City Commission Regular Meeting on 2026-04-07 6:00 PM - Apr 07, 2026

This April 7th, 2026. Thank you for all for being here. Sorry we got started a little bit late and I appreciate your patience. The afternoon meeting went a little longer than we expected. So for those of you who are here for the first time, we want to thank you for being here. And we start out our meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence and then we go into various announcements. So if I could please ask you all to please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. 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, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. So this has been a rather difficult week for many members of our community. Three people have passed away. We have Tom Chancey, who was the landscape architect and founder of the nonprofit Tree Bank. We have Richard Rodriguez, who was the former chair of the Riverwalk Board of Directors. And tragically, of course, former Vice Mayor Nancy Mateer of the city of Coral Springs. So if you could please join me in a moment of silence in remembrance of them. Thank you. At this time, I also want to take a point of special privilege to be able to announce some retirements here in our city. We have five people who have served 20 years or more in our city, and I want to thank them for their service. First, with Kenrich John, police officer with our department for 20 years. Thank you so much for your service. We have Jeffrey Fogg, firefighter paramedic, with our fire rescue department, 28 years. Thank you for your service. Joshua Wells, captain with fire rescue, 28 years. Congratulations. Gregory Snyder, driver engineer, fire rescue, 32 years. Wow. Congratulations. And Antonio Jan, captain with fire rescue, been with us 32 years. Wow. Thank you so much for your service. They were here at the height of spring break. Anyway, if you were here this afternoon, you would understand that joke. Anyway, so it's really great. Unfortunately, we lost four people in fire rescue, so get to work. Recruit, recruit, recruit. Okay. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Vice Mayor Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Here.

Commissioner Sorensen. Here. Mayor Trenthaus. Yes, here. A couple of agenda announcements. First of all, M2, we are removing from the agenda. That's concerning the Jacob engineering contract. And then, aside from that, do I hear a motion to approve the minutes and the agenda as amended? Moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Sorensen. Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes.

Mayor Trenthaus. Yes. And those minutes and the agenda as amended are now approved. So we take a pause now before we begin voting on matters and discussing on matters on the agenda to recognize people, events, or certain months that are important for the city of Fort Lauderdale and the community that we represent in recognizing the special month that April is. And I'd like to begin by asking Commissioner Sorensen, who has the first presentation, to approach the podium. And I'm asking Carrie Ann Brown from the Guardian Ad Litem Office to please join him regarding National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Carrie Ann, for being here. It's wonderful being with you, celebrating this together, and for your 13 years of work at Guardian Ad Litem and just the great work you've done. It's been a privilege being a small part of that and part of your team, and I'm honored to celebrate this with our proclamation and then love to hear from you. And also we were talking about some of the volunteer opportunities that could be available to the public and city staff members, so I'd love to hear a little bit about that. So this is in recognition of National Child Abuse Prevention Month, whereas Florida's future is shaped by children we nurture today, and every child deserves to grow up in a safe, healthy, and loving environment, free from abuse, neglect, and trauma. And whereas when even one child suffers, the impact extends beyond the individual and their family to the entire community, reinforcing the shared responsibility to protect, uplift, and support all children so they may thrive. And whereas the National Abuse Prevention Month encourages all Floridians to strengthen families and communities so children can grow up and flourish. Additionally, during the week of April 19th through April 25th, National Volunteer Week recognizes volunteers whose time, compassion, and service are essential to advancing efforts that support vulnerable children. And whereas the mission of protecting children and strengthening families is advanced by the Florida Guardian Ad Litem Office, Circuit 17 serving Broward County, which provides advocacy for abused, abandoned, and neglected children. And whereas the effectiveness of the Florida Guardian Ad Litem Office is demonstrated by significant outcomes, including full legal representation for 100% of children for the first time in Florida's history, a 97% appellate success rate, and the dedication of more than 8,000 volunteers statewide who contributed over 194,000 hours of service and traveled over a million miles to support children. And whereas when child abuse prevention efforts are supported through strong partnerships among families, schools, service providers, law enforcement, faith groups, businesses, and local leaders, we create a culture of care and accountability that protects children and empowers family. Now, therefore, we as City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale proclaim April 2026 as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, dated this day, the 7th day of April 2026, signed your Mayor, Dean J. Trantellis.

Good evening, everyone. Mayor Trantellis, Commissioners, I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity and for recognizing in the City of Fort Lauderdale as Child Abuse Prevention Month. And also, I want to extend, it's also Volunteer Appreciation Week that's coming up. And for those of you, whether you volunteer with our organization or any organization, I want to say thank you. So, I don't know if there are any volunteers here in the room. That's a guardian? No? All right. For those of you who may be looking on at home.

There is? No?

Future volunteer.

You are a cop cop.

Come on up. Come on up. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else?

Okay. So, as she takes her time to be here, I want to extend also, for those of you that are watching that are at home, thank you for what you do and what you do for our children. And so, I want to take this opportunity to personally thank you for all the hard work. I know it's not easy. You run through every emotion that you can possibly imagine. But at the end of the day, you can say it. Tell them what it is at the end of the day.

It's for the children. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. So, before I go, shameless PSA. You can go to our website, www.guardianadlitem.org, to learn more. And I just want to share with you, if you're an attorney, there are pro bono opportunities at our office. You can give your time. You can volunteer in a case. You can become a mentor. And for those of you that are in the community wondering how you can give back, you can also volunteer with us. And we also have mentor opportunities. And the state, it's now law that our kids that are aging out of care from 16 onwards should be assigned a mentor. So, the mentors are really critical because our kids are getting ready to leave foster care and to enter into the world of the unknown is what I would call it sometimes and laugh. But if you remember yourself when you were growing up, you had, some of us had our parents, our grandparents, a family friend, a neighbor who was our mentor, maybe even a coach. So, if you have the time, please give it back to our youth so that they can become their best possible selves when they do leave the system of care. So, for those of you, again, if you're interested, please go to our website, www.guardianadlitem.org, and come and listen to one of our information sessions. We just so happen to have one tomorrow at 12 noon and the next one at 6 p.m., and they're all via Zoom. Look how convenient we make it for you. So, please give back. Our children and our youth, they do need us. And so, I would leave you with this. If not you, then who?

Thank you.

I'll take a picture.

We lost our step and repeat background. Collateral there. I guess I have to be in this picture now.

Thank you so much, Carrie Ann.

Now, I'd like to invite Commissioner Pam Beasley-Pittman, who will be presenting a proclamation regarding World Landscape Architecture Month here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. And I'd like to invite Jordan Chang, who's the Broward Chair of the American Society of Landscape Architects Florida Chapter, to come to the podium.

Good evening, everyone. I am honored to present this proclamation from the office of the mayor of the city of Fort Lauderdale. Proclamation, in recognition of World Landscape Architecture Month. Whereas, landscape architecture includes the planning, designing, and stewardship of both natural and built environments, transforming visions into action to create places that are healthy, safe, and thriving. And whereas, Wednesday, April 1st, 2026, is recognized as Professional Landscape Architecture Day, celebrating licensed professionals who use their expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to enhance the quality of life in the city of Fort Lauderdale, while helping address challenges such as sea level rise, climate change, biodiversity loss, and urban resilience through thoughtful innovation and leadership. And whereas, as the 250th anniversary of the United States, we recognize that landscape architect has long shaped and continue to steward the American landscape, creating and enduring places that reflect our shared values and preserve our cultural heritage. And whereas, the city of Fort Lauderdale recognizes the essential role of landscape architects in advancing equitable and climate-resistant infrastructure, designing parks, greenways, and waterfront spaces that strengthens the community's identity and also environmental health, while reducing the financial burden of disaster recovery. And whereas, landscape architects, plan and design, community master plans, walkable neighborhoods, multi-mobile transportation networks, green stormwater infrastructure, and accessible public space, including plazas, parks, schools, residential common areas, playgrounds, and trails that include active lifestyles and healthy living for Fort Lauderdale neighbors and visitors. Whereas, the city of Fort Lauderdale celebrates landscape architects who design and attract residents, businesses, and visitors by creating safe, sustainable, and welcoming public places and also those private spaces. And whereas, the city of Fort Lauderdale commends Florida International University and the University of Florida for their incredible landscape architecture programs, which inspire and prepares the next generation of leaders and innovators to advance the profession and contribute to the future of the city's landscape. Now, therefore, we as the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Florida, do hereby proclaim April 2026 as World Landscape Architecture Month here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. Dated this, the 7th day of April, 2026, signed by our Mayor, Dean Trantellis.

Would you like to share anything with us? Thank you so much for the proclamation, and thank you also for the acknowledgement of landscape architect, Mr. Tom Chancey. So, thank you so much for that. Oh, sorry. For those of you who may not know, landscape architecture is a design profession focused on outdoor spaces and places that we all enjoy and inhabit on a day-to-day basis. The projects that we work on can range from a residential yard to a residential community, from a neighborhood park to a theme park, resorts, campuses, stormwater management plans. The work of landscape architects is diverse and varied, but it all shares a commitment to the public health, safety, and well-being, the shaping of communities, and bringing people and nature together. Thank you so much for the proclamation.

Yes, thank you. All right, we're going to go here. We're going to go over here.

Who's the guy with him?

Thank you so much. Now, our third presentation. I invite Commissioner Stephen Glassman to present a proclamation regarding Water Conservation Month, and I'd like to invite Talal Abhi Karam, our Assistant Director of Utility Services Department, and Julio Yejeda, External Affairs Specialist from the South Florida Water Management District, to please join us at the podium.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm very proud to present this proclamation from the Office of the Mayor, City of Fort Lauderdale, in recognition of Water Conservation Month, April 2026. Whereas, water is a basic and essential need of every living creature, and whereas the State of Florida Water Management Districts, Broward County, and the City of Fort Lauderdale work collaboratively to increase awareness about the importance of water conservation and recognize April as Water Conservation Month, a typically dry period when water demands are highest. And whereas the City of Fort Lauderdale encourages and supports water conservation by engaging residents, businesses, and community partners through educational initiatives, including Water Matters Day, the Conservation Pays Program, NatureScape, and the Wildland National Mayor's Challenge for Water Conservation. And whereas approximately 40 million gallons of water are used daily in Fort Lauderdale, underscoring the importance of responsible water use. And whereas choosing Energy Star-labeled appliances and WaterSense fixtures in homes, yards, and businesses can help save water and protect the environment. And whereas the average family can save 13,000 gallons of water and $140 in annual water costs by replacing inefficient toilets with WaterSense-labeled models, which may be eligible for a $125 rebate through the Conservation Pays Program. And whereas every business, industry, school, and resident plays a vital role in adopting water-saving practices to support the environment and a strong local economy for generations to come. Now, therefore, we, as City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim April 2026 as Water Conservation Month in the City of Fort Lauderdale and encourage every resident, business, and institution to join us in a year-round commitment to safeguarding our water resources, ensuring a sustainable future for Fort Lauderdale. Dated this, the 7th day of April, 2026, and signed by our Mayor, the Honorable Dean J. Trentalis. Everyone take your word. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioner, on behalf of our staff at Utility Service, we thank you for this proclamation. A few words about water and water conservation. When I moved to South Florida in 1994, it was quickly clear to me the following four facts. Number one, water is an important economic engine for our economy, urban development, job, and tourism. Number two, water resources in South Florida is a regional issue and is not a local one. Water resource problems are complex and costly, and a solution requires the collaboration of all stakeholders, including cities, county, the South Florida Water Management District, Army Corps Engineer, DEP, EPA, engineers, scientists, academia, and conservation group, and you, the public. Water in this area is also finite resource and subject to stressor, including extreme weather events, climate change, and emerging contaminants. For those all-the-above reasons, water is precious, we must conserve it, we must protect it, and we must protect its quality, whether it is in the aquifer, in canals, in rivers, the Everglade, or at your faucet. As the proclamation indicates, the city participates and encourages all residents to benefit from a range of conservation programs. However, perhaps the city's biggest commandment to water conservation lies in the following three initiatives. A $60 million AMI program that aims at replacing 65,000 meters with smart meters. Those smart meters will allow residents to monitor their water consumption and will allow residents to discover leaks early, thus conserving water. The city also have an ordinance on the book, Ordinance Section 28-1B, titled Water Conservation, which also limits the irrigation to two days per week, depending on your address. And, of course, the recent initiative with the city creating the chief waterway officer aimed at improving water quality in the canals. I'd like to take a minute to thank our staff, the folks who kind of make your water, the chef in the kitchen, so to speak. Those silent, dedicated staff work 24-7 behind secure fences at secured plant, making sure that our plants are running, our motors are humming, our pumps are pumping, and your faucet is flowing. It includes the following folks, job category, treatment manager, plant manager, plant operator, mechanics, electrician, electrotechnician, SCADA technician, process control engineer, laboratory chemist, laboratory water control folks, and, of course, our wellfield staff who maintain our wellfields. Those folks you don't get to see. You see our crews day in, day out, but those folks are hidden behind walls. And, of course, those are supported by buyers, inventory specialists, administration, and financial support. Finally, we can't do what we do without the support of you, the public, who embrace water conservation program and without the support of the city commission. So, mayor, vice mayor, commissioner, we thank you for your support. Thank you.

Abby, it's a good thing this wasn't the Academy Awards. Okay. Wow.

Abby, you can talk all you want. Our last presentation is one that I'll be able to present, and I'd like to invite our urban forester, Laura Tooley, to please join me at the podium as we declare April 24, 2026, as Arbor Day in the city of Fort Lauderdale. Other members of the Fort Lauderdale Garden Club here as well, please join me at the podium. So, tonight, from the office of the mayor of the city of Fort Lauderdale, a proclamation recognition of Arbor Day, whereas Arbor Day has been observed throughout the United States for more than 150 years, emphasizing the importance of conservation efforts. Trees contribute to a more sustainable environment by producing oxygen, cooling urban areas, improving water quality, and reducing stormwater impacts. Trees play a crucial role in building healthier, safer, and more connected communities by providing shade and cooling cities by up to 10 degrees, helping reduce heat-related illnesses and deaths in urban areas. And Las Olas Boulevard. Oh, I'm sorry. Trees provide essential habitats for... It doesn't say that, by the way. Trees provide essential habitats for native migratory birds, butterflies, and other wildlife, contributing to Fort Lauderdale's recognition as a certified community wildlife habitat by the National Wildlife Federation. The City of Fort Lauderdale has also set a goal to increase tree canopy coverage up to 33% by 2040, as outlined in the Advanced Fort Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan, and has prioritized tree canopy coverage as a key sustainability metric in its 2029 Press Play Strategic Plan. In support of this goal, the City Commission accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan in January of this year, providing strategic actions to expand and sustain the City's tree canopy. These ongoing efforts have earned Fort Lauderdale recognition as a Tree City USA partner by the Arbor Day Foundation for 47 consecutive years, reflecting the City's long-standing commitment to urban forestry. Finally, in recognition of Arbor Day, the City of Fort Lauderdale will host and support a series of community events and activities from April 19th through April 25th of this year, encouraging residents, businesses, and schools to participate in tree plantings and environmental stewardship efforts throughout the City. Now, therefore, we as the City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale do proclaim the upcoming April 24th, 2026, as Arbor Day here in the City of Fort Lauderdale, and encourage all residents to observe Arbor Day by planting a tree to preserve and enhance our community's natural beauty and environmental health. Dated today, April 7th, 2026, signed by myself, Mayor Dean Trantelis. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you so much. You want to share a few words with us? Share a few words. She's got a whole essay here.

Mayor, commissioners, thank you so much for the proclamation. I really appreciate it on behalf of the sustainability team. We work very hard to promote urban forestry in the city, and we've been promoting a lot of civic association tree giveaways and doing a lot of things in the past year. We'll be approaching our applying next year for our 48th year as a Tree City USA. And we have a lot of dedicated partners and volunteers in the Parks Department that maintains our urban forests, as well as within the community, planting trees in their backyards. I'm really excited about an upcoming program we're doing with the Housing Authority to plant trees on their property and provide a source of sustenance for them. And I really appreciate the recognition. Thank you. Great.

Thank you. Ben, Carl, Dr. Gassman.

Okay. On with the show. Here we go. We start with our agenda. We start with what's called the consent agenda items. The consent agenda items are ones that the commission boasts on together, but this is an opportunity for any member of the commission to pull a specific item if they'd like to discuss it and vote on it separately. So I will ask the commissioner if they have any items they wish to pull. Vice Mayor, do you have any items you wish to pull?

None.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman?

None.

I have none. None. Commissioner Glassman, none. None. Commissioner Stolzman? None. None. None. Okay. A lot of nones here. Okay. So do I hear a motion to approve all the consent agenda items? So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Now, no one has signed up to speak on any consent agenda items, so please call the roll.

Commissioner Sorensen?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And so all those items have been approved. If any of you are here on those items, your item has been approved by the commission. You're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. Moving on to motions. M1, this is a motion approving the First Amendment to the revocable license agreement with Midtown Powell Flagler Village, LLC, for temporary right-of-way closure on Sistrunk Boulevard and Northeast 4th Avenue in association with Advantis Station Development to extend the term of the agreement. Mr. Schein is here just for questions. Where is Mr. Schein? Oh, there you are. Anyone have any questions with regard to this item? There being none, someone would like to please move the item. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glassman?

Yes.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman?

Did you want to read it? Don't you have to read it?

Which one are you referring to?

For motion one, M1? No. You don't have to read it?

No, just first and second.

Okay.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trent Halls?

Yes. M1 is now approved. M2 has been removed from the agenda. Moving on to R1, appointment of board and committee members. Mr. Clerk, please read the names into the record.

Thank you, Mayor. For tonight's resolution, Board of Adjustment, Robert Wolfe, nominated by Vice Mayor Herbst. Douglas Mead, nominated by Vice Mayor Herbst. Cemetery System Board of Trustees, Barbara Larson, nominated by Vice Mayor Herbst. Economic Development Advise Board, David Lang, nominated by Commissioner Glassman. Education Advisory Board, Kaia Vance, nominated by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Brian Bender, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. Fire Rescue Facilities Bond Issue Blue Ribbon Committee. Bruce Ainger, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. Historic Preservation Board, Patricia Rathburn, nominated by Vice Mayor Herbst. Marine Advisory Board, Bob Swindell, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. Robert Franks, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. Northwest Progresso Flagler Heights Redevelopment Board, John Qualey, nominated by Vice Mayor Herbst. Lakshmi Lawani, nominated by Commissioner Glassman. Noel Edwards, nominated by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Parks and Recreation Beaches Board, Christine Fanchi, nominated by Vice Mayor Herbst. Planning and Zoning Board, Patrick Matiig, nominated by Vice Mayor Herbst. Sustainability Advisory Board, Sarah Ramonka, nominated by Commissioner Sorensen. Parker Jacobson Bertin-Azzetti, that's the Consensus Honorary Youth Chair. And the Wastewater Large Users Advisory Board, Vice Mayor Herbst. And that rounds it out.

Okay, are there any additions or modifications? Okay, there being none. Would someone like to introduce the resolution?

Introduce.

Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll.

A resolution, the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or nominating, if applicable, Boarding Committee members as set forth in the exhibit attached here to and made a part here of. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glassman?

Yes.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trenton?

Yes. And those individuals are now appointed to those Boarding Committees, and we appreciate your commitment and volunteerism to the City. R2, this is a resolution providing notice of intent to enter into a comprehensive agreement for a qualifying project for the design, installation, financing, operation, and maintenance of a citywide interactive digital kiosk program accepting unsolicited proposal from IKE Smart City and notice of intent to accept other proposals for the same project. One person signed up to speak only for questions. Does anyone have any questions? I have a comment. Who's going to make the decision as to where these go? Because I'd hate to see 20 of these on A1A. We don't want to litter the beach with, you know, kiosks. I think kiosks are really great. I see them in other cities. They're used indoors as well as outdoors. So how are we, City Manager, how are we going to allocate the number of kiosk signs that are going to be part of this program?

Thank you, Mayor. So we will be working with the proposer or the company to identify viable locations, and that is yet to be negotiated. It would also include development services, public works, anyone that touches our right-of-way from a city permitting perspective. We also want to make sure that the neighborhoods have an opportunity to...

Yeah, I think the stakeholders, the neighborhood associations should be consulted. Because I think that's going to have an impact on their quality of life. So, okay, great. I think this is a great program, so I'm looking forward to it. Anyone else have any questions or comments? Are there being none? Someone please introduce the resolution. Introduce. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll.

Mayor?

Yes.

Before you do so, we're recommending a 21-day competition period. And if that's acceptable, we will work with the clerk.

Is that acceptable to you? Uh-huh. Okay.

A resolution, City Commission, the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pursuant to Section 255.065, Florida Statutes, providing notice of intent to enter into a comprehensive agreement for a qualifying project for the design, installation, financing, operation, and maintenance of the citywide network of interactive digital kiosks and notice of intent to accept other proposals for the same project providing for an effective date. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And R2 is now approved. R3, quasi-judicial resolution to vacate a 2.5 feet wide by 130 feet long utility easement, Sunrise and Bayview Partners, LLC. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in, and the commission will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received and make them a part of the record. Vice Mayor, do you have any disclosures? Commissioner Beasley-Pittman?

No disclosures.

I don't have any. Is there an attorney representing anybody on this? We didn't have a meeting on this, did we? No, we did not. Commissioner Glassman? No disclosures. And Commissioner Sorensen? None. Okay.

Good evening.

Hi.

Hi. Robert Healy with the firm Locker and Shock is on behalf of the applicant here and available to answer any questions on this.

Are there any questions? There are no questions. Okay. Do I hear a motion to close public hearing? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll on the motion to close public hearing. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes.

Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And public hearing is now closed on R3. Excuse me. On R3, someone would like to introduce a resolution? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll.

A resolution, City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, vacating all that certain 2.50 feet by 130-foot-long platted utility easement and portions of lots to Block 1, Coral Ridge, South Edition, according to the Platt thereof, as recorded in Platt Book 24, page 41 of the public records of Broward County, Florida, located east of Bayview Drive, north of East Sunrise Boulevard, west of North East 25th Avenue, and south of Northeast 11th Street, all said lands being the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And R3 is now approved. Thanks. R4, this is a quasi-judicial resolution approving the vacation of a 10-feet-wide-by-125-feet-long drainage easement, Charles West, 80 Isle Bahia Drive. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in, and the Commissioner will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received and make them a part of the record. Vice Mayor, do you have any disclosures? Commissioner Beasley-Pittman?

None.

I have none. Is there a representative here tonight on this? Mr. Lockery. Commissioner Glossman? None. And Commissioner Sorensen?

Site visit and council.

Thanks.

Okay. Did we have a meeting on this?

We did not, Mayor.

Good evening. Robert Locker on behalf of the applicant. This is a request to vacate a 10-foot utility easement. Another utility easement has previously been granted to the city,

and the drainage infrastructure that was in that location has been moved. Aha. Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Someone would like to move to close public hearing? Moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Moved and seconded to close public hearing. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentos?

Yes. And public hearing on R4 is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the quasi-judicial resolution? Introduced. It's been introduced. Please call the roll.

A resolution of the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, vacating an approximately 10-foot drainage easement centered on the common line of lots 10 and 11 of Isla Bahia, according to the plot thereof, as recorded in Plot Book 47, page 27, of the public records of Broward County, Florida, located east of Cordova Road, north of Isla Bahia, drives west of Seabreeze Boulevard, and south of East Olas Boulevard, all said lands being in the city of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentos?

Yes. And R4 is now approved. PH1, this is a public hearing, a quasi-judicial application for a waiver of limitation under ULDR section 47-19.3, parentheses E, for 1409 Southwest 17th Street. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in. The commission will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received and make them a part of the record. Vice Mayor, do you have any disclosures? Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? None. I don't recall. Is there anyone here representing this item? You are. We haven't met. Commissioner Glassman?

PH1.

PH1.

Yes, PH1. Yes, I had a conversation with Marine Advisory Board Chair Steve Witten.

Okay. And Commissioner Sorensen? Neighbors and Marine Advisory Board members. Okay. So several people have signed up to speak. Mr. Witten, you signed up just for questions, right? Or are you? I saw you. Oh, there you are. Just for questions, right? Okay. I believe we spoke on this, too. Yeah. There are several people who have signed up to speak, and I'll call your names in threes. Amber Calderon. Is Amber here? Would you like to come up and speak? Amber, followed by Ted and Sarah, followed by Roy Rodriguez. A couple minutes. Push the button at the bottom of the speaker. Ted's in it. He's a pro at this.

Hi there.

Nice haircut, Ted. Look at you.

Hi there. Amber Calderon. My husband and I are the next generation of Fort Lauderdale homebuyers. Coincidentally, we close on a home this week on this canal that would be affected by this proposal. This affects the property value of the home we just purchased. Now, although the waterways in Pompano compared to this neighborhood are drastically wider, we chose to invest in Fort Lauderdale, not only because my husband is a born and bred Fort Lauderdale local, but also because of the character's areas and its waterways. If we wanted oversized docks, overcrowded canals, we would have bought elsewhere. Please help us protect what makes this city so special. I also like to think that I have the greater good of this city in mind, which is shown through my many years of service and leadership through the Junior League of Fort Lauderdale, which is a nonprofit organization that contributes to so many of the projects that occur in this city. These rules exist for a reason. If one property is allowed to exceed them, it opens the door for others, and soon the character and property value of Fort Lauderdale, the Venice of America, as we like to say, is permanently changed. Please uphold the standard for everyone.

I tell you, no other neighborhood like River Oaks. Brand new homebuyers, they already come out to speak at a commission meeting. That's River Oaks for you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Ted Nassara. I'm the president of the River Oaks Republic. We went to, one thing, we went to, I go to the Marine Advisory Board meeting every single month, as a lot of you know, because you were the guest there and you have seen me in there. We were in front of this board on November 6th. It was a 15 to nothing vote against this. All of us that were there that spoke for River Oaks, we all shook hands afterwards, patted each other on the back. We thought it was over. Much so I surprised when I get my pre-agenda in January, there it is again on the agenda. As I get my February 5th, there it is again on the agenda. When it was, we thought it was a done deal. There's other people from River Oaks who are here who did not sign up to speak. Can I get you all to raise your hands just to show you the support that we have where all the neighborhood is united against this? There's a state code. A person or property cannot unreasonably restrict the channel where fair and equal access to all residents on the waterways. This would take a huge, almost be a gate in front of this very narrow canal in the River Oaks. Even board member of the Marine Advisory Board, very respected Mr. Flanagan, said the extraordinary circumstances that were created by these applicants were created by the applicants. They were not really extraordinary circumstances. This is just, it should be a no-brainer. The River Oaks, we are united against it, and we hope that you see it our way. And also, one other thing in closing, Mr. Mayor, since you brought this up, and I kind of feel like it was directed towards me, that I hired another arborist, Richard Baracus, concerning the trees in the median strip of Las Olas, and he said his conclusion was the canopy, the color, and the foliage. I access that all the remaining trees in the median strip of Las Olas are healthy.

Okay, thank you.

City Manager, how many pages was our arborist report on the trees?

It was pretty substantial. I don't have the page count, but several pages.

Several. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Rodriguez. Good evening. Good evening, Commissioners, Mayor. Thank you, Ted, for that presentation. But I'd like to give you guys a visual of what is going on, because we've been talking about all this stuff, but I have some visual images to show you what is being proposed for that property. We kind of have it in the backup, too. Okay. We have the application. If you don't mind, can you cue that first one? This is the current view. Where's it going to be? Is it supposed to be on the screen? Oh, there it is. There it is. Okay, so this is, okay, that would be an AI image of the proposed dock that they're proposing to build there for that waterway. Okay? Now, if the commissioners and the city approve this, what's going to happen is that everyone else is going to have the right to do the same thing that is on that side of the property. I mean, you'd laugh, Mayor, but this is exactly what's going to happen. And that's exactly what will happen if this gets approved, because all the neighbors will have the exact same right to do the same thing.

I have one question, though. So I work at AI, and I'm always very skeptical of AI-generated images. So when we put up things like this that purport to be evidence and it's AI-generated, I've got to tell you, I'm very skeptical.

Well, let me explain something to you. You see that little towards the left focus, the image?

I believe that AI hallucinates, and without somebody getting out there and measuring that, I'm just saying it's suspect.

Well, I believe that there's people here that have measured it.

Is that correct, Steve, that we've had Bob out there? Well, we have a back – on the back up, it has the aerial, and it shows the dimensions, and it shows its impact on the canal. So, yeah. Okay.

Well, anyways, we're totally opposed to it as a community, so I hope that you vote in that same way. Thank you. Okay, great.

Thank you, sir. Nick Frazier, Nicholas Frazier, Julie Jeffries, and Hudson Gill. Gill? Yes. Well, Hudson's from the Marine Advisory Board. I don't know if you can speak because there are two members of the Marine Advisory Board here.

Mayor, he's representing the board.

He is representing the board? Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

But we've got two members of the Marine Advisory Board here tonight. Good evening.

Thank you. You already heard from my wife a moment ago. We are new homeowners on the waterfront property on this neighborhood and specifically at the end of this canal. This property in the proposal here will cut off the mouth extending into the waterway and directly cut off access to this canal, reducing the usability, desirability, and ultimately the property value of homes further down the canal. I'm in direct opposition of this as it benefits a single applicant and detracts from dozens of homes who share access to this downstream canal.

All right. Well, thank you.

Julie?

Good evening. My name is Julie Jeffries. I am not a new owner in the neighborhood, but I have yet to move into my property, and my property is the one that is directly affected by this proposal. I live directly across the canal from the proposed pier. So I would like you to know that I drove over two hours to be here tonight in person so that you understand how important this is to me.

I'll give you three minutes then.

And thank you. And I do believe that we need to understand that this is a dangerous precedent that we are potentially setting if this proposal goes through. Ironically, at the beginning of this meeting, we celebrated water conservation and discussed the impact on our canals. If you think about the impact of what this potentially has on this particular canal and all of the connecting waterways, I think that you need to recognize the fact that there's an exponential detriment to the potential here and that we need to consider these things. If we're going to celebrate water conservation, we're going to push that in the city of Fort Lauderdale. We need to be consistent throughout all of the things that we agree to and all of the things that we're allowed to do and how we are both implementing and respecting the rules and regulations that are set forth. I really encourage everyone who's voting on this and as this moves through to please consider property values. My property value will also be impacted, as the other neighbors have said, but more so this issue of water conservation, access for utilities down the canals, access to emergency vehicles down the canals, and the precedent that it is setting across the city of Fort Lauderdale. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Could I ask a question about that to a city attorney? Does this set a precedent for everybody else that wants to do it? Yes, it does. So as we look at that picture, you know, where everybody is now lined up, does this establish a precedent that then everybody else that wants to do a doc can rely on? Just so we understand it, because I'm hearing an assertion, and I want to validate the assertion.

No, Vice Mayor. It doesn't set a precedent per se. I think the citizens are saying that it would start a precedent of people seeking this. There are still criteria that would have to be met for each site.

Is the applicant here?

So, I'm sorry, when you say criteria that has to be met for each site, so it's up to the commission to either grant or deny each one on its own merits?

Correct. It would go through the Marine Advisory Board, and they would apply the criteria. And in this instance, it could be brought to you by the applicant if they were not happy with the result. Of the board's decision. Okay. And here they're talking about, and Mr. Gill will explain, but they're using two different measurements to come up with the appropriate length.

Okay.

Or the allowed length. And then also a standard of whether it's an exceptional circumstance.

Okay. No, that's helpful, because I know sometimes we do have instances where we approve something, and then we are bound then to apply that same rule to everybody else, and there's instances where we don't. So I just want to see if that...

Well, but, Vice Mayor, you've been here long enough to know the Me Too process here.

No, Me Too and Me Too 2 and Me Too 3.

Yeah, no, trust me, I know what it looks like. Right. Once we cross that Rubicon, it's hard to go back. Yes. Yes, it is. Okay. Yes, sir. Please introduce yourself.

Hi. Good evening, members of the commission, Mayor. I believe he asked me to swear in because I didn't sign the card. Yes, could you raise your right hand? Yes, sure. Ryan Abrams representing the applicant. Sure. Yes. Okay. So you're not the applicant. You represent the applicant. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Okay. Yes. Thank you. So it's been a road getting here tonight. I just want to acknowledge that we know that there are concerns for the community. I don't think I heard any competent substantial evidence tonight put into the record on why this application should be denied. I heard fears that haven't been substantiated with actual competent and substantial evidence, an AI image that hasn't really been verified. I appreciate the comment on how it can't be relied upon. I agree. Also, it really was very deceiving because the application shows that it doesn't go far enough to even encroach on the channel. That AI image made it seem like it would even come to the canal, the Cravel Canal. It wouldn't. The 50-foot dock, and it's 56 feet when measured from the wet face, would be approximately 15 feet inward of the line of the Cravel Canal. And really what this – I hear talk about precedent. You know, the real precedent I think the city sets is what happened before this project – before these docks. This is like not a crazy dock, and the boats along the strip, the vessels there are all longer than these docks. So what I mean by previous precedent, previous other projects, right across from New River, this is – I have an area I'll show. I do have a PowerPoint presentation I gave to the gentleman. It's pretty short. I guess when you look at just across the way, and I'll bounce around here, this is – so the property highlighted in red is the property we're here to discuss. It's a 1409 property. As you can see, everything that we're proposing to do is within the legally owned boundaries of the owner of this property, and it's really key to emphasize. We're talking about private property, and it's stipulated by the city in there in the memo.

Wait, you're suggesting that your applicant owns the canal?

Yes, and that's not in dispute, Mayor. The – this is submerged land. Wait a minute.

Let's stop. Yes. Does the applicant own the canal?

I think that goes to the heart of the issue here that Mr. Gill will explain about where the measurement is taken from. I think the applicant is suggesting it's taken from a water line underneath the water. So he's suggesting that that is real property, and that's the measurement site beginning, whereas I think Mr. Gill will tell you that it's the upland property. So there's land submerged underneath the canal, as there is land under every canal, and while it may – and Mr. Gill will explain this – while it may or may not be part of his plaited land, that doesn't address the question, which is from where do you measure?

Well, what's the – according to the property appraisers' website, where does the boundary of the property end? Does it end at the wet face of the dock, or does it go into the canal?

It goes into the canal. That's not in dispute. The city doesn't dispute that we own the property that is being used here. FDEP approved the plans. Broward County approved the plans. The issue comes – and by the way, the docks that are there now are longer than the docks that the city is willing to approve in this case. So this – I don't know – this – the city – these – these –

I'll clarify. Hold on a second. These pictures that you have here are not the same pictures that we have in the back of. Yeah. So, I mean, the picture on the bottom that you have there, an ocean liner can go through. The picture that we have here, you can barely get a canoe here. Okay? So we have – we can't play games with the imagery here.

No, no. So that's not the intent here. Let me just – first of all, when I said that the dock – the dock that is approved is bigger than the dock that exists here today, what I meant is at the Marine Advisory Board meeting, the Marine Advisory Board authorized a 36-foot dock approximately, and there's a 39-foot dock there now. So why did that dock get there? How did it get there? I just think the city hasn't consistently applied its code, and the reason I included this image on the bottom right is not to say that it's the same situation. It's not. But do you see the vessels and the finger piers on the top and the bottom? Those are longer than 25 feet, and it's longer than 30 percent of the width of the waterway. Okay? Much longer. Those finger piers are – those finger piers are – that's right across, right across, right across from where this property is located. The city – it's – so I understand that this is – I understand that this is not the same. It's not the same thing, but it's the – the code applies the same. Hold on. Shh, shh, shh, shh, shh. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. Please, please, please, please. This is – yeah, yeah, yeah. I respect public – I respect the public's right to – I didn't interrupt anybody else's presentation, okay? So just – help me out here. Shh, shh, shh, shh, please, stop, stop. Okay, so the same code applies, all right? The same code applies. It's 25 feet or 30 percent of the waterway. That applies. The city approved this. Whichever is less. Whichever is less. Less. But 30 percent – 30 percent is definitely more than 25 feet. These finger piers are all 100 feet.

I understand that, but the law is 30 percent or 25 feet, whichever is less. So it can't be more than 25 feet.

It can't be more, but these – each of these finger piers are more than 100 feet. So what I'm saying is they're located within private submerged land. The key thing here is this is property that is located within private submerged land that is not a natural waterway.

So you're saying that the boundary – so this would be important, the point from which the measurement is taken. And you're saying that the point from which the measurement is taken should not be the wet face of the dock. It should actually be further into the canal because you're saying your boundary starts out in the water. And then the 25 feet should be traced from that edge into the waterway. Is that what you're saying?

Right, so it would be 30 percent or 25 feet, whichever is less. So if it – if Cravel Canal's line is the end of the property lines and all the – you see these vessels. I mean there are vessels longer than 50 feet on a lot of those properties, on the property that's furthest to the left. I mean it's clearly more than 25, 30 feet. But the waterway itself ends at the property line.

So you're saying that red line that goes into the waterway is the edge of your property?

Yes.

And you're saying we could go 25 feet from that edge? Nothing would be able to pass?

Well, no. It's 25 feet or 30 percent. And I have – Wait, wait, wait. Stop. I know that. Yeah. So 30 percent would be less. It's 25 feet or 30 percent, whichever is less. Right, so 30 percent would be less than 25 feet if you measure from the edge of the property line to the other side, which would be the canal.

So how many feet does that take us into?

I think it's 67 feet, roughly, approximately.

What's 30 percent? What's 30 percent of the waterway that you're suggesting? You're saying it's less than 25 feet. I think it's less. I think it's like just less than 25 feet, like 22 feet or something. So you're saying you could go 22 feet from that red line that's on the north side of your property that's in the waterway. You can go 22 more feet into the waterway. You realize that there would be no passage – there could be no possible passage through that canal. So FD –

Please, please, please. So FDEP would also have to approve it in the Army Corps, and they won't approve something that infringes on others' riparian rights?

It doesn't matter what other municipalities or other government agencies have approved. The city of Fort Lauderdale has to approve it. So we have to be practical. We have to allow people navigable waters. And you're saying that 22 more feet from that red line on the north side here should be – is justifiable in your client's eyes to allow a boat to protrude into the waterway that far?

Not only is it justifiable, but I just think it's not – it's fair from a property rights standpoint, and it's legally required. It's the same thing the city does with setbacks, Mr. Mayor. If you look at any property that's developed in the city, setbacks are measured from the property line. If somebody was to say you have to measure your setback from a different location than the property line that's inward –

You know what, you remind me of a developer who comes to us and says, I can have 70 stories here, but the law says your height has to be one half the setback. Your setback has to be one half the height. Well, we always give yard modifications – not always, but we often give yard modifications if it's practical, right? In this case, how can you possibly justify the practicality of this knowing how narrow this waterway is?

In the example you just gave, it's still based on the legal boundaries of the property.

But it doesn't have – it's not a matter of right.

The measurement is what I'm saying. It's not just that the measurement is a matter of right because you're measuring things based on the legal property boundaries.

I know, but the extension of the dock into the waterway is not a matter of right. And you gave us a standard that we have to determine whether or not the essential requirements of law were applied at the advisory board level. I don't believe that that's the standard. I'd ask our city attorney, but I don't know if that's the standard.

I didn't say essential requirements. You said those are the words. I'm sorry? Competent, substantial evidence. Oh, competent, substantial evidence.

Okay, competent, substantial evidence. Yes. That's our standard as a commission that we have to determine whether or not competent, substantial evidence was the basis for the advisory board's opinion. Is that what you're saying? Yes.

I mean this isn't like an appeal situation.

This is a quasi-judicial – Exactly.

So it's not – yeah, you're not limited to whatever the Marine Advisory Board did, this city commission did.

So where does the competent, substantial evidence come from? Whose competent, substantial evidence are we assessing here?

Well, things that are on the record. So when you heard stuff from others who were speaking about reducing their property values, first of all, they didn't give their addresses on the record, so it's not even clear how far away they are from the property. But to say that – Quiet, quiet, quiet. I didn't hear – verbally stated. And I didn't review all the property – the cards that they filled out. But nevertheless, it's – there's – I didn't hear anybody who's qualified to assess property values speak to that. So that's an example of something that's not competent, substantial evidence.

We – okay, we may or may not use that in our decision-making, but I'm just trying to find out – maybe I'll ask our city attorney. This competent, substantial evidence standard, where – does that come in at all with regard to –

So the determination is made on a finding of extraordinary circumstance. And then, as we've been discussing ad nauseum, that it can be no more than 25 feet or 30 feet within. The waterway, we're also not really defining property line and waterway. And while a property line may extend into here, it is still underneath the waterway. And so to your point about practicality, that would just not apply. So you are here in a quasi-judicial capacity to ascertain whether what the Marine Advisory Board did was correct. And we still have Mr. Gill to make the case.

So it's not competent, substantial evidence that is the standard here. It's whether there are extraordinary circumstances that require us to make that decision.

So it's – in order to make the decision of extraordinary circumstances, whatever facts are in the record to support that decision.

It says right here, extraordinary – under extraordinary circumstances. Sure. So that's our standard.

That is – that is the standard.

So it's up to us to determine what are extraordinary circumstances.

All I'm saying is the factual basis for it has to be competent, substantial. I don't think your city attorney would disagree with that. But nevertheless, I agree with your city attorney that the main issue here is where do you measure it from. And I think that's something that this commission could decide. What are the extraordinary circumstances? The extraordinary circumstances are that you have properties just across the waterway that were measured differently, and it's clear that it's because they own the submerged land. And here my client owns the submerged land, and they're being treated differently because a measurement is being imposed that does not have precedent in the city, not that I was provided. And also the city's zoning manager, Bert Harris, expressed an opinion when this permit was issued. The permit was issued, by the way, for this dock by the city, and then it got put on hold. And then Bert Ford – I'm sorry, Bert Ford, the city zoning manager, was asked for his opinion, and he said it's measured from the property line, and nothing in the code says from the wet face. He said that, and then more discussions happened, and that was not accepted. That was not accepted for whatever reason. And so what happened after that was the official position was that it should be measured from the wet face, even though the property line – the code says property line. But we're not – we're going to pretend like it doesn't say that, I guess. But it does say it, and I think the city should apply the code as written, and that's the extraordinary circumstance we have here.

Okay. May I ask a question of the city attorney? Is that an extraordinary circumstance in your view?

Well, I think it creates a frustration of law. We would be –

I'm frustrated.

Yeah.

I don't know if that's a frustration of law. It's a frustration of an accountant.

Well, understandable. Not quite the same thing. And that would be for you to ascertain whether that –

I think there are extraordinary circumstances that suggest we don't grant it because you're completely blocking the waterway.

Well, I guess, Mayor, what I want to get to is the gentleman asserted that the fact that there's an existing one creates an extraordinary circumstance. That's what I'm trying to get to the heart of. Yeah, that's what – that's the argument. So it doesn't seem to me that if there's another one that that creates an extraordinary circumstance. There may be other arguments in there that would better lead to an extraordinary circumstance, but that, to me, does not seem to lead to an extraordinary circumstance. In and of itself, yes. Okay. Thank you. Folks, please, please, please. Also, this is not an interactive conversation. There's been no – It's a Greek chorus out there.

It is a Greek chorus. It is a Greek chorus. I mean, just sit back and take your lawyer hat off. Does this make sense for us to grant a piling that could be placed in the middle of the waterway, a boat that can extend beyond the middle of the waterway, and allow for navigable activity on that waterway? Does that make sense to you?

It does not extend into the waterway. The dock is 50 feet from the seawall. The waterway is 135 feet wide, okay?

Let us – can you put the overhead frame back on this? Yes. Okay, there we go. All right. So if we – there's your boundary line, which is the middle of the waterway, right? We're not going to the boundary line. We're not going to that. You're not going to the property line? We're not.

We're 15 feet inside of it, inside of it.

No, no, no. Just listen for a second. No problem. So based on your argument, we should go – we could go from the property line, and we can go 25 feet into the waterway, or 30%, which you say is 22 feet. Now, does that provide safe, navigable water passageway through that canal?

But that's not the situation we have here. If that were to be the situation, you could evaluate each case differently, just like your city attorney advised. That's not what we have here.

So you're saying that the way you're measuring it, you want your dock to come – that would end up coming below that boundary line?

It would come below the edge of those vessels in that picture. I mean, it's not going – it's not – if it's 15 feet under that line, how is it going to obstruct the waterway? I'll tell you how, because while your dock may be that length, your boat doesn't have to be. But that is a separate – that's a separate issue. And by the way, the boats are included in the plan. The boat does not exceed the – Well, that's your boat.

But what about the next boat you decide you want to get a bigger boat? There could be code enforcement.

The city has a code enforcement process. But the code doesn't deny you. You have a right to have as big a boat as you want. Then I guess – then anybody on this canal can do that then. Anybody on this canal can do that.

So why are we going to enable that practice with having longer docks? You see, it's a safety issue for the owner. So what do we have here?

Mayor, can we hear from Mr. Gill at some point soon? All right.

Why don't we hear from the – okay. Thank you. Thank you for listening. Yeah, yeah, sure. Just playing devil's advocate here. Have a seat. We'll be with you in just a moment.

No problem.

Mr. Gill.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Commissioners. Hudson Gill. I'm here representing the Marine Advisory Board. I think it's first important to sort of take a step back and look at what this application is. It's before you. It's an application for a waiver of the limitations on docks. That's what it's called. That's what they're seeking. And what they say in their own application on page five, which is part of the materials you provided, is there's two piers. The West Finger Pier, they want to build 56 feet, 6 inches out. The permitted distance without the waiver, according to them, is 25 feet. So the distance, the waiver they were seeking then is 31 feet, 6 inches. The East Finger Pier is 36 feet, 6 inches. What they say the permitted distance is without a waiver is 25 feet. And what they want is an 11-foot, 6-inch waiver. So they're measuring there in their own application from the seawall because that's how far out the docks go. Well, let me ask you this.

Let me ask you this. If, in fact, the law says you're supposed to measure it from the boundary, okay, and their boundary is as indicated in the backup photo, which seems to land in the middle of the canal, is it at all a waiver of limitations if the entire dock falls within that space? Why does it even need a waiver of limitations if, in fact, it falls within that boundary line?

Because the city measures from the upland property line in determining what's permitted as a matter of right. The waiver that you're here to consider, Mayor, is you looked at the language before, but I'll go over it again because there's an important provision that was not discussed. So you're here sitting as a commission in a quasi-aggressive capacity with your powers under 47-19.3, which says you may waive the limitations in the code regarding dock lengths under extraordinary circumstances. It continues then and says in no event shall the extension exceed 30% of the width of the waterway. Your code defines waterway as any navigable waterway which provides access for watercraft to the intercoastal waterway and including the intercoastal waterway. It is not defined by the submerged land that owns that. It's simply defined by the waterway that provides –

The width of the waterway. Yes. Okay. So 30% of the width of the waterway would allow him to do what?

It – and the materials that you've been provided to, it provides the total width of the waterway there, which is the canal and the boat basin. Right. And I believe – just let me – so I don't misstate the numbers here. Excuse me. The total waterway right there is – distance is 135 feet, 6 inches. So what's 30% of that? Like 40 feet? Yes. But what the Marine Advisory Board recommended, and that's how that works, it's a recommendation that came from them. It goes before them first. They consider it. They hear testimony. Then they make a recommendation. They recommended ultimately approving the waiver, but up to 36 feet, 6 inches, which is what the smaller pier they're requesting is for both piers. That's what they recommended. And what is the applicant asking for? Up to – for one of them, that's the distance they're asking for. So the recommendation is to approve one of the finger piers as they requested. The second one is much larger. It goes to 56 feet. So they're recommending only approve that up to 36 feet.

But 30% of the waterway is 40 feet.

Is about 40 feet, yes. So if they ask –

So we could do up to 40 feet.

If you find extraordinary circumstances, yes.

Extraordinary circumstances, okay. But definitely not 56.

No, not under the way the code is written.

Right, because it can be no more than 30% of the waterway.

Correct. And the waterway is defined as the entire navigable waterway. So it's from seawall to seawall.

So do you think that the advisory board would be amenable to at least allowing him up to 40%? But the 56 feet is out of the question.

Well, I believe in the initial hearing before the Marine Advisory Board, they asked the applicant if they would be happy with 40 feet, and the applicant said no. And so they were presented with two requests, one for 56 feet and a few more inches, and one for 36. And their recommendation was approve both up to 36 feet and 6 inches.

I see. Okay. So that's the recommendation of the advisory board, then?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Okay. I have no further questions at this time. Does anyone else have any questions? Is this in your district, Ben? Yeah. Do you have any questions? I know I asked a lot of questions. I'm sorry. And I covered good questions. Cross-examining these. We'll take it.

So is the 36 1⁄2 feet still, that would still require a waiver? Is that right?

It requires a waiver because it's beyond the 25 feet. So you have to show extraordinary circumstances to obtain that additional waiver. But it's within the 30% you're able to grant.

Yeah. Yeah. Mayor, I mean, I just, I am not seeing the, look, the standard is seeking to allow for the installation of the finger peers following ULDR Section 4719.3 in a finding of extraordinary circumstances to allow the waiver. I am not seeing evidence that meets the criteria of extraordinary circumstances. So my suggestion is deny.

Okay. Does anyone else have any comments or questions? That dotted line, that's, it's not there, but it's in our backup. There's like a dotted line. Do you have the, do you see that? Can you pull up the, is it page four, Mayor? Page 14 of 61 in the application? Oh, in the application. Yeah.

I'm sorry, Mayor, what page is that?

14 is the picture. Can you guys pull it up? Okay. We're going to get it.

Mayor, just while they're pulling up, I mean, in my view, we really do need to take to heart when we, when the ULDR calls out extraordinary circumstances, it really needs to be extraordinary circumstances, in my view, for many reasons. And so I just think we've got to really adhere to that standard. I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'm just curious. I want to know what all these demarcations are on the, on the photo. Yep. We're getting there.

It's exhibit one. Exhibit one.

Are you getting it?

That's page 12 of the.

While we're waiting for that. Next one. Can I just ask you a quick question? Keep going.

Keep going.

So the year before, in the minutes, it's clear what the extraordinary circumstances were. They were delineated for that. But not, I don't see that in the minutes of the most recent meeting where they agreed to the 36.5 of both, both the Eastern and Western peers. But did they get into any discussion at all about the extraordinary circumstances? Like they did a year ago?

With the most recent meeting of the Marine Advice Board?

Uh-huh. No, I don't believe there was any additional discussion regarding what the. So no other discussion? Because I was just wondering, as I said, I read it a year ago. I'm not reading it now. No, I don't believe there's anything additional added to the more recent meeting. Okay. Thank you.

So what were the extraordinary circumstances that were defined a year ago?

From November. Oh, there we are.

That's, so that picture is different than the one we have in the backup. There we go.

What is that dotted line? That's in the application. I mean, I can only represent what the application says. I didn't prepare that document.

Counselor, can you tell us what the dotted line represents?

I believe that is the 50-foot mark, or 50-foot mark of the dock. It's 56 measured from the white face of the seawall. That's 50 feet from the seawall? I believe so, yeah. Yes. I mean, it's identified on the right side of the screen as the approximate limit.

It says approximate limit of proposed boat slip area improvement.

Right. So that would be the longer of the finger pierce.

Which actually is less than the boat that's to the right, but the boat to the right has a very short pier. See, that's what I'm saying. The longer the pier, the boat gets even longer. But we can even stipulate to a smaller boat.

If you want, you could do that as a condition. You could say the boats can't be any longer than any of the boats here. We can even agree to that. It's just, they just want to be able to use the property that's theirs in the way that they've been permitted to do so by every other entity that's looked at this application. And the extraordinary circumstance.

If I may, I want to just, how could we impose that on a future property owner?

I think it's getting confused, Vice Mayor. Your threshold issue here is extraordinary circumstance.

Right.

Not a comparative circumstance.

So I'm just saying, but what the attorney has suggested is that we could impose a length limit on a boat. I can see how we could do that with a current property owner, but how does that ride with the property? It's going to ride with the land. Right. You can't put that as a restriction on the deed. It doesn't ride with the property, right? Okay.

Well, if we do a restrictive covenant, it would run with the land. So we could do a recorded restrictive covenant.

If you so choose after finding that there's extraordinary circumstances. If you wanted to saddle the property with, yes, and that, you would have to first make that finding that that was something that was.

And then we could do that going forward and put a restrictive covenant on it. And then somebody has to know that that house in perpetuity is only allowed a 30-foot boat.

And the commission would have to justify the basis for that.

That's very unwieldy. I can just tell you as a matter of practice, nobody's going to remember that five years from now. So it's unwieldy going forward. I hear what you're saying. I understand what you're trying to offer. I can just tell you it's not going to work.

So I understand that the term extraordinary circumstances is really an emphasis here. And I agree that that is the standard. But I don't want to just – it's important, I think, not to overlook other languages in the code. And I think property line is there for a reason. So the extraordinary circumstance, again, is that the city staff is interpreting the code contrary to the plain language. Property line cannot be overlooked here. If you're denying this waiver, you're denying the definition of property line, which in the code expressly includes submerged land. It's expressed in the code's definitions of property line. It includes submerged land. And so you want to – if you have issues here, I suggest maybe we could look at revising the code. But my client had every right to rely on the code as written to propose what they have proposed here. And the fact is – I think it's self-evident from this photo right here – that it's not going to do anything, anything to impact navigation, nothing to impact other property values. That is not competent substantial evidence. If none of those other vessels have disturbed property values in this neighborhood, a dock shorter than the longer vessel to the right would not do so either.

Okay. So let's hear the recommendation of the district commissioner. Thank you, Mayor.

So thank you all for the discussion. Thank you for sharing. So, Mayor, I'd like to – is it introduce city clerk? Introduce resolution of denial.

All right. So there's a resolution being introduced to deny the application. How does that – is that how it's done? Is it to accept the – well, we're not even accepting the recommendation of the advisory board.

You're not if that is your motion.

Right. You're just denying the whole thing, right? Correct. Okay. Okay. So there's a resolution on the floor.

Mayor, do you want to close public hearing? City clerks.

Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand there's a resolution on the floor to deny it. Okay. So does anyone else wish to speak on this item? Any final words?

Mayor, did you have any further questions for Mr. Gill?

I'm sorry?

Did you have any further questions for Mr. Gill?

Are you done?

Yes, Mayor. I don't have any else.

Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gill. Okay. So do I hear a motion to close public hearing?

Moved.

Do I hear a second? Moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst?

Yes.

Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. A public hearing on PH1 is now closed, and a resolution has been introduced to deny the application. Any other further questions? Please call the roll.

A resolution, City Commissioner of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, denying the application by Rhiannon Holcomb, a single woman, and Vincent Conjine, a single man, for a waiver of limitations for the installation of two finger piers, extending a maximum distance of 56 feet 6 inches, plus or minus into the waterway adjacent to 1409 Southwest 17th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33315, pursuant to Sections 47-19E of the City of Fort Lauderdale Unified Land Development Regulations. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst?

Yes.

Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And that resolution is denied. So, okay, PH2, a public hearing resolution approving the reallocation of funds from the Park's general obligation bond. Good night, folks. Sorry to keep you up this late, but the amount of $774,146.88 from North Fork Elementary School Improvement Project and allocating and transferring $474,146.88 to Bass Park Improvement and allocating $300,000 to Lauderdale Isles Land Improvement Project. As I recall, the reason why we're doing this is because the school board is going to eliminate that school as a school. So, no one has signed up to speak. Someone please move to close public hearing? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And public hearing is now closed on PH2. Someone would like to introduce the resolution approving the reallocation. It's been introduced. Please call the roll.

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving the reallocation of funds from the Parks and Recreation general obligation bonds and a total amount of $774,146.88 from North Fork Elementary School Improvement Project by allocating and transferring $474,146.88 to the Bass Park Improvement Project and allocating and transferring $300,000 to the Lauderdale Isles Landing Improvement Project pursuant to City of Fort Lauderdale resolution number 18-261 and resolution number 20-08, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And PH2 is now approved. OFR 1 is the first reading of an ordinance amending the City of Fort Lauderdale's Unified Land Development Regulations. And, okay, does anyone have any questions? No one's signed up to speak. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance?

Introduced.

The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll.

In ordinance to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the Unified Land Development Regulations, Article 7, Notice Procedures, more specifically Section 47-27.4, Notice for Site Plan Level 1, 2, 3, and Level 4, Conditional Use Plats and Amendments to Site Plan Level 3 and 4, Section 47-25.5, Rezoning and Change in Uses, and Section 47-27.6, Vacation of Public Rights of Ways to Modify the Requirements for Public Participation Meetings in Providing for Correction of Scrivener's Errors, Severability, Repeal of Conflicting Ordinance Provisions, and an Effective Date. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beza-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentiles?

Yes. And ORF-1 is now approved on first reading. OFR-2's first reading equates a judicial ordinance approving a vacation of right-of-way of a 50-foot-wide by 102-foot-long portion of Coconut Drive. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in, and the Commission will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received and make them a part of the record. Courtney, we didn't have any discussions regarding this, did we? We did. Okay. Vice Mayor, do you have any disclosures regarding this? Uh, uh, uh, for a beer. Okay. Glass of red wine, I get it. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman?

Um, yes, I spoke with Jason Crush pertaining to this one. Okay. No beer, Jim? No beer for me.

I had a conversation with Courtney Crush, Commissioner Glassman?

I don't think I did. I was left out. Right. Not necessary. Immaturity. No, I have no, I have no disclosures. I, I was, I, I was not invited to the party. It's okay. She already counted as three. Here you go. Yes, thank you very much. Next time, Courtney, you'll make it up to me. It's okay. Thank you. I got you. It's okay.

Sure, sure. Yes, yes, Mayor. Council, applicant, neighbors, site visits. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

It's politics.

Okay. Um, uh, so, Courtney has signed up to speak, but only for questions. Um, anyone else wish to speak on this item? Uh, there's nobody else, so would someone please move to close public hearing?

Moved.

Do I hear a second? Second? It's been seconded. Please call the roll.

Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst?

Yes.

Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. An OFR2 public hearing is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll.

An ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, vacating approximately 50 foot wide by 102 foot long right-of-way adjacent to blocks four and five, according to the plot thereof, as recorded in Plot Book 22, page 22 of the public records of Broward County, Florida, located west of Southwest 11th Avenue, north of West Davy Boulevard, east of South Fork New River, and south of Southwest 9th Street. All satellites being in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glossman?

Yes.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And OFR2 is approved on first reading. Moving to OSR1, second reading ordinance amending Section 13-151, ambulance support user fees. Anyone have any questions? No one signed up to speak. There being none. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance? Introduce. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll.

An ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, demanding Article 5, Emergency Medical Transport Services of Chapter 13, Fire Prevention and Protection, Section 13-151, ambulance transport user fees of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, by increasing ambulance transport user fees and providing for severability repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions at an effective date. Commissioner Sorensen? Yes. Vice Mayor Herbst? Commissioner Glossman?

Yes.

Commissioner Beasley-Pittman?

Yes.

Mayor Trentals?

Yes. And OSR1 is now approved on second reading. I guess that's it, right? Oh, I'm sorry. We have one more. We have R-5, Resolution Designating Vice Mayor. So it's traditional that we go in reverse order. So Commissioner District 1, John Herbst has had it for this past year. So District 4 would now be the eligible district. So would someone like to introduce a resolution?

Introduce.

Saying what?

Saying yes, District 4, Commissioner Ben Sorensen will serve as Vice Mayor.

Okay. God, it's like pulling teeth.

Yeah.

Well, some things are just self-explanatory.

Is this something you're willing to accept, Commissioner Sorensen? Thank you. Yeah. So happily accept.

That and solid waste. And solid waste. Solid waste first. Please. There's certain priorities. There are benefits.

There's certain priorities.

It gets better. Keep sending it my way. Amazing. Okay. Okay. Anyone have any questions? No one has signed up to speak. Please call the roll.

A resolution to City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, designating Commissioner Ben Sorensen as Vice Mayor for a term beginning on April 7, 2026 and ending upon designation of a Vice Mayor at the City Commission's first meeting in April 2027 and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Sorensen?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman?

Yes.

Mayor Trinthals?

Yes. And I want to thank Commissioner Herbst for his serving as Vice Mayor this past year. And now Commissioner Sorensen is going to have to buy all new shirts. That's right. I'll get working on it. Additional shirts. That's right. Were you ever Vice Mayor? Yeah, you were Vice Mayor before. Once.

Twice.

Twice. I've been Vice Mayor. Yes. Twice. Yes.

So third time's the charm.

You have quite a wardrobe.

Yes. Yes. I'll dig in the closet. Thank you. Can you fit them?

Can you fit into them now? We'll see. That's it.

My biceps are getting huge, so we'll see if they can fit. Thank you.

City Manager, is there any further business of the meeting of the commission?

No, Mayor.

Okay. Do you have any announcements to make, City Attorney? No, Mayor. Okay. This meeting is now concluded. We'll now... Oh, sorry. Go ahead. We'll now resume the conference meeting. We'll now resume the conference meeting. We're going to talk about your favorite subject, the Charter Revision Board recommendations and updates. So where we last left off is a real cliffhanger. We were trying to decide whether or not we wanted to move forward today because there was no significant neighborhood outreach that had been undertaken, which was one of the requirements that the commission had articulated in a previous meeting. So what's the commission want to do going forward?

Mayor, I just have one point of information because we were all focusing on June 8th, the deadline to submit the ballot questions. Yep. However, if you look at the CAM, May 19th, we have to approve an ordinance on first reading containing the ballot questions. That's not far away. And then June 2nd, adopt an ordinance on second reading containing the ballot questions. Then June 8th, so to the supervisor of elections. So we're really talking about we have to have our act together by May 19th. So that's a heavy load.

Okay. Do we want to move forward on any of these recommendations without having to go out to the type of community outreach that we previously articulated? We have that authority to do that tonight.

Again, I'm just going to reiterate my recommendation that we do just the cleanup items. Items that need to conform with state statutes and requirements. Well, do you want to identify those? Oh, I don't have that. I don't think I have that list. I happen to have the book in front of me. I have the book, but I don't think it's broken up into, like, that kind of a category.

Mayor, they're not particularly defined as cleanup. Some would be more obviously cleanup than others. However, if you would like, I would like to introduce from my office Paul Van Gel and Gabrielle Bush, who have spent countless hours working on this, and they will be able to identify for you those things that might fall within the definition of cleanup for your interest.

Well, we can take it page by page. Sure. We can start with the organizational meeting.

Sure. And while we're doing that, I think there's a number of items here that we can probably consolidate down. There's some ministerial things that we can lump together. It would be my recommendation that we don't consider any more than between three, five at most. Well, we're allowed three pages on the ballot. I know, but we get voter fatigue. And so I've always noticed that if you overload, first of all, they don't go to the bottom of the ballot. And there's a tendency for people just to vote no when you overwhelm them. So if you want things to pass, less is more.

All right. Let's start with the organizational meeting. I believe this is a cleanup item. And this is where the city commission takes office on the first meeting following Broward County Canvassing Board certifying the election results. Any controversy with regard to that? I don't think there is.

I think that's a requirement to come into consistency with state statutes. So I don't think we have a choice about that.

And that could be a moving date also. If there's like a close race where there's a runoff that's necessary, the canvassing board may not certify the election results for a couple weeks or three weeks or four weeks or whatever. So just keep that in mind. But I think you're right. It is consistent with state statute. So if there's no – so now the next item is initiative and referendum petition for proposed ordinance. I'm not sure that's a cleanup item. How do you want to respond to that? This is a more comprehensive one. I don't know.

Which – sorry, which number are you on this?

This is 3.15. Three point – It's an Exhibit A. All right. This is where they want to reduce the number of signatures necessary to 10 and so forth and so on.

Mayor, are you trying to focus on things that you would deem cleanup to comport with statute, et cetera? This one would be changing things. Yeah, no.

So this is not a cleanup item. So let's keep moving.

Can we get the list right? I think they have the list for us of the cleanup, right? No. Do you have that list? I don't think so.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. Paul Bengale, City Attorney's Office. We divided this in four sections. So you may recall that at your October 7th meeting last year, there were sections on which you reached consensus. There were also – there were sections on which you provided direction for the Charter Board to go back and deliberate. There are new human resources-related revisions. There's one recommendation to repeal Section 1003 regarding publications for public hearings. And then – Okay. Hold on.

Sorry. Paul, can we – in your presentation, can you speak to what you're referring to just so we can – so everyone can kind of visually see this? Sure.

Mayor, may I jump in and make a clarification, perhaps a recommendation? No. Things that would be cleanup would be encompassed largely in the threes. So perhaps, as you're saying, 09, 05, 04 would be cleanup items?

But they're not – but in your summary, though, they're not really designated that way.

Mayor, if I may, real cleanup could – it's 3.05, and as Commissioner Glassman has mentioned vice mayor designation, that's one that could – that's kind of like a vestige from before the previous revision. Yeah, we understand that.

So we're – I'm just going through the pages, and we're going to what's cleanup and what's not cleanup. Right. So I just wanted – I wanted – I was going to – Paul, I was going to use the booklet that you folks gave us, and just go exhibit by exhibit, and we'll determine what's cleanup, what's not cleanup. Like, the initiative and referendum – like, the initiative and referendum is not cleanup. That's changing. That's a big change. So if we keep going –

Well, again, my question is – We don't have what you're asking. Oh, they don't have it? We don't have what you're asking. There's 26 items here.

But we don't have what you're asking. So we'll – just – let me – let's just go through it. I thought they did that. Let's just go through it. Okay. Seven point – on page 13, section 716, election, tie, vote.

Mayor, that's an obvious cleanup, I would suggest. That's a cleanup. That's because the word primary – Right. It –

Right. So –

Residually is in there from before the last revision.

Now, when you say it's to be decided by lot, why wouldn't we just do a runoff? That's original language. I know. But by lot, that means flipping a coin?

A tie. That's original language, and they didn't – that wasn't changed.

Do we want that?

Okay.

I think that if there's a tie vote, we should have a runoff.

That requires us to schedule another election, though, which is very expensive. It makes it complicated. Because once we move to the November elections, we don't have that follow-up election. I understand that. But I'm just saying – There's a couple hundred thousand dollars to run an election. All right. It's so rare. You don't have to worry. Yeah. Flip a coin.

Okay. I trust the city attorney to flip a coin. Okay. Sale of personal property. Personal property belonging to the city shall not be sold except by provided by ordinance. Not quite sure what that means, but that's a cleanup item, right?

I wouldn't consider that a cleanup item.

I would suggest that that's a change. That's not a cleanup item. Okay.

Mayor, if I may, again, the threes that you identified, 04, 05, and 09, the items that would be miscellaneous, and then potentially some of the human resources items, I think, would be only those that would be defined as cleanup.

Yeah, but you don't have those in that order. Yes. You have them throughout – We have them in a category, but – You have section three sprinkled throughout the book.

Mayor, look at the first three pages of the camp. I mean, in the book. Look at the first three pages in the book.

Page two of –

Everything is broken down into categories, and it's really easy just to go through that list. You want to do it that way? It says government, human resources, property, and miscellaneous. That's the easiest way to do this.

All right. We'll do it that way. Okay.

So go back on the slide, if you would. Go back to the table of contents, please, and then go to government. So let's just do government first. Okay.

So qualification of members, 3.03. I'm not in favor of reducing the age to 18, so it's up to you guys. I mean, you can put it on the ballot, but I think that's ridiculous. An 18-year-old sitting up here passing a billion-dollar budget, I don't think that makes any sense.

If the focus is on cleanup there, that would not be a cleanup item. I'm trying to pinpoint for you so that you can limit your discussion.

My only feeling about that, as I articulated last time, if you're old enough to serve, you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to sit up on the desk. Okay.

Okay. So let's go back one slide. So let's pull that. Let's pull that. We'll call that not cleanup. That will be community input.

Ads 3.04, Ads Clerk for Ministerial Review for Candidate Documentation, Eliminate City Commission as Canvasser and the ability of electors to challenge candidates during canvassing.

Yeah. I think this is good and important.

04, 05, and 09, I would deem cleanup, sir.

4, 5, and 9.

Okay. 4, 5, and 9. So now, yeah, thanks. Go back to government.

That's three items. 4, 5, and 9. Okay. How about human resources?

That's another section to review to determine whether it would be cleanup.

Are we done with, just go back to the government, if you would, so we're tracking. So we're saying 3 is for more discussion, 4, 5, or cleanup.

5 is cleanup.

4, and 4.

And 9. And 9. 4, hold on. Yep. 4, what is 4?

Mayor, 4 is pretty substantial because it eliminates the City Commission as canvasser. Well, that's obvious because the Supervisor, the Broward County Canvassing Board canvasses the election. But it also eliminates the ability of electors to challenge candidates during canvassing. This is 3.04? 3.04.

All candidates for the office of mayor or commissioner shall submit to the city clerk for a ministerial review documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with this chartered applicable law. That's when you're first signing up. The city commissioner shall be the judge of the qualifications of its members, referendums, and municipal elections subject to review by the courts. That's cleanup.

Except to the extent that it's changing what's there already. Yeah, I know, but what's – So if you look at the markup, you'll see that the language about at the time of the city commission meets to canvass the results of any election, which you don't do because the Broward Canvassing Board does. So that's kind of cleanup. But then it goes on to say any registered elector of the city of Fort Lauderdale may be entitled to file with the city commission an affidavit setting out the facts showing that a candidate has violated the provision of this charter as a matter of his or her election or is otherwise unqualified to hold office. And the city commission shall take proof at such meeting and declare the results. So that's something, if deleted, it's pretty substantial.

All right, that's not cleanup then. I mean, I have no problem with the revised 3.04.

I think, yeah, and I think, Mayor, it should be – I think as we talk through this, it should be, is anything – are there components of this that are more substantial and that we think those topics should go in front of the community for more discussion?

Okay.

So I don't think this needs to, but – I don't think it needs to. Yeah, okay. I don't think it needs to. So then I agree. Yeah.

So 3.05, designation of vice mayor. Senator I'll go back. Yes. That's cleanup.

Yep. 3.05, yes, that would be cleanup because this didn't follow the change from three – Right, the election. – in three years.

So that's cleanup. Yeah. What's 09? Well, 3.08, reduce the number of consecutive absences from four to three. Is that cleanup? Is that controversial?

That would be substantive more than cleanup. Yeah, it kind of depends what you mean. I think there's more substantive than cleanup. Yeah. Okay, we'll move on.

But again, if it's substantive and we feel like we're good with it –

I'm good with it.

Yeah, I'm fine with that as well, unless someone on the commission feels like, hey, we really need more time in the community with this item. So I think it sounds like – yeah, go ahead.

I was just wondering if we're going to discuss this. So basically this would say you can have a felony conviction and still serve, but right now you can't?

Not exactly, because of the governor's powers. So there was discussion about that, and by statute, the governor has powers to suspend or remove. So it seems – so the consensus of the Charter Revision Board was to leave it to the governor under law.

So it was taking it away from the city? Yeah. So let's move on past that.

Yeah.

I don't think that's a clear –

That's a more – like community. Organizational meeting of both – Great. Go to the next one.

First regular meeting after – okay, now 09 is ministerial.

Mayor, can we go back just one moment to 3.08? There was also – I think there was consensus last time to reduce the number of absences from four to three.

Right. I don't think that's the controversial part. It's deleting the forfeiture of office for felony conviction.

So what you could do, of course, is revise what's proposed or tell us to do something else or do part of it?

I think you should leave that in there. I think you should leave the city – that any member of the city commission who shall, while in office, be convicted of a felony shall forfeit their office. I think that should be our right, not just leaving it to the governor.

Yes.

Unfortunately, the missing meetings is in that same section. So do you want to address that only or do you want to move on and not address the section at all? No, leave everything the way it is. Just change from four to three and leave everything else. Okay. But that would also – that would go on the ballot to change from four to three absences and a good cause shown.

Four to three plus felony.

Right. Yeah. But the only change would be changing the four to three and good – except for good cause shown. Correct. Okay. So that would go on the ballot in part then.

All right. What else do you recommend?

Or nine.

Is that one – is 3.08 requiring community input or no? No.

Okay. Can we back up on that – on the absences though? The only part that I had a little heartburn of, it says unless good cause is shown. How do we define good cause? What's good cause and who determines that? That's arbitrary. So how do we determine what's good cause?

What's an excused absence?

Yeah. It's like the dog ate my homework? I mean, what's a good cause? We need to define these terms. If we're going to put them in there –

Well, you're right. You're right.

You know? Good cause needs to be defined in some way, shape, or form.

It's too arbitrary.

Yeah. It's arbitrary and it lends itself to manipulation.

All right. Let's move past that right now. 3.09, that's ministerial.

That's fine, yeah.

3.12, 72 hours notice instead of six hours. I mean, that's fine too. That's ministerial.

Well, I have an issue with that. It used to just be six hours.

That's what I'm saying.

It used to be six hours. But I think we need to talk about that. That's not a cleanup because I think 72 hours is unreasonable.

Well, it says unless otherwise, except emergency. An emergency. You can still – It says it's practical under the circumstances.

Well, why are we changing it to 72 hours though? The original language is what, six hours? Six hours.

The Charter Revision Board wanted longer notice.

Yeah, I think six hours is a little ridiculous.

As much as possible.

That many two hours is a lot of days, isn't it? So if I decide we're going to have a meeting at 10 o'clock in the morning, you have to be here by 4 o'clock. I mean, that's not fair. If I decide at 10 o'clock in the morning that we want an emergency meeting by 4 o'clock the same day, is that fair?

No. No. 24 hours maybe. 72 might be excessive. 48, compromise. I agree with John. I think there's something better than 72 and better than 6. I agree. So let's do 24. I can live with 24. I mean, if you're out of town, you can get back in 24 hours.

And it still retains the –

Or you can attend by Zoom.

And that at least gives them enough time to set things up to attend remotely. This is all pre-Zoom. Pre-Zoom. It presumes, it's pre-Zoom.

Procedurally, are you – in pulling these out, are you saying these are the ones you want to go forth on the ballot?

Yeah, these are – yeah, these could go on the ballot.

Could, or you would like them to? Well, let's just see what we have.

Actually, I think we might need to bring this all back once we go through this and have a second discussion about this.

So you'll pick out what –

We'll still have too many, I think, at the way we're going right now.

Yeah, and that's kind of my point. I understand.

But let's just pull out the ones that we know are ministerial, and then we can go back and decide which ones should go on the ballot. Human resources, what's the ministerial –

Okay, so let's just recap government just to make sure we're all on the same page. Yeah, sure. If you don't mind. So just – okay. So let's go – so 3.03, qualification of members.

On the 3.03, the only one that I was a little questioning of is 12 months in the city is fine. I think 12 months in the district, I had a little bit of heartburn over that. It prohibits people from moving around the city. I think if you're living in the city, you have a good understanding of what's going on in districts. You could live on one side of the street and know what's going on on the other side of the street. You know, I look at it this way. I would say roughly 80% to 90% of what we vote on are citywide issues. They're not district-specific issues. And I think if you're living in the district for at least six months, you have an opportunity to get out there, walk the streets, meet with the HOA members. And at the end of the day, it's up to the voters to decide if they feel that you represent them or not. The voters are the ultimate determination of whether or not they think you're a suitable candidate for office to represent their district. It shouldn't be us. So I think six months is reasonable. As long as you're a resident of the city, you're familiar with city issues, I think the goal is to prevent people from moving into the city and immediately running for office. We don't want people with no connection to the city. But I think if you live in the city for a year, I think six months in the district ought to be adequate. Just my thought.

You're saying 12 months in the city and six months in the district.

Right. I think six months in the district. Because, again, I would say if we go back and look at what's on our agenda tonight, 90% of that is things that are not in my district at the very least. So I don't think district residency for a year is necessary. We vote on so many things that are not district-related.

All right. So you're recommending 12 months in the city, six months in the district, except for the mayor?

Because the mayor can live anywhere in the city.

Right. I like it a year both ways.

Yeah, me too. I think it's important to be in the district.

Yeah, I think it should be consistent, a year in the district, a year in the city.

Well, when I was reading over this, I thought the timeline was a little excessive. I thought it could be reduced. So if we're talking about 12 for the city and six for the district, that would be a direction I would go in.

To you. To you, King David. Split it down the middle. Nine months. Okay. Well, I do like the 12 months in the city, first of all. Yes. So we're in agreement with that, right? Yes, absolutely. All right. So the question is within the district. So...

What if you move in in July? You're already down to three months. What's that? You're already going to miss all those commission meetings. If you move in July to a district, you don't know what's going on for July, August. Let's just... All right.

Let's just leave it all at 12 months. Let's just leave it all at 12 months. Yeah. Okay. Anything else on government, Commissioner Sorensen?

Thanks, Mayor. Just go back. Let's just... Okay. So... But that's also the 18-year-old thing, right? Right. Qualification is the 18-year-old thing. Are you all cool with that? Which I'm good with 18, because I think...

Well, you're in the Navy. That's what I'm saying. Exactly. Can I start singing? I'm good with 18. Okay.

So we're good. All right. So... I got outvoted? All right. Fine. Let's see if I vote with you again. First time for everything. There you go. Okay. So 03... So 03 is good to put on the ballot. Okay. 04... No. No. More community input. Right. 05... Good to go on the ballot. Yep. 08... More community input. Right. All right. 09... Yes. Good to go on the ballot. Yep. That's it. 312, special meetings. We're saying... You said 24 hours. Adjusting to 24 hours. And with that adjustment... Right. ...good to go on the ballot. Yep. So first of all, good. 3.15, more community input, I think, for this one, right? Yeah.

Commissioner, I'm sorry to interrupt me. I'm trying to understand what your end goal is, because I'm seeing you're selecting some for the ballot. I get it. We'd move forward with those as they are, or not, if there are too many.

We want to first identify which ones should, that are not controversial, that are cleanup items, or that are items that, even if there are changes, we don't consider them controversial, and we're prepared to put them on the ballot.

Understood. But when you say community, are you saying you want items that you've not decided whether to put on the ballot to go back out in this process? Yeah. Correct.

Yeah.

Okay, that's what I want to understand.

Correct.

Exactly. So when I say community, that's more time.

And they may not make it on this ballot.

Right. Yep. Okay. So 3.15 is going to go out to the community? Right. I mean, okay, so that's government.

Yeah.

Great. Okay.

Human resources.

Okay. So we haven't talked about these yet. But I think most of these are kind of ministerial. Yeah, they're all ministerial. Right? Yeah.

Mayor, excuse me, can I interject? Can we go back to 3.12 for a moment? 3.12? Yes. Yep. So the reason for the 72-hour notice requirement is that it comes from the government and the Sunshine Manual. And as soon as practical for emergencies comes from the Broward County Charter. So I would not recommend anything less than 72 hours public notice.

So we said 24 hours.

Yeah.

So we said 24 hours.

So for special, he's dating for special meetings, we should have 72 to conform with what the State Sunshine Manual says is sufficient for notice, at least 72 hours.

Yeah, but we're saying that's too long.

So you want to go below with the State Sunshine Manual?

Yeah, the State is just a recommendation. It's not a requirement.

Well, but it isn't. But you would rely on that, of course, in defending yourself. If anyone challenged, you would point to that to say that it was within –

Does it say no more than 72 hours or at least 72 hours? The government and the Sunshine Law says reasonable notice. It doesn't set a number of hours. However, the Attorney General's Office – I don't have the case law or I don't have it in front of me, but they have gleaned from the case law, from the law, that it should be at least 72.

At least 72.

Yeah. Okay. So it's saying at least 72, but –

Otherwise, unless there's an emergency.

Unless there's an event of emergency, it can be called sooner. So, Mayor, I think that covers you for – That's fine. Right? So I think as it is here is good.

And we've also defined emergency and the – As soon as practical – I mean, it's always going to be an emergency. Right. Exactly. I mean, which – Because the county charter also has requirements that apply to municipalities.

Right.

But, I mean, we're not held by the county, but –

Okay.

All right. At Human Resources, I think we've agreed our ministerial –

Sorry, Mayor, just for 312, we're supporting moving forward on the ballot with that.

Is that great? As is. As is. Great.

Okay, great.

Property, those are all controversial.

Yeah, I think those all need to go back out to the community.

Because I'm not – personally, I'm not keen on unanimous votes because that gives any one commissioner a veto power on all this. So, going to miscellaneous, deletes the remnant mention of primary election. Okay, because we don't have primary, so that can come off.

Sorry, Mayor, just for summary. So, all of property items, further discussion in the community.

I think so.

All human resources, we're saying, good to go on the ballot. Okay, great.

May I get one clarification? When you say more community input, does that mean that it would be possible to get it on the ballot this year, or it's not going?

Because of the short timeframe, as we have identified, that we'd have to know by May 16th, I don't think there's going to be time to put it out there and get the type of feedback that we had originally anticipated. I mean, Mayor Momano told us today that they had five meetings when they did the Infrastructure Task Force outreach for the City Hall project. So, you know, you're not going to have two meetings. You're not going to – I mean, I don't know how – I mean, it's just too short of a – it's a month.

Which is why I'm asking, what do you mean when you say for community review? Do you mean now in this process, or do you mean at a later date?

Well, I think that – look, I mean, Anthony, I don't know how much time you need to do this, but –

Mayor, it really isn't enough time. I mean, based on the previous outreach efforts that we tried to do, I wouldn't be able to get it all done.

Right. So it would be for some future election date.

So then when you're saying ballot, those are the ones we're going to put together and bring back to you in final form, and the others at some point will be sent out to the community. Not in between here and then, but some other time. At some time, at some point. So I want to be clear.

Okay, Mayor, you were at miscellaneous? No, on a miscellaneous, 716 is – no problem, none of that. Miscellaneous, that deletes primary election. Repeals requirement two publications for public hearings. Want to explain that? 10.03.

So currently, for any time you have a public hearing, there need to be two notices published in the newspaper. Right. Now, the statutes regarding rezoning, land use, speak for themselves, and they require the two publications. But anything else that you call a public hearing, there's really no law that requires the two publications, and it seems superfluous. There is – let's see.

So you're saying on matters of zoning, what else – what were those categories?

Well, the statute speaks for itself in 166.041.

Well, it's not speaking to me. So – You're not listening, Mayor?

I'm not listening. So currently, it says that there need to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in the official newspaper of the city.

Wait, speak into the mic. Speak into the mic a little bit.

So a note – the way it's written is a notice for invitation for bids, a notice to material men, and other types of notice required to be published, and a notice of public hearing before the city commission have to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in the official newspaper of the city, with the first publication at least 12 days before the date of such public hearing or time for filing bids, and second publication seven days after the first publication. Right.

But, I mean, is the city manager's office finding that two publications to be onerous? I mean, where is this coming from?

We're not finding it to be onerous. The clerk may have some –

Mayor, I think it just – it costs money. We publicize online. I just – I think it's outdated. Is that what it is? Yeah, yeah. It's just a more efficient way to publicize as we do now rather than requirement.

The county has a system where we can advertise through their system, and I believe the legislation was talking about where we can put the publications on our own website. So either way, it would be a lot cheaper than having them two times in the newspaper.

An interesting thing, Mayor and Commissioners, about our agenda is that we have two separate sections of the agenda. So one for public hearings, one for ordinances. In actuality, ordinances are public hearings because the statute uses the word that the public can be heard. So ordinances are generally – in many places, ordinances are under the public hearing category of an agenda, which you could do if you eliminate this. But any time something is called a public hearing here, it requires these two publications. And that's why we have a separate section of the agenda called ordinances. Right. So they're not public hearings. Right. Even though they are.

Right. I know. It's confusing. All right. So if we go with that, that's really the end of everything then.

And just go back to miscellaneous just to double-check.

Yeah.

So, Mayor, so we're saying – Okay. Both of these would go on the ballot.

Correct. Yep. Okay. So can you just – between now and the next meeting, if you could just put together a summary of what we just discussed and then we'll decide what should go on the ballot. What do we have until May 19th, is it? Yeah.

I have a question, ma'am.

Yeah, yeah.

I know there are some items where you've identified community input is required at some later time. Is there any appetite from the commission to do any community notification, outreach, publicity on the ones that the commission has identified as going on the ballot or potentially going on the ballot?

I think it's important to just educate that this first stab at this is really just clean up and explain what we're doing, and then subsequent elections will have – It would be put on an agenda.

Yeah. That would be one notice. Yeah.

And I think the council is willing to help us with this as well. The Council for Royal Civic Associations will have a few weeks, and – but I think we just –

Well, the city manager wants to know how are we going to publicize what we just decided tonight.

I just want to know the expectations. So if it's just something to be posted on an agenda and that qualifies as enough notice and publication and publicity, then – Well, I don't think so.

I think we should – you know, if we could get a summary list for us and then, you know, you all can decide. You can disseminate it in your neighborhood meetings.

But we have magazines. We have other ways. We send out emails from the city all the time. There are other ways I think we can help educate about what we're doing at, you know, taking the first step at this.

And I think between the council and strategic communications, we can share, hey, these are the items that the commission is looking at.

And why this is the first group. Okay. All right.

Mayor, before we move on, can we just do that – what we have agreed to? Yes. I don't know that you've agreed to. I don't either. Okay.

That's why I asked them for a list.

I asked them for a list. Okay.

303. Yeah.

And that's why I'm hoping we can do that before we go so we all know what – which items are what. Yeah.

Go through it again. So government, click on – there you go.

303.

So qualified – so these are the items – well, so 303. 305. Is going –

Just tell me the ones that you intend or you would like to put on the ballot. To be on the ballot. Just those. What are those?

So be on the ballot. Okay. Great. So 303. Right. Right. 305. Okay. 308. 309.

I think we said 308. 308. No, wait. No.

One more time. 309. Yeah. 309. 312.

That's it for that group.

Right.

And then all of the human resources. Okay.

So hold on. Let's just make sure a city attorney is good.

After 312?

So 312. That's it. Just the last one.

Okay. And now we're moving on next. And then all the human resources.

All of them.

All of them. Okay.

Yep. None of the property. None of the property. And both of the miscellaneous.

And then there we go. And both of the miscellaneous.

Yep.

There you go. That wasn't so bad.

Yep.

So that gives us 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10. If I count correctly. 10.

And I'm hopeful that some could be kind of called together into one or two. And then we could bring them back. And you could decide whether you'd want the 8 or 9 or whether you want to whittle it down.

Is that a reasonable number? 10? City clerk? 10. For the ballot? No.

We're allowed up to 18.

No. You would have to whittle it down. I would recommend. Yeah.

Cut that. All right.

So we have time to think this through. Mayor, also, if I may. Yes. Will you want input on the actual ballot question? I've started working on them. And some of the sections can go together. So the single subject rule that you hear about with constitutional amendments doesn't apply to municipalities. So you could combine some things. That'll condense them.

If you could recommend similar subject matters.

And I can share an example that I've drafted if you want to hear an example. And so keep in mind that the ballot question is limited to 75 words. The title is limited to 15 words. So here's one, for example, just as a draft. The title being Organizational Meeting and Designation of Vice Mayor. Should the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale be amended so that elected officials whose election has been certified by the Broward County Canvassing Board assume office at the first regular City Commission meeting following certification, and so that a vice mayor is designated at the City Commission's first meeting after all elected officials assume office following a regular municipal election and annually thereafter instead of at the first City Commission meeting in April.

All right.

So that combines a couple. Right.

That's a good example.

Yes or no. Okay. Now, of course, it is what I call a package deal because if it's voted up or down.

No, I think we can agree with that. Yeah. So if you could take some time and try to combine them, because you're not really reciting the whole change, the whole amendment. You're just reciting. You're just summarizing.

Right. It's a summary.

Yeah.

When I have more, I'll be glad to share them with you if you want to hear them.

Well, why don't you put them in written form because it's hard for – I personally can't really absorb it all. You gave us a good example, but if you could just put that in written form to us and send it to our offices, that way by the next meeting we can decide what works best for us. The mayor's a visual learner.

Yes. Can you go back to just government three – if you'd click on government. Thank you. Which one? Government 304. So we're saying 30 – I just want to look at this again.

We didn't circle that.

Right. So we're saying 304 will come – more community engagement. That's a city commissioner. And click on that language. Are you – does it – oh, no, it doesn't – oh, yeah, thanks. I just wanted to see this one more time. And so what was our – our hesitation was around the felony piece? Is that –

Yep.

Okay. So go ahead.

Mayor, if I dare remind you then that it was from the discussion on October 7th that you all wanted more of a process for the documentation. And that's why we inserted language or the charter board inserted language that all candidates would submit to the city clerk for ministerial review because that's what he does. There's documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the charter and applicable law. And that was one of the things that actually you had wanted back in October. Yes.

Just for clarification, I thought the felony conviction was part of 3.08, not – Yes.

This is not the felony paragraph, Ben.

Okay. So – oh, so the felony goes 3.0 – is part of 3.08? Yeah. So I like this 3.04, you know, the underlying changes. Are we good with that?

I didn't have an objection to it. So I – we can go forward with 3.04.

Okay. 3.04. Let's – so city attorney, 3.04 then on the ballot.

Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah.

Okay. Thanks. So that was one question. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks, Mayor.

Okay. Is there any further business of the conference meeting? Thank you so much for your work, Paul. Thank you so much, Lee. I really appreciate everything you've done. Thank you.

Mayor, if I could just thank Jania Robinson, who is the liaison to the Charter Revision Board. I just want to thank her for all her work. Ms. Robinson, thank you so much. She's not here with us today, but she has been along for this ride for many years.

Okay.

Thank you. Meetings adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.