City Commission Regular Meeting on 2026-04-21 6:00 PM - Apr 21, 2026

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the City Commission meeting this April 21st, 2026. I want to thank you all for being here tonight. For those of you who are here for the first time, welcome, and certainly welcome your participation in the items that are on the agenda tonight. When we begin our meetings, we begin with a Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence and then some announcements. So is Miracle Dudney here? Miracle? No? All right, so may I ask you all to please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance of the United Republic, for which it's one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you so much. Please be seated. Tonight there are a couple of people that I would like to recognize in our moment of silence. And the first one is Reverend Levi Henry Jr., who was a great individual who helped so many people in the Northwest. He started the West Side Gazette, which was the paper of record. It still is the paper of record. Right, Bobby? And the great form in which people communicate ideas and their businesses and so forth. And, Bobby, you want to come up here and say a few words? And like I said, say a few words. Right here, right there by the podium. If you don't mind. Okay. You're on. You're on. I'm on? Let me say thank you very much for this opportunity. And thank you, madam. I certainly appreciate it. It's an honor. And not only did our father do something for the Northwest Section, he did it for the entire Fort Lauderdale. So much so that he was recognized with a star on the Walk of Fame. Yes. So that in itself speaks to the caliber of person that my father was. And I always say that if I can be half the man that my daddy was, I'll be doing all right. Now, my father was a no-nonsense person. When he came before an august body such as this, he spoke the truth. And therefore, I must carry on that mantle. And, Mayor, since you've given me this opportunity, I want to say this, and then I'll be brief. And while my family and I were preparing for my father's home-going service, there was a meeting over at the zoning department. Right. And there was an agenda item that spoke directly to our property in the city. Now, knowing that we were planning for my father's home-going, I timed myself specifically so I could get to that meeting to speak on behalf of our family, opposed to what was transpiring as it pertains to that agenda item. Unfortunately, neither of our family members were able to attend that, and the agenda item got moved up. So that prevented us from talking about a situation where our business has been there for 55 years. But now we risk the chance of losing our foothold in this community, of which we have been pillars of it. So I was totally blown away. And therefore, I'm taking this opportunity to go on record and speak for my family and our business for that item to be reconsidered, if possible, to give us an opportunity to speak before that agenda item. So I certainly appreciate everything that the city of Fort Lauderdale has done, and I just pray that they can do a whole lot more for businesses like ours in this city, which is a very diverse city, and we all deserve an opportunity to reap the benefits of our blood, sweat, and tears that we have given to this city. So, Mayor, I certainly appreciate this opportunity. Madam, certainly thank you for all the work that you do, and I'm certainly appreciative of everybody in here. So thank you. Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Bobby. And the other person I'd like us to keep in our thoughts and prayers is a person who has been very dear to me, Danny Curran, who took his life a couple of weeks ago, and it was quite a tragic event. And it taught me a lot about mental illness and how wicked it is and how it takes no prisoners and there are no heroes in mental illness. And for many people who came up to me and talked about their own experiences but were afraid to express them because they were afraid of how the public would respond to them, these are opportunities that we need to share because it's a far greater disease than people are willing to admit. And our world today suffers a good deal from mental illness. So to the extent that Danny touched the lives of many and to the extent that Reverend Henry touched the lives of many, I'd like to take this moment and let us have a moment of silence in their memory. Thank you so much. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Present. Commissioner Glossman. Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Here. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Here. So we have full attendance. There's just one agenda announcement. M3, Exhibit 4, excuse me, was revised to add an introductory paragraph to page 65. So if you got to page 65, it was an introductory paragraph that's now being added. Okay. All right. With regard to the approval of the minutes and the agenda as amended, do I hear a motion? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Mayor Sean Thomas. Yes. And the minutes and the agenda as amended are now approved. So tonight we have two presentations. This is a common practice in our city meetings where we recognize individuals, events, organizations. And tonight we have, like I said, two presentations. And I'd like to first invite Commissioner Glassman, who will be presenting a proclamation regarding Earth Day here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. And to accompany him, I'd ask the following people to join him at the podium. It's Carl Williams, who is our Parks and Rec Director, Rufus James, who is the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Director. Milos Milos Mastorovic, who is our Transportation and Mobility Director. Al Carbon, Utilities Director. Todd Heitshow, who is our Public Works Deputy Director. Melissa Doyle, Public Works Division Manager. David Reese, Environmental Compliance Supervisor. Mark Haggerty, Floodplain Manager. Drew Neustrom, Fleet Program Manager. Laura Tooley, Urban Forestry Supervisor. Glenn Hadwin, Sustainability Manager. And Luz Ramirez, who is our Sustainability Administrator. Please join us all. Can we just get the entire staff up here? Yeah. Just like whoever is on stage. Do you feel lonely up there, Commissioner? Come on up. Come on up. No, it's all good. Thank you. It's a pleasure. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, everyone that's here at the podium for the work that you do, not just for this proclamation, but for what you do each and every day for every single citizen in the City of Fort Lauderdale. Thank you so much. And it is a pleasure to present this proclamation from the Office of the Mayor, City of Fort Lauderdale, in recognition of Earth Day, April 2026. Whereas Earth Day, observed annually on April 22nd, serves as a global reminder of our shared responsibility to protect and preserve the natural resources that sustain us. And the City of Fort Lauderdale carries this commitment forward year-round through the work of its departments. And whereas the Development Services Department supports environmental sustainability through floodplain management, strength and tree preservation regulations, and policies that encourage walkable, compact development. And whereas Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport demonstrates its commitment to responsible operations through LEED-certified facilities, expanded electric vehicle infrastructure, improved operational practices, and the availability of sustainable aviation fuel through its fixed base operators. And whereas the Parks and Recreation Department promotes stewardship of natural spaces through the care of parks and green spaces, urban forestry initiatives, energy efficiency improvements, and programs that engage the community. And whereas the Public Works Environmental Operations Division protects local waterways through stormwater management, water quality monitoring, and pollution prevention efforts, while the Chief Waterway Officer advances the Living Seawall Assistance Program to support community involvement in maintaining and protecting waterways. And whereas additionally, the Department supports conservation efforts through fleet services and solid waste and recycling by reducing emissions, conserving resources, and promoting proper recycling through education and outreach. And whereas the Transportation and Mobility Department expands accessible transportation options through programs such as LauderGo and long-range mobility planning efforts. And whereas the Utility Services Department safeguards public health and water quality by providing reliable water and wastewater services, while advancing technologies such as advanced metering infrastructure to improve efficiency, enhance leak detection, and encourage water conservation, and encourage water conservation. And whereas the City of Fort Lauderdale remains committed to protecting our environment and natural resources, while advancing a resilient and thriving future for generations to come. Now, therefore, we, as City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim April 22, 2026, as Earth Day in the City of Fort Lauderdale, dated this, the 21st day of April, 2026, and signed by our Mayor, the Honorable Dean, Jay Trentalis. Everyone want to speak on behalf of everybody? Take it, Todd. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioners, thank you for recognizing Earth Day with us. I'm Glenn Hadwin, Sustainability Manager. And as you can see, all of our departments are invested in being more sustainable, better stewards of the Earth, even I wanted to point out a couple who we couldn't fit in. Our fire department is here, and they have been on the cutting edge with us in installing our EV chargers. We really, really appreciate that. Our police department has a lot of hybrids. I'm sorry, Chief, you take up too much space. And the other thing I want to say, at the City of Fort Lauderdale, we spend every day in sustainability, and throughout the cities, you can see, trying to be good stewards of the Earth. And we're also being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar, because everything we're doing, the conversion to EVs, looking at solar on city buildings, being more energy efficient, where it's saving the city money, and being good for the Earth at the same time. So, thank you all. Very good. Thank you. I hate to admit it, but I remember the first Earth Day. I think it was in 1971? 70, 71? Yeah. That was the year I graduated high school. Yeah. We can stay. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Is that proclamation biodegradable? Yeah. Now, I'd like to invite Vice Mayor Sorensen to present a proclamation regarding drunk driving, and I'd like to invite Rachel Lamar, Area Executive Director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Is Rachel here? I don't see Rachel, but please go ahead and read the proclamation. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. So, this is a proclamation celebrating MAD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and this is an important time for them. Sunday, they have a MAD Dash, which I want to encourage everyone to come out. 7 a.m., right out here. I understand there's a special guest there who's going to be speaking. There's a special guest that's going to, you know, kick them off. I believe it's you, right? She's stuck in traffic. All right. She's stuck in traffic. She's stuck in traffic. So, don't worry. Chief, could you do something about that, please? All right. Clear the intersections. So, thank you all for being here on behalf. So, this is celebrating 2026 Walk Like MAD and MAD Dash, whereas Walk Like MAD is a signature fundraising event of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the nation's premier organization dedicated to ending drunk driving, combating drug driving, supporting victims of these violent crimes, and preventing underage drinking. And whereas drunk driving remains a significant public safety concern in the United States, with approximately one person killed every 39 minutes in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. And whereas MAD Broward, established in 1980, provides vital victim support services, community education, and youth programs aimed at eliminating underage drinking throughout South Florida. And whereas on Sunday, April 26th, MAD hosts the 15th annual UKG and Sala Foundation Heroes Pride Move with MAD and MAD Dash Fort Lauderdale, presented by the Florida Panthers and the Sheriff's Foundation of Broward County in downtown Fort Lauderdale. And I also want to mention Heather Geronimus. If you all know Heather, she's a driving force behind everything MAD in our county. Whereas funds raised will be used to continue MAD Broward's life-saving community education, victim support services, and youth programs. Whereas the mayor and city commissioners remind residents and visitors that, unlike many other causes, drunk driving requires no medical cure. The solution lies in awareness, education, and making responsible decisions by driving sober or designating a sober driver. Now, therefore, we as the city commissioners of the city of Fort Lauderdale hereby proclaim April 26, 2026, as Walk Like MAD and MAD Dash Day in the city of Fort Lauderdale, dated this day, 21st of April, 2026, signed by your mayor, Dean J. Trantellis. And I think Rachel's on her way. Is Rachel here? Yes. Perfect timing, Rachel. Dashing right in here. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you for being here, Rachel. Thank you for what you do. I'm going to turn the mic over to you to share some words. Let me catch my breath. So sorry. Traffic. I promise we did not break any laws coming here. Didn't get pulled over. Right? That's good. Always a good start. Take a deep breath. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor Sorensen. Thank you, Mayor Dean Tantrellis, Commissioners. On behalf of Move with MAD and MAD Dash Fort Lauderdale 5K, formerly known as Walk Like MAD, we are truly honored to accept this proclamation. This year marks the 15th annual anniversary for this event, a milestone that reflects not just time, but incredible impact in this community. Together, we have raised over $4.2 million. All of those dollars that MAD has raised supports this community. It goes back into education prevention. It goes back to victim services and supporting victims and survivors. We are deeply grateful for the unwavering support for this community, the participants, the donors, volunteers, and partners who continue to show up each year after year making this movement what it is. I would also like to take the time to recognize and thank Heather Geronimus, who is unable to be here this evening because she's traveling for work. 16 years ago, she lost her father, Dr. Robert Geronimus, due to an impaired driving crash. She works tirelessly for this community, for this event, and we are so grateful to her for her passion, her drive, her purpose. I also want to thank the law enforcement officers who so graciously give up themselves, their time, their talents, as well as sometimes their lives for impaired driving. What they do each day is a testament to their sacrifice and service. This proclamation not only is recognition for an event, it's recognition of a community united together in purpose. Thank you for standing with us, for continuing to help and support and move towards a future free from impaired driving. If you haven't yet, please go on to give.mad.org slash move Fort Lauderdale and join us on April 26th. I know Vice Mayor Sorensen will be there, so come join us. We'd love to see you there at the start line. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go over here. We're trying to take a picture. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, officers. So at this point, we now move on to what's called the Consent Agenda. This is where we review a number of items that are considered consent items, and we typically vote on them as a group. At this point, I would like to ask if there's anybody on the commission who wishes to pull one of the items, and then we'll vote on it and discuss it separately. So, Commissioner Herbst, are there any consent agenda items that you would want to pull? There are none. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? None. I have none. Commissioner Glassman? None. And Vice Mayor? CM1, please, Mayor. CM1, okay. Also, we have Mr. James Labrie wants to speak about CP4. So we'll go to CM1 first because he actually also wanted to speak on that. So, Vice Mayor, please, CM1. Great. Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate it. So this was – is anyone here from SAVER from this event? Okay, great. Thanks. So the concerns I've received from the surrounding condos are just that amplified music length of time. And so the ask that I'm getting from those neighbors is, would it be possible for the amplified to either end at 10 p.m. or somehow move inside at 10 p.m.? That's the – I think it goes until 1045, maybe, is the ask from the neighbors. I'm James Labrie. I'm on the board of directors for the Outshine Film Festival. I'm here to answer questions. I don't represent the SAVER Cinema, however. Okay. So we circulated waivers to the neighbors in the area, the immediate – I believe there were single-family homes in the area. And we received waivers from those people. We did not go over to the large condominium complex that was down the street from then. So I can't speak to any discussions that we had with them. Right now, the festival – the music is scheduled to end at 1045. Yeah. I think we could push it back a little bit, 1030. When does the movie end? Do you know? Probably around 930. So there's only going to be a 30-minute block party? Well, it starts right after the movie, and we're right there at the SAVER. Right. I mean, I guess you don't need to have loud music. You can still have the block party, right? You can still have a party. The idea is that they'll be dancing, although I've been to these Outshine events in the past. I've never seen anybody dance. No. Just saying. So I don't know. Our event coordinator thinks we could pull it off this year. I'm not convinced, but we will have a DJ there. That was part of the plan, to have that music outside. Well, it is late at 1045. That's the problem. I mean, I think the vice mayor has a point. I'd hate to have loud music blasting in my window so late. But you'd rather be dancing, mayor? Is that it? I'd dance to the tune in my head. Okay. So what are you asking for, vice mayor? What would you like? Would it be possible to basically at least significantly reduce the volume of the music by 10 p.m.? We could do that. If you could do that, just... We could agree to do that, yes. That'd be great. I would appreciate it. So I think as long as you can do that, and if it's still playing, but not as loudly as maybe prior to 10, that'd be great. Okay. So what does the code say with regard to noise after 10 o'clock? Who can speak to that? Chris? I think there was a variance request. Yes. So the time limit is 9 p.m. However, the requested time is 1045. Right. But the question is, what decibel level can they go after 9 p.m. normally? I'll defer to our community services department or deputy city manager on the decibel level. Is it like 70 or 90? I forget what it is. Jim, can you just step aside for just a second? Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. I believe the decibel limit is 65 decibels, but our director's coming up because she has all of the hours, so she can speak to that directly. Good afternoon, Mayor, Commissioners. Portia Garcia for the record. If we're measuring from residential property after 10 p.m., it would be 50 DBA and 60 DBC from residential property. If we're doing the measurement from commercial property, it would be 65 DBA and 75 DBC after 10 p.m. After 10 p.m. So keep it under 65 and we're good? For commercial, but if we receive a complaint from a residential property owner, we'll measure at 50 DBA. Okay. Okay. All right. Great. So then if we can aim, I guess, for the 50 DBA. So we can approve the permit subject to that restriction? Subject to 50 DBA. Is that? Yes, from residential property, yes. Right. Okay. Okay. Great. All right. Thank you, Portia. James. Sir, go ahead. And, James, you're up there. While you're up there, you wanted to speak on CP4, which is the item concerning Sunrise Middle School. Yes. Please go ahead. Okay. Mayor Trantalis, Vice Mayor Sorensen, Commissioners Beasley-Pittman, Glassman, Herbst, and City Manager Williams. I'm here as a resident of Poinsettia Heights for over 23 years. I currently serve as the president of the Poinsettia Heights Civic Association. I'm here representing the association to voice our comments, questions, and concerns regarding the motion before you as Sunrise Middle School is located within the Poinsettia Heights neighborhood. I first want to say that the memorandum from the city manager seems incomplete. The original joint-use parks program included in the $200 million bond project was for 12 schools within the city limits. Then, for some unknown reason, the Education Advisory Board got involved with the program and decided that it was not comprehensive enough, so they added an additional four more schools to the program. This addition created a financial deficit that was only resolved when Commissioner Sorensen volunteered to close the gap with funds designated for parks in District 4. The entire city benefited because of his action. With the funding issues solved, the commission then voted to move forward with the joint-use parks program for all 16 school playgrounds. The list in the memorandum is missing schools such as Cosson Park, Lauderdale Manors, Walker Elementary, and for some reason incorrectly includes George English Park pickleball courts, which were never part of the joint-use parks program. The point I want to make is that the Poinsettia Heights Civic Association, which has been involved with this program for nearly six years, has somehow been shut out of the meetings and discussions that are occurring about the Sunrise Middle School and the joint-use parks program. We have the history and the knowledge, and we should still be sitting in meetings when Sunrise Middle School is being discussed. Further down on the memorandum, there is a table that shows the original budget of $1,725,000, an available balance of $781,186. Does this mean that $943,814 have already been spent? We want to know where the money has been spent on. This memorandum is about Phase 2. There was at one time a Phase 3. Is that still part of the plan? If so, what funds have been allocated for Phase 3? We believe this table does not tell the whole story. Again, if the Neighborhood Civic Association had been involved with the project instead of being pushed to the sidelines, I wouldn't be standing here this evening asking these questions. Finally, Exhibit 2, the bid tabulation, shows the bids by five different construction companies. What kind of analysis or critical thinking is used to evaluate these bids? How can one company say it will build a pavilion for $85,000 and the next lowest bid says it will cost $155,000 and the highest bid says it will cost $363,000, a four-fold increase between the lowest and the highest? Is there some unknown acceptable cost variance between bids? Are these companies costing out the same thing with the same specifications? Does AECOM review these numbers? Does procurement have any idea what a pavilion could cost? An even more glaring example is the estimated cost of a circuit breaker. One bid says $5,000 while another says $135,000, which is a 37-fold difference. This does not make any sense. The Poinsettia Heights Civic Association understands the City Commission will select the lowest bid. And believe me, we do not want to slow down this project. But we also want the City Commission to make the right decision, and we have concerns that won't happen with the information that is before you today. Thank you. Okay. So, if I may? Yes. Raquel, and through you, could we have procurement address Jim's concerns? So there are several things. So, Jim, you and I have been involved with this through all the planning meetings, and we've sat in with the principal and Joe Webb from AECOM and Amanda from my staff previously. We've had these meetings on an ongoing basis. And to your point, the Civic Association has been very involved. There have been no meetings that I have participated in subsequent to that. So it's not that you've been left out of any meetings that I've been a party to. It's just that once we've gotten to the point where the plans have gone out to bid, there have been no further meetings. So I don't want there to be a suggestion that you've been excluded from the process. Once we've gotten to the point where the plans have gone out to bid and we move into the operational and construction phase, there haven't been any more meetings, at least that I've been aware of. If there have been meetings, there have been meetings of construction staff and so forth. But I'll let the city manager take it from there. I just don't want you to think that we've been excluding you. I have not had another further meeting with anybody else on this project. Thank you, Commissioner Herbst. I'm going to call Glenn Marcos, Procurement Director, board. Thank you. Good evening. Glenn Marcos, Chief Procurement Officer. I've heard two specific comments, one in regards to the pavilion, and then the other one has to do with the, I believe, was the receptacles. The what now? The circuit breakers. Now, we do analyze the actual bids. We look into performance of the actual bidder. Sagaris Corp is the recommended bidder who has performed for the city in other projects. So their performance track record is excellent. We do not only look at the bids but also references. References has turned out to be very, very positive. And there is a payment and performance bond with this project. So, obviously, if they don't honor their bid pricing, obviously, we can go ahead and take action against the payment and performance bond. But the question is, which vendor has been chosen, the one for $85,000 or the one for $300,000 and something thousand? Well, and if I may, I apologize. I want to jump in on this. I think Jim's question is why we have such a disparity from the $85,000 up to, I'm sorry, what was it, $135,000? No, $300,000 and something. Yeah, so there's a wide disparity from the folks that are bidding on this. And Jim's question is, you know, what do we do on your side as staff when you see that wide disparity? So we do a bid line item analysis, Commissioner. Obviously, I'm not going to speak for the bidder. The bidder has their own relationship with their suppliers. And if they're able to go ahead and get better pricing for that particular line item, obviously, when you look at line items all across the board, you're going to have a variance on a per line item basis. Yeah, but the thing is, you can build a house for $300,000-something thousand. We're talking about a pavilion. Right. So that's not the recommended bidder that we're recommending. Okay. So which bidder are we recommending? We are recommending the one that submitted $85,000. Okay. All right. So that clears that up. All right. Thank you. They're also the ones that suggested the $5,000 circuit breaker. We don't want to slow down the project. This thing has been going on way too long. I agree. So please vote. But we're going to be watching very closely what gets built. And if necessary, we will be back here talking about issues that come up. Okay. Very good. Thank you so much, Jim. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on any of the consent agenda items, there being none? Okay. So do I hear a motion to approve all the consent agenda items as modified in CM1, which is going to – what was it, the – 50 decibel levels. 50 or 55 decibel levels. Five-zero at – After what time? After 10 p.m. 10 p.m. Okay. Do I hear a motion to that effect? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sordson? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trantals? Yes. And those items are now approved. If you're here on those items, your item has been approved. So we thank you for being here tonight. Moving on to M1. This is a motion approving a not-for-profit service agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale and Homes United Ministries for mental health and substance abuse housing program services in the amount of $125,000. No one has signed up to speak. Anyone have any questions? There being none, would someone like to move the item? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner, Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trantals? Yes. And M1 is now approved. M2. So motion approving the final ranking of firms negotiated fee schedules and agreements for requests for qualifications. Architectural continuing services. This is Guri Matute, PA, H2M Architects and Engineers, Inc. and R.E. Chisholm Architects. $5 million over a two-year period. Anyone have any questions? All right. There being none. Someone would like to move the item? Moved. Second. They're moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trantals? Yes. And M2 is now approved. We now move on to M3. This is a motion approving the interim agreement with FTL City Partners, LLC, for the City Hall project and substantially the form attached, and that's attached to the item. I know several people have signed up to speak, but I believe there's going to be a presentation by staff. City Manager? Thank you, Mayor. First, I want to say thank you so much to all the teams that have been involved in putting together this interim agreement. On February 17th, the City Commission gave us feedback on a term sheet for said agreement, and since then, City staff has worked with our developer team as well as with our consultants and our owner's rep, Jacobs. We have PFM. We have Beacon Advisory and, of course, outside counsel, Bills and Sundberg, who's represented here today. We've worked very hard with the developer to refine the scope of the project based on feedback given by the City Commission at the April 7th Commission meeting, and we anticipate that the presentation will shed light on some of the salient terms and provisions of the agreement, and we also have included information as it relates to the financial aspects of the agreement. At this time, I'm going to ask Ben Rogers, Assistant City Manager, to walk through the presentation. We'll also have Eric Singer from Bills and Sundberg. Yvette Matthews, Assistant City Manager, is also available for any questions related to financing. And so I'll turn it over to Ben at this time. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Hello, Mr. Rogers. Good evening, Mayor and Commissioner. Ben Rogers, Assistant City Manager. So, as the manager said, this has been a lot of work in the progress over the last couple months. I'm going to start this slideshow with just a highlight of the timelines and the efforts that went into this. So, in 2024, the city hosted a series of reimagining city hall meetings that focused on space allocations, amenities, finance strategies, and just the overall project next steps. We also heard in 2024 from the Infrastructure Task Force, who delivered a guiding principles presentation, as well as a ULI report to the city commission. In 2025, we received an unsells of proposal. We went through a competition period. We onboarded outside counsel as well as an owner's representative. We evaluated six proposals that were received, shortlisted it down to four. Ultimately, the city commission ranked them in December of 2025 and authorized the city managers to start negotiations with the highest-ranked firm. In 2026, we started with a kickoff meeting with the development team. We also created some working groups that focused on different subject matter areas, including a legal working group, a finance working group, operations and maintenance, communication, and we also met routinely as a large project group. I will note that each charter officer is participating in one of those working groups. In February, we continued negotiations. As the manager indicated, we brought back a term sheet for feedback from the city commission. March, we took the feedback from the city commission and continued negotiations. And then in April, we finalized those negotiations and are bringing forth this strapped interim agreement. It's also important to note that on April 7th, we talked through some of the scenarios with the city commission and received some feedback on the magnitude of the project. So before we get into what the interim agreement timeline looks like and the fine details of it, I just want to make sure to set the record clear that the interim agreement does not obligate the city to proceed with the project, to enter into a comprehensive agreement, and that all final decisions continue to remain with the sole discretion of the city. In addition, it states that the parties desire to enter into this agreement for a limited purpose of evaluating the feasibility, structure, and terms of the comprehensive agreement, again, without obligating the city to proceed with the project. There are multiple sections throughout the document that memorialize this and talk about the roles and responsibilities of the parties. The interim agreement does have some financial obligations in which the city would need to be ready to reimburse pre-development costs up to $18.8 million, subject to conditions, limitations, and approved budget controls. In addition, as outside counsel will highlight later, there are some deferred development overhead and expense scenarios based on if the city would decide to move forward and then terminate the agreement. I will also highlight that the city does have control of understanding the expenses. On a monthly basis, the city would be receiving reports that highlight the expenses that are both expended to date and also what they expect to expend in the future month. The term of the interim agreement is 12 months, with some language allowing it to extend up to 24 months, and that it does have three major milestones, which I'm going to talk about right now. Deliverable number one will be submitted around the time that the DRC site plan approval. It represents the completion of the schematic design, level design, with great priority and attention focused on the foundation, the core, the shell components of the project to support the early permitting, site plan coordination, sequencing, and also preliminary operations and maintenance considerations. As part of this, and you'll hear about it in a little bit, about the developer equity, they'll also be delivered as part of Deliverable one, a detailed analysis supporting the assumptions and calculations of the estimated tax burdens based on the developer's equity return. For Deliverable number two, it's focused on the design development. It will be after the initial review of the DRC approval process. It will not be fully approved, but it will be two-thirds of the way through the design development phase. At this milestone, the foundation, the core, the shell will be advanced, refined, working to a permit-ready set of documents. And again, additional conversations on the operation and maintenance will be integrated into the design consideration. At Deliverable three, it will be issued at the GMP, or the gross maximum price, guaranteed maximum price bid documents for the design-build project. At this stage, the DRC approval will be nearing completion. The foundation's core and shell will reach 100% construction docks and will be ready for permitting process pending the final DRC sign-off. The remainder of the design, the interior, and the associated elements will also have advanced to around the typical 50% milestone. And once again, the operation and maintenance considerations will be discussed at this point in time. I will note that the comprehensive agreement execution is scheduled for March 16th of 2027, should the project move forward and stay on time. On the next slide, we're going to talk a little bit about the permit issuance and construction dates. And on this, I want to highlight that the development team is ready to start construction almost immediately after the execution of the comprehensive agreement. You can see that the March 16th date is the same date as the comp agreement. And the goal of this is to prioritize the city chambers so that it can open up at September of 2028, and the tower will be approximately one year behind, opening in September of 2029. And so to do this, the project team, as you can see on the permit side, has developed a plan to segment the work into different permit packages, allowing the project to move forward in different phases. On this slide, it's a representative of the conversation that we had on April 7th, in which the city commission gave feedback to advance with concept B. This is the same information that was shared at that time. It's important to note a few things. The gross square footage, 200,000 square feet, is the target goal. The current space program is 215,000, which includes 203,000 in the tower, approximately 12,000 in the commission chambers. This will continue to be refined and worked through as we work through space planning and adjacencies. And Assistant City Manager Pugh will talk about that in a few minutes. The cost per square foot is a placeholder based on the initial building design. The project team is currently focused on the quantity programming to determine the four-plate needs. But once that's finalized, we'll focus on the quality aspects of the building, which may impact the cost estimate. The architecture and engineering fees typically range between 8% and 15% for these type of construction projects. If you take the $18.8 million into this project, that represents approximately 9% of the construction costs. Based on these two aspects, the cost per square foot and the goal, the project at this point in time is $240 million for design and construction. And again, during the interim agreement phase, we'll be working with the development team to refine this and move forward. You'll note on this slide, there are a few items that have asterisks. Those asterisks are clearly to identify that these things are still being refined and discussed. These were placeholders based off of the developers' understanding of projects like this that they have across the country, as well as industry best practices to placeholders so we could have a better understanding of the total project costs. So at this time, I'm going to ask Assistant City Manager Pugh to come up and talk about the baseline space programming. And once he's done, Eric Singer from Billson will come up and speak on some of the other elements. Great. Great. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Quentin Pugh, Assistant City Manager. So space programming planning efforts are still ongoing. The design-build team, which includes city staff, the city's owner's rep, Jacobs Management, and the developer's team, has continued to review and refine space needs, followed by the qualitative review of how these spaces function. The commission chambers is approximately 12,500 square feet and includes seating for 300 people, along with supporting spaces such as a pre-function area for public gathering and circulation outside of the chambers, an executive meeting room for closed-door sessions, a press room for media functions, and a flexible, multi-purpose meeting space. The city tower is currently designed at 14 stories and about 203,500 square feet for roughly 575 staff members. Proposed on the ground floor includes a main lobby featuring historical collections, a check-in area, a cafe, and other back-of-the-house office spaces. The second floor includes public-facing services such as the community court and other community service operations, such as business tax receipt, some of the housing and community development, and co-functions. The remaining upper floors include offices for commission and roughly 14 other departments. A 10% space allowance for each department is included for future flexibility as operational needs change over time. Some departments and operational services functions are outside of the current city hall programming, such as development services department and finance, utility, billing, and collections will remain at the Bruton Center. Parking services division will stay at the TAM building. Parks and recreation and utility service departments are not included in the programming as well. A proposed police substation was first imagined to be on the ground floor of the city hall. However, that has been removed from the program. This is just a friendly reminder. This is a baseline programming. This is not the final programming. And if there are no questions for me, I will turn it over to every singer from Belsa. Any questions of Quentin? Okay, thank you. Yes. So just a curious. Oh, sorry. That's okay, Mayor. So when we're talking about this is not final. So any and all of those are subject to change? So. For the not included in city hall programming. Any and all of those are subject to change? And by whom and when? So I would say, for example, we wanted to add back the police substation, which is. No, no, no. I don't want to add back them. They have no business being in city hall. I want to know why TAM is not there, so that we can free up that space. That's the only one that actually needs to be in city hall. So the TAM administrative office functions are at the new city hall. The operational side, such as the parking service division, is not there. If that were to be incorporated into the city hall programming, that's one of the items that could be incorporated. Right now, my understanding, the parking service division is about 13 FTEs. That can be incorporated. That will, you know, increase the head count. But, yes. So 13 FTEs justifies keeping an entire building intact over on 3rd Avenue and 4th Street? There's other functions there, such as the PRIN and things like that. I'm with you. Okay. So I'm just saying. So I'll ask my original question. I'm not. I want to know, how do we revise the schedule that you just said is subject to revision? One of the opportunities that we have, Commissioner, is to look at the Bruton building that's currently occupied by the Development Services Department. And it could be that the parking personnel could transition to that space based on. You're in the weeds. You're in the weeds. I'm not trying to pick a place. I want to know what the process is for revising this list of not included. Do we get to give input on that? Is that a staff decision? Is that me talking to you? Do you poll each of us? And careful with that word, poll, not trying to violate sunshine. So what is the process by which you envision this taking place? So, as mentioned, the interim agreement will allow us to continue to refine the space program in coordination with the developer. Along the way, we will check in with the City Commission and provide updates as to any material changes to what you see before you today. And at such time, the Commission can provide feedback and give clarity and direction surrounding these decisions. I might have some thoughts. Okay. But that includes not just that, because I'm with you on that, by the way, but also the operation of maintenance estimate and things like that, because that, for example, that includes the cost of insurance, and we know we wouldn't include insurance. So I think all these items and others are subject to revision once we enter into the interim agreement phase. Is that correct? That's correct. We wanted to present what we have at this time as the baseline and get any additional feedback from the Commission. Again, we will come back to the Commission from time to time. Great. Thank you. City Manager and Quinn, question. So what's not included in City Hall, to me, seem like many departments that lead to high resident engagement. In other words, utility billing is something where folks will come in. So of the existing programming in the proposed City Hall, what is the estimated resident traffic flow into City Hall? So for the second floor, it's going to include some of the community services department, business tax receipt, housing, things like that. So they will probably be able to better speak on the traffic that they're currently having at this moment, which is at the Bruton Center or whatnot. But they will likely attract the most traffic at the new City Hall if utility, building, and collections is not there. Okay. So thank you. So, City Manager, do we have an estimate of how many people actually would come to City Hall as residents on a daily basis? Any estimate there? I don't know if any of the previous work on the City Hall program included those estimates. What we do know anecdotally is that many of the customers for utility billing that exercise the ability to walk in and make payments, they're largely serviced by the Bruton building, and a lot of them are coming from District 3. And so the proximity of the utility billing division to where the customers actually are who are exercising that walk-in ability, it made a lot of sense to try to keep them at that location. Okay. And, Vice Mayor, actually, could I echo that? Because that was a conversation I had with CORE while we were going through our space planning. This was something I've been pushing probably for the last 10 to 15 years, because a lot of our walk-in clientele that we have are folks. We've got two categories of people, people who are coming in for initial turn-ons, but a lot of our walk-in customers are folks who have had their water turned off and are coming in or are paying in cash to get their water turned back on. They can't do that any other way. So I've always advocated that we need to bring services to where our residents are rather than having the residents come to a centralized location. So we've often talked about either, A, putting it into the CRA building up on CIS trunk, but there wasn't sufficient space at the time when we first proposed that. And then the second one was perhaps into the Bruton building. So I thank you to CORE for listening and putting it up there. So this is actually something that I think is going to be very advantageous to the community and to the residents up there instead of making them come downtown. And this was also done in an effort to shave down the square footage so that we could be more in line with the target concept plan. Great. So have, yeah, so less traffic into City Hall, more out in the community is what it sounds like. For that particular function, we thought that it made a lot of sense, and it also fulfilled our goal of bringing the size of the building down. Okay. And has anyone, City Manager, done any analysis of how many people would come to visit City Hall a day? Is that, have you thought about that at all? I'll ask staff if they have any history on that. I'm not certain at this time. No, Vice Mayor. We don't have anything that's up to date. I think as part of the Joint Government Center, we did do some high-level analysis. I think we looked at how many transactions happen to utility billing and some other functions. I do want to take the opportunity to remind the City Commission that it's not just coming in to transact across the counter. There's public meetings for procurement, for awards. There's advisory boards. There's civic associations. I think the space program right now has about 7,000 square feet for public meeting space, conference rooms, you know, really trying to create that environment for the community to come together and have their meetings and their space as what was shared during the reimagining City Hall process. Great. Thank you. I have a question. I did hear community court. Could you tell us again exactly where we are suggesting what floor community court will be on? Yes, community court is currently located on the second floor of the proposed City Hall tower. Okay. So that's the number that needs to be calculated as well as far as how many people are coming into City Hall. Correct. Absolutely. Please continue. Do you have any further? Is there any further? That's the end of my part. Oh, it is. Okay. I invite every singer from Bills and Up to talk about financial considerations. Thank you. Good evening. Eric Singer with Bills and Sundberg outside counsel to the city on this project. I'm just going to go back one slide if I can. Here we go. All right. So there's several slides I'm going to run through just sort of summarizing the deal. I am going to spend a little more time on this first one because it really goes to the core of a key issue that we really needed to spend some time working through. Before you go into that, could you just give, for the public who might not know, who you are, what you do, who's hired you? That would be helpful. Thank you. Sure. So Eric Singer, I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bills and Sundberg. I focus on public-private partnerships, and I was retained by the city to negotiate this transaction on behalf of the city just for this single project. Thank you. Yep. Okay. So I just want to be clear that I promise I will not spend as much time on the next six slides, but this one just requires a little more focus. Take your time. This is important. All right. Thank you. So I'm often asked sort of what did the city ask for that you didn't get in negotiations, and negotiations is always, of course, a give and take. You know, no side gets everything that it wants. But this was really a key area of disagreement, and that's the developer's rate of return for the equity that they're going to invest in this project. And so the way this project is currently envisioned financially is the city would issue bonds for 90% of the construction cost. The developer would put in equity for the other 10% of the design and construction cost. Where the city, for its budgetary purposes, is really focused on what's the post-tax rate of return. I'm sorry, I always flip these around. The pre-tax rate of return, meaning what is the city paying the developer? What does the city need to budget for to pay the developer? The developer is focused on the post-tax, what actually goes into the developer's pocket after taxes are paid. The city wanted to cap the developer's return at pre-tax. The developer wanted just the opposite, that it would be post-tax. It's sort of they would be assured a certain return after tax. The key issue here, which is what made it fairly complicated, is that right now neither side really knows what the taxes are. So the difference between pre-tax and post-tax could be as little as 0.5%. It could be as much as potentially 3%, which over the course of 30 years could really be a significant difference and potentially something that the city would consider in terms of does this deal structure provide value to the city or not. So where we landed was we're really just not in a position right now to know whether 11% post-tax is where we want to be on the city side. And so we spent quite a bit of time structuring this around the uncertainty in a way that gives the city as many options as it can to get the information it needs to make an informed decision and then make that decision. So what's the benefit to the city to having the developer have a 10% stake in the building? What do we get out of it for this 11%? Sure. Is that a fair question to ask? Yeah, of course. So I don't think it's been quantified yet. That's part of the key analysis that's going to have to take place during the interim agreement period. But conceptually, the developer having skin in the game helps ensure that the project is delivered on time. The developer won't get any return on that 10% until the project is delivered on time and according to specification. And then the developer's return is also tied to the long-term operations and maintenance, in this case, maintenance of the project. And so if it doesn't perform on a year-to-year basis based on negotiated performance indicators, that return won't be realized. So it's an incentive structure. But let's back up here. They're already looking to get paid annually on operation and maintenance, correct? Yes, subject to deductions that the city could take. So how does that work? So if something breaks down, then the developer has to foot the bill for that? We really haven't gotten to that point. So I'd say the big – so remember, this is an agreement to negotiate the final agreement. The final agreement will include what exactly they're going to maintain over the 30 years and what are the performance indicators for that. So if they're responsible for the elevators and there's a 99.9% requirement that the – of uptime versus downtime, then we could take a deduction if they're short that. But all of that is negotiated as part of the comprehensive agreement. All right. So are you saying that the developer's equity is still negotiable once we sign the interim agreement? To some extent. So I think we're – what we've agreed is if they put in equity, then we would be working towards this 11% post-tax return. I get that. But you just said that everything is subject to discussion during the interim agreement period. So is that including whether or not the developer's equity would be included or not? Well, this term is pre-negotiated. Now, if you're asking does the city have – It's pre-negotiated? This is part of this interim agreement that is before you would be an agreement that they get an 11% post-tax internal rate of return. Okay. So that part's not negotiable then? What is – well, an option that we retain is we have the ability to take the developer out completely. And that's really the core of how this is resolved. You don't mean take the developer out. You mean take the developer's equity interest out. What – taking the developer's equity interest takes the developer out. And so the way that would work mechanically is – Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, the developer – that doesn't make any sense to me. How do you take the developer out? They're the ones building the building. So the way that would work is we would terminate the interim agreement. And so the developer has an agreement with – so developer plenary has an agreement with core. Core is the design builder. Okay. The developer is managing core and putting in the equity. Okay. The city's exit, if it doesn't like how this tax analysis works out, is they would terminate the agreement with plenary and take over the agreement with core directly. So it would turn this from a P3 agreement to a design build agreement. Okay. Where the city finances 100 percent, there's no equity, and the city is managing core as its design builder directly. And so – And we have that option during the interim agreement period? Much to the developer's chagrin, because this was sort of the city's most important point that was the most contested, was that we do have that right until 60 days after their first design and financial deliverable, which puts us, I think, in October sometime. But – so they will give us a package by, you know, according to the schedule, that will include an updated design, an updated budget, and an updated tax analysis that allows us to determine what exactly is the cost to the city of the developer having a 10 percent equity stake. And then we would have 60 days to decide how we want to proceed. Do we want to keep the developer in, or do we want to turn it into a straight design-build contract with core? And the city is not responsible for any payment on that equity interest until the comprehensive agreement is – and the building is complete. Is that correct? That's correct. The payments that would be due if we exercised that option would be the payments on the work performed up to that point. Right. Plus a step-in fee, which would be either $1 million or $2 million, depending on when in the timeline that option is exercised. Okay. Thank you. I have a question before you move on. Of course. That up to – whatever work has been done up to those 60 days, if we decide that we do not want to move forward, do we have an estimate of how much that may be? I hear the million dollars. We've got the million dollars identified. What is that figure for possible work that's being done? So if I can flip forward a few slides, because the city team did come up with some estimates here. So that's a termination fee for the developer, not for core. Well – How does that work? It's meant to – so we'll get detailed invoices every month, and there's a detailed budget. Some of the work is being performed by core and it's sub. Some of the work is being performed by the developer. Okay. And so we make the payment to the developer. The developer will have an agreement with core, though, but the intent is that it would cover core's expenses as well as the developer's expenses. So we would be paying for the work performed by both up to that point. And so I think the first example here shows a step in 56 days after the effective date. And at that point, that estimates around $7.5 million in pre-development expenses plus a million-dollar step-in fee plus a $329,000 deferred developer overhead expenses, which I'll explain in a bit. So the estimate at that 56 days is just shy of $9 million. But they'll be performing work during that time. Absolutely. So the work on a monthly basis is performed, proven. They're only being paid for work performed up to that point, absolutely. And the city owns all of the work product as well. The city owns all the work product in any situation, whether it decides to step into the core design-build contract or not. Right. Thank you. Question, Eric. You said when the mayor asked, what do we get in return for the developer's equity? First thing you said was ensure the developer delivers on time. Don't we create contractual language through various mechanisms, including liquidated damages, that ensures and incentivizes on-time delivery? Of course. So there's a number of tools in our toolkit to try to incentivize on-time delivery. In a traditional design-build contract without equity, there's liquidated damages is the typical go-to. The advantage of the equity is, in addition to that, they also have that equity at risk, and all their investors are breathing down their necks. And the sooner they complete, the sooner they get paid. So it's another incentive. Okay. But you're saying already, you will already have clear contractual language requiring, expecting on-time delivery, aside from the developer's equity. Of course. As you do in most contracts. Any good design-build contract would require delivery and have penalties for not delivering. You know, of course, projects are delayed anyways, even despite the best contractual language. And, you know, so that's one of the advantages of having some monetary skin in the game on top of that is it helps insure incentives. But it's not the only way. And even if we go down that path, it would certainly not be the exclusive way of incentivizing on-time delivery. Sure. Give us an example of the other way. You say that's not the only way. So what would be another example? So I think the best example is the one Commissioner Sorensen just mentioned, which was there's a delivery date. And if they're late, they pay X thousand dollars a day for each day that they're late. So there's a financial penalty built into the contract for delayed delivery. And if we could just go back a couple statements in regards to the developer, did I hear they can be removed from the stack? Like, yes, so. They can be removed from the stack. Yes. Now, there is a deadline for that. It's 60 days after their first deliverable. Well, for them, for us to proceed with the project, with the design builder, there is a deadline for that. They can be removed at any time, but then we don't have the ability. If it's after that point, we don't have the ability to step into the design build contract. And is that the 56 days that's here, or is it another date? No, it is a different date. I think the 56 days was just provided as one example. It's 60 days after the delivery of the first design deliverable, which is 101 days from the effective date. So if the effective date were today, it would be like three months from now, three months and 10 days? Yes. And the assistant manager just mentioned it's August 3rd is the date that they would give us that design deliverable. And then we have 60 days from that to make the decision as to how we proceed. Okay. And can that removal be for any reason, or it has to be for a cause, or? For convenience, for any reason or no reason at all. And so the city has sort of full flexibility as to how it wants to proceed with the project up to that point. So in summary, for the developer's equity participation, just so everyone kind of understands this, the developer is saying, hey, we'd like to contribute up to $24 million as part of the project. Um, we're going to give the city that money to use. The city alternatively could get that $24 million from the bond marketplace. Correct. The city, due to fantastic leadership in my biased view, has a fantastic credit rating, a triple A bond rating. As a result, the city can go to the marketplace and get money very cheaply, right? For about 4%, 4.5%. The developer is saying, well, instead of you going to the marketplace to get $24 million as part of the project cost, let us get it for you. And in exchange for that, we're going to charge you an 11% interest rate. So 4% and a half percent to now 11%. That delta, between 4% and 11%, if the project moves forward, you're paying that over 30 years, minimum of, or right at $3 million a year. So for that interest difference, taxpayers are paying about $90 million total. The reason, so far so good? Am I accurate? No, I think after one year, if they're late, that $24 million does not hold, according to that. I believe that that's not correct. I believe that if they're one year late, that does not go on in perpetuity. That $24 million, we keep it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Who is saying they're late? No, you're saying that $24 million will go on and on and on to the tune of $90 million. I'm saying if they're late at all, that doesn't even happen, correct me if I'm wrong, but then we actually keep the $24 million, and that does not go on and on and on. You're saying late in the delivery of the building? Of anything, yes. So those terms would be negotiated in a comprehensive agreement. I would not expect that if they're a day late, they lose the whole $24 million. I think they would not get the same return. We would take deductions from what we pay them, but I don't think it would be completely confiscated in that way. But, you know, I think there's something missing in this conversation, and I think that the vice mayor is asking the question, so what do we get for that delta, that 7%? What are we getting for it? And there's an answer to that, right? There's an answer for what we're getting. So the simple answer is risk transfer, right? Exactly. So talk to us about that. Explain to what that means. Sure. So as with any investment, there's a certain risk associated with it. So there's going to be someone who wants to buy the city's bonds at a 4% or 4.5% return, and the reason they're doing that is because there's no risk. They're willing to get that low of a return because they're just – the city pays that rain or shine. The project is delayed. They get paid. The project doesn't happen for some reason. They still get paid. Those bonds are – it's the city's ability to pay is what they're borrowing against. There's another type of investor who's looking for a higher return and who's willing to take risk associated with that return. And so the delta, this approximately 7% delta, represents the risk that the developer doesn't deliver on time, and so then the return gets reduced. But it's not just the developer not delivering on time. Isn't it also if the developer does not maintain the building in a certain way that to an agreed-upon standard or, say, for example, the HVAC system needs repair or possibly ultimate replacement, there's a certain reserve fund that's kept – that accumulates every year with the operation and maintenance payment, and that if the – let's say the HVAC system costs more than what the reserve fund is setting aside, that the developer is responsible for that difference? Absolutely. So explain that to us. It's 30 – The vice versa is trying to understand, like, why do we want to pay that difference, and there is a reason for that difference. So it's – the developer is taking on 30 years of delivery and 30 years of obligations, and that's the risk that it's taking on, where if it doesn't perform, the payments get reduced, and that return – and it's not that the floor is the 4%. I mean, the floor is the developer could lose everything, right, if it completely, completely fails. And so it's – Can I – That's the risk. Hold on. Wait a minute. I've got to stop you on that one. The developer could lose everything. Help me understand that. That's an outrageous statement. Back up and clarify what you mean by the developer could lose everything. So if the developer defaults and the city terminates the agreement – If the developer defaults on what? The comprehensive agreement to deliver the project. So worst-case scenario for the developer is they don't do what they're supposed to do. They have an opportunity to cure. They don't cure. We terminate the agreement. They don't get their $24 million. If the developer doesn't complete the building in the next two years for whatever reason, they don't – the building doesn't get built, they lose their $24 million is what you're suggesting. So it's – it will not be that on-off because they'll have a cure period. Right. They'll have a deadline. We'll have to send them a notice of default. They'll have an opportunity to cure. They don't cure. We can terminate the agreement. And they won't have received a single – they'll have put in their $24 million, and they won't get anything back in that scenario. But that's one scenario, correct? That's the worst-case scenario for the developer. Likelihood of that is virtually nil. So let's take that one off the table. So let me back up for a second because I think this is really going off the rails, right? So do you know what the cap rate on a class A building in the South Florida market is today in Las Olas or Miami? Six and a half percent. So if you're trying to finance a building as an investor going to the capital markets today, you're going to demand six and a half percent as your cap rate. Not 14 percent. Six and a half percent. So there's a delta of 7 percent. You know what? This is like going to a loan shark to borrow money, okay? We can borrow at 4 percent. We're paying them 14 percent. That's a 10 percent delta. Come on. Seriously. Well, John, John, you're – We just got through describing the fact that that's also transferring the risk throughout the 30 years for maintenance and operations. We have an O&M contract. Right. That's what the risk is. The risk is the O&M contract. So the delta is that the O&M contract that we're paying $6 million a year for is not sufficient. It's not for the entire maintenance. This is – Well, I think – You know what? I'm sorry. Respectfully, I cut my teeth on Wall Street working for Drexel Burnham Lambert in the 80s. I spent 25 years in municipal finance. This is what I do for a living. This is the worst financial deal I have ever seen in my life. I have never seen a deal in public finance that's negotiated on a post-tax basis in all the years I've been doing this. If you negotiated this on our behalf, shame on you. Sorry. Okay. I am fed up at this. This is horrible. Look, I love CORE. Great construction company. Guys, you do a great job. All right? There's absolutely nothing about this. But we don't need this money to bring a PE firm in to finance a deal, then we don't need their money. We have the best bond rating you could ever possibly have. I would love to go to market right now. In fact, I have people calling me up saying, how do I get a piece of this $24 million, 14% interest? My pension fund would love to have this. Okay? You can't – this is absurd, guys. I don't know why we're even talking about this. I'm just getting started, so keep going. I think we're talking about it so we understand what's on the table. It doesn't mean we're going to accept it. No, because you're characterizing this as insurance. And by the way, I work for an insurance company. This ain't insurance. No matter how you try and dress this up as insurance, it's not insurance, Mayor. This is an absolute ripoff of the taxpayer. I can't stand here and listen to this and pretend it's anything otherwise. Well, I think we have an obligation to understand what's been negotiated. It doesn't mean the commission has to agree to it. It doesn't mean we have to accept it. But we do have an obligation to understand it. I agree. But we need to define the terms as to what they are. This is not insurance. So calm down. We're going to get there. I'm not. I'm not calming down. I'm emotional because we're saddling the taxpayer of the city with a $725 million obligation for the next 30 years. None of us are going to be here to see the end of this. I don't think I'm going to live that much longer. But you know what? You know, I'm sorry. Is any of this set in stone? I thought the period between the interim agreement and the comprehensive agreement is when we actually work out these types of details. So I think the key question is to what value does the city receive for the developers' equity? That's the question. We don't know yet. We really don't know. And the purpose of the interim agreement is to give us time to figure that out before we decide, are we going to finance 100% ourself at 4%, 4.5%? Or are we going to do 90% and do the 10% developer equity? And I think right now we don't know what the true cost of the developer equity is. And we also don't know what the true value to the city of it is because we haven't negotiated the comprehensive agreement. But we'll never know that. You're effectively guaranteeing the developer's outcome regardless of the tax changes. We're shifting all the risk to the city. The returns in the market are priced pre-tax for a reason because taxes are the investor's responsibility. They're not the public's. I don't want to care about what their post-tax return is. I want to know the pre-tax. I want to know what my money in the deal is, not what they earn on it. That's their problem. We should not be negotiating post-tax returns. We negotiate pre-tax returns. I've never, ever in all my years seen a negotiation of a post-tax return. I don't know what their deal structure is. I don't know what their capital stack is going to be. Do you? Nobody does. Okay. And this is the work that needs to continue. I do have a question, though. Roughly, how many of these types of negotiations have you been involved with on these kinds of public-private partnerships? So each one is different. I mean, the answer is it's all I do, so dozens. But what makes this one unique, which is, I think, where we landed in this position, and I'll go back to my apology for staying on this slide, but I'll reiterate it because this is a complicated one. But the typical P3, the developer finances everything. They put in their equity, plus they provide the debt. As a result of that, they're able to take a deduction on the interest on the debt, which results in the difference between pre- and post-tax IRR is very small. Now, in this deal, the city made the decision that it was going to provide the debt. And so, I mean, even for the developer, and, you know, Plenary does deals all over North America. They've indicated this is the first project they've done with this structure. So they really don't know the tax impact, and that needs to – we need time to figure that out. They need time to figure that out, and then the city needs time to analyze it. And so that's really – where we landed was that first deliverable is going to include not just a design and a price, but a full tax analysis. So the city can understand what's the cost of that developer equity, which we really don't – we really don't know today. We know it's more than 11 percent. There will be some tax liability, but we don't know exactly what it is. And also allow the city to determine what's the value they're getting for that additional cost. Couldn't that have been – excuse me a second. Couldn't that have been figured out before tonight? I mean, why are we waiting until now to still wrestle with these concepts? Couldn't – I mean, this is money – this is the money part of the deal, not the space considerations or the finishes or all that. This is the money part of the deal. Why couldn't we have, like, figured that out before tonight? So the city has – the city's financial advisor has sort of come up with the worst-case scenario, assuming no deductions. What would it look like? And I think it's close to 14 percent. But the developer's tax team has to – has more work to do to figure out how this works, is the short answer, is that they're not in a position to give us what that tax liability is that would allow us to figure out what the pre-tax is. Well, to Commissioner Herb's point, we don't really care. It's – that's their business end of the deal. So we have to – we're mostly concerned about the impact, the financial impact to the city, what they do with their taxes and all that. We have no idea what other opportunities they have for tax benefits and how the income they derive from this deal is going to impact their taxable position. Right now, we're looking to see how – we're looking to build a city hall, and we're looking to see how we can do it at least expensively, correct? And if a 10 percent equity interest is going to add a lot more money to this deal, obviously, this commission is not looking to do that. The commission is looking to try to build something that suits our needs and is the least costly that we can try to come up with, right? So you understand that. But this 10 percent position – you know, you say that plenary is usually used to financing 100 percent and all that. That's for entities that don't have good credit. That's for entities that don't have borrowing capacity. We're not there. We're in a unique position where we have borrowing capacity and we have good credit. So this is yet another opportunity for the city to benefit from that and to pass those benefits on to the community. So I don't want to get hung up on this 10 percent thing right now. I think – I'm sensing from the commission that, you know, there's no appetite for that right now. But can we continue with the rest of your analysis so that we can move forward on this presentation? Mayor, if I could just finish my question, though. Yes, go ahead. I'm sorry. I would like to thank you. That's okay. So in your history of working with all of these agreements, is it typical, if the developer team does not have equity, are they going to typically guarantee you an O&M price or a maximum price of 30-year capital expenses? Are you going to get that? Are they going to do that if they have absolutely no equity at all in a project? Or is that typical or not typical? If you can tell me from your experience. In my mind, if there's no developer equity, there's no developer in a project like this. I mean, that's what they're here for, is to deploy their equity. Let me ask you my last question. We've been talking about the IRR. And I remember because one of the things that I wanted when we saw the first original four proposals, the others were between, I think, 12 and 13.5 percent. Did you have to negotiate to 11, or was that always the number that you worked off of? Or did you have to negotiate from something higher on that? The city's position was no more than 11.5 percent pre-tax. The developer, and so I think I tried to frame this slide when I started. This represents where we landed, not where the city wanted to be. So the city wanted a cap on pre-tax, so the city knows exactly what it's paying. But we weren't able to get there. And so the concessions that we got from the developer in exchange for the 11.5 post-tax, which they indicated was their line in the sand, that's their go, no-go position, was that they would cap the amount of their equity. So, you know, 24 is the max, but if their return, we calculated the 24 based on 11.5 percent pre-tax. And if required to get to, if the tax is higher and, you know, the pre-tax payment is higher, then they would reduce their equity so that our payment to them doesn't exceed $3 million. And they also agreed to extend our time period to decide whether we're going to keep the developer or not. And they also agreed to reduce the amount of the step-in fee in the event that we decide not to move forward with the developer and the developer equity and instead just do a straight design build contract with CORE. So the city is sort of taking on some risk here that if you decide to move forward with this, that we'd be moving forward with the design and the development of the project without currently being able to price fully that developer equity component. But we have time to get more information, absorb it, make an informed decision, and then either move forward only with the design builder without the developer or move forward with the developer with their 10 percent equity if the city concludes there's value for money for that difference. So are you saying that if there's no developer equity at all and we're just doing the design build and just moving forward with CORE, all of those guarantees for operations and maintenance for 30 years are out the window? All of that that we would be getting if there was some equity from the developer will not happen? Correct. If we move forward with a straight design build, then we would be hiring our own, either doing the O&M ourselves or hiring another company, and we'd negotiate annual contracts or whatever the term is for that. But that risk would be on us. So we could still hire styles, the same people that are part of the team? Correct. Correct. I could go out, put on RFP, 10 years, hire styles, same folks. I could hire Johnson Controls. I could hire any one of 20 companies that do this on a regular basis throughout the country. I'm talking, you know, Fortune 500 companies that do this all day, every day. My point being is, I'm sorry, I just, and I apologize. I've taken a breath now. I allowed my emotions to get ahead of me, and I do that occasionally. It's my Irish blood. I'm sorry. What we're doing here, we're talking about is we're protecting the developer against tax uncertainty. We have assumed the counterparty risk. They have transferred risk to us. So we are essentially ensuring their tax outcome, right? So P3s, what's the essential element? You've been doing P3s for a long time. I've been doing them for a long time. What's the essential element of a P3? Risk transfer. From the public sector to the private sector. In this case, we've done risk transfer from the private sector to the public sector. It is the antithesis of why we do P3s for government in the first place. And so effectively, I have guaranteed the developer's rate of return. There is no product in the world in finance that I am aware of where there is an 11% guaranteed rate of return, especially from a governmental entity, unless, you know, if you know of one, I certainly do not. And so that's effectively what we've done. The only risk that they're taking on is the potential that the O&M costs down the road that they're going to contract out with Stiles for comes in more than their contractual rate with Stiles. And that's an operating risk that a company takes on. They're going to contract with Stiles. We're paying Stiles, by the way, so it's not like they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart. We're paying that $6 million a year to contract with Stiles for the O&M. And effectively, if the cost of the contract with Stiles comes in higher, then they may have to make up that difference, if I understand the nature of the contract. And so as any good operator is going to do, they're going to squeeze the living hell out of Stiles to make sure that they don't have to pay a dime. And they're probably also going to do what any good organization does, which is put a little bit of money in reserves, right? So effectively, what we have here on an after-tax basis is a net financing differential of 7% between their 11 post-tax and the 4% we can borrow at. So they've got a 7% differential. That 7% on their $24 million, just over 24 years, is $160 million. So this is kind of like buying that extended warranty on your card. Those numbers, those are not the numbers we were given. We were given different numbers. Well, I'm just, you know, simple math. Excess return of 7% on $24 million over 30 years is $160 million. For some reason, we were given a different number. Okay. But I'm just saying, if you gave me $160 million and I put that on the side, I'll guarantee it to you myself. Okay. This is what I'm saying. I understand. What I'm saying is, Mayor, I'm going to make my point and finish up here. What I'm saying is that it's a lot of money. We're essentially, folks, we're buying an extended warranty on your car. That's what we're doing. Has anybody ever told you buying an extended warranty is a good deal? No, it's not. You know who makes money? The most profitable part of the car dealership business is not buying a car. In fact, a lot of the times, they barely break even on buying a car. You know who makes the most money on a car dealership? Not the salesman. It's the F&I guy. The last person you see before you leave the dealership is the finance guy. Okay. And what is he trying to sell you? A couple of things. He's trying to sell you an extended warranty and coating on the undercarriage of the car and a bunch of other crap before you walk out the door. He's the guy that makes the most money for the dealership in the entire dealership. So we're buying an extended warranty. Only guy that makes money. Okay. I can tell you that the finance guys are going to make more than CORE makes on this project. The financing is going to make more than a developer fee. You guys are in the wrong business. Okay. I think you've made your point. So let us continue on. All right. Will. Please continue. Sure. Will you be doing the math between IA and comprehensive agreement? Will you be doing the math? Because if we do go that route of the O&M contractor and we doing that ourselves, that obviously won't be any kind of a 30-year locked in. And I know we're talking about it in different terms now. But there will not be a 30-year locked in price on the O&M. Correct? Yeah. We need to try and come up with that number and see, just do the math. I mean, which way is that going to work out better when you factor in the financing, when you factor in the IRR? And then when you compare that to, okay, can we even guesstimate what that would cost us over the 30 years because we're taking on that risk ourselves, that's no longer the risk of the developer team. Will that be work that you will be doing between an IA and a comprehensive agreement? So that will be a core part of the analysis after that first deliverable in trying to determine is there value to this structure of the 10% developer equity. And the analysis has to look at the alternative state of the world where there's no developer, there's no guaranteed O&M, and, you know, what do you plug in? And then you make that comparison and decide whether the additional cost of capital is worth it. We're going to need that kind of analysis and that kind of, you know, sharpening of the pencils. It's going to be a really big decision for us going forward. Of course. Thank you. So we're still paying for the O&M. The O&M is $6 million a year, right? Well, that's not the actual number because that includes insurance. So that will probably come down a couple million. That's the estimate that we have to date and needs to be further refined. Great. Just to let you know that. Thank you. Good. So the estimate is $6 million. That is separate from the developer equity, right? Correct. Well, their return is going to include the O&M payments. So they're going to give us a financial model that shows how they get to that 11% return. But it includes payments we make on the capital, and it includes payments we make on the O&M. So if they don't perform on O&M, they don't get the 11%. But to answer his question, though, there are two separate charges. There's the O&M charge. There will be two charges. Correct. Okay. Just answer his question. Thank you. So as our negotiator, as our advocate, you said developer equity, we don't know what we get, right? That's what you said. Currently, we do not know. So in your advocacy for the city, the taxpayers, is the best deal at this point to not have developer equity financially? I just don't think we have the information to make that decision. If you had to make that decision now, I don't think you've been provided just by way of example. I'm asking you to make that decision. Your view. You're our negotiator, right? I'm an attorney. I'm not a registered municipal advisor, so I can't. So you're not sure if developer equity is a good idea or a bad idea? I really don't have the information to advise one way or the other right now. I don't think we're there. Okay. Okay. Please proceed. Please continue. All right. So I think the next point should be smaller and faster. So city reimbursement, the developer is providing a letter of credit for $350,000 that would be released to the city at financial close or if there's a developer default to help cover the city's negotiation expenses. Where does that number come from? That came from the city's solicitation documents for this project. So it's just an arbitrary number. It's not tagged to any particular objective. I'm not sure where that came from. I might have to defer to staff. Please continue. So Assistant Manager Rogers mentioned this, the allowable pre-development expenses and the not-to-exceed total of $18.8 million. This is how that breaks down roughly between what goes into design, what's being done by the developer, and sort of the estimated burn rate. This isn't locked in stone. They have to actually do the work and prove it out on a month-to-month basis. But for the full term of the IA, if we move forward with the project and go to comprehensive agreement, this would be the total not-to-exceed expense for the pre-development, which is primarily designing and engineering the building. Assistant Manager Rogers also mentioned the deferred developer overhead. And so this is just a rough estimate of that, but essentially we're agreeing that 50% of the developer's overhead would be allowable pre-development expenses. The other 50% would be paid to them only if we terminate for convenience. And so the idea is that they have an incentive to try to make the deal work, to try to be reasonable. And if we terminate for an impasse on a point that needs to be negotiated, they don't get that remaining 50%. All right. So there's a number of different termination scenarios. So city convenience or city default, it's 100% of the work they've performed, the allowable pre-development expenses, and the amount of the deferred developer overhead. Termination for impasse, we are unable to agree on a material point. It's return of, you know, payment of the work they've performed minus the deferred developer overhead. And termination for developer default is if it's because they're late in doing something, we would pay for 50% of the design work, not the developer work, but the design work, which, again, that's work product that we would own. And any other reason that it's terminated for developer default, there's no payment paid to the developer. And then finally, I mentioned the step-in rights, which are sort of a core protection for the city. In the event that it decides that the developer equity does not make sense, then that payment would be payable to the developer, and the city would be able to take over the core design build contract directly. And so that's $1 million before July 10th and $2 million between July 11th and the step-in rights deadline, which is 60 days after August 3rd is that first deliverable. If we can walk through this, because city convenience, city default, end of interim agreement, 100% of incurred developer allowance pre-development expense. We decide we don't want this, right? 100% is paid to who? So it's paid to the developer. Okay. All right. And then it says that I've heard that we would assume everything that they have put into place. We would own all the work products, yes. Okay. Tell me what new developer is going to come in or new builder is going to come in after someone else has been doing some work. I'm not familiar with contractors that like to come in after work is already started. So I think there's... How do we address that? There's two different scenarios. So one is we step in. So we continue to move forward with the design-build team. We take over the contract that they have with the developer, and we step into the developer's shoes, and then we have a direct contract. So in that case, there's no transition in the team. It's the same designer, same builder, but directly controlled by the city. So removing the developer from the stack? Yes. Okay. All right. The other scenario would be we don't step in. We own the work product. We don't have a contract with the design builder. And then the question is, to what extent can you use that work product? And it really would depend on where you are. It could be that there's buildable plans. Then you hire a contractor and you build. But if it's not buildable plans, you'd have to procure a different architect to move it to the finish line. And I think, to your point, there would be some duplication of effort because any subsequent architect is actually not just that they wouldn't want to take over someone else's work. They actually have an obligation to redo the math and make sure all the calculations. But, you know, they have to essentially take full ownership of that work product. So there would be some duplication of effort, which is why the step-in rights were so important to the city that, you know, if the city wants the flexibility to remove the developer, the best way to ensure that is the right to step in. Okay, these are just four, and I showed this slide previously, just different examples of what the payments would be in different termination scenarios. I mentioned the first already, the termination for convenience early on with the step-in rights fee. The second example is a termination for impasse eight months in, so towards the end of the period. Payment of all of the allowed pre-development expenses, but no deferred developer overhead and no step-in rights fee. And then there's a scenario for termination for developer default for not meeting a milestone, which is 50% of the design expenses or 100% if we step in. And then the final is termination for any other developer default where we get all the rights, we can step in, but nothing is paid to the developer. What happens if they haven't completed all the work by the time – let's say we decide to terminate it and they haven't really done all the work. Why are we paying 100% of the allowed pre-development expenses? So in that scenario, you're deciding that you want to keep the design builder, so you like the design builder, and this ensures that the design builder is paid for the work that they've done. So in that case, the developer doesn't get paid anything, but the design builder whose contract you're stepping into is getting paid for the work they've performed. Right. I understand that. But what happens if they've only done half the work and we made the decision to terminate? Why are we paying the full amount of the charge here? You would only be paying the full amount if you're stepping in. If you're not stepping in, if they haven't done the work to your satisfaction, then it's only 50% of the design expenses. Okay. Thank you. Yep. All right. And then finally, and this is my last slide, there are some – there's sort of material terms of the comprehensive agreement that have been included in the interim agreement, really just to show a roadmap of where we would be headed, 30-year term. It would be a fixed lump sum price for the design and construction, developer bearing all cost overruns. They'd be required to provide a payment and performance bond at financial close before starting construction. And the payment structure would be for the – certain payments would be made as we go for construction. Some payments would be made after completion of construction with respect to the developer's equity investment and the monthly O&M expenses. Okay. Any further questions? Yeah. Mayor, I do. Go right there. Thanks. Thank you. Developer fee. Eric, is that in the interim agreement framework? No. So that was in the term sheet, as you may recall, that we discussed in February, and that was negotiated out as part of the final interim agreement. Okay. Great. So back to the developer fee. So if you're saying with the developer fee, we don't know what it gets us. You also said we don't know if it helps us or if it hurts us. Doesn't it make sense then if that is going to be in the interim agreement framework, shouldn't we take just some time to figure that out? What is this before we commit to signing an interim agreement? Folks, this is – If it's so amorphous and so unknown, let's get some time to just – for you to really dial in there with them to figure out what this is, what it gets us. Is it good? Is it bad? Does that make – would you agree? So you're asking the lawyer a policy question, so I'm really not in a position to answer that question, which is really at the core of the decision you're being asked to make here. Do you move forward with this interim agreement or not? I think the one point to keep in mind is there is work that needs to be done in order to make sort of a fully informed decision. And maybe you're comfortable making a decision based on the information you have now, which is fine. But if you really want to understand, for example, what would be the city's cost for the O&M versus the – you know, what – there's a lot – there's a lot – and there's the tax analysis that hasn't been done. There's a lot of information that hasn't been completed yet, and a lot of that work needs to be done by the developer. And so, you know, there's a question as to what is the developer willing – so if the question is, can we not sign this agreement and still hope that the developer does all that work to inform the decision, I'm not sure what their position on that would be, but I think the purpose of the interim agreement is to provide a structure for the developer to do all of the pre-development work to allow us to really define the contours of the project, to figure out the pros and cons of different options, preserve as many options of the city as much as possible, but in the meantime, move the design of the project forward. And so you're not giving up the option to – and, in fact, it's expressly preserved – the option to move forward with this project without the developer equity if you move forward with the IA. But I'm not sure there's a mechanism to get additional information to preserve those options without the IA. Okay. So you don't think any discussions more specific around the developer fee are possible without having an interim agreement signed? We don't have the information that I think we would like to have to really understand the pros and cons of it. We don't have that yet. Okay. I just think agreed, completely agree with you, and let's get that. And let's get that before we sign a framework that commits to us further in so many ways. So – okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. But – well, if I may – but that's not what I heard. You're saying that if we don't move forward in this process with the IA, it will be very difficult to get that kind of information. But if we do move forward – and by the way, Ben Rogers gave us a timeline for this process, and it's important that we understand that we're in a process now. I know that people think that tonight is the end-all and be-all on this project, but it's just not. This is a public-private partnership that goes through an entire process. We've been in it for more than two years right now, and now we're at the point now where we have to decide whether we move to that next phase. So Ben Rogers gave us a timeline of all of these benchmarks. He said we would be signing the comprehensive agreement in March of 2027, correct? I think that's what he said. So this is April of 2026. So, in other words, we have 11 months to do this hard work to get this done, and at any point in time, we can say we're just not moving forward. We're done. What this does, this interim agreement – I guess there's rumbling, but – The murmur in the crowd. There's a murmur in the crowd. I'm just trying to lay out the process as I understand it because we've done public-private partnerships in Fort Lauderdale already, haven't we not? About a dozen. About a dozen. Okay. There's just a cost to withdrawing. Well, the cost is obviously – A big cost. Right. But we're entering into – if we enter into this interim agreement, the cost that we would incur would be the work that's taken place, I guess, from January, February, March, and April, right? Now, we've been told it's about $1.2 million or $1.3 million per month. Well, wait a minute. Wait. But to the vice mayor's point, yes, there is a cost, but the cost is related to work being done. Right. Design, engineering, and all that. So it's not a fungible asset. It's something that we can continue to use if we decide not to go with that developer. We would own the work product. My best guesstimate for the work that we would have to reimburse for over the last couple of months would probably be in a $3, $4 million range, not that up to $18 million that it says in the agreement because it's only been a couple of months. So I just want to make sure that everyone's clear that the work that we still need to do and that you need to do needs to happen in the next 11 months when we would then be facing a comprehensive agreement, correct? In other words, this is not the end of the line. I've heard people say, well, why are you voting? We're voting to decide whether just to move this process forward like we've done with every other single public-private partnership in this city. Am I saying anything out of turn? I'm correct, I guess. No, I'm not. Okay, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I know we all want the same thing. We want this resilient city hall. No, I don't. You want it. We want something that's delivered on time. Correct. And we definitely want something that's not going to be a burden to our taxpayers. Right. Okay. With that being said, what's been told to me tonight, this developer equity and developer fees, I am not comfortable with it. I am not comfortable with it. We need to look at this. I'm not saying to stop this process, but what's in the agreement, it's not, in my opinion, something that we should, the direction we need to be going in. I kept asking the question about the developer being removed from the stack. What I'm saying, I believe that this is what is tipping our bottom line of what we're going to spend. So if we can remove the developer from the stack and we move in a direction where we are able to do this project with something in an amount that is more feasible to us that all of us can afford, which I started this conversation with, when we started talking about moving in a direction to build a city hall, the first question I asked was, what is our budget? And we said we'll move forward and we'll get some plans and we'll decide. That's like giving a child a piece of candy then taking it away. It wasn't fair. We should have started out with a budget, allowed these developers to come and give us something within that range. Now we're backpedaling after we made a decision of what we think is a great product that we can afford. Or candy. Well, we need to be strategic in how we're moving. We're talking about moving forward with this IA, right? And it's a possibility up to $18 million that we could be paying out. If we're going to do this, I can see $18 million going toward affordable housing. I don't see this being productive of what we're doing. Slow this down. Let's put some numbers together. Let everyone go back and do what we need to do to make this feasible. Because what we're looking at tonight, no, not for me. And I was in agreement to move forward. Again, let's move forward with an opportunity that we're not slowing the process, but adding to this agreement what is practical for us as a city. Okay. Very good. Anyone have any questions or comments of this gentleman? Okay. Thank you, sir. City manager, do you have any more presentation? I did want to share that the developer and its subconsultants and partners are available if there are any questions for them. Nothing further if there are no questions for them. Okay. Does anyone from... Well, I have a question. If we're going to talk about a developer staying in this process, what are you willing to do to guarantee that this $18 million that we're talking about, if there's a change? Because right now, I don't see where we, the city, is benefiting. We're on the end of it. The $18 million, first of all, it's up to $18,883,000. Okay. That's the cap. That's the cap. And if you look at page... So we say $17,900. Well, but if you look at page eight, it shows how much money is being budgeted each month as we try to move forward and come up with the design and engineering. That's the actual cost that is costing the city. So that goes through next year. So if at any point at the beginning we decide to change course or to make any changes in the interim agreement, we're not paying the $18 million. We're just paying up to the month in which the developer has come up with its design. So it's not a commitment of $18 million. It's up to $18 million if we go through the full term of the interim agreement. Now, what are we paying for every month? The $1.2 million, the $1.7 million, those are designs. And the gentleman said they're looking for more information to be able to respond to the commissioners. They're looking to use these months as an opportunity to be able to flesh out the kinds of information that everyone has been seeking. Now, personally, I think a lot of this should have been done already. I don't know why we're here tonight thinking that we're trying to mince meat up here. This is how you make sausage. It's not pretty. But unfortunately, we're being asked to do this. I think this should have been done before us. We should never have really gotten to this point. We're not financial geniuses, or at least one person thinks they is. And, you know, these are things that, you know, staff are better able to answer these questions and present the commission with the bottom line, not going through all. These details are great to see, but the reality is, you know, we gave city staff a direction. We told them what we're looking for, and we gave them a range of how much we thought we should be able to afford, and I haven't seen that yet. So I agree with you, Pam. We haven't seen it yet. But I will say that the issue of the developers' equity portion, I never was comfortable with it, and I think that will save the city a lot of money right off the top. And I think that since we are self-insured anyway, this will bring the cost of the building down significantly. So we're looking at this building from two perspectives. We're looking at the cost of producing the building, how much it's going to cost to actually build the 200-plus thousand square feet of building, and we're also looking at the financial component. Those are two separate tracks. How much it's going to cost us to finance it and what it's going to cost to build it. Those are two entirely different subjects. Frankly, I think the financing portion of it should have been decided before tonight or should have been decided – tonight should have been that decision, but I see we're still fussing with it. I don't like the position we're in right now because it makes it look like that we don't have all the information, and we shouldn't be asked to make a decision without complete information. So – but I want everyone to understand that if we do enter into this interim agreement, it's – as Mr. Rogers indicated at the very beginning, it's not a commitment. We can always change our minds, and that – and our minds could change based on information that we get. But I think from the get-go, I think the general consensus on this commission is that the equity portion can't be part of the interim agreement. So I would agree with you there. So I don't know how that impacts the interim agreement. Does that turn it upside down? I don't know, but perhaps you can tell me. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Alex Barrett from Plenary, the developer. If I may, I'd like to address a few of the things that were discussed. Please. So, you know, first I'd just like to start by saying that we have 65 projects in our portfolio with all government sector clients. About a third of those are with repeat clients. And so if this was a business model that was as one-sided as it's been discussed, I don't think we would have any of those repeat clients who have chosen to do this model multiple times with us. To address the specific points of what does the equity get you – so we talked about risk transfer. I'd like to give a few examples. One was debated if construction is late. You do not begin paying the equity payment until construction is complete. And while it was mentioned that this is still a point to be negotiated, every contract I've ever been a part of has an outside date that if we are late beyond that point, we are terminated and you don't pay us anything. And so what that exact point is is something to be negotiated. It's typically one year. So if the project is one year late, the $24 million is gone. We do not receive any repayment for that. You keep that. So that, right off the bat, is a big piece of the risk transfer. Speaking to O&M, the point was made that the city can just go out and hire an operator. And that is true. But there's a difference in what we are offering versus what the city can go out and ask an operator to perform. We are committing the cost, not just of routine maintenance for 30 years, but of everything required to keep the building in the exact same condition that it was delivered on. So some easy examples, the elevators. In year roughly 12 and year 20, we will do full replacement of the electronics, the cab, all of the major components of the elevator. And we are committing to you today the cost that we will do that for. If it costs a dollar more, if it costs 10 million more in the future, that's our cost to bear. If it has to be replaced five years sooner, that's our cost to bear. So the difference is an operator will give you a price, and then when it comes time to replace an elevator, they'll give you a price at that time. And it's the city's obligation to just pay whatever that cost is. We are committing to do all of that for 30 years and never come back to you for more money. The question of tax, that was a lengthy discussion, complicated topic, so just a moment on that. We can tell you today we do have a structure that can make the tax burden on the investment as low as half a percent, which gets us right back to where we were, where the city was saying 11 and a half pre-tax. We made the concession to come down to 11 post-tax. The reason that that isn't guaranteed today is there is a process we have to work through with the city to set up the financing in a matter that allows for that tax structuring. So we came to the agreement that we did with the city. I think the important piece that maybe needed to be focused on just a tad more is the last line of this table. So this was a concession we made. The city sized at the last time we met. The city said the developer payment will be $3 million a year, which represented 11 and a half percent pre-tax on the $24 million. We are capping you will never pay us more than $3 million. That's what the agreement says. And so it becomes our problem. We're not transferring you the risk of the taxes, as was stated. It becomes our problem to go solve the risk of the tax because you can't pay us more than $3 million a year. And so while today we have a process to work through and we owe you a deliverable of that by August 3rd, we're going to work with Yvette and her team, with our underwriter, with a lot of experts in the field, to bring you a solution by that time that shows you how we get to that half a percent tax instead of the two to three that was mentioned. I don't think it would be three, but I think the upper end is 2%. But we have a process that we will work through to get you to that half a percent. It just will take some time because it involves bringing in other parties. And the city only made the decision a few weeks ago to place the debt yourself, which is what brought on this whole tax conversation. If we were placing the debt, as we do on most of our projects, this wouldn't be a conversation because that's how we get to that tax burden. But I think the important point for you is we are committing that you will never pay more than $3 million a year. So it's not going to go above that. What is the $3 million a year? How is that applied? Is that part of O&M? So if you remember back to the table that was shown last time, there's roughly $15 million you're paying for the debt and then $3 million for the equity. And so we're capping it at that. So if the tax becomes a problem, we can't be paid more than that. That's the availability payment. But if your equity portion is valued at $24 million, so you're getting $3 million a year on that, and that you're saying is going to cover all the things you just described? Yeah. That is the 11.5% pre-tax would be $3 million a year. I see. Okay. So what Alex was sharing with you, Yvette Matthews, Assistant City Manager, what Alex was sharing with you was part of our discussions during negotiation. When we came to you last time, we did present the $2.99 million as the availability payment on a pre-tax basis. As staff went back and was discussing with the developer and they wanted to talk more about a post-tax basis, we were very adamant that what we had already shared with the commission was the upper limits of where we were comfortable going in these discussions. Now, there is a concession that goes along with that. So the developer did cap their equity at $3 million, but the provision that was provided with that is the amount of equity that they contribute to the project would be reduced. So on the post-tax basis, they would be receiving the 11%. What that means from a financial perspective is the amount of debt that the city would need to issue to cover that delta would be slightly higher. So we did some calculations on the numbers, and really we are initially thinking they would put in $24 million. Worst case scenario, if they're not able to achieve a favorable tax position, they could be putting in $21.1 million. So I want you to pause right there. Critical. So we're not – that's a very key point. Yes. So we're not saying that we're capping it at a half a percent for taxes. What we're saying is if I can't get to a half percent, I'm not putting in as much equity. So the city is going to have to finance more on its side. That's correct. Okay. And so initially the numbers were $24 million in developer equity. Based on the worst-case scenario, an unfavorable tax position, it looks like it would be about $21.1 million in developer equity. The city would be responsible for financing the rest of that. We did run those numbers to see what that looks like. It ends up being about $200,000 more a year than what we initially presented to the commission. So I just wanted to make sure that you all were aware of what that $3 million cap represents. So it's not $3 million, though, on $24 million of equity. It now becomes $3 million on $21 million of equity. Correct. Thank you. In the worst-case scenario. Okay. And just key distinction, I don't believe the worst-case scenario is what we would have in any of these options. We look at it at 22 and a half. But the final point to round all this out is, you know, I think Eric was told he didn't do a very good job negotiating. I would like to defend him for a second, even though he's your lawyers. The step in right. We hire lawyers so we can beat them up, like consultants. That's the whole point. I know he can take it. But so the step in right, I do just want to highlight that. Truly, that is not something we've ever had in one of our contracts. It's very unique. We're entering into an agreement with you, with an agreement that you can kick us out. But we understand that this is new. We understand that this is something that you need to understand more, which is why that is in there. And so the schedule that is laid out, we owe you a comprehensive deliverable on August 3rd. Design, design and construction cost, operations and maintenance cost, all very detailed. Tax structuring, financing, a full line-by-line picture of what this project looks like. And at that point, you can tell us to go away, which is obviously not the result we want. So we are very incentivized to make this work, to make the full equity investment with the optimized tax structuring, to prove to you the benefits of the O&M risk transfer, of the design-build risk transfer. We will complete a study to show the difference in cost of us doing the project, of you doing it, with real examples from other projects out there in the market. We're happy for you to go talk to other clients of ours. All of that building up to a date where we are essentially betting on ourselves, saying, you can kick us out in five months, but we're still going to do all this work. And so it's on us to prove to you that this is a value to the city. We are not here to just make money on this project. The reason that P3s exist across the entire continent and other continents is there is a value given to the taxpayer, to the government, that by doing it this way, it costs less over the lifetime of the project. It always is hard to see because you are committing to pay it now, but the cost over the term if you don't do it this way is higher. And one of the clearest examples of that is in 30 years, I said this last time I was here, we guarantee that the building will have 30 years of life left. We guarantee how long, you know, 15 years for the HVAC system. All of these things guaranteed, and we have to pay whatever it costs to make that the case. If you don't do it this way, there is a very real scenario where in 30 or maybe it's 40 years, the building is condemned. The building is not usable. And then you are spending whatever it costs in 30 to 40 years to build the building again. So while committing to these things up front appears to be the more expensive option, when you compare it to not doing this, it is by far the less expensive option, and it is on us to prove that to you over the next five months. All right. Thank you so much. A number of people have signed up to speak, so we'll just take them one by one. I'll call your names in threes so you can be prepared to get up. We'll start with Bill Brown. Is Bill still here? Bill. Followed by Alex Barrett. Followed by Robert. I can't read your name, Robert. What is it? Frozek? Okay. There you go. Welcome. Long time no see. Yeah, right. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the commission. Bill Brown, I come before you tonight as the president of the Council of Civic Associations. At our April 14th meeting, the majority of the board of directors voted to ask that this be continued until we've had an opportunity to have this presentation that you received tonight. Originally, in fairness to city staff, they have been presenting up until tonight's presentation. They were asked if they wanted to present at our April 14th meeting, but in fairness to the commission, we both felt it was more appropriate to let it be presented to you first before we had the opportunity to see it weigh in. I think there's some eye-openers for all of us tonight, and I would ask that you strongly support the ask of the resolution to postpone in this interim agreement decision tonight until the council and its full membership of all the neighborhoods have the opportunity to review it before we move it forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Alex Barrett. Is Alex here? Oh, that's you. I'm sorry. You're right. Last word. Robert. Robert, followed by Marty McGroger, followed by James Labrie. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. I'm a resident of Fort Lauderdale for 47 years, live in Lauderdale Harbors, president of its Neighborhood Association. A city hall is supposed to be more than just a place to put the city offices. It's supposed to be a building for the people. When I was looking at your slides, slide three, particularly the steps that led you to this point tonight, I did not see anything on there about consultation with the people, whether they want you to commit $724 million of their money to build this building that is on the first page of your presentation, because that's exactly what you're doing. If you initiate and approve this initial agreement, you were starting the design of that building that's on page one of the slide. And the design would be complete within a matter of a month. You would have paid for it. What people in my neighborhood are talking about is, should we be building a building like that at all? Should we be looking, considering other alternatives to have a city hall? Should we consider buildings that are available in the downtown area and whether they would be better? Those are concerns that people I've talked to had before I walked in here tonight, but having listened to this presentation tonight, there's a multitude of other concerns that you all have been talking about. And you should not sign this agreement approving going forward with the design of this building until you're sure that the people want it, that people can pay for it, and that people can afford it under the budget that you have, which has a $28 million deficit right now. I say the time is to stop, hold your horses, figure it all out. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. No, he made it up. Are you Marty? Yes. Hi, Marty. Hi. Marty McGrogan. I live in Rio Vista. I'm in commercial real estate. And, you know, I think that the teams provided here have done a great job designing the building, a lot of planning. I can't tell you, I know how much planning must have gone on behind the scenes. You know, when I saw this project put forth at the cost and seeing the cost today of $1,200 a square foot, it's really disconnected with where the market is. I mean, office buildings are not trading, even the nicest stuff in Miami is not trading for $1,200 a square foot. It's probably half of that. Now, I do think that that number is including operational costs. So it's, you know, I'm not sure exactly what the exact cost is to just build the building and then the rest of it being the operational side, maybe some return to the partnership. But it just feels that that is, you know, a very high burden to put on the city, especially in an office environment that has a lot of different options. We are at a lucky time to have so many existing buildings that we could find a way to build our way into and retrofit at a fraction of the cost. And I just think that I know that that that ship may have sailed before, but I think that when I see a cost of this in its whole magnitude, I think that that seems like something that really needs to be looked at again. Okay. Thank you, sir. James Labrie, followed by Harold Mellis and followed by Bobby. Bobby Henry, you still here? He left. Okay. Hello again. My third time up here tonight. I'm speaking now for myself. You're overstaying your welcome. Well, I dress for the occasion, so just let me speak, please. Yes. I'm speaking for myself as a resident, 23 years in Fort Lauderdale, taxpayer and voter. I do not represent any organization or association on this item. As a former member of the Infrastructure Task Force Advisory Committee, I worked with my nine fellow members from August 2023 to June 2024 to develop a list of guidelines for a new city hall. Our work was requested by the city commission to help them, quote, find a path forward to replace city hall, end of quote. We were not engaged in site selection, programming, and building design. Working with the city staff, an outside consulting company, and input from multiple residents who attended the public outreach workshops, the Infrastructure Task Force developed seven guidelines to be considered when reimagining city hall. Guideline number five was very clear. It reads, cost effective. The building should be architecturally recognizable, but cost effective. All avenues to reduce the cost of the building should be explored. It is my opinion, all avenues to reduce the cost have not been explored. Before you make a decision, I ask that the city first perform a comprehensive assessment of the cost of renovating an existing building. Without this information, the city commission is potentially making a very expensive mistake that would become a burden carried by Fort Lauderdale residents and taxpayers for many, many years. I ask that you defer the interim agreement until additional and important renovation cost information is obtained, reviewed, and considered in your decision-making process. Thank you. Is it, I can't read your writing. Harold Mels, can you read this? Mels, are you here? Okay. Ms. Bailey, is there a Ms. Bailey here? Okay. Barbara Stern, followed by Denise Grant, followed by Nancy Thomas. I didn't recognize her. Good evening, Barbara Stern, proud resident of District 1. Very happy to have John Herbst as my commissioner because you're about the only person who's made sense through this whole process. Ben Rogers, as much as I love you, you left out a critical date in the timeline. So let's go back to June 3rd, 2025, when we were first presented with the unsolicited proposal from Meridian. And John, you sat there and you talked about how P3 is a horrible idea. We could finance this ourself. And fascinating that tonight, Ben, you parodied just about everything John said almost a year ago. We are here today because the three people who voted to fire John as the city auditor decided that they needed to move forward with the P3 proposal, start the competitive process, and not slow things down to do an investigation, figure out our budget. Commissioner Musely-Pittman, you wanted to know back then what was our budget because you didn't want to be presented with a Rolls-Royce. We have a Rolls-Royce that we cannot afford. We need to put the brakes on. We were told in 2025 we could stop this at any time. You need to stop this and need to stop this tonight. We can go forward. We can do a design build. We don't need to do this as a P3. Ben, I'm so happy you're suddenly now a fiscal conservative on this issue because we've wasted, wasted almost a year going through this process for something we don't need. We need a new city hall. We don't need it at the design that it's being presented to us tonight, the same design that's been presented to us over the last couple months. We need to move forward. We need to be responsible. You need to stop this deal tonight and give us a city hall that makes sense and one that we can afford, not something that is ultimately going to cost us almost a billion dollars. It's really easy to say we're going to get a city hall for $267 million, but you're leaving out the financing. You're leaving out the operation and maintenance. Those are all costs that we're going to pay anyway. Kill this deal tonight. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Denise. Denise Grant, followed by Nancy Thomas. Hi. Denise Grant, resident here in Fort Lauderdale for about 40 years. First of all, I'm just saying yes, thanks, John, for your input. I don't think that the city should be approving this interim at all. I think that we should be looking at the enormous cost that this is going to be. This is not the first day that anybody has seen these numbers, which is shocking to me that there would be consideration to be wasting this amount of money when, as several people have pointed out, we could be using this money in so many other more effective and important ways in this city. I believe that we should be looking at the continuation of rental or a city hall that is affordable to the city. Everybody who makes a purchase, buys a home, goes for a rental, everybody has to qualify. We are not qualifying for this money because this city can't afford it, and the citizens of the city can't afford it. So I am urging you all to vote against this interim, not move forward with it, and step back and reconsider all of the options that we have that would be affordable to the city and the public. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Nancy Thomas, followed by Vanessa Apotheker, followed by Marilyn Momano. Good evening. To me, there are – I've been following this pretty carefully. Excuse my voice. There are two issues here, I believe. One is the idea of this particular deal. And I'm not a finance expert, but I am an investor. And when I read through this whole proposal, that 11% jumped out right away. And I thought, well, that's a great deal for some people, but it's a terrible deal for others. And so in terms of moving ahead, so many questions. But the bottom line is financially between what Stantec shared recently and also the details of this comprehensive agreement, wow, no wonder people are alarmed. And I'm telling you, taxpayers are alarmed at what's going on here. Now, I'm not saying you went out and said, oh, let's get the most expensive building. But the way it has all shaken out, in particular since Stantec made some forecasting, I mean, it's frightening. The other issue is the design, okay? Most everybody I've spoken to or read about does not like this design. They think it's overkill. They think it's a trophy project. And now we know how much it would cost. It isn't necessary. And in December, only three city commissioners, the mayor and two commissioners, voted to pursue that design. Meanwhile, the next day, as soon as Sun Sentinel put that design in the newspaper, whoa, that's when people found out what you were considering. And that was too late because then you said, oh, no, we're going to go down this path. They're just expenses. See what we can afford. We don't need a trophy project. This isn't going to be a tourist attraction. All right. Thank you. Vanessa, followed by Marilyn Mimano. Is Marilyn still here? Oh, there she is. And Anne Wiley. Hi. Vanessa Apotheker, president of Tarpon River Civic Association. On behalf of the Tarpon River Civic Association board, we appreciate your ongoing efforts. We would like to request to pause this until we do get more information. Especially, I feel like there's even more questions now after this presentation. So, our board would like to request to pause this until we have more information. All right. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, commissioners. My name is Marilyn Mimano. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Harbordale Civic Association. I had sent you, I believe, copies of our testimony, but I will give it to the clerk for the record. Before I read the testimony into the record, I would like to pause a moment and take some of my five minutes. You have two minutes. No, no, no, no, no. Two minutes. Two minutes, my dear. Okay, I will pause a minute and I will say, I think that the staff has done a tremendous job of trying to make this work for those of you who want this to work. Okay? They have done everything in their power to reduce the cost, reduce the size of the building. They even took out the $10 million for the chairs and the desks and made it a city obligation. If you didn't read that, go back and read that. Okay? They reduced the size of the building. They did everything they could, but it's still putting lipstick on a pig. I'm not saying that a P3 is a pig. I was a big supporter of the water treatment plant, okay? And I understand the value of a P3 and the 30-year warranty, et cetera, et cetera. So not that a P3 is bad. This P3 is bad. And the reason it's bad is because when you chose this partner, this private partner, you chose the most expensive one. And you chose it because it was a particular building, a particular design, which is going to be very expensive to build, more than a typical Class A building. And that's the elephant in the room that is leading us to the problems we're having today because it's just a very expensive building. So having said that, I will now read my testimony. Wait. Before you do that. Okay. You say it's more expensive to build this building than any other Class A building, right? Than a typical Class A building. Typical Class A building. That's correct. Do you have, like, examples of that? I'm sure I do. If you Google, everybody, I advise you, Google right now, what is the typical cost of a Class A office building in South Florida? And you'll find that $500 is the upper limit for luxury. You're looking at $1,140. You know, Stiles is sitting here and they're laughing at you. You can't even build a house for $500 a square foot, let alone Class A office building. Balfour Beattie told you that they would build this building for $775 a square foot in December. You can laugh all you want. Can I just tell you something about Balfour Beattie? Balfour Beattie also confessed that there was a vanilla building with none of the features that they would ultimately have to apply to the building in order to be able to comply with the expectations of having a habitable building. They purposely did a bare-bones structure. This is not a bare-bones. So compare apples to apples. Why do we need more than a bare-bones structure? Because you need to have your walls painted. Oh, come on. You need to have full. Look, Dean, let's not get into this argument about he said, she said, what they told you and what they told me. I sit here and I listen to every single person that comes up here. And I remember every single thing that's said. And I don't want there to be misinformation propounded at that podium in order to make a point. Create your narrative. Base it on facts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Okay? I will read from you from the December 2nd, 2025. And for that, I'll give you two more minutes. Balfour Realty said they could do it for $737. These people said they could do it for $11,000, for $1,140. I was not party to any discussions you may have had with him. I'm only telling you what was in the documents that were presented to the city. Now I will read my contents. You go ahead. Thank you. Marilyn, before you start, speaking of facts and speaking of what people say at that podium, on December 2nd, you told this commission to please get the price down to $250 million. That was your testimony. And we have. Please read your testimony. I will read my testimony. Thank you very much. Okay. The Board of the Harbordale Civic Association urges you to defer voting on Motion 26046, an interim agreement regarding replacing City Hall. We and the public just learned about the financial terms of the interim agreement on April 7th. There was no notice about this discussion, and there were no attachments to the April 7th agenda. We support funding a replacement for the old City Hall, consolidating the dispersed staff, and providing an identifiable civic space for public and community meetings. However, after negotiating with the chosen private partner, the costs appear to have escalated, and the building appears to have shrunk from $300,000 to $200,000. We are concerned that alternatives, which were not available when you made the decision, you didn't have all the facts, such as the opportunity to purchase another building. The P3 was chosen. The alternatives were not investigated because you didn't have the information at the time. We are concerned that the current estimated cost of $24 million a year for 30 years is excessive. We are concerned that the second-choice private partner, Balfour Beattie, and I'm not pushing Balfour Beattie, I have no connection to them, submitted a proposal for the bigger building for less money. Balfour Beattie bid to deliver the original building for $217 million. Why not go back and ask them what they would charge for an upgraded 200,000-square-foot building? You are under no obligation to proceed to this interim agreement, given these concerns. Time is not the essence here. We have been operating without a city hall. Meetings are being held. Projects are being built. It's not the optimum solution, but we can manage. We urge you to take the time to explain to the public why this inflated negotiated proposal is in the city's best interest, are there viable alternatives, and how are we going to pay for it? I agree with everyone who has spoken so far, and you have gotten other letters from Civic Associates, and you've got other emails telling you that just chill a minute, okay? Okay. Look at the alternatives. Thank you. You're welcome. Hey, Marilyn, Chad agrees with you. $400 to $650. I always trust Chad. Ann. Ann Wiley, followed by... Well, that's quite an act to follow. I don't know if I can do that. Thank you, Commissioner's Mayor, Ann Wiley. I'm on the board of Riverside Park. I have been for about eight years. Our entire board is opposed to moving forward with this interim project, and every single person I have spoken to in the community, which is in many neighborhoods, are all opposed. Those are the people that voted you in. They're opposed to moving forward with this. And many people are also very opposed to the design. So it's not just the finance. I think the design is horrible, personally. And I just want to add one more thing that I know is a little maybe new, and I hope the builders take note of this. I brought this up to the mayor before and to my commissioner, Ben Sorensen. We like to think that we're a green city, and yet we're doing a lot of things that are very un-green. And one of those is building entire buildings made of glass. A billion birds a year die flying into windows. One billion. Many, many, many cities across the nation, many cities across the nation, and all of Canada, it's federal law, have incorporated bird-safe glass in their building design. It adds about 1% to the new cost of a building. This is a massive killing wall, this building design. It's a horrible design. I think it's super gross-looking. No offense. So please do think of different options. Think of different buildings. And I think also buying. There are several buildings out there that have been brought up that would work, that are on the market, that would be much less expensive. And look into other options, please. For us, the taxpayers. For us, the taxpayers, please use our money wisely and look into different options and slow down on this one. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mary Fertig, followed by Richard Mercedes, followed by Michael Schneider. Dean, I have a little bit of a dilemma, Ken, before you start timing me. I'm speaking on behalf of two groups because somebody couldn't show up tonight, so I'm going to try to merge that. But I've timed it for three minutes because that's what we always get, and you've been really kind lately in doing it always. I usually give three minutes, but we're going to be here all night if I give three minutes. All right, well, let me see how I can just do it, okay? So just speak for yourself and not for somebody else. Well, I wish I could do that, but I told them I would. So the first group, I'm going to start with Lardell tomorrow, and then I'll skip to the other letter, and you'll get parts of both. You've received both. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. money, but engage the residents. And yet, here we are on the eve of the adoption of an interim agreement. We are, this is Lauderdale tomorrow, asking you to stop, reject the interim agreement, and reopen the process to consider existing buildings, renting until the city's financial future, supports a city hall. We currently pay $5 million for rent, not $24 million annually, and reopening the P3 process to allow the other three bidders to come back at the reduced footprint you have and make a thing. Just one more second here. And also, ask your budget advisory board, and also give the public a real voice, hold a referendum in November of 2026, just as you did through the Parks Bond and the police station. I'm going to read you one paragraph from the Idlewild thing, which in keeping with the Council of Civic Associations is asking for a deferral tonight. And they've got some suggestions for you, but one is buying an existing office building, although the lifespan was discussed in terms of 30 to 50 years at the April 7th meeting, it should be noted that San Francisco City Hall dates back to 1915. Chicago City Hall is 115 years old. Atlanta City Hall was built in 1930. Houston's completed in 1939. The oldest city hall still in use, according to Google, is New York City Hall, continuous use since 1812. Living in a neighborhood that is over 100 years old. We have older homes in our neighborhood and many, many buildings in our vicinity that are over 50 years old. Before just dismissing purchasing an existing office building, a more responsible approach is to get qualified professionals to come in and explore your options. Thank you. All right, Mary, before you leave the podium. Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I meant to give you this. I am. I'm giving this out. This is what was attached with the price of everything to the December 2nd, 2025. Okay. Can I just make a comment with regard to the buildings that you mentioned were quite old? You never mentioned how much it costs to keep those buildings still operational. All right. A lot of those buildings that were built, I mean, you say the New York City Hall from 1812 or whatever that was. I've been to that place. The hundreds of millions of dollars over the centuries that they have put into those buildings to keep them in full restoration. That's the real cost. Not just the fact that they built the building and, you know, look at our building. It was, what was it built? 1960 something? Okay. A calamity befell it and, you know, but even before that, we were looking to move on to a new building. So a lot of buildings that are built with built-in obsolescence and the idea is to try to build a building that not only is going to be going to have structural integrity from the beginning, but also be able to maintain itself over the 30, 60, or whatever number of years that we would keep it as our City Hall. And Dean, they may have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to keep those buildings going, but we are talking about 720 million over 30 years to keep ours going. So I don't, I would say this is a conversation and I would love to discover it because you know how to discuss it because you know how. We'll do it offline, Mary. Yes, I think probably everybody would appreciate that. All right. I just want to say that those are the kinds of things that you can do. You can look into more as long as you don't move with this interim agreement tonight. And so I would take the cautious approach, get more information, and really look at what's your best deal. A lot of information has come to you since December of 2025 and you have the opportunity tonight to defer this and move ahead with examining it more. I'll be waiting for you to call about that conversation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Richard, followed by Michael Schneider, followed by, is it LaDonna Viennes? Okay. Thank you for letting us speak. And I heard all the commissioners have some very good points that they're asking the gentlemen about how this was going to work out. I also heard them say, we don't know that just yet. We don't know that just yet. Signing an agreement or agreeing to doing something this evening when you don't have this information just doesn't make any sense. Why do we need a partner in this building? I don't think I understand that either. We've been developing properties for 80 years, a lot in Fort Lauderdale, probably 40 or 50 years. Dean, you know our family. I don't understand this. Why not invite some of the local developers to do a design build for the city? Why don't you... That's what we're doing. I never heard... Well, we have property on Fifth Avenue. We would love to participate in some sort of a request for proposal type thing. You're going to build a 200,000 square foot city hall? Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely. We would be willing to do... No, I'm being very serious now. So am I. I'm being very serious. I don't understand why we're spending this kind of money just to get a developer to tell us what it's going to cost us to build this building. There's developers out there that will do it on the come. And some of them are... I shouldn't say Stiles, but Stiles is a great company. I know that we're interested... They're part of this team, by the way. Oh, they are? Yes. Okay. Well, I didn't even know that. But I don't think I understand the concept is that you say, oh, well, they're going to maintain the building for 30 years. Read the fine print. Every warranty has a cost. So... We know that. Right. So we've been discussing that cost. Right. And that's what concerns us is the cost of the warranty. Okay. No one's ignorant of these facts. I mean, we have concerns, too, just like everybody's expressed, but we're here to hear what the public has to say, and then we're going to make a decision. One last thing. Yes, sir. Aren't there some existing buildings that might work out for you guys that are already built on... Would you buy a used car? Well, I hear you. I hear you. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Michael. Okay. So my name is Michael Schneider, and I'm here representing myself personally. And I'm Irish as well. And because of that, I decided to take what I wrote, and I put it in Chachi PT to make a nicer version, because we want to have a nicer world. And also in honor of the, I say this, the priest, the priest, the nun, and the bishop who are my family. So anyway, so I calmed it down a little bit for everybody's benefit. So I truly believe that the correct direction here is very clear, and that moving in the opposite direction risks serious missteps. It is important that our city commission remain closely aligned with the constituents they represent. I recall years before the major flooding event that impacted the current city hall, hearing Susie Bailey advocate for flood mitigation efforts that may have helped prevent some of the damage we later experienced. That perspective feels especially relevant today. Given current economic conditions and the availability of office space in the market, I believe the city should carefully reconsider proceeding with a large scale new iconic city hall project. Across the country, most local governments are not undertaking similar ambitious civic construction projects at this time. Even internationally, many city halls, such as those in Monte Carlo, are relatively modest in scale. Larger cities also often contain more restrict, more restrained civic facilities than what is being proposed here. Can I stop you for a second? Yeah, this is interesting. If it stops my time. Just stop you for a second. You know, I visited the mayor in Monte Carlo, all right? And he's an absolutely beautiful city hall. Do you know what the size of Monte Carlo is? It is small, but it's also very wealthy. It's, it's, it's, yes, it's really small. Two square kilometers. Yeah. Right. It's about, it's a fraction. It's about the size of Victoria Park. Yeah. But we're comparing, we're talking about big cities that are metropolises, but I want to go back to my time. Go back. Yeah, I stopped your time. And we're not that. We are not that. Okay. So there are also concerns about long-term financial commitments, particularly in relation to property tax revenue stability and broader economic uncertainty. This does not feel like the right time to commit to a major capital project of this scale. Instead, the city should consider acquiring an existing building at favorable pricing. And I want to say you get the building and you're getting another lot. All this expense you're talking about is to put this on some property that we have. So it's using up property. So anyway, so you're getting another lot and making the purchase with the flexibility to expand or contrast over time. Many such buildings already include tenants and revenue streams that could also help offset costs. Many well-regarded city halls across the country are located in older repurposed buildings that remain functional and iconic without requiring new large scale construction. A retrofit approach could also create an iconic civic space that is more human scaled and welcoming rather than a large imposing structure. For Lauderdale, it's a waterfront community, a tourist city centered around walkable and intimate experiences like La Solis, not a dense metropolis like Chicago or New York. Residents also chose this community for its accessible human scale environment. It is important that civic architecture reflect that identity. I believe a more measured and financially responsible approach would better serve the residents and avoid placing an unnecessary long-term burden on the city. And you said this is making, this is about making sausage. Sausage might include changing direction, going back, taking a look at alternative buildings and really investigating the cost of whatever rehab is needed to not just buy, we're not just looking to buy this, um, we're looking to get it. We, the constituents want to get it. It doesn't mean we have to buy it. I mean, we have to build it. We just want to end up with one. And that's the distinction. Anyway, thank you very much. Okay. Please conclude your remarks. Is that it? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. How do you pronounce your name? Because I can't read. What is it? What is it? LaDonna Fiebeg. It's a German name. Okay. Looks like view egg. We answer to everything. Okay. I'm going to be brief. I just want to reiterate what a lot of people have already said. Um, personally, I love beautiful architecture and I would love nothing more than to see a statement piece that would, um, put us on the map around the world if we can afford it. But I don't think we know that yet. I think after, especially after listening tonight, there are a lot of unknowns here. I've been following this pretty closely and I did hear the discussions where they brought up the possibility. I think Sorenson brought up the possibility of buying an existing building that that possibility has come up. I don't see how we can responsibly go forward without looking at all options and comparing. If a new building is the prudent thing to do, if that's the way to go, I'm all for it. But how do we know that until we investigate? So the other thing is I haven't heard a lot of discussion about how we're going to pay for this as I understand that we already have a deficit and this is going to add to our deficit. So are the, is this going to affect other city services? Are we going to have to lay staff off? Are we going to cut other city services to pay for this? I just haven't heard that discussion. So for me to support this, I need to know how we're going to pay for it, what it's going to cost me and have we explored all possibilities. And I would love to see a beautiful building. This design, I think it's spectacular. It has a spectacular price tag as well, but I don't see it being very people friendly. I picture projects today as being maybe plazas where people gather or something that's just a little more people friendly. So I'm not sure about the design, but I just think we have to slow down and look at all the options. And if we look at the old buildings and it costs too much to refurbish them, if that doesn't make sense, then by all means, let's build a new building. I've also heard from a lot of professionals that this design with its curved walls is going to have a lot of wasted space. So that's another thing I'd like to look at. And then the use of so much glass being potentially safety risk in some ways. Okay. Thank you. Lorraine Saunders. Is Lorraine here? Lorraine followed by Tina DeMarco, followed by Ray McElroy. Michael Ray. Oh, Michael Ray. Why do you put your last name first? Oh, good evening. Hi, Lorraine. Hi. It's been a really long time since I felt the need to come here to speak. You're always welcome. I understand that, and I've always felt welcome. I'm just saying that things have been going along very well. I felt very comfortable with the way the city was being run. Thank you. And I feel like we've run into a brick wall because this is like amazing. The building doesn't look like anything else in the entire city. It doesn't kind of fit in anywhere. I don't see a lot of other places wanting to build things like it and kind of make it fit in at some point in the future. And it costs so much. And we're all right now stretched and really, as a community, all the people that I talk to all the time are worried about their taxes and their insurance and all the things that are going up and up and up, including gas. I just think it's the wrong time. And I think that we should do something. Well, we don't have a, we don't have a, we're just kind of living like gypsies right now. You know, this building, that building. Oh, I agree. We need a building. I'm not saying we don't need one at all. Okay. I just think that we should really scale back how much we're willing to spend at this point in time. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Thank you. Tina, followed by Good evening, Commission and Mayor. Tina DeMarco here. As a taxpaying resident of 30 years, I'd like to ask you to pause the interim agreement. Reason for this is we have a referendum coming up this fall on property taxes. There's no referendum. There is no referendum. I'm sorry. What is going on? We're in Tallahassee with property taxes? There is no referendum. Okay. Maybe I'm misspeaking as far as the referendum, but there is a reform in property taxes up for vote in Tallahassee, which could affect this city. Okay. You residents here. That's not true. Okay. There's talk about it and there's discussion about it. And the governor has indicated that he might call a special session with regard to it, but the special session that he has called does not list it as one of the things that they're going to talk about. So, but aside from that, I don't, I just want to just clarify. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mayor. Um, my other concern is we are a growing city and as a growing city, one of the things that might get cut is city services. If we build this building, we cannot afford to cut any city services. We need more city services, if anything, because we are growing. I want everybody that's sitting in this audience right now, who has a billion dollars to spend, let that sink in. Do you know what cities our size are spending on new city halls? They're spending between 10 and 30 million dollars. Let that sink in. Name a city that's doing that. South Carolina. I looked up residents, chat GP. If you look it up, you're welcome to Google it. Cities of our sizes are spending between 10 and 30. Also, the trend is to refurbish buildings. You guys all asked another question. You asked what people are spending for refurbished buildings. I'll tell you what they're spending. Coral Gables is spending 3.7 million a year. Their building was built in 1927. New York City. They use refurbished building. 4.6 million dollars a year. Opelaka, Florida. 1.6 million a year for refurbished building. And lastly, Miami Beach. Built in 1927, 3.7 million dollars a year. I ask again, pause the interim agreement. We are looking at spending 18 million dollars. Okay, thank you. Michael. Michael Ray, followed by Maggie Hunt, followed by John Rodstrom. I'm Michael Ray, but I just found out this is Ray Michael. Is there a Ray Michael? Yes. McElroy. Yeah, that's what I thought. Go sit down. Sit down. Sit down. Well, all right, Michael, why don't you speak now? And then Ray McElroy. I thought it was... Go ahead. I think this is a bad time to approve such a project and even think about spending this kind of money in an environment where people are hungry, can't pay their rent, don't have social services, which you're talking about cutting, which is why the Sun Sentinel called this a boondoggle, which is a wasteful, unnecessary... Sun Sentinel wouldn't use words like that. Well, I'm glad they did because, unfortunately, this isn't just about buying a building. It's about fulfilling the mission of the city commission to involve the public. They shouldn't have to find out about these issues from the Sun Sentinel and all the staff and the reports that they're giving you. Why aren't the citizens involved in the process at that stage? When you're talking about this kind of money... Well, that's what this is for. But, Michael, that's what this is for. That's why we have open commission meetings. Right. I understand that. But why aren't they informed before now of these issues? Why do they have to hear about a boondoggle on the Sun Sentinel? That's because the mission of the city commission is, and I'll quote in relevant part, to represent the public interest, provide leadership and direction for the city's future, and assure the present and future fiscal integrity of the municipal government. That involves us. Anyway, I know you say that you need to be downtown with this new building, but you're only paying $5 million in rent now. So, if you take 30 years, $150 million, instead of $730 million, just think you'd save $580 million. So, what is the rush? I grew up in Miami, and they've had City Hall and Coconut Grove since 1954, which is five miles from downtown. And it's worked wonderfully all these years. Thank you. Thank you. You are Ray, correct? Yeah, I'm Ray McElroy. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Commissioners. I appreciate your time today. I appreciate all your voices. Commissioner Beasley Pittman, it's always special to hear your voice. I really like your thoughts. It means a lot. I used to be in your district before we changed the lines. Being in that district, I'm always hitting everyone up for favors from the city. I always want sidewalks. I want trees. There's, like, a vacant lot the city owns. I want to make it a park, but consistently, we're always short on budget. It's always hard to get these monies allocated for these important things, so it's just kind of painful to hear these kind of numbers. My generation has a lot of debt. We have debt from school. When we buy homes, we don't get homesteaded, save our home caps on our taxes, so we pay a lot of tax. And this just feels like more tax, more this, and it's the younger generation consistently carrying the debt. But I just hope we slow it down, spend less, and make the right decisions. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you very much. I'll fill in for the mayor here, Maggie Hunt, and then John Rodstrom. All my cars are used, and the maintenance on them is very low. I always buy used cars. Also, I looked online as you were talking, and the cost to build a new home in Fort Lauderdale, according to Tritown Construction, is between $200 and $350 a square foot. And then we had a realtor come up here also to really corroborate what Marilyn said about commercial property square foot prices. My research says the same thing. I guess we all need to do that research. But yet, today, we have picked the most expensive building to build out of the four. And cost was number five with our focus groups, and I think that needs to be a higher priority. Most of us, I mean, since so much of the public has this concern, the other options should be considered, with cost taking a much higher level of importance, including buying existing building, remembering that when you can't afford to do a renovation all at once, it is less expensive to do it in phases, even if it means some people have to be inconvenienced. Plenty of cities do that. At any rate, Tower 101 is a huge upgrade in building quality versus what we had before. And we don't know, since we haven't done an exhaustive research on this building, an evaluation, that this building might have a life of way more than 30 years, of 80 years. We don't know, and that's why we need to look at these options. Also, I don't know if I mentioned, okay, and if buying an expensive, an existing building doesn't work out, looking at the other three companies that can do it for less money should happen, especially as all three of the others had a lower price per square foot and offered larger buildings. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Maggie. Thank you, Maggie. We're imagining city hall workshops, right? You might remember those. 86% of respondents said balance the cost with the needs expressed by the community and city leadership or cost is extremely important. The building should be as economic as possible. 84%, only 14% thought the building should be iconic and cost didn't matter. If you look at another survey question that was asked, people wanted to spend, 66% of people wanted to spend a max of $150 million bond. Now, a bond at the time of this was considered a GO bond taken on with your AAA credit rating, probably about 4.25%. It didn't talk about this other stuff going on here with the financing of this project. So then you all voted for the most expensive of the four projects. And now, even though some of that's been cut down, we have a financing plan that is absolutely outrageous and adds even more to it. And I love the car dealership analogy because not only do they try to sell you a warranty at the end when you're buying a car, but they try to sell you new keys and all this other stuff, but every single thing you buy is a way they can make more money. Here, they've got the $6 million for OMB. They've got the 7% delta they're making on the financing. They are making money everywhere. And, of course, they can replace the elevators after 12 years because they're making so much damn money. It's pretty obvious. So on April 7th, the Wall Street Journal had a headline, a fire sale has U.S. office buildings going for 90% off. What are we doing building a brand-new, iconic building where we can get a new office building for 90% off? And, look, I have a problem with this because I do plan on being here in 30 years, and I do plan on probably having to pay for whatever this will be. This city continues to become more and more unaffordable. I'm a lawyer, and I think that. We are mortgaging our future, and I'm tired of it. Please, think about your residents. Think about the community. Cut it out. Did Susan Lazarus come up? Not yet. But I don't think she's here. Is Susan here? She said she didn't want to speak. She might have left, Mayor. Okay. But I just want to say that the city attorney. Well, you're next, so go ahead. Yeah. The city attorney has advised me as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board, if the site plan, et cetera, comes before us, if I give my opinion tonight, which wouldn't be on the building, but whatever, in all cautiousness, she doesn't want me to speak. And I just want to say for the record that the letter that was sent to the city commission and everyone was based upon the Coley Hammock HOA's position. Thank you very much. Okay. Cody, you want to speak? You're done? Okay. All right. So does anyone else wish to speak on this item? All right. So I don't have to close public hearing because it's not a – it wasn't – so my feeling is that – he already spoke. Oh, right, right, right, right. Thank you. Obviously, there's a sentiment in the room that we should maybe defer the item tonight and not vote on it. And I think that we're all – I personally have expressed my point of view privately to the city manager that I don't think we have enough information, and I really wanted to defer this item tonight anyway. I think that there are a lot of questions that have been unanswered, and I don't think we're ready for a decision tonight. What does the rest of you think? Commissioner Herbst? So quite a few thoughts. Let me start out. So I made some strong statements about plenary, and I want to apologize to them. So I was overly inflammatory, and I shouldn't be. They're a very good firm. They do great projects. They've got, you know, tens of billions of dollars worth of P3s that they do around the world, and they do good work. We just don't need them. They do it around the U.S. They do it around the world. But I don't think that we're in a position where we need the kind of expertise that they bring to the table. So I just want to start with that. I am going to say this because I think it needs to be said. I know it's not going to get me anywhere, but I still feel obligated to say it. So I'm going to go back to where we started with all this and what I've been saying for two years. City Hall, $1,200 a square foot. Kaplan Building, $36 a square foot. But, once again, $1,200 a square foot, folks, $36 a square foot. But that's a rental. That's not a purchase. I know. It's a rental. And you know what? It's on airport property. And in 30 years, guess who owns the building? We're the landlord. And in 30 years, who does it revert to, Mayor? Us, as the landlord. We own the building free and clear in 30 years. $1,200, folks, $36. Can't beat the math. But I know we're not going to do that. I've tried this one. I've pitched this one for years about taking all of our back office people and moving them off the most expensive real estate in all of Fort Lauderdale. I've tried this over and over and over again. Haven't gotten anywhere, but I feel obligated to beat this den horse one more time. So I can't go down without swinging one more time. All right, okay. It's getting late. Okay. Next options. And, again, I know this isn't going to work either, but I feel obligated to do it. We have two buildings that are available to us. We have the 1 East Brower building, where you all are right now, my colleagues. And then we have the 101 building, which is where I am. Either one of these, I think, would make ideal city halls for us. We can pick them up for $350 to $400 a square foot. Again, a fraction of what we're going to be spending to build a new building. Do they need renovation? I have no idea. And I guarantee neither does anybody else sitting up on this dais, because not one of us is a structural engineer, and nobody in the last year has taken the time to engage a structural engineer to actually go look at them and find out. And I think shame on us for not doing that. So I think if we're going to take a pause, it behooves us to go and engage somebody. You take a look. You know, I've seen these posts up online saying, oh, my God, there's cracks in the stucco. The building is falling down. There is not a building with stucco in the entire state of Florida that doesn't have a crack on it. And while we're at it, Mayor, I'm going to ask a special favor of you. I know there's been a lot of statements that we have a 25-year-old building down the block, and God forbid we buy it because it's going to fall down over the next storm. I have had investors, people who own buildings in Fort Lauderdale, say, please stop saying that. You're damaging the credibility of our downtown commercial office market. Every time you say how bad these buildings are, it really damages the integrity of our marketplace down here. So that's option number two. Let's look at the buildings that are available to us to buy. You know, we already occupy 20% of the 101 building. I've been in that building for the better part of 15 years. Love my office there. I would love to not have to move during my remaining time with the city. But again, I know that that's probably not the option. But it's still a better option than where we are. Third, if we go along with the building that you all have selected against my votes, at least let's come up with a better financing plan for it. I have talked over and over and over again about why the general obligation bond is the best financing methodology for that building. I hope we move forward with that. Please, let's consider locking down the lowest cost guaranteed financing that we can put in place. I'll leave it at that. Okay. Great. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I said earlier, um, basically what I'm going to repeat again, um, I'm not comfortable with the numbers that are presented in this, um, interim agreement that we're looking at tonight. Um, I do suggest that we slow down and, um, put together a plan that will be, um, feasible, financially feasible for all of us. Um, the last thing that, um, we should be entertaining is that, um, tax burden to our residents. Um, again, um, with the options that are, the options that are being, um, talked about, I, I, I mentioned, you know, there's things that we also need. I'm, um, you know, I'm an advocate for affordable housing, even in this conversation with how we can, um, roll back and see what we can do saving funds to, uh, well, we identified funds because we're saying we can use these funds to build this, um, our city hall at this rate. But if we look at this again, and restructure that we can even add that affordable housing piece into what we're doing. So again, um, tonight, I'm suggesting that we slow this down and, um, look at a, um, add more to this affordable piece, this, um, interim agreement that is more feasible. And I'm still in that same position. I'm thinking that I'm suggesting, not only thinking if we, um, step away from the developer, um, that's, um, with the fees that's there, we will have an opportunity to use our funds more wisely. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I just want to say thank you to everyone who appeared here this evening at the podium and spoke and gave us the input. It's really very important. Um, just I want to say one thing. This has been a process for years now. I, so I, I only take exception when people think that this information is just coming to people. It really isn't. If you really have been watching and listening, we have been engaged in this process for years now, almost since we've lost city hall. I would just ask for some respect. That's all I, I, I'm. Come on. This is not, this is not. You're proving my point. You really are proving my point. Please continue. Yes. Uh, and I, I really do believe that this is not an unusual process that we're in. And I, too, want to make sure that the taxpayer is not getting hurt in this, but I want to caution us. And I, again, I do not know what that pause means. What are we now going to do? How are we going to figure this out? What are we going to figure out? Um, I will just tell you that I was speaking to a lot of people in the construction industry throughout town and outside of town. Um, there are a lot of cautionary tales there about purchasing, purchasing older buildings and not having a guarantee and just knowing what that might cost you in the future. I did some math. I, I, I, I added up what, let's say they wanted to sell one-on-one tower for $88 million. We could easily spend, easily spend $100 million retrofitting that building to current standards, and we would still not have that guarantee going into the future of another 30 years of useful life. That's just a fact. But these are all unknowns. Um, I, I, I know that this was an interim agreement. I know that we have 11 months to figure that out. Obviously, that's not, not what we're hearing tonight, uh, in terms of the will of the folks that are here or on this commission. And I understand that. I'm fine with that. I just want to caution us, though, as the path that we're going to take in the future. Um, you know, this, this process was not taken lightly. Um, we did have that unsolicited proposal. Then we advertised. We had six, six applicants in terms of building a project. We eliminated two. We heard from four. Uh, we've been working on this now for months and months and months in negotiation. Thank you to staff for doing that work. Thank you to our consultants for doing that work. I just want to know, and some questions have not been answered. We didn't get a chance to really discuss this with the city manager. There were good questions asked at the podium. How are we going to afford this? Can we afford this? Will this impact city services? Will this impact, uh, all of the things that people are used to from the city in terms of quality of life? Uh, those are all good questions that we did not have a chance to discuss this evening. Um, we did not get a, the city manager a chance to tell us what they have been looking at in terms of ways to finance this project. I do know that it was mentioned earlier that when we were engaged in conversations with the county, we were looking at roughly, uh, a $400 million expense. That was five, six, seven, eight years ago. Um, when this project was voted on and chosen as the development team, that was a four to one vote of this commission. The, the dollar amount at that time was $340 million. Uh, we did get that down to about $240 million based on the input that we were getting. So I think we were headed in the right direction. I would have been willing to actually see the work continue, uh, because I do believe that it is actually in the process where all of the questions that all of us have about, can we do this? That happens between the interim agreement and the comprehensive agreement. That's just the process that we're involved in. Uh, no one's making that up. Um, but that is the way that you get to whatever it is you want to get to, or you just pull the plug and you say, no, we're not going there. Um, so those are my questions. I do eventually want to make sure we have a discussion about what we can afford and how I want to have a discussion about, okay, we have a pause now, but what does that mean exactly? And how do these negotiations continue? And what is the work that the city staff still has to do? Because this is all a lot of work on the part of the city staff. Um, so those are my questions that I would have for the city manager. Um, where do we go from here? Maybe is the first question. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, vice mayor. Thank you, mayor. Uh, thank you commission for discussing this and, and considering the options here and, and possibilities. Thank you everyone for coming out and sharing your voice. And, um, mayor, uh, you know, since January, I've been advocating for exploring all options. Um, and I think that includes exploring one-on-one and exploring one East Broward as I've, I've been saying for months. So, uh, suggestion, mayor, uh, kind of several steps that I'd suggest. One is that the city manager, uh, bring on board an independent engineering firm to conduct, uh, property condition assessment or, which includes structural analysis, uh, near term and life cycle costs of one-on-one and one East Broward. So we can have a valuation of those buildings. Um, I think secondly, getting from the city manager, what budget allocation for a city hall, be it a build or be it a purchase, what, what budget would allow us to not cut back on city services and or city staff. Okay. So what, what's within our budget as a city? So that's the second piece that I'd, I'd suggest, uh, third piece is as we continue to develop these analysis, bring them, those analyses to the budget advisory board as was suggested today, which I think is absolutely right. And the council of Fort Lauderdale civic associations and lastly, uh, you know, continue with this feedback that we're hearing tonight, um, have a discussion with the, uh, builder and, and, and see where they are based on this, this feedback that they're getting from the commission. So those would be my four step suggestions. Mayor. Can, can I follow up on that? Can I ask a question? Um, uh, city manager, we've got, uh, Jacobs, I believe. Right. So I think we've already got, uh, engineers on staff. Could they, could they do a structural analysis and, uh, uh, condition assessment of these buildings? They are, they are owners rep and they do have the capacity to do that work on our behalf. Okay. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we, can I, can I talk? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. I apologize. I thought you had already spoken by now. I want to fit. I want to finish up my feel free. Okay. Thank you. I don't, I don't want to steal your thunder, but when you're done, I'd like to make a motion. Okay. Um, so, you know, we've heard a lot of voices tonight and a lot of opinions and, uh, and I, and I know everyone is trying to, um, end up with the best result for the city. And I know every member of this commission is trying to do the best thing for, for our constituents. And, and we thought we were doing that in the process. The process did begin a number of years ago when we first started to collaborate with the county. And we thought, um, I remember when I sat down in a room with, uh, then city manager, Chris Lagerbloom, and we're sitting with the county representative who happened to be Chip Lamarca at the time. And, um, and we were sitting there and on a napkin, Chris Lagerbloom drew, uh, drew, drew on, on the napkin. He says, we have a government campus here. We have a city hall. We have county building. Why don't we think in terms of collaborating? And that's when the birth of a joint government center really came from. So we tried to work towards that and we kind of, uh, left it into the hands of the county to come up with a needs assessment as well as a cost assessment. So, um, the city, the city came up with its needs assessment. We worked with the company called Zeskovich and, um, Mr. Zeskovich took our, our data. He took the data of the county and came together and decided that he could create a building with this square footage. The cost per square foot at that time was about $3,000 a square foot. And there were other issues regarding who would, who would be in charge of the building and, uh, who's going to make decisions regarding, uh, maintenance and so forth. And it seemed that the county wanted to just take over and we were going to be a tenant and we were going to have to pay this kind of money to be part of the, the joint government center. That's when we walked away from it. We said, this is absurd. We're never going to be able to, uh, afford something like that. And I think Commissioner Glassman pointed out it was going to be $400 million to be able to participate in that joint government center. So we did walk away from that. So we went on our own and, uh, we decided we were going to reach out to the community and we engaged the infrastructure task force as it's been discussed. And I think Mr. Labrie talked about it. And Marilyn Mamano was the chair at the time. And we asked the infrastructure task force to reach out to the community and say, okay, look, what do you, what do you want to do? And why was that important? It was important because we just lost our city hall, our city hall. Even before we can make the decision about tearing it down, mother nature came in and flooded us out. And we had, and the, the option we had at the time, according to Alan Dodd, who is the head of the public works department back then, he said it was going to cost about $20 million and we'd be out of, we'd, and we'd be able to reenter it in about two years. So we made the decision that was going to throw good money after bad. And we decided that wasn't going to be an option. So we decided to go to the public, engage the infrastructure task force, and see what did the public want to see in a new city hall. And they, they had a number of meetings. I believe it was five, five meetings, um, in which, uh, the public was engaged. I don't know if any of you were part of that. It sounds like a lot of you were, didn't even know about it, but a lot of people, dozens and dozens of people participated. Mayor, and the Urban Land Institute, I'm sorry to interrupt. The Urban Land Institute came here, we contracted with them. They also did a very detailed public participation, input, and also issued a report. We had two. Two reports. Yes, thank you, I'm sorry. And those, it's okay. And those reports came back telling us, um, actually neither one of those reports said go find another building that's already been built and try to make it, make it work. Neither one of them said that. But, uh, both, uh, groups came back to us with the recommendation that we, number one, build a new city hall and that it, it, it have certain components. Um, I believe you said seven or eight, I forgot seven, seven, seven, seven aspects. Now, when we look at some of these buildings that have been recommended, for example, the 101, uh, Northeast, uh, Northeast, um, Third Avenue, it contains none of them. And this was pointed out in a previous meeting by Commissioner Glassman who went, read the whole list and not one of the features are part of that building. Now, as far as one East Broward is concerned, perhaps there are some features there that are going to be, uh, possible to incorporate the public's interest in wanting to comply with those expectations that were, that were developed in, uh, in the, those outreach programs. But I, I just want to point out a couple of things, um, on, uh, April 9th, 2026, sorry, Sun Sentinel, this is Miami Herald. Um, uh, there's a story about how Miami-Dade purchased a building, an older building, and, uh, they paid $183 million for the building. They thought, Hey, we need a building for part of our government services. And we, we, we, why, why go out and buy a new building when we can buy it much more cheaply by, by a building that already exists. So they paid $183 million for this. It was actually previously owned by, uh, FPNL. So, uh, the, uh, County Commissioner was told that the estimate for renovation would be $73 million. So $183 million and $73 million was $256 million all in. Everyone thought, Oh, this is great. We're going to be able to, uh, save a lot of money. Well, as it turns out that the $73 million to renovate mushroomed into $255 million. So instead of the project costing $256 million, it was now $438 million. So this is the, these are the things that we have to be careful about, assuming that an existing building is going to be cheaper. It's not necessarily going to be cheaper. And if you want to do an examination of what it's going to cost to, to build out, um, uh, an older building, you know, we can, we can go through that exercise, but I just want you to know that the County has done a lot of that work for us and we need to contact the County, uh, city manager and see what buildings that they examine. It's my understanding that they went and did an examination of one East Broward, one Oh one Northeast, uh, third Avenue and several other buildings in the downtown area and walked away from them saying that they wouldn't touch them because we're going to be much too expensive to repurpose and to reap and refurbish, uh, in order for them to, uh, for them to, um, utilize them for government purposes. So they're going, they're going to go ahead and they're going to build a new building at $2,000 a square foot, because that's what they're saying is the, is the market rate for new construction, which I think is crazy. All right. At $1,200 a square foot, we're much more in line with what the going rate for new construction is. Now, if the decision of the commission is to go forward and to try to see, um, what it would take to, uh, to refurbish and to redesign a one Oh one or one East Broward, you know, that's fine. Okay. Uh, and I don't know what the answer is going to be. I don't think anybody knows what the answer is going to be, but keep in mind that we need to, we need to have a commission chambers. We need to have commission offices and we need to have a lot of the things that don't exist in those buildings right now. So, um, so these are the concerns that I have about moving forward in, in the wrong direction. But if we decide to move forward and put a pause here and I, and I do recommend that we defer M three and, um, and allow us the opportunity to make these, uh, these studies, whether we use Jacobs or anybody else, um, I do think it, it behooves us as a commission that we need to, uh, make an intelligent choice and not just one based on, on aspiration or innuendo or, or, or things that really are not based in fact. And I don't think anybody here on this commission wants to do anything that's not based in fact. So, um, you know, there can be inflammatory editorials and newspapers and there can be all kinds of hysteria that's created. We're not that kind of people. We're not going to be, we're not going to judge and make decisions based on, uh, on, on hysteria and just trying to, you know, trying to corral the mob into believing something so that we defeat the city commission and its efforts to overspend the city tax dollar. That's not what we're here for folks. You know that we're trying to do the best thing for our community and we're trying to do the best thing for moving the city forward. Now, uh, I will now entertain, uh, a commissioner Herbst. He wants, he wants to make a motion, but I, but as we do that, I just caution the city commission that we do so in a way that's based on facts and, and intelligent response and let's do this the right way. And ultimately we may end up with this building who knows, or we may not, who knows, but we'll see. All right, go ahead. Commissioner Herbst. Well, uh, you know, mayor, you just took us on a history lesson, so I'm going to take you on a history lesson too, just because I feel obligated to. So that, that FB and L building that you're talking about in Miami was a 1970s error building. So I'm not surprised that it costs twice as much. Four times. Let me, let me tell you about another old building. It's the one up in Jacksonville. It's called the St. James building. Yeah. Built in 1912. Uh-huh. City of Jacksonville. It's 342,000 square foot building of the city of Jacksonville renovated into its stunning city hall. It's a magnificent structure. Guess what? $24 million came in under budget and under time. It's Taj Mahal of city halls, by the way. So it's not always a case of renovating an old building doesn't work. If you do it right, it's magnificent. And I would say adaptive reuse to my historic preservationist down at the other end of the table is really not a bad way to go. But leaving that aside. So you want the federal courthouse? I would actually, I love the federal courthouse, but, uh, but I would also say our most recent example of building a brand new building is our police station, which started out as an $80 million building on a hundred million dollar bond and turned into $165 million project. So our track record of building new buildings doesn't work out quite so well either. Well, there was something in between there. Yes, there was something in between there. It broke. So let's, let's, let's, let's, let's understand COVID came and there were there, the cost of construction skyrocket. Exactly. Lots of things happen. Lots of things can happen. No matter whether you're building new or renovating, anything could happen. I, and I agree completely. And that can happen with almost any project. But having said that, I would make a motion that we defer this project for 30 days. And I think we should defer it for 60 days. Uh, I, so my, my question is what's a sufficient amount of time? Cody, would you like to come up and, and, and have a conversation? Well, we do, don't you want the time for, uh, Jacobs to do, I want the time for, for Jacobs, but I, I also want to make sure, cause there's, cause there's, cause I also want the clock to stop running on design work. I, I want to make sure that we're not going to wind up with $5 million worth of design work that we're going to be responsible for while Jacobs is taking a look at this. So I, I want to balance out these two competing aspects. I, I don't want to cause unnecessary costs and delay, but I also want to make sure that Jacobs can look at these other properties because apparently we're not going to the Kaplan building. So, so what's a reasonable amount of time on your side? What's a reasonable amount of time city manager on your side? So I'll let, well, Cody, why don't you start? Sure. So in that, uh, proposed 30 day time period, you're looking for additional options that the city could do within the, and I want city staff to talk with you and go back. I mean, I think you've all heard that, that we're really struggling, I think on the financial piece. So I think that's something that city staff needs to go back and work on this agreement and, and figure out how we're going to approach it. I think that's one of the things that we need to be talking about in this 30 days. I think that's probably the first thing that we need to talk about with the developer and team just to understand, uh, the reaction to the feedback today and to see if there is a path forward that would be mutually agreeable. Uh, I do want to make sure that we provide Jacobs with enough time to conduct the structural analysis. If that is the direction of the commission for us to have that done. Uh, I'm not sure if 30 days is sufficient, but I do believe that 60 days would be closer to what I might think is a feasible timeframe. Are you sure we could, we could be amenable to either one in 30 days. We could bring you back additional options and respond to the feedback and work with the city team and give you guys options as far as what we see and working with the city. And I'll even put it out there this way. If, if you can get this done faster, come back to us. Great. But I, so my motion would be 60 day pause. Uh, you understand that a correction, the direction from the commission, and we will revisit this then. Uh, I do want to share that, you know, staff is very committed to fulfilling this commission priority of getting a city hall. Uh, we want to make sure that we are, uh, working in coordination with the commission in terms of what the approach might be in terms of identifying available funding for the project. We do have some preliminary thoughts and recommendations. Uh, we heard tonight from the vice mayor that there's a low tolerance, uh, from his perspective on any reductions to services or to staff. If there are any other sensitivities or limitations, uh, it would be great for staff to understand what those are. So do you want to know that now? Or do you want to know that? I think it's a given. We don't want to reduce services. I mean, why would you even think that, you know, I mean, the idea is to, what can we afford based on the level of services that we currently provide to our people? I mean, why would you, that, why would that even be something we'd have to think about? I mean, and the other thing is who's paying for Jacobs? So we already have a budget for the project that contemplates utilizing Jacobs as our owner's rep. When we solicited for the owner's rep, uh, we did identify funding for that purpose. For, for, for doing an examination for, for these existing buildings. So we had various, uh, tasks or scope of services that incorporates what's being requested today. So wait a minute, we voted for that. We voted in when we decided to, to engage Jacobs for a new building. We also put a budget in there for him to, for them to examine older buildings. I don't remember that at all. When we engaged Jacobs, there were a series of potential tasks that the city included in the scope. Yeah. And so we issue task orders based on the needs that we have at the time. Right. And so it's not a blanket purchase order for all of the services that Jacobs could perform on our behalf, but we can exercise, uh, our flexibility in requesting them to do X, Y, or Z. So we put everything but the kitchen sink in the scope and as needed, we approach them and we say, can you do this on our behalf? All right. So how much money is going to be needed to do this? Well, we would need to negotiate that with Jacobs. Uh, I think that that's typically done by task order, isn't it? Correct. Yes. Okay. So when do you think we, when do you think the task order will be brought back to the commission? We, we wouldn't have to come back to the commission in order to move forward with that. So we have utilized Jacobs, uh, throughout the course of the last several months and not have to come back to the commission to ask for permission to utilize that contract. Okay. I just don't want to give them a blank check. It will not be. Okay. And I think, Mayor, we should go back to the minutes. We actually had this discussion at a commission meeting prior. We talked about going out for appraisals on these buildings. We talked about hiring structural engineers. We, we've discussed all of this. We can go back to the minutes, find out, because we actually even were able to get, uh, estimates of prices for all of this, estimates and engineering studies. We have all of that in our minutes. Uh, the commission rejected all of that at one point in time, but we can certainly go back and look at it just for reference and see what it was exactly that we rejected. Okay. I just want to make sure that we have, we've already, uh, authorized the money to do it. And I want to, I just want an idea as to what it was going to cost the city to move forward on that. Thank you, Mayor. And going back to commissioner Herbst, you asked, uh, if staff would want any of that feedback now on any sensitivities and determining what the financial approach should be. And I think that would be helpful in expediting our process. All right. And also, uh, commissioner Herbst, can we, instead of the second meeting in June, can make it the first meeting in July? Cause I'm not going to be here the second meeting in June. I'm sorry. The second meeting in July. No, I said the first, the first day in July. Okay. Yeah. Are we having a first meeting in July? That is our last meeting on July 2nd. That's our last meeting. July 2nd. Will that give us any, will that give us time? I mean. Well, I'd like to be here. So maybe the first meeting in June. Maybe the first meeting in June. Because I think that won't not, that will not give us any time. I understand. If we do this on our last meeting. I'm going to be gone. I'm going to be gone most of that week. Unless you want to have that meeting. And I'll be back on the 18th. Um, and I think the end of the week is the 19th. But, um. Can we do it the first meeting in June? Let's do, let's assign it the first meeting of June. The first meeting of June is June 2nd. I won't be here on June 16th. Okay. We will speak with Jacobs about what's being requested and send a letter to the commission this week to identify what the timeline, the most expeditious timeline would be for these services. Okay. Very good. So, just so I can summarize, just to make sure I'm tracking. So, it's engaging with Jacobs to do an analysis of 101 and 1 East Broward, right? Correct. It's city manager, you doing a budgetary analysis of what could be allocated for city hall that would not reduce city staff or city services. If I can add a couple other suggestions to that, just pending commission approval, that would also not require a millage increase. Okay. And it would also not, uh, utilize any of our reserves. Is that... You mean the fund balance? Fund balance. Fund balance. Yeah. Is that fair? So, but, but, uh, to piggyback on your point, though, um, what is it that we're asking Jacobs to do? I mean, are we asking them just to study the integrity of the building? Are we asking them also to cost out what a, a commission chambers is going to look like? I, I, I say it this way, Mayor. What, you know, we, we have, there have been, there has been a lot of assertions that are made. I'm going to go back and use my audit language now. Okay. There are assertions being made that are, that have no substantiation behind them. And so there are a lot of folks who have absolutely no background or experience in structural or civil engineering that are throwing wild numbers out there about how much this is going to cost us to renovate these buildings. And they may or may not have any validity whatsoever. So I think what we need to do is look at this buildings, both of these buildings and say, they are structurally sound. They are not structurally sound and ballpark estimates of, you know, it's going to cost us a hundred million, 200 million order of magnitude estimates of what it might take based on, you know, standard renovation to bring these buildings into some degree of usability for us. Okay. That's step one. And step two is our, you know, we need to know what it's going to cost to, um, to accommodate the needs of the city, which are, uh, which are commission chambers, which are commission offices, which are all the things that we've discussed. And I think that needs to be part of the analysis as well. And can, can this building accommodate it? Or can it not accommodate it? Can the other building accommodate it or not accommodate it? Well, I think, I think, so, so there are office buildings. We use office buildings. I think there's a level of granularity that we're getting down to about who's going to be in what office on what floor and who's going to have a corner office. I'm not sure I'm going to understand what we're doing with that. The cost of building a chamber is like this. We could just keep using the police station, can't we, that we're going to start using? I mean, we're going to have this lovely community building that part of our $170 million police station, that's going to be a commission chambers. Can't we keep using that? We haven't even moved into it yet. Wouldn't we want to use that one? I mean, brand spanking new, great AV equipment. So, Mayor, if I could. We don't have to have the commission chamber in the office building. We could have the commission chamber over at the police department and use that one. Mayor, I think. Whatever. Why don't we just get a trailer? So, I mean, I think we're getting down to a level of detail that's not necessary for this very, very high-level discussion about what building do we move into, is what I'm saying. But, Mayor, I want to add point number three. I think it also has to be an apples-to-apples. Jacob should be looking at this in terms of what are the characteristics, what are the space needs that we've already decided on? What is that programming that we've already built into this negotiation to this point? We need to have that kind of a comparison. It has to be apples-to-apples, not just a structural integrity study of the building. And there's also a fourth level in what do you do with the existing tenants? You know, you push them out. You have 200,000 square feet, according to the study, 200,000 square feet to accommodate 575 employees. The numbers I've seen so far, one building, we can't even get close to that number, all right? And even if we did, we'd have to kick out a lot of tenants, which we'd have to buy out their leases. You know, there are all kinds. And I, you know, if we're going to make an apples-to-apples comparison, those are the kinds of things that our consultant has to come back with. Sure. Sure. And there's, there's with 101 Tower and 1E's Broward, there are existing leases. Here's the upside to the existing leases is that's a revenue stream. So 101, there's about $8 million a year coming in from revenue from existing tenants in 101. So we don't have to move all city staff in there immediately. This can be phased in as the tenants cycle out due to the end of lease. So that's an easy analysis to do. Well, let Jacobs come back with that. Exactly. Let Jacobs come back with that. Mayor, let me just throw one other idea out. And I completely agree with you. We need to look at city commission chambers and what would that cost to do that at 101 or 1E's Broward or the police station, which is already, you know, built. We've talked about, and you kind of, I think this was kind of made in jest, but we've talked about the federal courthouse, the old federal courthouse. And we've talked about what to do with it. We've shared ideas about a museum there. We've shared ideas about a school there. Could part of the analysis, just from Jacobs' analysis, what would it cost to retrofit the federal courthouse to be a city commission chambers with some supporting offices there as well? Is that something we could look at, Mayor, just to get a sense? I'm not adverse to that, but I just want to say a couple things. The reason why they built a new federal courthouse is because they felt that this particular courthouse would cost a lot of money to restore. Right. And they claim there's a lot of water damage and stuff like that. Right. To me, I think any building can be restored. I agree. I'm with you. It just all comes at a cost. Now, the square footage in that building is 150,000 square feet. All right. However, you can expand that because it has a huge courtyard. And you could actually build out the commission chambers into the part of the courtyard. Okay? So clever people with great eye, great design eye, can certainly come up with an idea that we could use the main body of the building for offices and meeting rooms and then build out a commission chamber. So we talked about that several years ago, okay? Okay. We also talked about 110 East Broward, too. And then we found out we couldn't buy that because they didn't own the land. Right. And actually, we talked about 110 East Broward as well. And at the time, they weren't interested. So it's not like the city commission never explored existing buildings. We've been down that path multiple times. But every time, there's always been a roadblock. So I don't want you to think that the commission is only looking at an expensive building, a new building, and one that, you know, is going to bankrupt the city. I mean, obviously, we're not looking to do that. But the point is that tonight's exercise was an attempt to try to move the process forward, sign an interim agreement so that we could then continue the study. But if we decide to defer and come back and do a study based on the request tonight to examine the two existing buildings, then that's the will of the commission, and we'll move forward on that. So I agree with you, Vice Mayor. I think that's the path we need to follow. And do you want to include the courthouse? Yes, please. Yes, Mayor. That might take a little more time. It might. But at least start it and do some analysis. Thank you. Mayor, I'm sorry. A point of order, please. We need to do one thing first. We need to extend the meeting. So I need to... Are we there yet? We are just about there. So I will temporarily pause my motion that's on the floor so that we could have a motion to extend the meeting until 1030. Do I hear a second? Move. Second. Okay. To 1030? We have the rest of the meeting to go to, but hopefully we'll get some sure. Let's do it to 11 o'clock. Let's do it to 11 o'clock. To 11 o'clock. Move the second. To 11 o'clock. Second friendly. All right. Okay. Call the roll, please. Call the roll, please. Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. Did anybody second the motion? We have – well, we're still discussing. Oh, we're still discussing. Okay. So the vice mayor is suggesting that we also include the federal courthouse in that analysis. It might take a little bit longer because there's a lot more involved, but I think I would be all in on that. Yeah. Great, ma'am. I love the building. I think it would be incredible. But we tried that already, but I'll go around again. Remind me, is that truly an opportunity? Isn't there, like, a list that we had to go into, like a lottery to qualify for the building? Not a lottery. It was a list of purposes which would be eligible. Okay. So what's the status on that? Is it – are we investing in something that we don't have an opportunity? Ask the city manager. Where are we at? And vice mayor, by the way, do we throw the school board building into that while we're in it? Right. Exactly. They called me out this weekend. They can't wait to get out of that building fast enough. They can't wait to get out of that building fast enough. Talk about glass buildings and walls. Okay. So – The question to the city manager. Ask the city manager, yeah. What's the status on the – GSA has not yet made a final determination as to the programmatic use that would be permitted at that property. But we can contact GSA and let them know what we're looking to do. They can give us a heads up. We can't – we don't have to just wait around. Those folks want to know that we're interested in it. I've spoken with GSA over the last several years, and I know it's been different administrations, but they're eager to see some sort of respectable interest. And so I think we can contact GSA. Who's been our contact person? Ben Rogers. Yes, and we definitely keep in touch with them on a periodic basis. And so we can follow up with them again to determine if they have a timeline in which to determine what the acceptable use would be. I still think that would be a great museum, though. I think that's better as a museum. Well, it could be a great a lot of things, too. I'm just saying that if it can be a city hall – We could have both. We could have, yeah. But it doesn't have any windows. Good. I think employees like windows. You won't be distracted. I'm not worried about me, but, you know, the employees like light every once in a while. We'll knock out some windows. Keep them in the dark and – no, that's – Well, it was built during a time of an energy crisis, so they purposely didn't have windows. Okay. I would like to follow up with the vice mayor on the sensitivity to the fund balance. I would like to know if there's any flexibility to maybe have an option that includes a limited amount, potentially, from fund balance. You won't get any dispute from this guy. Actually, so I'm glad you brought that up, Mayor. Thank you, because when we were – I do want to talk about that. So, you know, there's a fundamental concept in finance, particularly municipal finance, and it's called intergenerational equity. And what that means is that the future users of government facilities should pay for that use. And so I would be adamantly opposed to using our fund balance to pay down the cost of this building. We should not be forcing the taxpayers from whom we have collected that fund balance to pay for a building that's going to benefit generations to come. That's just an imbalance in how government buildings are paid for. The users of the buildings should be the ones who pay for it. That's why we finance our water and sewer facilities over 30 years. It's why you finance all government infrastructure over 30 years. There's an attempt to balance the cost of the building with the use of the building. And so I would not – I will tell you very, very strongly it's a fundamental premise of municipal finance is, again, the use of the building is balanced by the cost of the building so that you are sharing that cost amongst generations and across time. Okay, in any case, see what kind of timeline it would take to examine the federal courthouse. And, Ben, if you could touch base with GSA and see, are we still in the running to be able to acquire that building? Thank you. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor to – do you have any more questions, city manager? I do not. Okay. There's a motion on the floor to defer this item to the first meeting of June. Do I hear a second? Second. We've been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trinthals? Yes. And so M3 will now be deferred to June 2nd. Phew. And R1 – and by the way, just for clarity, because I think this is important, I think you heard this, so we talked about this, you're on the record that we're going to pause any work so that there's no additional costs being incurred while we are doing this. I know we got that out there in the record. I think we made it clear that that was part of the discussion, so just so that's included, so there's no ambiguity about that. So thank you. Appreciate that. R1, appointment of board and committee members. Please read the names into the record. Thank you, Mayor. For the May 5th resolution, Board of Adjustment, Jay Sheckman nominated – Please try to keep quiet. We should continue with the meeting. Thank you. Nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen for a full position. And for tonight's resolution, Budget Advisory Board, Robert Laughlin, nominated by Commissioner Herbst. Community Appearance Board, Nico Grant, nominated by Commissioner Herbst. Bonnie Metfeiner, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen. Historic Preservation Board, Christian Garay, nominated by Commissioner Glassman. Robert Golden, nominated by Commissioner Glassman. Invest Fort Lauderdale, Inc. Robert Washington, nominated by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Parks, Recreation, and Beaches Board, James Saunders, nominated by Commissioner Herbst. And Sustainability Advisory Board, Ida Nesimi, nominated by Commissioner Herbst. And that rounds it out. All right. Thank you. Are there any more modifications or additions? If not, would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduce. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or nominating, if applicable, Board of Committee members as set forth in the exhibit, attached here to, made a part hero. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Commissioner Herbst. We're heading for home. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Mayor Trent Hollis. Yes. And I want to thank those individuals for volunteering their time to participate in these board and committees. Thank you so much. R2, resolution waiving the competitive solicitation and selection process contained in the City of Fort Lauderdale procurement ordinance and approving and amending consulting services agreement with Beacon Advisory Partners. Anyone have any questions with regard to that? I do, Mayor. Thanks. I had a couple of questions because I was reading through this, and, again, this is very helpful for me because I know that we have Belson Sundberg. I just need to know what exactly is the addition of this firm for those kinds of questions that we deal with. What is it, in other words, what is the exact role and how does it differ from, like, Eric's work with Belson Sundberg? Thank you, Commissioner. It's important to note that we've been engaged with Beacon Advisory for several months, and the firm has been consulting with us on the City Hall project as well as on the Holiday Park Park and Garage project, more so on the staff side as opposed to assisting the city attorney. We have outside counsel, as mentioned, for that purpose. So, Beacon Advisory has supported the development and refinement of procurement materials, including supplemental questions to the City's responses, reviewed proposer submissions and evaluation materials from a business, financial, and risk perspective, synthesized input from owner's representative, financial advisor, and City staff into executive-level summaries, distilled contractual inputs into decision-ready materials for the City Manager's office, reviewed term sheets to ensure consistency of business terms, participated in negotiations, project discussions, and internal strategy meetings, prepared briefing materials for the City Commission, so any document you've seen related to the City Hall project has involved Beacon Advisory, maintained continuity of advisory support through negotiation phases of the project, provided supplemental advisory support to the City Manager's office across complex P3 and real estate transactions. No, and I thank you for that, and I have read that in the cam. My question is this. It's a fairly new company. It looks like it was only incorporated in February of 2025, and when I look to see what some of the resume information is that's provided, it just looks like us. It just looks like the Holiday Park Garage and this particular City Hall project. So, again, I'm not quite understanding the difference between the services provided between this firm and also Bilson Sundberg, and I also don't know why exactly are we waiving a competitive solicitation and selection process for this. So, under the authority of the City Manager, I'm able to engage a consultant for up to a one-year period for up to $100,000, and so we anticipate that due to the extensive work that will need to occur with City Hall and the Holiday Park Project and maybe any other P3 that comes our way, I felt it necessary to add some additional support as an extension of staff in order to provide you with the caliber of documentation that I think is necessary. And so then when you were allowed to do that under your authority, why was this firm chosen, such a fairly new firm in comparison to all the firms that are out there? And I understand that. I still don't understand exactly why we are continuing to waive the competitive solicitation and selection process, but why was this particular firm chosen at the very beginning when you did hire them under your authority? That's a very good question. It's not that the firm is necessarily new in terms of the individual at the head of the firm. The person, and she's here today, Sandy York, has significant experience in negotiating agreements, and for the purpose of working on the City Hall project, it was important that she establish a firm in order to engage as a consultant in this capacity, and she can speak to her background and experience. What exactly was her work product on the City Hall project in comparison to Eric's from Bilson-Sundberg? How did they work together? What was that additional work done? What did we see in the work product that we saw tonight that you could attribute to Beacon as opposed to Bilson-Sundberg? So Bilson-Sundberg only works on the legal documents provided to the commission. And Beacon Advisory would consult on any other documentation provided to the commission, whether it's a commission agenda memo, a letter to the commission, and also review of business terms incorporated into the agreements. Eric does not consult on business terms necessarily, but more so on legal terms. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any questions? Okay. Someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduce. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution in the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, waiving the competitive solicitation and selection processes contained in the City of Fort Lauderdale procurement ordinance for consulting services for city projects related to public-private partnerships and real estate projects in improving and authorizing execution of the First Amendment to the agreement and providing for an effective date. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trent Halls? Yes. And R2 is now approved. R3, resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement and to accept in-kind grant services from the Florida Local Government Cybersecurity Grant Program from Florida Digital Services from the State of Florida Department of Management Services. Anyone have any questions with regard to this? There being none, would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, delegating to the City Manager the authority to accept in-kind grant services and execute the grant agreement for local government cybersecurity grant program with the State of Florida Department of Management Services and any and all documents necessary or incidental to the application for the grant, grant agreement, grant acceptance, receipt, and disbursement of grant funds pursuant thereto in ratifying the execution of any such document. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trent Halls? Yes. And R3 is now approved. R4, resolution approving the appointment of Special Bond Council for the issuance of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds Series 2026 for the Prospect Lake Clean Water Center subordinate debt. Anyone have any questions? If none, someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. A resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution is the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing Albert Del Castillo of the law firm of Greenberg-Targ, PA, to act as Special Bond Council to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in connection with the issuance of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds Series 2026 for the Prospect Lake Water Center subordinate debt, prescribing the compensation to be paid to such Special Council and providing for an effective date. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And R4 is now approved. City Attorney, these public hearings all relate to the same thing. These are all people who are part of the Central City Community Redevelopment Agency, or Advisory Board, and they're all asking for waivers for a conflict of interest. Can we do them all at once? No, sir. What? No, sir. No, sir. Let me ask somebody else. No. Well, we could have already gotten through half of them if we just continue. Oh, just keep quiet. Let's just keep moving. Let's just keep moving. All right. Here we go. PH1, public hearing resolution approving a waiver of conflict of interest, allowing Thomas Manos to apply for benefits under the Central City Community Redevelopment Area Non-Residential Incentive Program. No one has signed up to speak. Do I hear a motion to close public hearing? Moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. A public hearing on PH1 is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, waiving a conflict of interest for Thomas Manos, member of the Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board of the City of Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And PH1 is now approved. PH2, public hearing resolution approving a waiver of conflict of interest, allowing Olga Zamora to apply for the Central City Community Redevelopment Area Residential Enhancement Program. No one signed up to speak. Someone would like to move to close public hearing? Move. Second. Oh, wait, wait, we have, what is this? Okay. Thank you. I didn't hear that. Move. You said it's been moving a second? Okay. Okay. Please call the roll. This is on closing public hearing. Yes. Yep. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And public hearing is now closed on PH2. Someone would like to introduce a resolution? Yes. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, waiving a conflict of interest for Olga Zamora, member of the Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board of the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. Let me just ask a question. What is going on here that all these board members want to have a waiver of conflict of interest? What are they planning on? To take advantage of the program that's being offered for the Central City. Yeah, I get that. But, I mean, is there something all of a sudden that, I mean, this is very unusual. All right. It should be noted that there's enough funding for the program that could accommodate all of them and still have funding left over for other participants. Okay. I mean, they're all great people. I know these people. So, okay. PH3, public hearing resolution approving a waiver of conflict of interest pursuant to Section 112.313, parentheses 12 of the Florida Statute, allowing Kimber White to apply for the Central City Community Redevelopment Area Residential Enhancement Program. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to move to close public hearing? Move. So moved. Move to seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. Public hearing on page 3 is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. It's been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution in the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, waiving a conflict of interest for Kimber White, member of the Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board of the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And public, PH3 is now approved. PH4, public hearing resolution approving waiver of conflict of interest with regard to Nicola Stan. No one signed up to speak. Would someone like to move to close public hearing? Second. Move and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And public hearing on PH4 is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. It's been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, waiving a conflict of interest for Nicola Stan, member of the Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board of the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And PH4 is now approved. PH5, public hearing, a resolution approving a waiver of conflict of interest for Chantel Jerram. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to move to close public hearing? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. The public hearing on PH5 is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. It's been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, waiving a conflict of interest for Chantel Jerram, member of the Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board of the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. The PH5 is now approved. Moving on to PH6. There's a public hearing, a second reading, quasi-judicial ordinance approving a vacation right-of-way on Coconut Drive. If anyone wishing to speak, it must be sworn in, and the Commissioner will announce any site visits, communications, or extroverted opinions received and make them a part of the record. Commissioner Herbst, do you have any additional disclosures? Yes. I'm sorry. PH6? PH6. PH6. Yes. I met with Mr. Crush. Since your last time? Probably. Okay. Probably since Tuesday. Okay. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? I don't think no new. Nothing new. No new disclosures. No new disclosures. I have no new disclosures. Commissioner Glassman? Nothing new. And Commissioner and Vice Mayor? Meeting with applicant. Meeting with the applicant. Okay. Courtney Crush signed up to speak, but for questions only. Does anyone have any questions of Ms. Crush? There being none, would someone like to move to close public hearing? Moved. Do I hear second? Second. If I'm seconded, please call the roll. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. Public hearing is now closed on PH6. 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 a 50-foot wide by 102-foot long right-of-way adjacent to Blocks 4 and 5, 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 Davie Boulevard, east of South Fork, New River, and south of Southwest 9th Street, all said lands being in the city of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And PH6 is now approved as second reading. Finally, we have OSR 1. This is a second reading, an ordinance amending the City of Fort Lauderdale's Unified Land Development Regulations. No one has signed up to speak, but we don't have to close public hearing on this. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduce. The ordinance has been introduced on second reading. Please call the roll. Anyone have any questions? Okay. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the Unified Land Development Regulations, Article 7 Notice Procedures, more specifically Section 47-27.1, Notice for Site Plan Level 1, 2, 3, and Level 4, Conditional Use Plats and Amendments to Site Plan Level 3 and Level 4, Section 47-27.5, Rezoning and Change in Uses in Section 47-27.6, Vacation of Public Right-A-Ways to Modify the Requirements for Public Participation Meetings and Providing for Correction of Scriveners, There is Severability Repeal of Conflicting Orders Provisions at an Effective Date. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Mary Trenthals? Yes. And OSR 1 is now approved on second reading. City Manager, is there any further business of the Commission? None on my end. Okay. City Attorney, do you have any announcements you choose to make? No, sir. There are none. Anyone from the Commission have anything else you'd like to talk about? None? Meeting over. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.