position where, um, a suspense may, um, new hired attorney may come in and at that point decide, you know, longer, um, he decides for resignation or the, um, termination. And now you have an individual who do not have, um, severance pay. Well, we're giving him a year's contract. We're giving him a year. Isn't it still at will within the year though? And all of our contracts, you can be terminated at will, even with a contract. Oh, let's look at that. Okay. No, I, I, well, if I may, Mayor, I'm sorry. When, when, when we first, um, set up my position as the auditor, I was under contract too, but it provided for termination at will. So even though I had a contract, it wasn't a guarantee of, of a year or as with our city manager, you know, there's no guarantee. It simply says we, we pay you severance if we fire you. It doesn't mean we can't fire you. Right. Even with a contract, it's, we're still at will state. Yeah. Um, I, well, no, it, we just still has to be noticed. And, uh, does there have to be cause for termination? There's no cause in the contract. So the contract being proposed as a, a contract for a month or until a permanent city attorney is appointed. There is nothing that prevents the firing. Um, and the severance is just the, um, one of the, uh, considerations for accepting the employment contract that in case I'm terminated within that year period of time, uh, that 20 is a 20 week, uh, 20 week per statute. Okay. What's 20 weeks is a four or five months, five months. Right. And that's, what's allowable under state law at this point in time. You may remember they changed that a couple of years back to reduce it because there were folks in Florida that were getting a year severance or longer. All right. Uh, Ben, I'm, I'm, I'm good with the severance. Let's let, let's just keep the severance. Yeah. Okay. And then you can vote down my resolution. Okay. So, uh, the, the resolution is to, um, uh, adopt the employment contract less the severance language, um, excuse me, less the compensation for severance, right? Is that what you're saying, Ben? My resolution is the 3% increase, right? The no reduction for a year in salary, no severance and 6.13 contribution. That's my resolution. Okay. I think that's very fair. Okay. Any other questions or comments there being none, please call the roll. So as amended, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, providing for a merit salary increase for interim city attorney, D. Wayne M. Spence, amending resolution number 24-233, approving an employment contract with the interim city attorney, authorizing the mayor to execute the employment contract and providing for an effective date. Vice mayor Herbst. I'm voting no because of the severance provision. Uh, commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. No. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trantalis. No. Someone like to reintroduce the resolution to include the severance pay? I'll reintroduce the same resolution with the inclusion of severance. Okay. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sorry, this again. A resolution of the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, providing for a merit salary increase for interim city attorney, D. Wayne M. Spence, amending resolution number 24-233, approving an employment contract with the interim city attorney, authorizing the mayor to execute the employment contract and providing for an effective date. Vice mayor Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. No. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. No. Mayor Trantalis. Yes. Our floor is now approved. Mayor, if I may, I want to thank you all for your support over, um, these, uh, I guess a year and, and 10 months. We're going to both add both periods of time together, um, serving as an interim, uh, city attorney. Um, it, it has been a great experience. I thank you for trusting me with the stewardship of the office. We have a lot of great attorney and attorneys and a lot of great support staff who have done a lot of great work. I shared with you all the annual report over 339 resolutions, 48 ordinances, 644 contracts and agreements, 11 land acquisitions, 957 cases. You should have told us this before we voted. Uh, no, no, but I mean, I, I, it's for them and particularly in this year. And I, I, I, I don't know how to really explain, um, what it means for an office to lose its leader in a way that we lost our leader and, and how those attorneys and the support staff really rallied together and kept things afloat and going, um, and supported, uh, me and, and the leadership of that office. And so, and you recognizing that and in terms of the, your discussion, um, and of, of my review, I, I really appreciate it and, and I look forward to finishing strong. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And thank you for your service, for your service. Okay. Moving on to our five quasi judicial resolution, approving an alternate design for site plan level two development and the allocation of 43 bonus affordable residential units. Um, uh, Stephanie Toothacre is signed up to speak for questions only. No one else has signed up to speak. Uh, we need disclosures. Uh, uh, vice mayor, do you have any disclosures? We checked and I don't believe we do. Stephanie, do you meet with us on this issue? I don't think, uh, commissioner Beasley Pittman. I feel like this was a time back that we meet, but this one, what am I thinking about? Yeah, please put your, please put your mic on a brief discussion. So I will disclose that we have discussed this with Stephanie Toothacre. I did have conversation with, uh, Ms. Toothacre, Commissioner Glassman. Yes. I spoke with Stephanie Toothacre and, uh, commissioner Sorenson. Yes. With Stephanie Toothacre. Okay. So, um, anyone have any questions with regard to this matter? No one has signed up to speak with someone like to move to close public hearing moved and moved. Do I hear a second? Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst. This is to close public hearing. Commissioner Glassman. Commissioner Beasley Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorenson. Yes. Mary Trentals. Yes. And public hearing on R5 is now, um, concluded. Would someone like to introduce the resolution for R5? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Any questions? Please call the roll. Oh, sorry. Commissioner, that's for approval. Thank you. Please call the roll. A resolution to the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving the issuance of a site plan level two development permit for an alternative design that meets the overall intent of the downtown master plan for the development of a 26-story mixed-use building consisting of 265 residential units, including the allocation of 43 bonus affordable housing units, 4,687 square feet of commercial space located at 500 southwest 2nd Abbey of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in the downtown regional activity center southwest mixed-use zoning district. Vice Mayor Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorenson. Yes. Mayor Trentals. Yes. And R5 is now approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, moving on to public hearings. This is PH1 public hearing quasi-judicial ordinance approving a rezoning from residential multifamily mid-rise medium high density RMM 25 district to the Northwest Regional Activity Center mixed-use east Northwest RAC MUE district, generally located between Northwest 2nd Avenue and Northwest 3rd Avenue, north of Northwest 8th Street, south of Northwest 9th Street. This was deferred from September 3rd, 2025. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in. The commissioner will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received that make them a part of the record. Vice Mayor, do you have any disclosures? Yes, I met with Jason Krush. Okay. Commissioner Beasley Pittman. Yes, I've had a conversation with Jason Krush. And I met with the applicant and Courtney Krush. Commissioner Glassman. Yes, thank you. Site visit. Also attended several Progressive Village Civic Association meetings. Had conversations with J.J. Hankerson and also conversations with Courtney and Jason Krush. And Commissioner Sorensen. Yes, meetings with Jason and Courtney Krush. Okay. So a number of people have signed up to speak, but Courtney, why don't you, is, are you or Jason going to be, okay, you have, how much time do you need to make a presentation? Like 10 minutes? Yeah. Put your mic on. No, no. Just push the button at the bottom, at the bottom, at the bottom, at the bottom of the speaker. I did push it at the bottom. Okay, now you're good. Yes, I did. I was tech challenged on finding the presentation. I apologize. So explain to us a little bit about what the current zoning permits in terms of height and what, what in addition you're looking to accomplish here. Certainly, Mayor. This is a parcel of property located in the RMM25 zoning district, which is also situated within the Northwest Regional Activity Center land use. Right. So as a matter of right, what can you build here? Residential multifamily up to 55 feet in height. Standard, there's a 200 foot maximum on buildings at that location. Density is 25 units an acre. Okay. The proposal to rezone to Northwest Regional Activity Center mixed use east would also allow residential mixed use has a maximum height of 65 feet. Also incorporates, requires compliance with the downtown, excuse me, the Northwest Regional Activity Center design guidelines and book, which are actually incorporated into that zoning district, which mandates certain streetscapes, building form, step backs in some cases. Okay. So we're talking about 10 feet here? Yes. Okay. And, um, and we're not looking to incorporate any commercial, uh, elements in the ground floor or any part of these buildings. Is that correct? Um, even though it's, even though you want to change it to mixed use, you know, change it to mixed use. Um, I know that there was, um, a concern at the, by one planning and zoning board member about some of the commercial uses, um, if the city wanted to allow what I would call something, you know, building serving, um, like a live work unit, um, or yeah, you know, Is that contemplated in your site? So this is a rezoning request, um, only, only, I understand that, but what is ultimately contemplated here? Well, staff usually encourages some sort of activation at the ground level. So whether that would be, um, a gym serving the building itself, um, they just want some sort of, you know, visibility so that people feel safe walking down the street. We wouldn't put a grocery store in the middle of a residential district. We absolutely would not put a grocery store or, or, or any, anything beyond what I would say, um, building or building serving. As I said, staff encourages activation. So behind the glass, they would just like to see the lobby, the gym for the building itself, those sorts of things in order to create the safe environment. Okay. Is there just a question on that mayor? Is there a way to, or Courtney, is there a way to explicitly limit the possible commercial use or how, like for this or or not really? The applicant can always put a restrictive covenant on their property that restricts the types of uses that they would permit. Okay. Okay. Thanks. And Courtney, um, for the conversation, um, the height 55 versus the 65, knowing the difference of 10 feet, but could you let us know, um, 55 equal how many stories, 65? Certainly. I apologize. Commissioner Beasley Pittman. Um, in round numbers, 55 is probably five stories. Um, staff likes to encourage, you know, the first floor to be a little taller than the standard and standard floors are 10 foot per floor. So a proposed 65 foot building would be six stories. Thank you. I like to make sure our neighbors understand what the height, certainly how many stories it is. And I do have some graphic as if the commission would like to see of a concept drawing. Sure. Certainly. Okay. So mayor, I'll briefly, um, please proceed. Would you like me to go through the presentation mayor? Okay. So as I indicated, this is in the Northwest regional activity center. Um, you see the boundaries, um, the shaded blue is the outline of the Northwest rack. The property is located at the, as outlined in yellow. Um, as you can see, there is Northwest regional activity center, M U N E, which is 100, maximum 120 feet. Other purple properties are M U E, uh, which is 65 feet. As we mentioned, the RMM 25 is 55 feet. And, um, to the West is B three and industrial, which has a maximum height of 150 feet. Um, I've summarized the request for you. Um, and I'm now going to turn it over to, um, expert planner, Cecilia Ward, um, just to briefly take you through the criteria. And I promise, mayor, she'll be brief. Good evening, mayor and commissioners, Cecilia Ward, president of JC consulting. Hi mayor. Nice to see you again. Um, I'd like to begin my presentation with a brief summary of the history. Uh, that is the foundation for this rezoning request. The city actually began the planning and, um, vision, uh, establishing for this area, which is the Northwest progressive Flagler Heights area in the early 1960s. And then beginning in, uh, 19, uh, excuse me, in 1995, the city adopted a vision plan for the area, which became its community redevelopment area plan. And then in 2001, it established, um, additional changes that incorporated input from the community. And I'm very familiar with that because I was with the city as the planning director at, during that time, uh, in 2008, the city went further in its implementation for the vision of this area and adopted, uh, also a master plan. And then in 2015 adopted zoning regulations. And so this planning and zoning for this area to become this Northwest regional activity center, this mixed use area for redevelopment has been going on for a very long period of time. And I've incorporated a proof text, excuse me, I've incorporated a proof text, if I could find it here, go back, sorry, forward, I think. Yeah. I'm not good at your remote here. I'll do your text. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, go back to the proof text all the way back. Sorry about that. Yep. Go ahead. Next one. Okay. Well, I've had a proof text. I don't know what happened to it, uh, which included the, uh, language from the ordinance establishing the zoning districts, which proves that the city has worked on this process for a very long time and created the Northwest zoning districts. I've got an overview. Okay. So the subject property is located within the North Northwest Progressive Flagah Heights, uh, CRA area and within the Northwest RAC future land use area. And, um, the rezoning request as Courtney mentioned is to change it from RMM 25 to Northwest RAC mixed use East. Incorporation of certain building, uh, criteria to make it more attractive and walkable in the community. So for those reasons, it is very important that the Northwest RAC MUE is applied to this property. And also because it is consistent with the Northwest RAC, which was adopted for the area back in 2015. And that specifically says that any redevelopment must be consistent with the Northwest CRA plan. And that plan says, we're looking for mixed use development. We're looking for maybe higher density multifamily development. We're looking for an enhancement in walkability and design of the, uh, area to make it more attractive. Next slide. Uh, the rezoning request is, uh, also reflective of a transition in zoning. If you go to the next slide, as you could see, the area is surrounded by non-residential zoning, whether it's mixed use, uh, or it's commercial or industrial. This is very different from the typical pattern of land use that occurs in most communities or most areas of the city. You typically go from a single family type of land use and zoning, and then transition to a more moderate type of multifamily, such as, um, a 15 units per acre. And then you go to a 25 units per acre, and then to a 60, and then to your non-residential zoning districts. Here, what we have is we have this surrounding, uh, around the, the area of RMM 25, with industrial, with mixed use, with commercial. And what has happened as a result of that is that your type of single family development that existed a long time ago has not really thrived because you have not been able to foster redevelopment for single family and, uh, duplex types of uses in a manner that is a quality and also that enhances the community because you're not really surrounded by more single family residential. It's actually not a single family residential zoning district. It's a multifamily residential zoning district. But as I said, it does not achieve the density or the design, um, vision that was established in this area by the city back in originally back in 2000, 1995, and then, uh, solidified in 2015. As you can see from the next graphic, there have been some rezonings occurring within the area. You have some shown in green, which were rezoned to the MUNE, which is the Northeast. And you also have some other properties in the blue, which have been rezoned to the MUE. So there's starting to be this implementation of the vision that was established by the city. The next graphic shows, as Courtney mentioned previously, that there's been numerous rezonings in this area. And you can see the different height transitions that have occurred. In this case, we're only asking for 55 feet when you have a majority of properties that have been rezoned at a much higher height. Um, the RMM 25 does not represent the vision that was established for the city. Um, and Courtney already espoused the differences. The 65 feet would allow more density and be able to support the design standards that are required. And just in closing, I'd just like to point out that there's been some points made that this is spot zoning. Well, as a professional planner, I'd like to point out the reasons why it is not. There are no special privileges that are being granted to the property as a result of the rezoning. This rezoning, the two from RMM 25 to the Northwest Mixed Use E zoning district would be allowed anywhere within this area because the underlying land use is Northwest RAC. All it is doing is implementing the future land use plan. All this request is doing is being consistent with the future land use that already exists. So there's nothing different that is occurring on this property that could not occur anywhere within this RMM 25 zoning. So what's the density? What's the density allowable under the, uh, uh, the Northwest RAC designation? You're allowed based on availability of dwelling units and what you can put on the site. So it could be more than 25 units? It could be more than 25 units, which is very critical if you want to have enough units to support the design that's required. Uh, and then just the last two points is that the property will be subject to the same zoning restrictions that any other property in this area would be if it were rezoned to the MUE zoning. And, uh, more important at the end of the day, the rezoning request implements the CRA plan on the Northwest RAC land use. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Cecilia. Um, as Cecilia said, the, um, proposed rezoning is consistent with the ULDR criteria. Um, the city staff and its planning and zoning report of May 21st also, um, analyzed and recommended the rezoning for approval as being consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Um, future land use element goal 2.0, uh, recommended that and found that it would not adversely impact the character, um, of the area in development. It's multifamily residential today, multifamily proposed residential under the, um, Northwest RAC MUE and does, as Cecilia noted, staff noted that they, it does implement the, uh, CRA plan as well as the Northwest RAC plan, um, which is designed to encourage appropriate redevelopment, um, at a density, um, that will enhance the surrounding, um, community. Okay. What Arthur conceptually, I'm finally getting to Commissioner Beasley Pittman's, um, graphic on the property is, um, five buildings with 15 dwelling units in each. This is sort of what lays out and what you can fit in terms of form and parking, which certainly you have to, um, provide. Um, he's proposing five, five buildings, um, parking underneath, not a large parking podium, things internalized, um, building, as I mentioned, city DRC staff coming from the Northwest RAC design guidelines will look for transparency, glass, step backs, variation in architecture, which are not mandated in the RMM 25, will require adherence to the Northwest RAC MU streetscape for secondary streets, um, which will, um, create this consistent streetscape for the entire frontage of the property. Very briefly, mayor, uh, do want to share as the commission well knows, um, part of the application process is public participation and meetings with neighbors. Um, we did have the opportunity to present to the progresso village civic association on July 15th and July 19th. Um, we held the public participation meeting January 6th of 2025, and then recently had a zoom meeting with the, uh, civic associations board following the August, 2024 meeting. Um, we did receive as did, I think the commission, um, um, a letter from president Hankerson indicating that in September, a meeting that we did not attend, um, the neighborhood attendees, um, just further discussed the proposed rezoning and voted not to support the rezoning with 12 attendees voting against five in support and one abstaining. Um, based on the feedback that our client, um, had been getting from the neighbors, um, we actually, um, our client actually took our presentation from the neighborhood association and walked door to door and shared the presentation with a good number of his neighbors. And what is outlined in green are the property owners who are support, excuse me, the property owners and residents who are supportive of this request. You may have received, um, letters from those individuals. I thought it would be simpler to put it on a graphic and just overlay zoomed in a little bit. Um, you can see the participation and support of our surrounding neighbors. And with that mayor, uh, as I stated, um, I tried to make it brief. Uh, we very much appreciate the commission consider and approve this rezoning so that Mr. Bartholomew, um, can introduce some feasible, affordable, attractive, um, residential density into this neighborhood. Thank you. Okay. Great. Thank you. Anyone have any questions of, uh, Courtney? You can, you can ask them later, of course, but there are a number of people who signed up to speak about 20 people. So, um, I'll be happy to have them, uh, speak for two minutes at a time. Why don't we invite, uh, JJ Hankerson, who is the, uh, president, right, of the Progresso Village Civic Association, uh, followed by Byron Perez, uh, excuse me, Brian Perez and Jonathan Nixon. How are you, sir? Oh, good evening, everybody, mayor, commissioners. Um, when we, when I first started with the association, because there was no association in our community, it was wild and crazy. And back then, during the time when Contra Moore was the commissioner, he helped me to get association so that we can be organized and have a voice to the city. Um, things did work out, but then, you know, they changed it. The, uh, the district changed or something, whatever, and we were no longer in his district anymore. But yet still getting to the point where we're talking about, uh, I walked the streets of the community, uh, all through the week when, especially through the week when we was off for two weeks before they had a meeting. And I talked to everybody and a lot of them asked me what was they need to sign. I say, well, if you, uh, want to see, uh, uh, building like 613 of night height and about five of them all around, I say, well, then you shouldn't sign this petition that we have. And I said, but if it's a no, if you don't want to rezone, you sign that paper and and say, make your statement. Now I realized that, um, talking to the commissioner Glassman, that he said that we didn't have enough people, uh, in our association to, to turn that around. And, uh, I think a lot of you, uh, experience being, uh, a president of association and it's hard to keep people in your association. It's very hard. And, and we didn't try some everything, but, but I, what I did find out that you could go to them and question them, give them the question that you want. They'll give you an answer. But for some reason or another, this just, it just won't come like we, well, you know how I go. But anyway, I am against rezoning because I know that I realized that when they, if they rezone that area right in the middle of our community, because we already said that we will just allow and go along with everything they want to do on the outside, like on 6th street, uh, Andrew sunrise, 7th Avenue. And, uh, we will permit and support that. But now they want to go right in the smack middle of our community. Um, and we totally against that we've been against that for a long time. And, uh, we asked that, uh, you consider to not to re rezone because of course, of that fact and many more and talking to the neighbors, they got a lot longer time. No, keep going, keep going. Um, according to the neighbors, I get a lot of different answers. Why? And, um, you know, some, some people might say it crazy because some say that, um, well, we won't see the sun and all this, and it's just all different kind of things that they don't like in a little house. The house will look small against a big building like that. And, uh, it just, it just don't, to us, we just don't want it as a community, as, uh, the neighbors has signed the petition to say no rezoning. And that's, that's why I'm here. Yeah. So, um, JJ, thanks for coming tonight. I, I, I just want to ask you a question because, you know, um, 30 years ago, whoever was involved at the time, um, you know, had a vision and the vision was to, um, reimagine the section of our city and they changed the zoning. And, um, and right now the existing zoning allows for as high as 55 feet. So your whole neighborhood could be 55 feet. Mm-hmm. According to the zoning, yes. Yeah. And this was a, now if the, if the vision of the community has changed, maybe it's time that we revisit the zoning of this area and, and make that change. If we want to keep it at one and two stories, which is what I'm seeing, I'm hearing. Um, and that, that really goes for other parts of the city as well. I hear, you know, people wanting to push back on the zoning changes that took place 20 and 30 years ago and say, you know, this isn't really Fort Lauderdale anymore. We need to, you know, go back to the way we used to be. We don't want all these new buildings. At least that's what some people were saying. Well, if that's what some people were saying, then there should be an effort to change the zoning. I don't think they'll be successful because a lot of people like what's going on. Mm-hmm. A lot of people like to change and a lot of people like to see, um, neighborhoods that have long been, uh, ignored, um, to become revitalized. And unfortunately there's a balance. Balance is sometimes the new development is going to seem out of place from the current existing infrastructure. Now what's being, what's being asked for here? Right now, 55 feet is a matter of right. They can go out there and they can build 20 different buildings if they want at 55 feet. What's being asked tonight is another 10 feet. And what comes with that is what you're saying is wider setbacks, wider sidewalks, more landscaping. These are all requirements of the regional activity center, uh, zoning code. So I don't know the answer right now, but those are the things that are weighing in my mind. You know, the benefits and the, and the disadvantages to one approach to a neighborhood versus another. Now, people that have lived in this neighborhood for a very long time, like the status quo, but we changed the zoning 20, 30 years ago. It's just only now catching up to where investors are seeing this as an opportunity. They didn't see this as an opportunity 30 years ago or 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, but now the city's the city is expanding. The zoning is permitting that expansion. And so the commission has to wrestle with the idea of, you know, where do we want to see the city go right now? These folks own the property and they can build whatever they want up to 55 feet. Um, so right now we have to consider to change that by 10 feet. That's, that's the issue before us tonight. So you know, is that been explained to you? Yes. I, I, I've, I've heard it before. Um, but my, my question is on that. Why they won't, uh, if they're going to go 50, why they won't go, uh, keep the zoning as it is and do what they need to do. We'll get to ask them that question today. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, JJ. And thank you for being here. Can you take that off the screen, by the way, so that the speakers, no, no, not you. It's not you. It's our, a, you know, audio visual people. Yeah. So our speakers can be seen. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, JJ. Uh, first I want to begin by thanking you for your service and you're right. It is, it is tough to get people involved and hang in there over time. Uh, but I've always appreciated your service so much to the neighborhood and it's been an absolute pleasure working with you. Um, these many years, I think we worked together even before I was in elected office when I was a neighborhood president in the district. Um, I want to ask you something because this is, this is a tough one for me and you, you know that you and I have had this conversation. Um, when all of this work began on the Northwest rack for the area, um, at that time, Ron Centimore was the president of Progressive Village. So I wanted to do a little research and I did. Were you involved at all when between 2013 and 2015, this entire rezoning, the Northwest rack, when this all was basically going through a lot of public input, a lot of work, uh, with a lot of neighborhood, uh, feedback and also again, planning and zoning and commission. I just want to know if you were involved at all back between 2013 and 15, uh, when Ron was the president of the neighborhood association. Yeah, I was involved with the, uh, association, um, uh, from the beginning and, um, his run broke back to us that they would be out on the outside of our community. They will bring up, uh, they're going to change the zoning, but on the inside, they don't supposed to touch. They don't supposed to mess with what they're doing now, what they attempted to do now. And this is what, that's why we're here. Okay. Because I, again, we can all look at these minutes together, but it's sort of not exactly what the record reflects in terms of Ron's testimony, in terms of Ron's support. Ron actually thought that 65 feet was okay. Um, and he also thought 75 feet was okay for commercial, uh, at the time. Um, and he, he did testify to that at, at planning and zoning. And that's why I just want to make sure I didn't know how much you had been involved, but if you go back and you look at those minutes and you look at what he said, um, he was also very pleased with all of the input and all of the reaching out to the neighborhood. So he, he was supportive at that time. Um, and I'm just wondering, well, I wasn't aware of that. Okay. No, I understand, but I want to make sure that you know that that's on the record from when this did happen between 2013 and 2015. Okay. I wasn't aware of that. And, um, we, we, I'm just, we just here cause, uh, we, uh, against what they going to do, want to do and with rezoning. And, and we asking that we, our community doesn't get, get caught up in that because once you rezone that, uh, that, that area, it going to take it, it going to take all the other, it going to move everybody out of the, out of the homes. That's what's going to happen in a period of time. They won't be there. And some may be able not to make it and be falling in line with homeless. Uh, why are people going to be moved on? I was going to ask that. Why are they going to be moved on? Because everything, everything will go up higher, but these are empty lots now, right? Most of them, they enter lots now. No one's being displaced. They bought the lots and not, but, um, they enter lots now. But what, but I, I, I'm trying to say, why are people going to be moved out of their homes? Well, what I'm saying, because once that rezoning is in our community, it's already there. Okay. Okay. I'm talking about what, uh, be rezoned as, uh, uh, M M W Rack. Right. Once, once it's there. Right. Um, then all other developers can come in and buy places and do, do the same thing as it's already been done. Otherwise, no one, but nobody will. So what you're saying to me is that people are going to be getting inflated prices for their property and they're going to move someplace else with the money that they get. That's what you're telling me. Well, the thing is that nowadays, if you, for instance, if they were to buy my, my home, right. And I go somewhere else and back with the property now is very expensive. So I'm going to pay even more tax and whatever on my own, on another piece of property than I am now. Uh, but my whole thing just to, cause I knew we had a lot to do. My whole thing is that, um, we hope not to be rezoned in that, in that particular area there. All around us was fine. We were supported to all of it. They came around all of it, but now they want to take away the, uh, the, the main part, the center part of the resident. Are you saying that it was the vision of the community at the time to allow for the increased density, but it was only intended to be on the periphery of the neighborhood? Yes. Not in the center? Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, JJ. Uh, Brian Perez, followed by Jonathan Nixon, followed by, uh, Goran Dragoslavak. Good evening, mayor commissioners. Yes. Good evening, neighbors. Uh, I'm a neighbor of this community as well. I'm an investor and also, uh, boots on the ground realtor in this area. And what I can tell you is that, you know, uh, trying to help people to move in this community. And we're talking about working class people. It's, it's, it's tough, first of all, because you have a lot of empty lots, a lot of crime going on sometimes in this area, a lot of homeless people. And also, uh, the infrastructure of these homes are already outdated, right? People are not willing to put money into these homes because like it's small investors. We're not talking about big developers here, right? We're not talking about people that are going to be building, you know, like 41 story buildings. We're talking about, you know, five, uh, as, as today, you know, uh, as for right for our MM 25, you have 55 feet and they are asking for 65 feet, which I think it's totally reasonable. It's going to give the option for the neighborhood to redevelop as today. It's impossible for small developers to put money into these slots because, because of the design, it doesn't allow you to maximize the square footage in order to have people to move in, uh, uh, uh, really good cause of living, right? We're trying to move people here to live here within the community. And I'm, I don't have to be, uh, anything to be with this developer or anything. I, I barely know them, but what I can tell you is what, what's going on. And we have to take into consideration how the city is growing. We have fat village going on across the street. We have to thrive our district across the street. So there's no way that in the future, this is not going to happen. This is going to happen no matter what, even the master plan of this city has the option for this to happen in the near future, right? So as today, I think what we're asking for, it's totally reasonable, uh, progressive village, as I mentioned, it's near fat village. And what's, what's going to happen is that once fat village is delivered with the T3 office space, which is the, uh, the office space that it's bringing into the city, we're going to have people coming from New York, from California, from Europe, from South America, and progressive village is going to be one of the main faces of the city. So that's going to be the main impression for all these people that are going to be coming into the city. And I think this reasoning is going to be allowing the small developers, we're not talking about big investors, small developers to redevelop this area, taking into consideration also the neighbors, right? The people that are going to be working in these restaurants, where all these people are going to be working if they, if they work in fat village and they're going to be, you know, driving one hour to leave, you know, abroad the city because they cannot afford them. They don't have reasonable places where to live in this area. So that's why, you know, I'm here to support. Again, I don't have to be, to do anything with the developer, but I, I'm really into the city, you know, uh, I'm part of the chamber of commerce as well. So I, I, I really think that we got to support these, these things. And if it doesn't happen today, it's going to happen within two years, you know? Okay. All right. Thank you. I may, I have a question. So I want, this is important for me because I, I'm going to value your professional opinion on this. The RMM 25, it's been there for a while with no redevelopment. Why, why, what has been the stumbling block with the current zoning that has still left all of these parcels empty and no redevelopment in that area? What, what is your opinion as to why that has been a problem? I'm going to give you a simple example with a single lot, right? If you do two townhouses as today, financially, it doesn't make sense to pay for a lot and to redevelop, you know, two single family homes, right? If you do three, then it makes sense. And the hate is going to be the same. So it's not that you are putting a lot of density into the, into this area, but you are allowing maybe just one more floor that's going to make financial sense for that small developer that's doing in this area. That's going to be the whole situation there. Okay. And I, and I'll also probably ask that question later of some of the team that are presenting the change, but no, I, I appreciate that. Thank you. Cause I, I, that's something I'm struggling with. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh, Jonathan Nixon, Jonathan here, uh, and Goran. Uh, good evening. Um, I'm in support of this up zoning, obviously. Um, the first thing I wanted to do was just acknowledge that Flagler village and I'm, I've been a resident of Flagler village for close to 10 year or the better part of a decade. And I think that Flagler village and fat village are single-handedly one of the best examples of urban design in the entire country. And the city's done a really good job of expanding that. And if you've been here long enough, you've watched the character of what Flagler village was 10 or 15 years ago to what it is today. And my favorite part of all of these new developments coming in as someone who's constantly re-upping a lease and having to rent is every time one of these buildings comes in, um, it just puts that much pressure on all the other buildings to compete, to get me to come in and rent. So my rent hasn't gone up in four years and that's impressive while the rest of the city is still climbing. Um, that said, I also enjoy a lot of the amenities that he was talking about that are surrounding progressive village or yeah, uh, I go to yoga at soul yoga and some of the skin shops and some of the other restaurants and stuff that are over there. But I have a hard time getting a lot of my friends to walk over there with me, especially if they're coming from the North side or the West side of progressive village. And it's more or less because they don't feel safe. It's the character of the neighborhood, especially when it's an after work class or something at when it's dark outside. So I, I think up zoning this and getting this new development to come in is going to be a great opportunity to bring some lights, to develop an empty piece of land that's been there for 25 years or something like that. Um, uh, basically it's going to bring lights, it's going to make it safer and I'd love to see it. I think it's a great opportunity for the city to bring, uh, affordable housing and people who want to be there and want to use all of these small businesses that surround the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you so much. Of course. Thank you. Goran followed by Ms. Chubby. Good evening. My name is Goran Dragoslavik. So, um, I discovered Fort Lauderdale in 1981, spring break of 1981. I fell in love with the city and, uh, I'm originally from old Yugoslavia. Now it's Serbia. If you guys watch basketball or tennis, you would know Serbia. So after discovering Fort Lauderdale in 81, I decided to move and make it my home. And, uh, I seen, uh, a lot of changes here over the years and I, I do not have anything to do with, uh, Arthur's project. I'm not involved in any way. Uh, I just own a lot of properties in the surrounding area, probably 500 properties, uh, in the surrounding area. So, uh, I'm, uh, uh, very pro development and, um, somebody mentioned, uh, streets are darker crime. Uh, I believe by improving development, especially what I seen on the picture, that's the first, uh, I saw the pictures, what is proposed. I strongly support it. And, uh, I believe it will just, it's just natural, uh, growth of Fort Lauderdale. You can't stop it. So you develop Flagler Village, next is Progresso. I mean, uh, sailboat bed. I mean, all the areas will eventually get developed. So it's a matter of time. Is it going to happen tonight at this commission meeting or in the future? You know, I just, uh, I strongly support development. I strongly support, uh, growth of Fort Lauderdale. And I, I love what I seen in past 43 years. I just love this city. So, okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. So before you go, we have a team member from the city from Serbia. So you need to meet him. Okay. His name's Miloš. Look at him. He's from Serbia. Go, go talk to him. Go talk to him. He's got some good stories. Yeah, I will. So, so basically I'm, I'm very pro development and I really don't, I mean, uh, I don't have anything to do with the project. Yeah. If you have a meal with Miloš so eat quickly, um, because he can really eat quickly just so you know. Really? So spring breakers, there is a future for you in Fort Lauderdale. Good evening. Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is Nihara Kachabe. Uh, I'm one of the residents. We moved into nine Oh one about a year and a half, two years ago. Um, and I want to thank JJ for everything he's done for the community. Um, but today I'm here to show my support for the development. Um, I'm here to express that this proposed rezoning, um, in our area will really significantly improve the safety and the overall aesthetic appeal of our community, eliminating unsightly conditions that have persisted for too long. Um, as a new parent, I don't necessarily feel safe walking with my child at night, um, in the streets. There are no sidewalks available sometimes because cars are parked everywhere. There's empty lots where people loiter a lot. So I do think that this development will really, um, help make this community safer based on the proposed plans, um, and improvements that have been presented to us and to you guys today. Uh, we do also need to recognize that we have to move in the direction of progress. And, um, you know, currently, as you guys mentioned, it's already zoned to be 55 feet tall. Adding another 10 feet to me does not really, um, account for a reason for denial, um, of this, you know, uh, rezoning. So I just want to strongly support this. And I think it would be really good for our community and allow new families like myself to move in and feel safe and secure to be able to live in this community. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Question, please. I'm sorry. Um, you live now in a home or another complex that's in the area? Oh, no, I live in 901 Northwest, um, in the community and my husband will speak and he's going to mention this, but we literally live right next. Yes. Yes. And we're literally going to live right next. We live right across from a junkyard. Um, I have called cops in here more than I've called cops in my entire life, probably six, seven times in the past year and a half that we've been here. So I really, really do think we need something to change for there to be more people and newer families who will wait, this isn't fair, but yeah, we live there in the community. Yeah. Thank you, Jacob. Do you want to add to that? Yeah. Thank you. Um, so my name is Jacob below, um, and I am here today with my wife and son, uh, to express our support for the proposed zoning change that would allow this additional, uh, 10 feet, uh, for the new residential building in our neighborhood. Um, as many of you, as many of you know, uh, the current state of progressive village is, um, improving, but there are still are vacant lots and derelict properties across progressive village, um, that have been a source for ongoing issues in the community. Um, has become a dumping ground for trash, attracts vagrants and is plagued by drug dealing and crime. My wife and I moved to this community less than two years ago and joined the progressive village association, uh, PVCA because we saw that the community was, um, slowly, but improving. Our home is currently across from, like my wife said, a literal junkyard, but the PVCA, uh, group had approved a zoning change that is allowing a developer to purchase the land and eventually begin building a residential, uh, building. This gave us confidence that the community would continue to grow. And just like the proposed zoning change, uh, we firmly believe this development project will continue a much needed positive trajectory for progressive village. Yeah, buddy. By allowing, uh, the development, uh, we can address four critical issues, fight blight. Uh, the new building will place a vacant lots, uh, that are currently attracts illegal dumping and other insightly activities. This will help improve the overall appearance and cleanliness of our neighborhood, um, and attracts others to actually want to move in. Um, community growth, the influx of new residents would bring fresh faces and energy to progressive village. Uh, also, I think the PVCA could also use, um, a lot more just people to choose from as well. It'd be awesome to have them a part of the community and to join. Um, complete your thought, complete your thought. Um, also safety and security as well as improving landscaping cleanliness. Um, just all of this, I wanted to say PVCA is an awesome group and has done just recently an awesome job on removing, um, a homeless encampment in the community and has made us much safer. But the only thing I would disagree with is, uh, their decision on this. I think this would just continue to help the community. Um, and, um, that's my time. Thank you. Thank you so much. What's your child's name? Ari. Um, Jason Ross followed by, uh, David Bauer. Could you please push the bottom of your speaker? Great. You guys hear me now? I can hear you. Perfect. Loud and clear. Mayor of commission. My name is Jason Ross. Thank you for hearing from me tonight. Um, I would like to vote, uh, voice my support, um, in this, for this proposed zoning change. Um, if anyone who walks this area at nighttime, they'll realize that it's plagued by homelessness, it's downtrodden. And this development is going to go ahead and help transform the area to a place where there'll be affordable housing, that people will feel safe, they'll feel comfortable, and they'll feel a sense of pride in the area in which they live. We're talking about a modest increase from 55 feet to 65 feet, which in my eyes is slight in the least. And it's just to go ahead and add extra amenities and be able to provide as much benefit as possible to the underlying community. Again, I know many of you have said that you've walked this area and you'll see these areas are vacant lots. They're not going to be displacing anyone. They're actually going to be going ahead and creating more affordable housing to address the housing crisis that Fort Lauderdale and progressive village are currently facing. So in my eyes, as a community member for the last 34 years, I don't find any reason why this should be denied. I actually think it should be encouraged. And I believe that this is going to have a net positive benefit to the community as a whole. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. David, followed by Sheba George. At least I don't have to follow up the baby, but the hard act to follow. Hard act. My name is David Bauer. I'm obviously here in support of the redevelopment. Like many of my predecessors that just came before me mentioned, it is only a slight increase from 55 feet to 65 feet. To reiterate, they are vacant lots. And currently the neighborhood is something that needs some growth potential. While I understand the commission is here obviously against the proposal, growth is coming. And like Goran had mentioned earlier, whether this is passed tonight or whether this is passed in the future, unfortunately, it's going to get passed. One of the questions you asked, the mayor was, why do we want the increase of the 65 feet for the 55 feet? It incentivizes investors and incentivizes more development, right? Because obviously the extra floor is a little bit cheaper to create, a little bit cheaper for the cost of the actual community. Overall, this is a great project. And I really am looking forward to it being passed and being developed. I think it'll bring a lot of benefits to the community, including cheaper affordable housing and areas that can be rented and, you know, for a workplace environment. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sheba, followed by Mo Guizoni. It's hard to read your writing. And followed by Alexander Florence, Guizoni. I've lived in this neighborhood for a few years, and I believe this project will help with the shortage of affordable housing. And because the land is currently vacant and the resident will be, no residents will be displaced. And it's going to improve the aesthetic of the area by improving the streetscape. That's it. All right. Thank you so much, Mo. And you got to tell me how to pronounce your last name. What is that? I know. Well, if you, if you. Hi, Mo Guizoni. Giovanni. Guizoni. Guizoni. If that looks like a G to you. Let's do it one more time. Guizoni. Good. Good evening, Mo. How are you guys? So obviously I'm in support of the project. I'm talking towards the end. It's kind of repetitive. It's touching on all the points everyone has already touched. First, I want to thank pillars like JJ that are actually doing the groundwork and walking and hearing the voices in the community. That's very important. Ultimately, you asked a question to a gentleman earlier regarding why can't you do the 55 feet? You have to do 65 feet. When this was passed years ago, the price of the land was a lot lower. So where 55 feet would make economic sense for a developer to come and build. I'm sure you guys are aware of little things called tariffs and price increases and all of that stuff. So in order for it to make financial sense, it has to be 65 stories. Majority of the projects I come across that got approved three years ago can barely be built nowadays without pushing for live local or anything like that. Affordable housing, cleaner streets, and once this project is passed, hopefully I'm looking forward to JJ actually walking down that street and seeing how this is going to make it a better place and not displace anyone. Thank you. You guys have that. Alexander Florence followed by Tipu Sashi. Good evening, mayor. Good evening, commissioners. Good evening, neighbors. Just start off. I mean, I've lived in a neighborhood progressive village for about five years. It hurts when I keep hearing everybody saying it's unsafe. Okay, because we live there. We go to the meetings. We try. We've been going to George's cleanup. We've been trying super hard with our neighborhood, and I just keep hearing it's unsafe. It's unsafe. Then we hear the affordable housing aspect of it. It's not going to be affordable to the people that already live there. Come on. We know what JJ was saying. This is going to change. More people, more developers are going to buy property. It's going to change. The people that already live there are not going to be able to afford to live there. It's not going to be affordable. How does it change their affordability? I don't understand that. Mary, you came to one of our meetings, and one of our neighbors said, I can't afford to live in my own neighborhood that I've lived here forever. Well, I don't understand that. Why? If you own the property. No, well, I'm not talking about the owners. I'm talking about people that rent there. Oh, renters. Yes, and we have a lot of renters in our neighborhood. I understand that. Okay, because do you think this will drive up the rents? This will remove those people that have rented there for a long, long time. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, you know, our neighborhood right now, everyone keeps saying that we can build to five stories. All right. At the moment, there's three stories. That's the max. Why? Why would we want not only one five-story building in the middle of our neighborhood? Well, six stories, actually. Sorry. Why would we want one six-story building in the middle of our neighborhood? It's not one. It's five. Five massive buildings in the middle of our neighborhood. And it clearly makes no sense when you look at the plan. I know everybody keeps talking about progress, progress, progress. All right. You know, Silbo, Ben, they're not going to want this. Real Vista, they're not going to want this. Why do we want this? We live here. Well, the one thing that I have to understand, you know, there's already zoning for 55 feet. But we don't have any. So why can't they build to five stories? Say it again? Why can't they build to five stories? They're going to make a lot of money off of that. No, but I'm just saying, so you're lamenting the fact that there's a lot of one- and two-story buildings there. But the zoning, the market has now caught up with the zoning. And now the zoning is saying, okay, well, now you can do 55 feet. And this developer wants another 10 feet. So to lament the fact that there's going to be larger buildings than what currently exists there. You're right. I mean, that's been contemplated. The vision was there for the last 30 years. It's just the market is now just catching up with it. So do you want to change the zoning back to one or two stories? I live in a one-story house. Right. Some of the people that have come up here live in a one-story house, and we love it. Right. And you can stay there. No one's staying. Oh, no, no. I'm not saying that someone's going to take it. But we know if somebody bought my house, my house is like five years old. I'm the first owner. Whoever buys it is knocking it down and building a massive building. Okay. So you can still stay there though, right? No one's kicking you out of your house. No, no, no one's kicking me out. No. How long have these lots been empty? I keep hearing empty lots. From what I know, one of them has a building on it with tenants. Okay. But out of the five sites that are being contemplated here, how long have those lots been vacant except for the one you say there's a building on? I don't know the history of that. A couple decades, maybe 30 years. Okay. But what about the people that are already there in the lot that's not empty? Why do they keep getting forgotten? What is Courtney? Hello? Courtney or Jason? What is the building that's on one of the lots? Are we kicking somebody out of their house? Okay. So the property owner is being paid for their property? You have to come to the podium. I can't hear you or see you. It's okay. So I understand there's already a building on one of the five sites? There's two buildings in total, correct? Two buildings? Yes. You know what? Just as soon, as much as I can't see or hear you, you got to be up there when you talk. So yes, eight, and there's a duplex on a portion, and then there are two small buildings on the property today, and I can't get the aerial back up. His property manager lives in one of them for very modest rent month to month. He manages his other properties in the area. So there's just one site that there'll be people who will be displaced, correct? 830 Northwest 3rd is a duplex. The front is vacant. It's been vacant for as long as we've owned it. In the back, we have one person that manages the property, stops, essentially tries to help with dumping issues, and then we have one person that's month to month, and that person signed a support letter, too, for the rezoning. And we have one person in the back of 815 Northwest 2nd Avenue who signed also a letter for the rezoning, and they're just keeping an eye on the empty lots on the north and the south of them. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Courtney. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Just trying to understand all the issues here. Tupu, Tupu, excuse me. Tupu, excuse me. Tupu Sashi, followed by Carla Roundtree, followed by Kelly Russell. Tupu. Tupu, correct. Good evening, Commission. My name is Tupu Sashi. I moved into the neighborhood in 2017. I'm here today to voice my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning from RMM25 to the Northwest RAC. Approving this request would be an egregious error, both in principle and in practice. I've taken several notes, which I'm trying to just pull it out for you. In review of the Northwest RAC, it was developed in the spirit of developing the Sistronk and Andrews corridors. Progressive Village has continually voted to approve all projects that have been brought to the forefront regarding that kind of rezoning, and we're looking forward to more and more development along the way. Another thing that I want to note was this applicant currently owns other properties to the south that have already been zoned within the Progressive Village, and those still have yet to be developed, and we're looking forward to those coming in the future. Our main issue with this currently is that it's being developed immediately in the center of the neighborhood. Therefore, we're seeing it as spot zoning, and the whole character and fabric of the neighborhood gets lost immediately. So we kindly request in that regard you avoid it. And everyone seems to be focusing on height right now. I want to focus on density. Currently, RMM25 only allows you 25 units per acre. This is a 1.5 acre site, therefore allowing the applicant 37 and a half units. With the new rezoning, they get unlimited density. The only thing that's kind of keeping them at bay would be parking in this situation. With this new rezoning, it's pretty much unlimited, and we already have many traffic concerns and parking concerns within the neighborhood. I'll leave it at that. All right. Well, my understanding is that they're 15 units per building, so that's five buildings and 75 units then, and you're saying that under the current zoning, they're only allowed 37 units? 37 and a half units. Yeah, correct. Okay. All right. And we currently also have multiple projects going on in the neighborhood, which are single-family houses as well as duplexes and townhomes currently under construction, so therefore it is feasible to somebody. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Carla Roundtree, followed by Kelly Russell, followed by Patrick Berger. Patrick, are you connected with the developer? Would you come from Pompano Beach? Okay. We'll hear your story in a minute. Carla, two minutes. At the bottom of the speaker. There you go. There you go. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Commissioner. I have lived in Progressive Village for 25 years. When Ron came up and was just starting our neighborhood, we were told, I don't know what he was told to you all, but when he came to our committee, he was saying that things were redeveloped around Andrews, Sunrise, and Six Strong, with some areas coming in toward First Avenue and Fifth Avenue, because I, the developer on Fifth Avenue, you know, Thrive Market area, it's coming along. My point is, everyone that's saying to support it, where is the data that shows the area, the market, rental, vacancy, turnover. In our economy, I looked at, there was three websites that shows the data for the Central Fort Lauderdale area, and the rate in housing market is not sustainable with all this construction that's being developed. I'm like, can they, can you, I tried to look on your website to show me what is the statistics for all the constructions and the people that are moving in, and for, for the past five years, what has been the turnover? I've lived there, and some people who are saying support it don't live in the area. I've walked the area, it's safe. Every person, every, almost every person that spoke so far tonight, except, except the developer, lives in the area. Okay, besides that road, then it was like three or four people that's been moved in the area, like three, three or five years. Okay, my time is up, but if the city can show me statistics, statistics, to support the rental, the turnover, and vacancy rate from the constructions that's happened in the past five years, I would appreciate it. Well, but right now, I do not support this. Well, let me just say this. It's really not the city's responsibility to determine the viability of a project. It's the investor who makes that market research and makes the decision whether or not to invest in a community and to determine whether or not it's going to be successful. You know, we would, I would imagine that this particular developer would have done the market research and would have believed that by wanting to go forward with this, that his investment dollar is going to be successful and not going to be a failure, right? Okay, so you said developers. So I have Matthews Real Estate Investment Service, Markets and Milchip Investment Service, and what's that? Winchip from July 2025. What their statement to September 2025, the market area and the range is saying for class A, quarter one and quarter two, it is expected to remain elevated more than what's the area in there. So we're seeing, we have more construction for the people who are living in, who are moving into the area. They're building all these units, but they don't have the people to support it. And unless you can show me some data. Well, let them worry about that. Okay, well, I'm seeing for our area. Yeah. I don't see the data that show with the construction that we will have for the people that. And I don't see affordable things. So I'm against it. Thank you. Gotcha. Kelly Russell, is Kelly here? Kelly, followed by Patrick Berger, followed by Edgar Sains from Homestead. Is Edgar here? From Homestead. Okay. Wow. Hello, everyone. Thank you. My name is Kelly Russell. I'm here in support of the rezoning. I oversee Airbnb in the neighborhood of Progresso Village. And I get cancellations not long after a check-in. And I think that's clear that even though it's in a wonderful location close to all the things that we love in the city of Fort Lauderdale, it's also shows really great. The house is adorable. But we'll get cancellations because people don't feel comfortable, I would say, especially at nighttime. I personally don't want to walk around with my kids in the middle, you know, later in the evening. And so with that, I think with this project and what it can do for the neighborhood and breathe fresh life into the neighborhood, I'm definitely for it. Thank you. Thank you so much. Patrick. Good evening, everyone. So I'm in favor of the increase in the zoning height from 55 to 65 feet. I've lived in Fort Lauderdale and surrounding area of Broward County, you know, for the last 20 years of my life. And, you know, I really like what's been going on with the new developments in the area. Being a renter myself, you know, I really think we need more housing in the area, especially east of town where it's, you know, gotten very dense recently with the population. And as many of the other previous speakers mentioned, you know, with the surrounding area, you know, additional affordable housing and many of the other points not to be repetitive. I think it's a good idea to move forward. All right. Well, thank you so much. Thank you. Edgar Sands, followed by Sophia Allen, came a long way to talk tonight. Oh, you happen to be passing through? Okay. Yeah, actually coming down from Delray. But you live in, you live in Homestead? Yes, I moved there three years ago. Okay. So what are your thoughts on this? Well, my thoughts is that it's a great idea. I'm here to support the rezoning of the property. I'm here as a realtor and a property manager that has direct experience and challenges with the opportunity and have the opportunities that the area presents. I believe that this project is a critical step towards improving the community safety, stability, and overall quality of life. Based on my professional experience in the area, I have personally observed several issues that the rezoning project will help mitigate. The rezoning of the development enables and directly addresses the ongoing problems such as high crime, unsatisfactory environmental conditions, illegal dumping, homelessness, and public intoxication, high tenant turnover, which is a big problem for investors who rent their units there, unsafe living conditions, and the lack of affordable housing. And just the other day, you know, the, the renters that occupy that area contribute to the illegal dumping because I was walking the street and I see a pile of furniture and garbage on one of the vacant lots. So I stopped to open up the garbage and I end up calling code enforcement because the people who live on that street are the ones that are actually contributing to the illegal, the illegal dumping of the, of the neighborhood, which creates, you know, it's not good for the eye or anybody living there. Especially when you have piled the garbage and you go walking at night, you don't know who's hiding behind that garbage or what's going to happen to you or your kid if you're, if you're walking with a child. Now, by supporting this rezoning, you're not just approving a development. You're investing in, in a safer, more stable, and more prosperous future for the entire community. This project will transform a liability into a community asset, creating a ripple effect of positive change. I urge you to approve this application and allow the beneficial project to move forward. Thank you for your time and your service to the city. Thank you so much. I have a question for you, um, move away from the podium. Um, you and, um, several other individuals have stated, um, that you're walking at night. It's unsafe to walk at night. What time of night are you walking? Well, let's see, I was there at about nine o'clock to address a property concern about two months ago. And when I was inside the unit, my car was broken into. I've had a person, I rented a unit where the person rented for six months and was month to month. And I don't know the exact story, but they ended up moving overnight. And as representing investors and renters, you know, you want to have long-term tenants. You know, people think about all the rents. People think about, oh, if, uh, they buy me out, I'm not going to be able to pay taxes somewhere else. No, if you own your house and you have homestead exemptions, you do portability and your taxes ain't going to increase. But you have the good homeowners that want to protect their houses. But the majority, when you look at the statistics and what's being presented, the, the, the, the majority that's occupying the space are renters. So. But what's the difference? You're talking about bringing in more renters. I, I understand. But, but when you, when you rebuild, when you change, when you ride the trees, the lighting, the better structure, the, the neighborhood changes. I've seen it in Opalaka when I managed in 2017. Yes. I managed. Everything changes. From 135th to 142nd. Everything changes. A community that has been, um, thank you. I'm not going to go there right now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Sophia followed by, um, Arthur and David Bartholomew. If you want to, still want to speak. Good evening. Good evening. I'm mic check. Okay. There we go. I was like, thank you. First of all, I wanted to thank you all for your time. I know these are, um, sensitive information and, uh, valuable to our residents here. I just want to thank you for your service. Uh, my name is Sophia Allen. Um, I am, I recently moved to plantation, but I am a foreign resident of Flagler village in this area. I'm born and raised Broward County. I was born in Broward general down the street. I've lived here my entire life. Um, I think the main concern and first, another foremost, I want to thank JJ for his service. Just hear the amount of years that you invested in this community is very honorable. And I think one of the main concern is, is losing our culture and our history of what the area has provided. And I don't think this project has anything to do. That's going to affect that. In fact, I think it's going to increase it. Um, I've actually walked with the, uh, owner to door knock on the different doors and they're right. A majority of them are renters, but the owners that we were able to speak with within the last two weeks, we spent two weekends back to back knocking at as many doors as we can just to get some feedback and some responses of the project and what they expect. And a lot of them did come and say they felt unsafe. Um, I'm like I said, I'm born and raised from here. So I don't, I don't understand that feeling because I don't live there a hundred percent in the way that they have. And especially when that they are raising family and children. Um, it is a concern. Um, I don't think this project has any intentions of pushing anyone out. I think in retrospect, they want to enhance the community and, um, bring some more landscaping, some more lighting, some more earth. If you were walking there right now at this time, which is not, it's nine o'clock, it is pretty dark. It doesn't have the same feel. If you were to step right across that street on, on Broward or even closer to sunrise that it has, it's, it's darker. So, um, I am very much in support of this project mainly because of what I've been hearing from the actual owners that live there. They want to see the improvements and they want to see the advancement of the community. Thank you. All right. Great. Thank you so much. Arthur Bartholomew followed by David. You're good. Yeah. Okay. Um, so miss, uh, Courtney, you want to wrap this up? Give you a minute or two before Courtney comes back. If JJ can come back up for a moment, cause I'm, it's on my understanding that there was a petition that was signed through your association. Is that correct? JJ, you want to come up to the microphone? Press. It's on. It's on. If you could share with us about that petition, um, numbers, you should, you talked about it a little bit, but where did your numbers land with support or non-support? Uh, for non-support, a total of 85, um, to sign the petition. Uh, and before that, uh, when they deferred the, the meeting for, uh, commission meeting with here again, um, it was 74, 73, I'm sorry. And then I went back out and I could have got more, but the rain just kept me going out, but it was 85 total. Okay. All right. And so 85 knocks and how many overall total that was on your petition? Yes or no. So I have 85 and 73. Is that one petition or two separate? I got, I got, uh, seven pages, seven pages. Yes. And one of the pages is not full, I think, which is the six page cause I thought I had put numbers already on them and they wouldn't fill in. So I had started a new page. So I couldn't change it, you know, cause they already don't sign it. Uh, but it was, it was a total of, uh, uh, not to rezone. Uh, it was 85. Thank you for that clarity. Courtney, before you begin, because I, I wanted to dovetail on commissioner Beasley Pittman's question about petitions, because I looked at, I looked at the petitions that JJ, um, submitted. And then I also looked at the packet that you submitted of folks that express support for the project. So there is some duplication. So there, there is commissioner glass. So help me with this because people sign petitions saying they oppose people sign petitions saying they support. Yes. So can you please help me? Did you analyze these petitions at all or take a look at JJ's and yours? And what were your findings? And in referring to JJ's, I, that was the petition attached to the letter that was sent to the commission. Okay. Yes. Um, so with, yes, I did look at, um, those who signed, there are nine conflicting letters. So for nine of the properties, we have support letters from the property owner and the tenants, um, have with the exception of one, one does not seem to be a tenant. So anyway, the property owner signed the letter of support and it appears the tenants signed JJ's petition. Were there multiple people at same addresses at either yours or JJ's petitions? Cause I'm seeing some. Not, um, not, not on our petition. We did one per property with respect to JJ's. So for example, on the owner's property, I think there are 18 property owners who signed, cause I can check that on BCPA and there were 28 signatures for those 18 people. So it was multiple per household. I'm less able to, um, verify, verify that there's the, yes, it seems like people, multiple people on a household side. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry for interrupting, but thank you. No, and thank you for the final comments you'd like to make. I would mayor. Um, thank you. Um, as we discussed the Northwest regional activity center, um, was created and expressly included this entire area, the RMM 25 properties here, the industrial properties, and there was, um, fulsome discussion of the inclusion. The city did not, um, at least at the public hearings discuss, should we remove certain properties at the center? In fact, it was, um, made one land use category, a regional activity center talking about the need for redevelopment at different scales in advance of crafting zoning districts and the, um, residential areas are mentioned, um, in the, uh, plan as well as the land use elements and ultimately the zoning as well as the industrial, the city as discussed in 2014 and 15, then decided to craft zoning districts that it found appropriate and therefore compatible with certain areas. And for the Northwest regional activity center area here, uh, ultimately adopted to the Northwest rack M U N E, which the city, um, took the initiative to start the rezoning along Andrews Avenue, um, commenting that individual property owners were considered much more intense. The discussion creating the rack M U N E, um, is lower intensity. It is, it allows more units based on a form-based code. I know there were comments a little bit about giant buildings. The five buildings that Arthur is sharing are 15, could, could accommodate 15 units each. And there are 7,000 square foot floor plate. I mean, there are homes that a single family home. These are not giant buildings with parking podiums. Um, so there was discussion over years, um, leading up to 2014 consideration by the planning and zoning board and the adoption in 2015 about, is this in furtherance of the Northwest rack land use, the CRA plan, and are we implementing just when you change your land use, um, and mayor, you commented, if you want change, do it, you know, it may be appropriate to consider, but when you make the significant change to create a regional activity center, you are, um, uh, almost required ultimately to find a rack zoning that, um, that would, that would be appropriate in that regional activity center. And the city did do that. We, in filing the application chose the lower intensity, um, multi-family accommodating zoning district and implementing this will allow the vision for that came out of the Northwest rack land use, the zoning, and also the, um, CRA plan to go forward to providing appropriately scaled appropriately intense residential units, um, in buildings that are architecturally interesting, modest, modest in terms of scale, complementary to the surrounding areas without adverse impacts and implement the streetscape and infrastructure that is a critical component of a CRA plan. And with that, mayor, we would very much appreciate the commission, um, approve the rezoning. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Courtney, one last question. I apologize. So how many years have these process been vacant? Are you aware of that? I, we reviewed the Broward County aerials is, uh, excuse me, Google earth aerials going back to, as far as 2003, uh, the block in which Arthur's property sits is essentially the same. It looks like at the Northwest tip, there was a duplex that burned down, but there has not been any new development. I know there have had been approved site plans on these properties, but they, um, did not get built and lapsed. So more than 20 years. Correct. So I have a question for you. So, and I'll ask you the same question that I asked the gentleman who's a realtor and, um, deals in these issues as well. Why is Arthur not able to redevelop these empty parcels with the RMM 25? Um, in part, it's the RMM 25 cap on density that that's, you know, that's something that, um, doesn't financially pencil out. And I think the, seeing the last 20 plus years of vacancy and seeing the discussion of, I mean, the properties have been RMM 25 for decades and part of the discussion in creating the Northwest regional activity center acknowledged the RMM 25, um, had some, had areas of blight. Um, I'm glad people are trying to improve the area continuously, but that it needed a little more, um, needed to have more people, not hundreds of units per acre, but, you know, needed to have more. Have any projects in the last 20 years been developed, um, with the RMM 25 zoning? On Los Olos Isles. Well, I mean, in progress though. Not to my knowledge. Okay. Thank you. And Courtney, how long has the current, um, property owner have possession of this land? We're saying they've been vacant for 20 years. How long have they owned the property? I will verify, I will verify that with Arthur. Um, he, he purchased the property from the, um, the person who had the townhouse property approved on him. Okay. So 2012 was the first parcel, less than two years for the two properties on third and the property that burnt down less than a year. Thank you. You're welcome, Commissioner. Um, Mayor, um, if I can, um, this conversation has been very, um, intense tonight for me. The conversation where I keep hearing, um, a neighborhood is unsafe, where you have people who lived in their communities for decades, raised their children in their, in these communities. And understanding that change is upon us, but I have a problem when, um, people come in and they disregard the temple of the community. You now own the property. You do have liberty to build and do what, um, is allowed through, um, zoning and even asking for different zoning to happen. The breakdown of a community shouldn't happen. It should not happen. It's encroaching. It's coming in. It's coming. And you say, we're not pushing anybody out. It happens. You may not realize it or even want to admit it, but it happens. We who live in these communities, we watch it year after year, day after day. And to not be able to truly have a conversation to say also, what would you like to see in this community? And then to hear affordable housing, affordable to who one individual said, we're going to do this and we're going to, it's going to invite individuals to come from New York, out of the country, other places. What about the people that live in the community who love the community, our third generation community? So what I'm saying with this, with what's going forward, you are in your liberty to ask for this zoning to occur. But what I'm asking you to do for this community, have another conversation with them. See what could be done to include them and make sure that they are not excluded. What I'm doing in my district, this is not my district. However, we're connected. As it was said, this was one time district three, it's been zoned district two. There are communities, families that have been here since 1914. Okay, we got connection. So whatever it takes to make this happen, take the extra step. Ownership does not always give you the privilege to do what you want to do. Okay? So with that being said, that's all I'm going to say. But it had to be said. From my point of view, it had to be said. Thank you for willing to come in to purchase, but also with that intention, make sure that you connect with the community. Thank you. Anyone else on the Commissioner wish to speak? Yes. Thanks, ma'am. Oh, wait. Before you do that, do I hear a motion to close public hearing? So moved. Moved. Seconded. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis. Yes. And public hearing is now closed on that item. Okay. Further discussion. District Commissioner. I understand what Commissioner Beasley-Pittman is saying, but I do want to make it clear so that people are not misunderstanding that the owners of this property have not been working with the community. I would say that's the furthest thing from the truth. I know that the conversations have been going on for maybe two years already, two years of meetings with everybody, lots of dialogue with everybody. This item was even deferred already because I actually asked the developer if they would go back and talk with JJ's board and have further conversation. So I just don't want anyone to have the impression that conversation has not happened or that dialogue has not happened or that the development team has not had the respect for the neighborhood because I don't think that that's true. And I just want to make sure that that's not the impression that people have. And I'll leave it at that. But I have other questions that I wanted to ask about the project. I have questions I want to ask of staff in terms of zoning. So however you want to handle this. Go ahead. Okay. So first of all, I would like to know, because Commissioner Beasley-Pittman did touch upon affordable housing, but we haven't heard anything about the rentals or what makes this affordable housing. So if anyone can address that for me, I don't know. I know this is not a site plan approval from staff, but perhaps if someone from the team could talk about that aspect of this project, I'd like to hear that. Um, so that I feel a little bit more comfort in knowing that we're not looking at just bringing in folks from New York or wherever, but we're actually looking, uh, not to make New York to make sure careful, uh, that we're not, uh, that we're not trying to have anyone else other than folks, uh, from the neighborhood and the city be able to live here. By the way, are you able to put up that slide where you had that streetscape project of, uh, I'm sorry, the streetscape of the project. Commissioner Glassman, it's on my screen. I think that would be someone on. So I know a lot of, um, speakers spoke to affordable, um, by even if not, um, restricted or classified as affordable. Um, Arthur projects that, um, rents, market rate rents, um, would be significantly lower. And he, I asked him to do a comparison to, um, Flagler village. So for example, where they have studios going for $2,100, he would expect 1600 or 1700, you know, correspondingly. In addition to that, um, Arthur would be willing to cap or restrict a certain number of units to fall within the, um, state statute definition of affordable. By the way, I think the studio, um, at that price point is actually meets the definition of affordable based, based on the 2025 incomes and maximum rents. So, so I'm sorry, go ahead. So he, he, he, in, in his market projections are that today, um, the units will be under the city and state's definition of affordable. And we're looking for studios, one bedroom and two bedroom. What are we looking at? Um, because they're not fully designed, we just did the price point. So we did studio one bedroom, two bedroom, and he also, um, got the data, um, from Flagler village for a three bedroom, which in case anybody wants to know is $4,500 a month. And what are you projecting? He would say, um, 3000 for a 1200 square foot. Okay. So the pricing is definitely much more affordable than neighboring Flagler village. Correct. Okay. So that, that's helpful. Are we able to have a, um, streetscape shot? One of your slides had a streetscape of the project. Certainly commissioner. This one? No, the one with the building more. Yes. Thank you. If you could just leave that up there. Thanks. Certainly commissioner. Um, okay. So thanks. So my other questions then are for staff. Yeah. And as I indicated commissioner, if, if the, um, the affordable or the tier, whether it's 80 is something that, um, the city would like to discuss. Well, uh, Arthur would be happy to discuss it with the CRA about having a certain number of units at a certain AMI. So that would come back when, um, we'll see how this goes tonight, but then if that does come back as a site plan, that's when we can have that discussion about affordability. Yes, commissioner. Excellent. So we'll make a note and I'll remind you. Is this, um, you mentioned CRA is, is there, is there a plan to request funding from CRA? Um, I think I, I apologize, commissioner. I was thinking I, um, of, um, streetscape because we had also, okay. Arthur and I had also been discussing infrastructure and could streetscape be enhanced. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Right. But the project itself is no CRA funding. Correct. Well, again, we're just talking about zoning tonight. Correct. Yeah. Let's just keep, keep. No, I understand. Okay. But I mean, they have not applied to CRA. Yeah. We're not here tonight. I understand. And I respect that. I just heard CRA and I wanted to get clarity. Thank you. Thank you. So would it be Chris or Ella or Anthony or whoever, or all three? Can you? Thank you. Okay. So first question. So I, I do rely on the advice of my appointees on boards, and I, I don't really tell them what to do when they meet, but, um, this was an interesting case at planning and zoning. And I, I did pick their brain after, um, both of my appointees on planning and zoning supported the up zoning for here. Um, so I asked them why after, as recently as last night on my district two pre-agenda meeting, I asked them to expound on the reasoning for supporting us. So, um, I, I did see though, in the minutes of planning and zoning, and I need your opinion on this. Um, there were two dissenting opinions on planning and zoning, um, because they, they expressed concern for how the uses permitted by the requested zoning district would be compatible with surrounding uses and zoning districts while preserving the integrity of the existing residential neighborhood. Um, so can you just discuss that a little bit for me and tell me how you feel about those two dissenting votes, um, about those uses being permitted, um, how that would be not compatible with the surrounding area and also the zoning district and not preserve the integrity of the neighborhood residential neighborhood. So commissioner Anthony for harder director of development services. So typically with a form-based code, the uses become almost background to the design of the building. The idea being that you, you design, you have design standards in your ordinance or in your master plan that dictate how the building not only looks, but how it functions in relation to the surrounding areas. So for instance, in our current ordinance for the Northwest rack, we have transition zones built in for neighboring properties, that type of thing. Having said that those, some of those uses were anticipated to be closer to the railroad tracks, which is, was part of the discussion that Mr. Centimore was in when we did this back in 2014, 2015. Um, it's my understanding that the applicant isn't proposing any of those uses. So it could be something that is deed restricted as, as D Wayne stated. But again, form-based codes are really designed so that the uses kind of fall to the backside of, of, of the concerns because it's really about the design of the building and how that dictates what can function there. Okay. So you don't agree with the two dissenting concerns of the, on planning and zoning? It's not that I don't agree with the concern. I understand the concern, but, um, just using typical planning practices and Ella, correct me if I'm saying anything wrong. Uh, those wouldn't be as much of a concern for us as, as I think they illustrated in their conversation during the meeting. Okay. Thank you. So I want to take a look at the review criteria, because to me, this also boils down to, you know, let's look at what's being requested here. Let's look at ULDR section 47 dash 24.4 D because that for me is the crux of the matter. So I need to have a comfort level, um, in terms of how you opine on, on these three criteria. Uh, the first one being the zoning district is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Yeah, that's, that's a basic analysis for any rezoning. It has to be consistent per the state statute. Otherwise we would not be able to rezone it. Okay. So you feel it is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, consistent, uh, rack land use. The second item of the review criteria that the changes anticipated by the proposed rezoning will not adversely impact the character of development in or near the area under consideration. So again, in this case, you have a development that could go 10 feet taller than what's surrounding it. And we did bake into the master plan, those transition areas in the development. So that if it's directly budding something that has a lower scale, you have to set it back a little bit further. You can only go up to a certain height before you have a step back requirement, and then you can go up higher past that. And it's, I think it's 45 feet. So if you look at this, uh, rendering, I know it's conceptual, any issues that are glaring to you, or do you feel that, um, it will not adversely impact the character? It's really difficult to base that assessment on just this rendering. This is the first time I'm seeing it. And I don't think staff analyzed it. And what I'm looking at doesn't really give me an idea of how the other areas address those kind of transition areas. So it'd be hard for me to say whether it does or it doesn't. That's definitely fair. Um, last item, the character of the area proposed is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zoning district and is compatible with surrounding districts and uses. So again, um, going back to that discussion about the form based codes and how they're intended to function and, and protect the, the, the character of the area and the other uses that are already established there, it does meet that criteria per our standards. Okay. Thank you. Uh, let's look at comprehensive plan consistency. So the Northwest rack designation is intended to encourage redevelopment and expansion of employment and housing opportunities within the area while enhancing the existing and proposed mix of uses and character of the Northwest rack with a wide range of employment, shopping services, cultural and residential opportunities, and a mixture of residential and non residential uses. So do you see that consistency here with the comprehensive plan? We believe that zoning does support that. And I would also say that when it comes to active uses of the ground floor, it can also be walk up units. It doesn't have to be. So if commercial doesn't work there, we would happily look at a walk up residential unit or series of units as an activation of the street frontage. Okay. And when I look at the proposed uses that we could see if we do change the zoning. Um, so when a site plan eventually comes to staff, uh, do you take a look at any kind of uses that are proposed, whether they be conditional uses, permitted uses, and then opine on that or how much of a hand do you have in what eventually might come back to us as the uses, uh, at the mixed uses? Uh, typically only if it's conditional or has some other criteria that would allow us to provide that. I mean, we do provide feedback on the entire product project. Um, sometimes regardless of what the ordinance actually says, but, uh, you know, at some point I've heard, yes, I hear about it all the time. Uh, so, but at some point, you know, we do have to come to terms with the fact that the ordinance is the ordinance and what's allowed is what it's what's allowed. So, but you know, if, if a developer is coming into a single family neighborhood and trying to put in a very intensive use, we would want to have a conversation with them about why they're doing it there. And even though the ordinance may allow for it, what can we do to mitigate it? Understood. And last question for you, and I appreciate this. Um, I am very focused now also on the underlying future land use designation of this Northwest RAC. That to me is very key here when we're looking at whether we are going to support this or not. What are your, what are your thoughts about that? And how do you see the underlying future land use designation of this RAC in terms of what's being proposed tonight? So at some point in the distant past, the city made a determination. This area was a location they wanted to focus attention on to have it redeveloped. And the change of the land use was that first step into that. And then since then there have been studies and reports and then this whole effort that we did with the Northwest Regional Activity Center rezoning. And we always did struggle with how we're going to deal with the areas that were off the corridors. When you look at the zoning lines, they're not always easy to manipulate to make it a clean break between one zoning distance to the other. There was a lot of concern from the residents in the area over being displaced and the character of these neighborhoods. So when we adopted it in 2015, that was part of that discussion. And we had taken the stance at that point with the city commission support that it would be an ad hoc review for each rezoning as we're looking at the entire area. Because we didn't, we knew we could easily do it off the corridors because there's a zoning line that makes sense. But when you start getting to the areas, it generated more concern and more discussion. So the idea then was to create this ad hoc approach. Okay. No, thank you. I appreciate both of you for that. Um, and may I have some final comments later before we vote, but right now in terms of getting information that I need from staff and development team, I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Anyone else have any questions or comments of staff? Yeah, mayor. I do. Thanks. Um, thanks Anthony and Ella. Um, question on what was mentioned about, um, and I know we're not going to get under the weeds on this today because this is just zoning, but the idea of capping as a percent of AMI for units, what, so what would happen next if the commission approved this, what happens next and when would that discussion happen? That's probably something more for the city attorney's office. I mean, Wayne, we, in terms of like AMI for units, we don't have a program in this area that really fits cleanly into that because we don't have an incentive for affordable units other than live local. And right. Well, and I don't even know if you can use live local here and some parking, but, um, yeah, I mean, it would have to be an agreement with the, with the developer and the applicant. Okay. So do you, and how does that, I, if I heard right, I heard the applicant saying, hey, we're open to the idea of cap capping units or some units or a lot of units at in, in workforce housing, affordable housing percent of AMI? How does that? So as Anthony suggested that usually we have development agreements or agreements that deal with affordable housing, but that's tied to some incentive that the city is providing the developer. Um, we have issue and with, you know, regards to imposing certain conditions that are not tied to any, uh, direct impacts that we're trying to address from the project itself. Um, typically the developers, when they, they hear these kinds of concerns from, uh, the commission will proffer to enter into a development agreement or, or enter into some kind of instrument or execute some kind of instrument. Um, putting those types of restrictions on the property, but in terms of the limitation of the, um, the, the types of units and the, um, the affordability of the units, it would have to be through some kind of a development agreement. Okay. Great. Thanks. Any feedback or reaction to that? Commissioner Sorenson, uh, the Arthur would be happy to have a conversation about doing a certain number of units by a development agreement. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Um, so commissioner up a kind of, I guess that would be a, uh, defer to you on that possibility. As I said earlier, we, that's a conversation for a little bit later on the road. If, if this all happens tonight, that's the next step. Okay. Great. Thank you. Great. Uh, thank you, D Wayne. Thank you. Thank you, staff mayor. That's all I had. Great. Any, any, any other questions or comments? Okay. There being none. Uh, so at this point, um, I guess, does someone want to, um, a second, let's, uh, someone like to introduce the ordinance. Introduce. The ordinance has been introduced. This is to approve, vice mayor. Yes. Okay. So there's an, uh, there's a, um, I will say a motion has been, uh, an offer to introduce the ordinance of PH one to approve the rezoning from residential multifamily, mid rise, uh, medium, high density to Northwest regional activity center, mixed use East district. Um, please call the roll. And ordinance cementing section 47 dash one point six point B of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida unified land development regulations through the revision of the official zoning map of the city of Fort Lauderdale and schedule a revised compilation attached thereto by reference made a part thereof. So is the result from residential multifamily, mid rise, medium, high density district to Northwest regional activity center, mixed use, East districts, all of lots 12 through 19 inclusive and lots 30 through 41 inclusive block two 61 progressive according to the plot thereof as recording in plot book two page 18 at the public records of Dade County, Florida located the south of Northwest ninth street, east of Northwest third Avenue, west of Northwest second Avenue and north of Northwest eighth street, all said lands being the city of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Vice mayor Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. So, uh, before I vote, I, I just want to add a couple of comments, mayor. I hope you indulge me in that and it won't take long. Um, but I, again, as I said earlier, this is a tough one for me. Um, I want to thank JJ and those that spoke from the neighbor association. I don't usually, I don't think I ever remember finding myself in a situation where I'm actually not going to support, um, the board's opinion on an item in front of us. And that's difficult for me. Um, but I want you to know why, um, I understand everything you're saying. I understand all of your concerns, but I've also listened to other voices in the neighborhood and I've been hearing those voices for a while now in the neighborhood. I think we have made amazing progress in progressive village. I think that what we've seen happen in the neighborhood, what we've seen happen both residentially and also commercially, um, with regards to projects like whether it's his trunk marketplace that came a while ago or the thrive project or even housing opportunities. Um, but there's something missing still. Um, JJ knows very much how difficult it was to work on Northwest, 920 Northwest 2nd Avenue. What a nightmare that has been that parcel because of an absentee landlord, empty parcel, uh, homeless encampments. Uh, we've had to struggle with that. Dwayne has had to help, um, with trying to take over the property. Um, there've been a lot of struggles like that. A lot of instances over the time that I've been sitting here, uh, where we, we keep striving to do what's best for the neighborhood. Uh, but there are always obstacles. So what I see happening here with this, with this rezoning is an opportunity to go to the next level. I think that we need to do this, uh, because it's obvious, uh, because it's obvious that the current zoning is not working or else we would have seen that redevelopment at that current zoning level. It's just not financially feasible or we would be seeing it. Um, I really do believe that the rezoning while adding the 10 feet and also some of the uses, um, will make a big difference. Um, I actually was hoping when we had this deferred that there'd be more conversation with the neighborhood, but I still think we can have those conversations because when this comes back as a site plan, I want to see what the developer can do in terms of even increasing the footprint of the streetscape improvements that we see. Um, I love the idea of more lighting. I love the idea of more landscaping. I love the idea of wider sidewalks. Um, so I think that we can do that and I think we can maybe even go above and beyond what we're looking at now on the slide and also what is just geared towards the site plan when it comes back to us. Um, for those reasons, I am going to support this item, um, because I just think it's the next logical step in getting the neighborhood to the point where we're even more pleased than we are now. Um, and I do see this coming. And as some speakers said, if it's not coming now, it will come down the road. Um, but let's do it now. Uh, because again, it's not so egregious. I mean, there are some parts of our district, district two, that would laugh at a, at an argument over 10 feet or 55 versus 65 feet. You know what I'm talking about. And it's kind of interesting to have this conversation, uh, where yet it is troubling to people. And yet I understand that it's troubling to people. Um, but I, I'm cautiously optimistic that this is going to work out. Um, and I'm willing to take that try to, to make it work out. Um, and that's why at the end of the day, um, I know I'm not going to make a lot of people happy, but I don't know how many that is, but I hope you understand the reasons why I'm doing this. Uh, because my, my really emotional reaction to this is I want to see this neighborhood prosper. I want to see this neighborhood be everything that it can be. You know, district two is an amazing district. Um, I mean, we have every demographic you can think of. We have every economic status that you can think of. We have every, we are so culturally diverse. We are so ethnically diverse. We are economically diverse. Uh, we go from everything from the Las Solas Isles all the way to power line and sunrise, uh, bordering Wilton matters. We have, you name it, we have it in district two. And that's the beauty of representing a district like this. Uh, and some neighborhoods need more love and attention than other neighborhoods in my district. Um, and I, again, I'm so thrilled at what we've been able to accomplish in progressive village. Uh, but this is a part of district two that still needs to see some extra attention, some extra energy and some extra effort. Um, and I just think that this is going to get us there. So Arthur and your team, uh, please, um, if this moves forward tonight and we come back as a site plan, let's continue to work with the neighborhood. Let's see everything that we can do, uh, to make this work and to make people feel, um, that they're being listened to, uh, and that we're doing what really is in their best interest. And that's all I have to say. And I'm, I'm voting. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? No. Commissioner Sorensen? Yeah. Um, so, uh, JJ and Mr. Flo, just a suggestion is that the, I think the opportunity to have a development agreement that was offered to cap rents and have them present AMI to ensure affordability is worth pursuing. Um, so I just commend you to that with the developer, um, to, I think, make this work, um, well. So, uh, I vote yes. Yes. And Mayor Trent House. Uh, I'm going to vote yes, because we're not voting on this building tonight. We're voting on possibilities. And my understanding, and as I've studied the regional activity center, uh, zoning, it requires much more sophisticated, um, uh, attention to setbacks, to landscaping, to a lot of, uh, components of neighborhood development that the current zoning does not allow for. So I'm just voting tonight for the change of zoning. I'm not voting for any building. Um, that requires a continual conversation. So, um, to that extent, I vote yes. Yes. And so the, um, the item is approved. Yeah. The item is approved. Okay. You look at me like, uh, you saw a ghost. Don't look at me that way, David. Mayor, I'd, uh, ask for an agenda, just a movement and a, uh, I'm going to do that. Oh, you're going to do that. Okay. For OFR, Oh, OFR2. OSR2. Sorry. OSR2. Is it OSR2? Is that okay? Yeah. Vanessa, that's where are you, Vanessa? Yeah. Thank you. We're past your bedtime, Vanessa. It's past my bedtime. All right. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Uh, OSR2, uh, we've been asked to jump in because, uh, there's, uh, maybe children in the audience that may need to get home. This is a second reading on the ordinance regarding, uh, parks and recreation, establishing regulations, designate exclusive children play areas within the city parks. Vanessa Apotheker has signed up to speak and also Amanda Chalfant. So do you folks want to get up and speak? Got a couple of minutes. I don't think this is controversial. I think we approved it the first time around. So if you want to, I mean, you don't have to speak and you go home now if you want. We're here now. I think you're good. I appreciate you moving this forward. Uh, I'm basically going to reiterate what I spoke, what I said last time. If you've already said it, then we heard it. But go ahead, Vanessa. Go ahead. Okay. Well, I also said to a few other presidents that I'd speak on their behalf. So if we're all in favor, I mean, do you want me to just skip all this? Okay. Thank you for your time. You're welcome. Sorry to keep you waiting all night. No problem. So no, I won't redo my speech. No one expressed any concerns between the first reading and the second. Does anyone have any concerns or questions? Okay. Then I will forego my speech. Okay. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance of OSR 2? It's been introduced. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending chapter 19 of the code of ordinances entitled Parks and Recreation by creating section 19.8 entitled Exclusive Children in Play Area to establish regulations designating exclusive children play areas within city parks and providing for definitions, providing for severability, providing for conflicts and repeal, providing for correction of Scrivener's errors, and providing for an effective date. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Hollis? Yes. And OSR 2 is now approved on second reading. All right. We'll go back to public hearing, PH2, public hearing approving the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for Beach Carts LLC. Um, uh, no one has signed up to speak. Does someone like to move to closed public hearing? Good night, ladies. Second. Is Steve Witten here? Where? Oh, there you are. Okay. We're getting there. We're getting there. No, it's okay. I, I didn't see you, and, uh, I just want to make sure not to ignore you. Okay. Uh, someone moved to closed public hearing? Yes. Someone moved and seconded? Second. Okay. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Hollis? Yes. A public hearing is now closed on PH2. Would someone like to, um, what is this? It's a motion. It's a motion to approve the issuance of a certificate of public convenience. Mayor, I had some questions on this. Go ahead. Great. Thanks. So my question, Mayor, and I don't know Raquel who to direct this to, but so my question is for, you know, is low speed vehicle for hires. Do we want to cap the number of licenses we provide? Do, what, what's our kind of mechanism for evaluating the numbers, I guess? Milos. Good evening, Milos. My story is director for city's transportation and mobility department. So, uh, currently there is no number or there is no cap. Uh, this, uh, came before city commission or a separate application came before city commission back in, uh, June of last year. And at that point, city commission, uh, uh, desire was for us to look into number of different improvements to the ordinance, including potentially limiting the number. Yeah. Uh, so that, uh, ordinance is in works and we'll be bringing, uh, proposed ordinance before city commission in upcoming months. Um, so far we really do not have a limit even in a proposed ordinance. So, uh, the, the purpose in here, uh, of the improvements would be to, uh, introduce some, uh, new definitions also, um, such as low speed vehicle for a low speed vehicle, um, and track the numbers and see, uh, you know, what is the most appropriate number? Uh, so there might be, uh, an additional amendment of the ordinance in the future. So there's a step one, and then we'll go with the step two as well. Great. Um, so give me a sense, you think in a couple months, like an ordinance, like November? Yes. Hopefully, hopefully second meeting in October. In October. Okay. For the first rating, provided that city attorney's office, um, doesn't have any concerns with, uh, what has been done so far. We were going to discuss advertising also, right? That is correct. Right. That's part of the, yes. Look at the ordinance. Thanks. Do you, Wayne, go ahead. Uh, no, I was just stating that the review is in its final stages. Okay. Great. So October possibly. And then in terms of number cap, when, when would you want to suggest that or evaluate like December, January or what? Yeah. So I think that, uh, we will, uh, so one of the, one of the things with, uh, with the current, um, uh, process is that the applications or the permits are issued to anyone, uh, whether they're, they're, they're charging the fare or not. Right. So I think that, again, as part of the first step, we will propose a certain number of changes and then depending how many applications we received and, uh, which area of the city, uh, these businesses are to operate, we'll figure out what the best number is. Okay. Cause I just don't want to approve many and then come back and say, oh, we should have, the cap should have been lower. Do you see what I'm saying? Understood. That makes sense. So we'll, we'll take a look at that and see what is the most appropriate. So far, based on the research that we have done around different municipalities, we, we haven't found a number of pursuing their practice as well. Okay. Just for added context, we currently have 14 permits for the low speed vehicles. Okay. Okay. Um, in a way I kind of, you know, we have to, you know, golf carts on the streets are dangerous. I know that I know the road, um, what do they call that road worthy road? Yeah. Road worthy. I think you're saying the wrong thing. But let me tell you something. Uh, they're scary. They have no protection for the passengers and I hate to see a city that's overrun by golf carts all over the place. So putting a cap on the number might be something to consider at some point. It just doesn't make any sense to have, you know, people should get in their cars. I mean, people who have golf carts probably have two or three cars. So they think it's like a status thing to be able to tool around the city in a golf cart. So especially in real Vista, I see a lot of them. I see in Victoria park, you know, it's just, if they keep it in the neighborhoods, that's okay. I see them on, on federal highway. I see them on 13th street. I see them in places where they're exposed to higher levels of traffic and, and frankly, on side streets and smaller neighborhoods, I see it makes sense, but you know, I think it's kind of getting out of hand. So let's just keep an eye on that. Absolutely. All right. Yeah. I mean, mayor, should we try to limit until we evaluate how this is going and looking? Should we say, let's, let's wait on approving more after we approve these? I think that's a good, okay. I think it's a good decision. Just approve these if we, yeah. And then going forward, let's wait to evaluate. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Does that make sense? Okay. It does. Okay. Thanks. Dwayne, you all right? We'll evaluate and let you know. As you're aware, you know, we have that Senate bill 180, which bars us from doing any moratoriums within this two-year period. Okay. So I want to evaluate whether or not this comes within the, um, comes within the purview of that legislation. All right. But it's just common sense. It's just, I'm telling you, it's just, uh, the proliferation of golf carts, you know, anyway. All right. So thank you. I'll move PH2 to approve. Okay. Uh, there's a motion on the floor to approve PH2. Do I hear a second? Second. It moves and seconded. Okay. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Chantalis. Yes. And PH2 is now approved. Moving on to PH3, public hearing approving the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for, uh, JG Transport Care, Inc. to operate at one non-emergency medical transport vehicle within the city of Fort Lauderdale. No one has signed up to speak. Someone move to close public hearing. Moved. Second. It moves and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Chantalis. Yes. And public hearing on PH3 is now closed. Would someone like to move the item? Moved. Been moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Chantalis. Yes. And, uh, PH3 is now approved. OFR 1. This is an ordinance on first reading. An ordinance amending Chapter 20, Sections 20-107, Definitions, and 20-110, Retirement Benefits of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale to establish a five-year deferred retirement option program for members of the General Employee's Retirement System. Is that like a drop program? Mm-hmm. Yes. Yes. Never liked those. What? No. Never liked those. I think it drains the retirement system of money, and, um, but whatever. Um, what do you want, Jero? He's skulking up to the mic here. Skulking. Yeah, I start skulking this time of night, so. Um, yeah, Jeroen Post, Director of Human Resources. Um, this is a companion item, actually, to the, the, uh, collective bargaining agreements that you've approved with Federation and the Teamsters. As part of those collective bargaining agreements, we agreed to extend the drop from three, three years to five years. Uh, and there was no significant amount of, of financial impact on the funds, as we were told. There was none. For two years. From, from the actuaries. Yeah. And, Mayor, this would only impact the General Employees Retirement Plan members. Correct. Okay. Um, okay. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Sections 20-107 and 20-110 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, by extending the period during which an actively employed member of the General Employees Retirement Plan may participate in the deferred retirement option program from 36 months to 60 months, providing for correction of Scrivener's errors and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, and an effective date. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Talas? Yes. Um, I'm going to need a motion to extend the meeting another 15 minutes. Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Um, move the meeting to 10-15. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Talas? Yes. Thank you. Uh, moving on to OFR-2. This is an ordinance of first reading amending the classification table of the pay plan. No one has signed up to speak. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. Any questions? There being none, please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the pay plan of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, by replacing the non-bargaining unit compensation tables with a consolidated revised non-bargaining unit compensation table, replacing Schedule 6 of special employees with revised Schedule 6 special employees, providing a 3% general wage increase to all non-bargaining unit employees and all Schedule 6 special employees, changing the titles of two job classifications in creating and adding one new job classification and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, and an effective date. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Chantal? Yes. And OFR 2 is now approved on first reading. OSR 1, this is an ordinance on second reading, amending Section 8-145A and repealing subsequent sections regarding regulation of vessels anchored in public waterways. Steve, do you want to talk? Where's Steve? Oh, did you want to talk or are you just here to support? Okay, very good. No one has to sign up to speak. Uh, someone would like to introduce the ordinance? Introduce. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Section 8-145A of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale, entitled Regulation of Vessels Anchored in Public Waterways, making it unlawful to anchor a vessel within the City's public waterways during certain time periods, and repealing Sections 8-45B, C, D, E, thereof, and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions at an effective date. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Chantalis? Yes. And OSR 1 is now approved on second reading. Yay! And there, if I could, thank you, Marco, Steve, Bob, Bob. Great work. Amazing. It's phenomenal. It's a phenomenal win for the City. Another win for the City of Fort Lauderdale. All we do is win. What's the score? All we do is win. Win, win, win. Well, this is one... Thank you. This is how... This is what shows the success of Home Rule. Exactly. To be able to regulate the quality of life. Uh-oh. Where's Chip? Yep. Where's Chip? Yep. Great. Okay. Our last slide of... And, Mayor, it's great collaboration. It's great collaboration across the city. Neighbors, businesses, leaders. We only extended it by 15 minutes. Phenomenal. I'll be quiet now. And our Chief Waterway Officer is driving the boat. Great job. Thank you. Can we just keep moving? Okay. Amen. Thank you. Okay. Getting punchy here. All right. Now we have a walk-on item. It's a walk-on resolution. Uh, the resolution approving the City of Fort Lauderdale's participation in the Intergovernmental Transfer Program for Medicaid Managed Care Patients. Recommendation from the City, uh, staff is to adopt the resolution approving the participation. Uh, would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Anyone have any questions regarding this? Okay. There being none, um, please call the roll. A resolution, the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, authorizing the City Manager on behalf of the City of Fort Lauderdale to execute and deliver annually a public emergency medical transportation letter of agreement in substantially the form attached here to, in any amendments there to retroactively to fiscal year 2016, subject to the limitations set forth herein and providing for an effective date. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trantals? Yes. And that resolution is now approved. Um, Madam City Manager, do we have any further business of the Commission? Nothing further. Thank you. Mr. Spence, any further business? Nothing further. Any announcements for, uh, any closed-door sessions other than the one you announced this afternoon? No, sir. Okay. This meeting's concluded. Thank you, everybody.