Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the City Commission meeting this June 2nd, 2026. Thank you all for being here. We have quite a bit to discuss tonight, and I see we have a full house, so thank you. Before we begin, I'd like to announce that the executive closed-door session of the City Commission is now terminated, and the public meeting is now reopened. So for those of you who are here for the first time, welcome, and thank you for taking a little time out of your life to come see how government works. We begin each meeting with a Pledge of Allegiance and then several announcements, but tonight we're going to have a little bit special situation because we have the ROTC cadets from Dillard High School who are going to begin tonight's program with an honor guard presenting the colors. So if I could ask everyone to please stand while they present colors. And Mayor, is that Air Force ROTC? I believe it is. So I did Air Force ROTC when I was in college, so congratulations. Please remain standing, and I'd like to join with Aaliyah Smith from the ROTC Corps who's going to lead us in tonight's Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please retire the colors. Thank you, everybody. Please be seated. City Manager, next time can you arrange for bagpipes and drum pour, please? Yes, Mayor. Thank you. At this time, I'd like you all to please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you so much. At this time, I take the opportunity to announce any long-term retirements. We have Jacob Snow White, who's been a fire captain with our fire department for 28 years, who will now be retiring. Thank you, Jacob. Thank you so much for your commitment to our city and for your service those 28 years. Wow. Amazing. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll? Excuse me. Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Glassman. Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Here. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Here. Mayor Trent-Hals. Here. And we have a couple of agenda announcements. There will be a walk-on resolution changing the June 16, 2026 conference meeting. Start time to 1 p.m. Use your time wisely, folks. Yes, sir. And there will be another walk-on ordinance amending all future conference meetings to start at 1 p.m. There will be an agenda item revision. This is R4, Exhibit 3. On the May 27, 2026 Parks, Recreation, Beach Advisory Board meeting draft minutes were added as an additional information. So with the agenda as amended and as well as the submission of the minutes, do we have a motion to approve them? Moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Glassman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Mayor Trent-Hals. Yes. And the agenda as amended and the minutes are now approved. So also as part of our meeting, before we get started at the regular business, we have presentations. What are presentations? Presentations are an opportunity for the commission and the community to recognize individuals, events, or something special that's happening in our city. And today we have three such things. And the first one, I would like to invite Vice Mayor Ben Sorensen to present a proclamation regarding Men's Mental Health Awareness Month here in our city. And I'd like to invite Dustin Giannelli, founder and CEO of Here'sDustin.com, Maslamovich Joseph, the Office Manager of the National Alliance on Mental Health, Mental Illness here in Broward County. Please join the Vice Mayor at the podium if you could. Come on up. Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate it. Dustin, come on up. Come on up. Glad you're here. Thank you. You got it. Great to see you again. Well, thank you both for being here. And I'll share our proclamation and would love for you both or one to share a few words, if that's all right. So this is in recognition of Men's Mental Health Awareness Month. Whereas Men's Mental Health Awareness Month, observed every June, raises awareness about the unique challenges men face and works to break down stigmas that prevent many from seeking vital mental health support. And whereas despite growing awareness, many men remain reluctant to seek help due to stigma and societal pressures, often delaying treatment and support in times of need. Whereas organizations like NAMI work tirelessly to provide education, advocacy, resources, and support to individuals and families affected by mental health conditions while helping to create safe spaces where men feel empowered to seek help without judgment. And whereas local advocates and mental health champions, including Dustin, are actively challenging outdated narratives around masculinity through lived experiences, public education, and community engagement, encouraging others to prioritize their mental well-being and seek support where needed. Whereas the City of Fort Lauderdale is committed to fostering a supportive and inclusive community where individuals are encouraged to prioritize their mental and emotional health. And whereas resources and support are accessible to those in need. We, therefore, the City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale, proclaim June 2026 as Men's Mental Health Awareness Month, dated this second day of June, by your Mayor, Dean J. Trantellis. Thank you to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Mayor, Commissioners, for recognizing Men's Mental Health Awareness Month for now the second year in a row. Last year I was very new to the City of Fort Lauderdale, had moved from Boston. Anybody else from Boston? A couple of us? All right. Well, I moved here. It's a task of making new friends and connections with the City and our community. And it didn't take long because this city made me feel so welcome and included. They gave me that opportunity to share my voice. It's not my voice that changed anything. It was using it that changed everything. I encourage all of us here today, whether you're deaf or hard of hearing like myself, have a disability or not, to realize the accommodations that are out there for each and every one of us. It starts by asking, asking what's out there, and taking that first step. I had this vision to create the brand I have today, Here's Dustin.com, where I do keynote speaking and partner with different corporations and government affiliates for a long, long time. But it took me a long, long time to take that first step. So, trust me when I tell you, life's a lot better when you take the first step. Today, and going forward, we recognize and celebrate Men's Mental Health Awareness Month. Notice the word men's is in it, but we're all accountable. Men and women. Kids and dogs, too. We all have a say in how we feel and how we react and contribute to our community. So, without further ado, I want to say thank you again for recognizing Men's Mental Health Awareness Month. Thank you. You got too close. I do want to say, on behalf of Nami Broward County, I would like to say a sincere thank you to the CEO of Fort Lauderdale and his constituents for recognizing Men's Mental Health Awareness Month this month of June. And this proclamation itself helps shine a light on a broader issue that affects countless men, communities at large. And way too often men face mental health challenges and silence. And this proclamation is raising awareness, encouraging conversations, and promoting access to support. We all can help break down the stigma and remind people that seeking help is not a sign of weakness. Rather, it's a sign of strength. So, to echo what Dustin was saying, it always takes that first step. It always takes that first step. So, I do want to say thank you for the partnership. Thank you for the commitment. Thank you for raising awareness for mental health. And grateful for our honor to accept the proclamation. Thank you. Well, thank you for being here tonight. Next, I would like to invite Commissioner Pam Beasley-Pittman to present a proclamation declaring June 2, 2026, as Dillard High School Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Day here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. And I'd like to invite Tiffany T.J. Robinson, USAF, Senior Aerospace Science Instructor at Dillard High School, to please join the commissioner at the podium. Good evening, everyone. Good evening. Y'all so quiet. I know y'all didn't come here to be quiet. But good evening again. I have the great honor this afternoon to present a proclamation from the office of the mayor, City of Fort Lauderdale, proclamation and recognition of Dillard High School Air Force JROCT Day. Whereas the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps JROTC program prepares young people to become responsible citizens and leaders through education, service, discipline, character development, and a commitment to excellence. And whereas Dillard High School Air Force JROTC Unit FL-791, established in 1971, is the first and oldest Air Force JROTC program in Broward County and has spent more than four decades developing generations of student leaders dedicated to service, academic achievement, and community engagement. Whereas the 2025-2026 academic year, Unit FL-769, achieved one of the most distinguished years in its history, earning the prestigious Distinguished Cadets Corps Award, one of the highest honors bestowed upon any Air Force JROTC units for excellence in leadership, academics, military proficiency, and community involvement. Whereas the unit also received the Silver Star Community Service for Excellence Award, placing them among the top Air Force JROTC programs in the nation for its exceptional commitment for volunteerism and civic service. And whereas further demonstrating its dedication to leadership, academic excellence, the unit earned placements on the JROTC Leadership and Academic Board all-county team. establishing Dillard High School's first Raiders team, earning second place in the Broward County Top Flight Drone Championship, and captured first place in the city of North Lauderdale's Holiday Parade. And whereas these accomplishments reflect the dedication of the cadets, the instructors, the school administrators, family, and supporters who work together to cultivate future leaders of character, integrity, and purpose while serving as a source of pride for the city of Fort Lauderdale and Broward County community. Now, therefore, we, as the city commissioners of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim June 2, 2026 as Stillett High School Air Force JROTC Day in the city of Fort Lauderdale. This is dated the second day of June by our Mayor Dean Trantellis. Let's give them a hand. Would you like to say something and then we'll take a photo? If it's possible, may I have my cadets from FL791 please come up and join me really fast. So as Ms. Beasley Pittman mentioned, I am the Senior Aerospace Science Instructor for the Dillard High School Air Force JROTC Program, Unit FL791. So these young people, it is such an honor to lead and guide them. And I think we would all agree that in this generation of young people, for them to be as motivated and dedicated and focused on serving their nation and community, I believe that they deserve a special round of applause. Thank you. In order to receive the Silver Star with Excellence Award, we serve in our community, our local community, and our surrounding communities, over 4,900 community service hours this school year. So they dedicated weekends, after school, you name it, they were there. So I would also, before I go, just really quick, like to thank my elders who came before me, the instructors who came before me, we have Master Sergeant Pender here. We are literally standing on the backs of giants. So this is nothing that we can do alone. So I thank my village, I thank God, and I thank the city for recognizing us this day, and for all you continue to do for us. Thank you so much. Congratulations. Good luck, cadets. Thank you for your service to our country. Now I'd like to ask Commissioner Steve Glassman to present a proclamation regarding LGBTQ plus Pride Month here in the city of Fort Lauderdale, and I'd like to invite Robert Keston, who is the president and CEO of the Stonewall Museum and Archives, to please join him at the podium. Robert, where are you? And I believe also Kevin's here as well from Flockfest. Kevin Clevenger. Thank you. You got dressed up for us tonight. Come on up, gentlemen. Oh, the mayor is such a jokester. Good evening, everyone. Love to see a packed room. It's an honor and a privilege and an absolute pleasure to present this proclamation from the office of the mayor, city of Fort Lauderdale. This is a proclamation in recognition of LGBTQ plus Pride Month. Whereas June is recognized throughout the United States as LGBTQ plus Pride Month, a time to celebrate the contributions, history, resilience, and diversity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals, while reaffirming the principles of equality, dignity, and respect for all people. And whereas Pride Month traces its roots to the events of June 1969 at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, which became a catalyst for the modern LGBTQ plus civil rights movement and inspired generations of advocates working toward greater inclusion and equal opportunity. And whereas South Florida has played an important role in LGBTQ plus history, including the first Pride commemoration in the region in 1977, helping to advance visibility, understanding, and protections for LGBTQ plus individuals. And whereas Fort Lauderdale is home to a vibrant and diverse LGBTQ plus community and has earned an international reputation as a welcoming destination where residents and visitors can be themselves, fostering a culture of inclusion, acceptance, and belonging. And whereas LGBTQ plus owned and operated businesses, community organizations, and cultural institutions have helped shape Fort Lauderdale's character and economy, while internationally recognized organizations such as the World AIDS Museum, the Stonewall National Museum, Archives, and Library, and the Sunshine Cathedral continue to educate, inspire, and serve our community. And whereas the city of Fort Lauderdale celebrates the many contributions of LGBTQ plus individuals whose leadership, service, entrepreneurship, creativity, and advocacy strengthen the social, cultural, and economic fabric of our city and remains committed to fostering a community where all people are treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. Now, therefore, we as city commissioners of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim June 2026 as LGBTQ plus pride month in the city of Fort Lauderdale and dated this the second day of June 2026 and signed by our mayor, the Honorable Dean J. Trentalas. Gentlemen, please, please welcome to say a few words. Thank you, Commissioner Glassman. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, other commissioners. Pride is not about being gay or lesbian or any of those other letters. Pride is about extending a hand to the entire world, the entire community, and welcoming people in. It's about being uniters in a world full of dividers. It is about building community, not tearing people apart. We have an exhibit in our museum right now focused on Baron von Steuben. Baron von Steuben was born in Prussia, raised in Prussia, fought for Frederick the Great in the Seven-Year War, and then was accused of having relationships with men and forced to leave Europe. So he went to Paris where he met Benjamin Franklin, who helped him go across the Atlantic Ocean, where he joined and trained George Washington's troops at Valley Forge and is considered one of the fathers of the American military. There he wrote the Blue Book, which is still used today in certain circles of the military, to train our armed forces. Think about what would happen if this guy tried to come to the United States today. Gay, no money, and didn't speak the language. Just imagine what would have happened if he had been turned back. His training of troops saved George Washington his job, which made him the father of our country. There were many in the Continental Congress who wanted to remove him. After the training that his troops got from von Steuben, he became a national hero. Steuben, for the most part, has disappeared from the history books. But he's there. And in Ohio, New York, and elsewhere, there are counties and schools and streets named after him. But nobody knows who he really was. He helped make America what it is today. So in this 250th anniversary year, go to Pride celebrations, reach out your hands to your neighbors, and help bring this country, as this county and as this city demonstrate, together rather than pull people apart. Thank you all for this distinct honor. Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Kevin. I'm the Director of Development for Flockfest Events. This is our 11th year where we put out a beach party on for our community. We're so happy that the city allows us to keep this going on and not erasing the DEI initiatives that are being passed down. So thank you so much. Our beach party is July 11th, and then we also do pool parties. We'll be a part of the Stonewall celebration, and I invite you to go to the Stonewall Museum. It's an amazing exhibit. Thank you. Thank you. Spread apart. Happy Pride, boys. Okay, at this point, we now come to what's called our consent agenda. The purpose of the consent agenda is to try to do business on a consent basis, and there are a number of items on the consent agenda tonight. But before we do that, I would ask, is there any member of the commission who wishes to pull any of the consent agenda items and discuss them and vote on them separately? So I'll start with Commissioner Herbst. Are there any consent agenda items you wish to pull? Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? CM-7. CM-7? Uh-huh, and CR-10. Okay. Commissioner Glassman? None. And Vice Mayor? None. Okay. So except for CM-7 and CR-10, do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda items? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Hollis? Yes. And all those consent agenda items are now approved. So if you came here tonight, on behalf of any of those items, your item has now been approved. So thank you. You're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. So moving on to CM-7. A motion authorizing the acceptance of grant funds from the Florida Department of Health Harm Reduction Overdose Program. Commissioner? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I ask for this to be pulled because this is one of the initiatives that I'm really excited about and have an opportunity to receive additional funding for it. It's a great opportunity for our city. Also, I want to, moving forward with this program, because this is connected and housed under our fire rescue, and it's connected to the CORE initiative. And they deal with, of course, the overdose incidents. Also, they have opportunities where they are meeting with individuals in our communities that are in need of additional services. They deal with opportunities where we have our neighbors who are, that utilizes the emergency room for lack of insurance. So the emergency room is considered their primary care doctor. So they identify those individuals. They give them resources. And also, what they do, they work with our homeless as well. So I want to just make highlight to what they do. And I want to make sure that we, as a city, is recognizing how important this particular opportunity is. And then also, moving forward, I would like to bring this forward as a conference to really go into deep details with our fire chief to explain to us exactly how successful this is. Because I believe it's kind of like under the radar, and they're doing some amazing things. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Do you want to move the item? I do move the item. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Motion. Do I hear a second? Second. Good move and seconded. Please call the roll on CM7. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yep. Mayor Trentonles? Yes. And CM7 is now approved. CR10, this is a resolution amending. resolution 23-123, as amended by resolution number 25-38, providing for an extension of the Homeless Advisory Committee through June 20th, 2027. Commissioner? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I am in agreement for the extension of the committee, but I also would like to have a conversation about moving this into a board. I believe that what we have tasked this initiative to be, I believe that it's not allowing that to occur as a committee. So I would like to see us move this forward to become a board where they're able to exist a little longer. Right now, they're at a year. We have to keep coming back to ask for an extension. And that year, I do not believe allowed them to go deep with long opportunities, long studies for information regarding our homeless. Because we initially tasked them, I believe, to, well, before I say that, if we could, I can let the staff explain to us the original proclamation that we voted to put this committee into place, and we can have a discussion from there. Okay, so I know that when we first established the Homeless Advisory Committee, there was a mission statement associated with it. So would you like to talk to us a little bit about that, and so we can make a decision as to whether or not we should convert this to a board? Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. The purpose of the Homeless Advisory Committee is to advise the City Commission on the creation and implementation of a strategic plan to prevent, reduce, and address homelessness, assist in identifying funding for homeless initiatives, review best practices in addressing homelessness, help raise awareness regarding the City's actions in addressing homelessness, and determine any gaps in programs that address homelessness and develop performance indicators. Okay, so my question is, currently, the charge that we have, is disallowing the committee to specifically include identifying long-term fundings or evaluating the programs and the outcome within a year? Some of the work that the committee was initially developed to complete has been completed. The committee is currently working with staff to create working groups to establish a strategic plan to address homelessness. Staff provided a draft of that plan to me today. Our intention is to provide it to the committee on June 11th, which is their next committee meeting. From there, we would need to create working groups. I believe we could accomplish that plan within the next year. Okay, with that, I'm still with the committees having a one-year term. I see that as an opportunity for turnover when we have that board environment, they're committed to a longer period of time. And just believing that an appointment to a board will allow us to allow them to evaluate more deeply instead of having that institutional turnaround, that turnaround. What is your view on that? So, Commissioner, I do agree with you. There are several active programs that we're working on right now, such as safe parking, such as a service agreement with Rotary Connection. We're looking to identify a different space for the community court program. We're looking to develop this strategic plan. And so, in saying that, I do believe that if this committee does become a board, that there is work still to be done by the board or committee as it relates to homelessness. Okay. Right now, does the committee have the authority under the code to give any budget recommendations on agendas? So, that was a part of their initial purpose, and so I do believe that they could make recommendations. And to date, they have been involved in our communication with groups such as LifeNet for a potential safe parking program, such as Rotary Connection. And so, they are indirectly doing things that will translate to budget requests. Okay. One other question. If we were to elevate them to a board, and as they're seated currently, will we be able to maintain the connection without a lapse? How would we go about changing them from a city to a committee to a board? So, the process, Commissioner, would be for the city commission to adopt an ordinance that transitions this committee to a board. I know that ordinances require two readings, and I would somewhat defer to the city clerk's office in terms of if we could do that. I know that the board expires on June 30th, so I don't know if there is time before the sunset of this board to do those two ordinance readings. I don't believe it is. Certainly. So, why don't we just extend it, and during that time period, we can consider... Okay. That would be... That would be... That was my next question. Can we continue with the extension? All right. Okay. But also, given an opportunity to have that movement to a board if we're all in agreement. But I believe that would be a better opportunity for us because we've all made, as a commission, we have made homelessness a priority. So, if we're going to make it a priority, I think we should put a board in place that would also represent our initiative. Okay. All right. Could I just ask a question, though, to the city attorney? Explain to me the difference between boards and committees, because we've got 40-plus boards and committees. What is the practical difference between a board and a committee? I understand. I think the issue here is that this particular one is sunsetting, and we have to keep extending it. But do we not have committees that have, you know, a longer time frame that don't sunset? Well, actually, committees, by definition, are shorter, and I think that's probably the rationale for this. Is that the issue? So, committees basically have a term, and boards don't have a term. Is that what we're trying to solve? I think that's what they're trying to accomplish, yes. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, the committee would expire on June 20th, if not extended. So, Mayor, if I may? Yes. Thank you. So, I think that we need to have a little bit more of an in-depth discussion of this. I do know that at my pre-agenda meeting with the district, this came up in terms of a discussion with Paula Yukna. Paula is the chair of this advisory committee. She's my appointment on this committee. And she did express it. And she, unfortunately, could not be here this evening. And I don't know if we have time to still take this up on June 16th, which would still be before they basically sunset. But I'd like her to have a part of this conversation, because what she did express to me and what she expressed to my district agenda meeting was that she is feeling a little bit of a sense of frustration in that this committee, as it stands now, in the time that they have to meet, they really just get presentations. They get reports. They have not had the opportunity to really meet, dive in, and do the work. So, I would say I'm very open to what Commissioner Beasley-Pittman is saying. However, I want at least the chair of this committee to be involved in that discussion. Do we stay as a committee? Do we go as a board? Do we look at some sort of different enabling legislation for this committee or board? And I want us as a commission to listen to her sense of, I would call it a sense of frustration, in accomplishing things that we would all like to see accomplished from this commission. So, I'm just throwing that out there as well. Thank you. So, why don't we move ahead with the resolution, and then that gives us time to bring the chair back and also to discuss further options that the advisory committee can do, either as a committee or as a board. Happy to move it. But Commissioner Glassman, just so I understand, do you see anything different functionally in how they operate between a board and a committee? Because I've never understood them to operate differently other than, as the city attorney just explained, one has a sunset date and one has the other. So, am I missing something? I just want to understand. It's a question for clarification. I understand what you're saying. No, they all do seem to function in the same way. But I think, as the city attorney said, it's just a matter of time, and, you know, that's really it. I mean, we've had, look at the infrastructure task force. That was not a board. That was a task force. And it won't die. Right. It lives forever. It lives forever. And so, yeah, I think that... Well, I think the point that Commissioner Beasley-Pittman is making is that members cannot, they don't feel like they can dig in and take on initiatives, that they are afraid by the time something gets going, they're going to be sunset and the committee doesn't exist anymore. You know, Mayor, you say you always interpret for me so well. Thank you. I appreciate that. Exactly. My answer. Yes, but that is my point. My point is that this gives us an opportunity to allow them to, again, dive into these areas of discussion and those initiatives and those points that we want them to look into. Because as we keep saying, homelessness is a priority for this commission. And if we're not allowing the board, the liberty, to go deeper and to be committed other than a year where we're turning individuals over, the turnover is such where we're losing the institutional part of it, there's no history to keep the momentum going. So that's the point I'm trying to make. So it's not that they're constrained into what they can look. So we haven't restricted anything that they can look at. They can look at anything they want to. It's you're saying that in practice, they just, they run out of time. And yes, and even with my appointee, I've had conversations with my appointee. It just feels as though they are not, the time isn't there for them to accomplish what this charge has been given for them. Gotcha. So to better that and to correct that, I believe that we should give them that opportunity to be a board. Okay. And with that, ma'am, I will introduce the resolution. Yes, I am introducing the resolution with the extension. Okay. The resolution has been introduced. Second. You don't need a second. We're good with just the introduction. I'll second it anyway. Okay. I just want to show support to my colleague. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. You have. Oh. I just wanted to make one quick suggestion. Okay. I know. So to achieve what I think you're asking Commissioner Glassman and Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, perhaps when you extend the board like you're about to, you could refer to the board. We send a committee. A committee. I'm sorry. You could refer to that committee for them to have the conversation about the enabling legislation for them to become a board, and then that way they can have that conversation amongst themselves for how they can achieve what you have been discussing to bring back with that ordinance in the future. And they can send it as a communication to the city commission. Yes. I would like that discussion to also include how they can be much more proactive than reactive because that's what I'm hearing as a sense of frustration from the chair. Yes. And I'd like to see that addressed as well. Okay. Thank you. Folks, you know what I have in front of me? A stack. So let's try to focus our comments, and we can move forward quickly tonight. All about the homeless board? Please call the roll. A resolution to the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending resolution number 23-123 as amended by resolution 25-38 by extending the term of the Homeless Advisory Committee through June 20, 2027, providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Tulles? Yes. And that item is now approved. Moving on to motions. M1, motion approving the final ranking affirms negotiated fee schedule and agreement for requests for qualifications, architectural continuing services with Wolfberg, Alvarez, and Partners. Would someone like to introduce, excuse me, would someone like to make the motion? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any questions or comments, there being none, please call the roll. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Tulles? Yes. And M1 is approved. M2, motion approving a memorandum of understanding between the city of Fort Lauderdale and the Florida Air Force Council for the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport to host the Florida Air Force Council 2026 Annual Conference in Exposition. Would someone like to move the item? So moved. Second. If they moved and seconded, please call the roll. Excuse me. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Tulles? Yes. And M2 is now approved. Moving on to M3. This is a motion to defer consideration of the interim agreement with FTL City Hall Partners, LLC, for the City Hall Project to the July 2nd, 2026 City Commission Regular Meeting. So I have a bunch of people who have signed up to speak, some of which are just only for questions. Does anyone have any comments or questions on this? I do, Mayor. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. So I understand that the motion is to defer, to defer the consideration. I will tell you that, and I'm sure that all of my colleagues have had this same conversation, I'm very encouraged by the meeting that I was able to have with the City Manager and also the development team that we selected for this project. It's very encouraging. I think that after our last big discussion at the Commission, we all agreed that we needed to really take a look at what that interim agreement would be going forward. The consensus was overwhelming that we needed to cut that cost. We needed to get rid of that equity piece. We needed to get rid of that 11 percent interest. And based on what I heard in my most recent meeting, and I'm sure you have all heard that, it seems that that's the direction that we're headed in. I just have one question before I'm able to vote on this to defer this until July 2nd, because actually I'm ready to move now on this, because I really do believe that common sense tells us that that's what we should be doing. But I want to know from City Manager or anyone on staff, how much money have we spent to date on appraisals of the three older buildings and also with Jacobs in terms of getting engineering-type reports, digging in a little bit. What is the total to date that we have spent on that? Thank you, Commissioner. I'm going to ask Quentin Pugh, Assistant City Manager, to share that information. Regarding the... I'm sorry, good evening. Quentin Pugh, Assistant City Manager. Regarding the appraisals, $100,000 for those appraisals, and regarding the building assessment with Jacobs Management, we have not received an invoice to date on that project. The amount that was agreed upon was just shy of $370,000 for that assessment work, but we haven't received an invoice to date. So we've just spent $100,000 on the appraisals of the three structures. That is correct. Well, we may have spent more, but he doesn't have an accurate number to date as to what Jacobs Engineering has... No, I understand that, but you have been invoiced for the appraisals. Have we been invoiced? Good evening, Mayor and Commissioner. Ben Rogers, Assistant City Manager. We are in receipt of a draft version of the appraisals, so the work has been completed and performed, and so we will be owing the amount due of around $100,000 for those six appraisals. Okay, and we, from a letter to the commission that we did receive back in May, it looks like we are committed to maybe $375,000 for the reports on the three buildings, the status of those three buildings. I'd have to defer to Assistant View, but my understanding is that task order is issued somewhere around $370,000 that authorize the work to begin, and where they are in that process, I can't speak to, but some of the funds would be expended to date. Okay, thank you. So, Quentin, I have one more question for you based on what I'm reading in the cam. So, in the cam, on the third paragraph down, it says that the LTC reaffirmed that city staff are targeting the July 2nd, 2026 City Commission Conference meeting to present the initial Phase 1 findings. So, I need to have a definition of what those initial Phase 1 findings are that we're expecting on July 2nd. Again, my concern is July 2nd is our last meeting before our summer break. Anything can happen, but what do you mean by the initial Phase 1 findings? So, we asked Jacob Management to look at this project as a two-gated process. Phase 1 is a non-invasive screening process, and this gives the commission the ability to have some very healthy and robust discussions regarding the building assessments of the three properties and questions, Ivy Tower 101, the 1 East Broward, as well as the Federal Courthouse. So, the Phase 1, again, is non-invasive. It's going to do a property condition assessment. They're looking at the roof, the facade, the windows, you know, whether it's hurricane resilience, interior conditions, and also ADA compliance gaps amongst those three buildings. They're also doing a structural analysis where they're looking at the framing, the foundation, wind and flood resilience, et cetera. Also looking at mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, each one of these facilities, doing the inventory conditions, review, remaining useful life on these facilities. So, again, this is just a high-level summary findings of these particular facilities. They're not doing deep engineering because maybe the commission may decide on Phase 1 that those sort of details or that sort of deep diving isn't necessary. That's also a very expensive exploration. So, the first phase is just strictly screening, and it should provide this commission with, again, enough information to have a dialogue and let the staff know whether or not you want to proceed to a Phase 2 on one or more of those buildings or maybe none of them at all. So, you're saying that if we did, as a commission, decide to go to a Phase 2 of what would be considered to be an invasive look at the three buildings, that that would probably be a lot more than the half a million dollars that we've already committed of taxpayer dollars to look at those three older buildings as opposed to building a new structure for City Hall. If this commission were to decide to take on all three of those facilities for a deep dive, I would imagine it would be a lot more than what we're currently paying now for Phase 1. Okay, so that's a decision we'll have to make, I guess, on July 2nd. Yes, sir. Okay, so thank you. Again, I want to thank the City Manager and for the development team. I'm very encouraged by the direction we're headed in. I think we're going to be able to get there with an IA on July 2nd for a new building that our city deserves to have, and I believe that the price is going to be something that's affordable based on the work that I'm seeing the City Manager doing. Again, I'm going to, and this isn't the first time I've said it, I was not in favor of spending this half a million dollars on three old buildings. I'm definitely not in favor of spending what sounds like it's going to be millions to do an invasive look at the three old buildings. So I'm just putting that out there. I'm happy to vote to defer this to July 2nd, although I don't know how much information we'll have on July 2nd that we actually don't have now. But if that's the will of the Commission to keep spending that money, that initial half a million dollars, so be it. I'm just not in favor of that. So thank you, Mayor. Where did Quentin go? Come back. So, Quentin, thank you for your response. But let me just dig a little deeper into this. So what the Commissioner is saying is that we're going to be spending about a half a million dollars to do a high-level examination of these buildings, which basically, from what you said, is to determine what the current structure integrity of the building is, go through the various mechanical, plumbing, electrical systems, look at life expectancy and things like that. Now, my understanding from what you just said then is that are they going to come back with a cost analysis if any of those systems need to be upgraded or replaced? Are they going to come back with a cost analysis of the conversion costs of trying to create commission chambers and offices and the various other aspects of a city hall that would be necessary that these buildings may or may not currently be able to adapt? Is that analysis going to include any of that? It is. It's going to include a rough order of magnitude. It's going to be a range for the select, you know, disciplines that need to be either upgraded, replaced. But, yes, it's going to be an order of magnitude. But how about the conversion? How about the adaptation? Yes. Is it going to be able to do that, too? Yes. So if one of these facilities, for example, can incorporate, let's say, the chambers as an example, they're looking at that space will provide us with high-level summary information on what would need to be done to that particular space as well as the cost impact or the rough order of magnitude for that conversion. So it will be a range. It's not going to be a specific number, but it will be a range. And they're basing this information off the existing space programming that we did between the months of January and April of 2026. So they're looking at – they understand that we are looking at a chamber size of roughly 12,500 square feet. They're looking at these buildings and seeing if that's something that can fit within these buildings and then providing us with that rough order of magnitude on that cost. And will they also – when you say this is just a surface level examination of the structure, what would the next level – I mean, it seems pretty detailed from what you said. So what could they possibly – what would be a deeper dive? What would they look into? So a deeper dive will consist of being more thorough in detail with their pricing on certain aspects of the programming or the improvements. They're just going to go into a very deeper dive. I mean, I actually have Jacobs here that can probably get more into that analysis. But if there's cracks, you know, what they're looking at, you know, if they see cracks and things like that, they can kind of tell from the direction of the crack right now what's happening. But if we want to go a little bit of a deeper dive, then they'll do that further exploration. But it's intensive, but it would just go further in detail on what we're looking at. I see. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. You know, I – again, at the end of the day, you know, I voted to go with a newer building. I applaud the city manager's office for bringing down the cost of that building. It was a shock – it was a sticker shock when it was first presented to us. And now we see it's far more within the range of what we had anticipated we were going to be able to afford. The numbers that I've been told informally by the city manager are consistent with what the previous city managers, Chris Lagerbloom, Greg Chevaria, even Susan Grant, the availability payment that we would be able to afford continues to be consistent. Even on July 2nd, I mean, I don't know what the analysis is going to teach me. I'm very hesitant to invest millions of dollars into a used product, especially since we don't know what the structural integrity of it is from a high-level point of view. But I guess if the commission wants to move forward in that direction, you know, we'll commit the money, and we'll just see what happens on July 2nd. But, you know, I personally feel that, you know, it's in the best interest of the city and the taxpayers to build a building that's going to be – they're going to have longer life expectancy, and it's going to be consistent with the expectations of the community. Quentin, you know, we had the infrastructure task force meet with the community. I think there were five meetings. There were six – was it six requirements or six or seven basic aspects of a city hall that the community wanted to see. Will this – will this analysis also tell us whether or not these proposed buildings will be able to accommodate those needs that the community has asked for? It should. I have asked Jacobs to take that into consideration. When they do the comparative matrix, they're not just comparing these three existing buildings amongst each other, like what they have, what they don't have, what can be improved. But they're looking at that report has been sent to them, you know, include some of those civic functions that were important to, you know, that were highlighted during those particular discussions and in that report, as well as the information from the new city hall project. So they're looking at those five different things, the three existing buildings, that UL report, as well as our city hall, you know, how much we did thus far and putting that on a comparative matrix and presenting that, you know, information to the commission. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. There are several people who signed up to speak. May I, before you go on. I'm sorry. Go ahead. That's okay. I just want to go back to the beginning of our conversation as a commission when we decided that we were going to look into the opportunity of a new city hall. One of the things, the conversation I kept having was we need a budget. And the majority of us decided to move on without this budget. And we're in this seat right now because we did not establish a budget. We put out this whole opportunity inviting developers to come in and give us ideas of what they thought we wanted. And then it came in with your sticker shock. Okay. But what I'm saying to us, we have to be more responsible in how we move forward as to bring opportunities to the city for the building. So that part, moving forward, I hope we would never do this again. I won't support anything like this because before I said no. So no, again, if it comes to a point where we are putting out an opportunity to build something, to purchase something without knowing what our budget is. So I fought us for that first. And the second part, I want to say, you know, we're talking about these monies and how much we're spending right now. Again, it was me who said, let's pull this $200 million away from the deck that was through the developer's deck when we were talking about this proposal before. I don't know exactly how we are missing opportunities to be more responsible financially. So I'm putting the charge to us. We need to make sure that this is what we do because we're delaying the process. We are delaying this process because we started wrong. I said it that night. I said, again, I don't go purchase a car without knowing the price that I can afford. And that's what we did. We went out to search and get appraisals for a building that we could not afford. But we are doing some due diligence now to get us to that place. And the due diligence also allows our neighbors to be comfortable with what we're doing. So if that means, for me, if that means that we need to get, spend that money to get the surveys, the evaluations of these buildings, that's what we need to do. Because we dropped the ball. If it's going to take that to make the neighbors comfortable, I believe they're comfortable with that. I, too, want to see the new building. That's the direction I'm going in because I believe that you pay for what you get. Okay? So I want to say that in that moment. So let's find a way to afford it. Exactly. And I believe we are doing that. Again, we were able to deduct $2 million by removing the developer from the stack. So we're moving in a great direction. And then all the other information that was brought in from the developer, that number is coming down that is more affordable. Okay? Thank you. Mayor, if I could, City Manager, on July 2nd, when we come back, will we have an interim agreement in front of us to look at? We are working through updates to the interim agreement that was brought before the commission on April 21st. It will take into account the feedback provided by the commission on that night and the additional conversations and negotiations that have occurred since then. And staff will also be presenting a budget approach for the city hall project no matter what the commission decides in order to inform as to how we might afford whether a new build or a renovation project. So that's one of the things that staff will be bringing forward. Okay, because I think it's really important that between April 21st, which is when we had that IA in front of us, until July 2nd, that's about 10 weeks, I think that we need to have an interim agreement in front of us on July 2nd that we can actually work off of and have a discussion as a city commission so that we are going to move forward. So I'm just requesting that we have an interim agreement in our backup that we can all talk about, you know, from an educated standpoint. Thank you. Okay. So, Mayor, if I may? Yes, please go ahead. I think this is money well spent. I reject the idea that investigating alternatives is somehow wasteful. I think we have an obligation to the taxpayers to investigate all opportunities to save money. And as Commissioner Beasley-Pittman says, and I agree with her wholeheartedly, I think it was foolhardy on our part not to establish a budget before we began down this path. I agree with her completely in that respect. And I think that's why we find ourselves where we are today. Leaving that aside, though, I will point out again for I've lost count of how many times I've brought this to the commission's attention. We need to be considering a general obligation bond. The session just concluded today, and it confirms what I've been telling everybody for the longest time, that the legislature was going to pass tax reform and put it on the ballot for everybody to vote on. And, again, I still love to find the person who's going to vote against cutting their property taxes to zero, because I know it ain't me. That being said... I will vote. I will vote now. Well, I'm glad it'll be you and then 18 million other people in the state of Florida that vote the other way. So thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, this is not... Let me finish, please, if I may. Wait, wait. This is not the first time that the Homestead exemption effort has been presented to the electorate. And it was presented several years ago and was defeated. So just keep that in mind. It is not going to get defeated. I'm happy to put $100 on the table if you want to bet me. So... And anybody else in the audience that wants to take that bet, please. Hey, hey, hey. I got $100 for anybody that wants to bet me on that one. No illegal activities in a city commission meeting. Go ahead. So that being said, that being said, if you look at the text that I was just reviewing, again, if we have voted debt service that's on there, it is protected from what they're going to pass. So again, I suggest one more time that we put this out as a general obligation bond so that this is not impacted by property tax reform. It doesn't have to come out of what we have left over after the property tax reform is enacted and our revenues are up. What are we talking? $80 million of ad valorem revenue over time. No, no, no. So over time, it's dropping $80 million. No, we had a report this afternoon, and the numbers are far less. $17 million the first year. In year one, $80 million over time. We're talking a 30-year payment schedule. No, no, no. Okay, go ahead. Tell me something different that I have. Let's not get into that now, but those were not the numbers. They're far less than that. Again, I recommend that we do a general obligation bond. We put this project in front of the voters, let everybody have an opportunity to vote on it, and let's talk about the most tax-efficient way of financing this thing. I know you're not going to do it, but I'm telling you this is the best way to do it. Don't say that. Well, I brought this up a dozen times, and nobody else has said let's do it. Well, let's look at the options. I'll bring it up again. We'll bring it up in July 2nd, and we'll see what our options are. Right. Now, several people have signed up to speak on this, but since we're deferring it, do you still want to speak? Miguel Aragon and Bobby Henry, do you still want to speak on this? Yep. Are you Miguel? Please step up. You have two minutes. Only one minute. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. I'm Miguel Aragon. I'm representing construction workers, laborers, and we want to, you know, for you guys to approve it, you know, to July 2nd to have the next meeting. We represent a lot of workers, construction workers who live here in Port Lauderdale, okay? People ready to work in this project, okay? We need, people are hungry to get in these big projects, to make decent money, get benefits. We've been around here for hundreds of years, you know, a lot of years, building Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Dade County. We got a lot of people from Broward, they had to drive to Miami to work. So with a project like this, you know, definitely there's going to be a lot of opportunities for young people, women to get involved and make decent money and get a career in this construction business. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Henry. Okay, don't start the clock on me just yet now. Let me just do something here. But to those who support this with me, could you stand up? This is not, this is not, let's make a deal. I'm not trying to make a deal. You're giving two minutes to speak. Let's do two minutes. Mr. Henry, please. Please go ahead. Let's do it. Okay, go ahead. Okay. Those who agree with me, stand up, please. All right. I'm going to have to have you sit down. You start with minutes. This is not a circus where you go out and you field opinions. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and to Madam City Manager. My name is Bobby Henry. I'm the publisher of the West Side Gazette, and I rise today, I'll tell you, in support of moving forward with the new City Hall project and in appreciation of the thoughtful process that brought us to this point. Several months ago, Commissioner Pam Beasley Pittman made a motion to defer consideration on this project. At the time, that decision was not about stopping progress. It was about ensuring that we get it right. That motion to defer gave the city manager and staff the opportunity to go back and negotiate terms, explore alternate deal structures, and identify ways to make the project more financially feasible for the city and its taxpayers. Because of that decision, and through the hard work of the city manager and the staff, the city was able to secure a proposal that significantly improved the financial outlook of this project and has the potential to save the city approximately $250 million over the next 30 years. The motion to defer also created space for the community concerns to be heard and addressed. The development team responded by reducing costs while maintaining the overall vision and integrity of the project. Just as importantly, they demonstrated a willingness to engage residents, seek public input regarding what features and amenities should be included in the new city hall. Now, that's how government should work. Sometimes, taking a little more time allows us to make a better decision. In this case, the motion to defer resulted in a stronger project, a more affordable financial structure, and greater opportunities for community participation. This new city hall represents an investment in the future of our city. It offers an opportunity to create a civic center that is modern, welcoming, accessible, and reflective of the people it serves. A successful city hall should be a place where residents feel connected to their government and confident that their voices matter. I commend Commissioner Beasy Pittman for recognizing the need to take a second look, the city manager for responding to that challenge, and the development team for working collaboratively to address concerns. Today, we are in a better position because of that motion to defer. I encourage the commission to move forward with confidence, knowing that this project has been strengthened through due diligence, fiscal responsibility, and community engagement. And Dean Trantellis, I thank you for giving me that time, and I did it in two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on this item? Do I hear a motion to defer? Mayor, yeah. I'd like to speak. We'll just put the motion on the table. Someone move the item? Second. Okay. Any other further discussion? Yep. Thanks, Mayor. Well, I just want to appreciate the commission supporting evaluating all options. I think that's the right thing to do, as I've been advocating for six months. So appreciate us looking for the taxpayer's benefit to evaluate how we can save possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. And not only has that led to more robust communications with the developer, but also exploring the purchase options, which I look forward to evaluating on July 2nd. And as we, as a city, regularly support and honor and engage and work in buildings that are not brand new, I look forward to exploring all options to renovate as well as build new. So I think the opportunity, look at apples to apples, cost analysis with the city manager's budget analysis is hugely helpful. And I think is very positive for the taxpayers before we spend, you know, significant amounts of money. And as we know, just because a building is a few years old doesn't mean it can't operate well into decades and decades ahead. So look forward to that conversation. Thank you, city manager, for your work on that. And look forward to further analysis and evaluation on July 2nd. Thank you, Mayor. Very good. Thank you. Would you like to call the roll? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. And M3 is now approved. The item will be deferred to July 2nd, 2026. R1, appointment of board and committee members. Mr. Clerk, would you please read the names into the record? Thank you, Mayor. For the June 16th resolution, Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board, Nicola Stan, nominated by Commissioner Glassman. And for tonight's resolution, Civil Service Board, Felicia Armstrong, that's the mayor's recommendation. Education Advisory Board, Max Sense Doitier, nominated by Commissioner Glassman. Neil Rye, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen. Marine Advisory Board, Brett Robotsky, nominated by Mayor Trent Ellis. Jason Dunbar, nominated by Mayor Trent Ellis. Jesse Adams, nominated by Commissioner Glassman. Performing Arts Center Authority, John Milledge, nominated by Mayor Trent Ellis. And yesterday, I did send an email with regards to one individual that they'd be able to participate in the next public art and placement advisory board. It's a nomination for Yana Kermas, and that's nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen. If we could add that to the resolution. Does that complete the list? Yes. Okay. Would someone please introduce the resolution of approving the names that have been admitted, including the additional modification? Introduced. It's been introduced. Any questions or comments? There being none, please call the roll. A resolution to the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or nominating, if applicable, Boarding Committee members as a fourth in the exhibit attached here to and made a part here of. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. And those folks are now been appointed to the Boarding Committees, and I really appreciate your commitment to our community, and thank you for your sacrifice of your time on behalf of your community. R2, resolution approving economic development incentives for Project Orange Blossom in a total amount not to exceed $290,000, consisting of a strategic job creation incentive of $90,000 and a direct mic's off. Who keeps turning off my mic? Is there a conspiracy here? No. We gave Bobby Henry over three minutes. He can give me at least two. Authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the Economic Development Incentive Agreement. Someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Introduced. No one has signed up to speak. Any questions? I want to thank the participation of the Alliance on making this happen. Hopefully, we'll be successful at it, and this would be exciting if we can get this company to come to Fort Lauderdale. District 2. Well, hopefully. Anyway, please call the roll of Mr. Clerk. A resolution of the City Commission in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving an economic development incentive award in the amount of $290,000 for Project Orange Blossom, inclusive of a strategic job creation incentive in the amount of $90,000 payable over a four-year period, and a direct cash job growth incentive in the amount of $200,000 payable over a six-year period, and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute economic development incentive agreement, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes, with the commitment that it's coming to District 3. The answer is yes, I have. I'm so sorry, Commissioner. We'll redraw the district. Vice Mayor Zoranson? Yes, and David, thank you for your work, and thank you, City staff and City Manager. This was some good lifting that we got done, and collectively, it's a great win for the City to bring amazing new employers to the City of Fort Lauderdale to keep the amazing progress we've been making. So it doesn't happen without work, and thank you for your work. Mayor, can I just add? We haven't finished voting yet. Is that a yes or a yes? It was a yes. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Herbst? And Mayor Trent House? Yes. Yes, City Manager. I just wanted to highlight our Economic Development Division and our Community Services Department under the leadership of Director Garcia, working with David Coddington on this. It was quite the heavy lift, and we haven't done one of these incentive programs in several years. So I'm just really proud of the team, and hopefully we can see more projects like this come to Fort Lauderdale. So thank you, Mayor, for the time. Thank you. Great job. Thank you. Okay. That item's been approved. Moving on to R3, resolution. Good night, David. R3, this is a resolution providing notice of the decision to proceed with the unsolicited proposal submitted by IKE Smart City of the design, installation, financing, operation, and maintenance of a citywide interactive digital kiosk program and authorizing negotiations of a proposed interim and or comprehensive agreement in accordance with Section 255.065 of the Florida statutes. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduce. It's been introduced. First, a couple people have signed up to speak, Andrew Stearns and Gibran Shermohamed. Is Gibran here? Nope. Is Andrew Stearns here? Gibran is here. Oh, Gibran is here. Don't be shy. How did I butcher your last name? Hold on. Shermohamed, close enough. I told you. And it's my penmanship. Yes, it's your penmanship, guys. That's right. Mayor is always right. We're here, available for questions. Okay. Thank you. You're here on behalf of the applicant. Okay. Andrew, you're the same person. Okay. And Matt. Okay. All right. No one else has signed up to speak. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission, to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, providing notice of its decision to proceed with an acceptance of this unsolicited proposal submitted by IKE Smart City, LLC, for the design, installation, financing, operation, and maintenance of a citywide network of interactive digital kiosks authorizing negotiations for a proposed interim agreement, comprehensive agreement, or both in accordance with Section 255.065 Florida statutes and providing for effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trontalis? Yes. And R3 is now approved. So make it happen, gentlemen. All right. R4. This is a resolution authorizing the city manager or a designee to proceed with the conceptual site plan for the Fort Lauderdale Beach Park project. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. We have a number of people who sign up to speak. Begin. Who's here on behalf of the applicant? Nobody's here on behalf of the applicant. This is a Parks Bond program. I'm sorry. I can't hear you. Sorry. This is a Parks Bond program, so staff has the information about the project. So if we have any questions, they're here to answer questions. Staff can give a presentation. We also have a consultant as well. Is there a presentation involved? Yes, there is a presentation. Okay. I didn't know that, so kind of, you know, let's move this meeting along. So, Quentin, will you be giving the presentation? No presentation, but we are here to answer any questions. Okay. I didn't think there was a presentation. There is an attachment. That's all. Okay. Time's up, Quentin. All right. So, there's an attachment. Conceptual design is behind the exhibit one. A number of people have signed up to speak, so we might as well get started with that. And if we have any questions, Quentin, thank you for being here for that. Okay. We start out. I'm going to call your name by threes. And so just be prepared to come up to speak. And I'll ask you, please, to keep your comments to two minutes. We start out with Barbara Stern, followed by Sally Allshouse, and followed by Ted and Sarah. Good evening, Mayor. Barbara Stern. And just a point of clarification, this did not start off as a Parks Fund issue. It became a Parks Fund issue because of the costs that exploded for this initiative. I am here tonight because I do want to congratulate the commission on agreeing to keep the basketball courts in place and moving forward with the design. But my concern has been and continues to be how these courts are marketed. I don't play pickleball. I don't play basketball. I don't have skin in the game. But my concerns are how it is marketed. Repeatedly, we have seen designs. We've seen advertising from the BEMR St. Regis team. I've sent you videos, everyone on the commission. I don't know if you've seen them yet. Where they have advertised that the rendering is an accurate reflection of the property. And that includes the pickleball courts on the beach. The messaging that has come out is very misleading. It's confusing. And that is what has contributed to a lot of the dissent from the community and the belief that these are somehow going to be private or for the benefit of the BEMR St. Regis versus the public. Yes, it will be on the beach. Yes, we know the beaches are open to the public. Not just that walk along the shoreline. But all the amenities on the beach are for the public. And these will be for the public, too. And these will be for the public. Right. Great. Fine. I understand that. Not everybody understands that because of the way it is marketed. If the commission goes forward with this, which I believe you will, it needs to be stressed with the developer and the community how this is going to be handled. Because this is our beach. This is not an amenity of the BEMR. It is not part of their property as they have on the rendering. And it just needs to be clear. It needs to stop. We need to be able to move forward. But it needs to be clear that our public beach is our public beach. It is not an amenity of the St. Regis BEMR. It may be a nearby amenity of the city, but it is not theirs. And the burden is on the city to make that clear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sally. Followed by Ted and Sarah. Followed by Dr. Brett Robotsky. Good evening. Good evening, everybody. Can you hear me? I'm really having a hard time hearing everybody. We can hear you. Okay. Thank you very much. The development group, Ron Bahiamar, hosted a public outreach meeting on Tuesday, August 29, 2017. Bahiamar. 2017? Yes, sir. Okay. Bahiamar, once considered a grand old property, has become a controversial topic and one reason, and the reason many of us are here tonight, pickleball courts on the beach. There was once a time where public input was valued. That time seems to have passed. I ask again the question I posed at Vice Mayor Sorensen's Zoom call yesterday afternoon. Why not move the pickleball courts onto the St. Regis property, only to find out there already are pickleball courts on the Bahiamar property? Clearly, there is room for the courts, not on the beach. Tourists arriving in Fort Lauderdale and booking their stay at the St. Regis will be sorely surprised to see these courts in the sand instead of places to enjoy the beach. I would be pretty peeved to see that I paid five-star hotel prices so that I could have the beach at my front door and instead looking at sandy concrete. My general inclination says that allowing these pickleball courts onto the beach is the first step in privatizing a section of the Fort Lauderdale beach, a dangerous precedent. Let us not have a repeat of the fiasco that happened with the Pantry Pride supermarket, yes, I am that old, where the city asked residents to vote to purchase that property and create a park next to historic Stranahan House. That did not pan out well, and today we have an eyesore of a building wedged in next to the historic Stranahan House, which is an affront to what little pieces of historic significance have not been eradicated. I oppose any pickleball courts and, at the very least, ask this commission to do the right thing and defer any decision tonight until residents are more informed. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Senator Sarah. Good evening, everybody. My name is Ted and Sarah. I'm the president of the River Oak Civic Association. I, too, remember the Pantry Pride grocery store on Los Oldes Boulevard. I was born here in Broward General in 1956. I mean, thank goodness that Commissioner Sorensen gave a proclamation for the Men's Mental Health Month because you guys are driving me crazy. You know, I've heard twice so far, once by Bill Brown in his prejudiced Zoom meeting that he had, where I had questions in the chat box, and remarkably, all of my questions were passed over for other questions. And I heard, and I read where Commissioner Glassman said in the newspaper that change is hard. These people just change is hard. Well, you know what? Change isn't hard. Bad change is hard. Good change is fine. We're fine with that. We understand that there's going to be changes. But I recommend that you defer this, and all of you, all of you go down at one time together to the beach and see exactly what you're giving away. I was down there today. There's turtle nests squared off 20 yards away from where this stuff is going to be, right on here. And we're going to line up cement trucks to pour more concrete on here. You got to see the size. And their rendering that they are putting up is incorrect. It is not anywhere close to how this is going to be designed. They say they're going to leave the pine trees. That's, they said that, not me. And that is impossible. If you look where the pine trees are and how their rendering is placed, it's not going to happen. You need this. There's 50, I counted them, actually 52 picnic tables and grills. Down there right now. This is the part of the public beach. This is the resident's beach. This always has been. We give you the tourists and the visitors north of Las Olas in front of the hotels where they can go. The visitors can go and drink on the beach, have their own private thing. But if a resident brings a six pack of beer down to the beach, that's against the law. And I don't understand. This is our beach. You need to defer this. You need to make a site visit and see exactly the beauty of this beach that you're going to give away. Okay. Thank you so much. Dr. Robotsky. Dr. Robotsky, followed by Dan Texera, followed by Sandra McCarthy. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioner, and staff. This discussion has become far larger than a debate about a few recreational courts. Let's begin with the facts. The environmental impact of these courts are minimal. They occupy a relatively small footprint in an already developed recreational area. No beach access is being eliminated. No private beach club is being created. Also worth noting is some of the objections have become increasingly speculative. We've heard concerns ranging from artificial turf supposedly releasing dangerous gases to what would happen if rare antiquities were found during the construction. Yet many of these same concerns were absent when other improvements were made to the beachfront years ago. Come on, let's get real. The reality is this project has become a target for opposition regardless of the actual merits. When one concern addresses, for example, replacing the basketball courts, another one appears. Whack-a-moe, in a manner of speaking. When one claim is disproven, a new one emerges. That's often the sign that debate is no longer about the facts of this project, but rather the opposition to the project itself. What's next? Maybe one day we'll be told that these courts can create an unacceptable glare to the International Space Station. We have to be cognizant. As commissioners, I simply ask that you evaluate the proposal based on the objective facts, measurable impacts, and demonstrated public benefits, not on hypothetical fears and constantly shifting objections. At the same time, the potential public benefit is enormous. Pickleball is now America's fastest-growing sport with more than 24 million participants. Its growth has been extraordinary from young to old. Fort Lauderdale has an opportunity to create something unique, an iconic beachfront pickleball courts that can instantaneously become recognizable throughout the country. Think about the social media value alone. Everyday visitors will post photographs and videos of people playing pickleball next to our beach. Cities spend millions of dollars trying to create these kind of memorable images that attract visitors. This project could become one of those images. That type of exposure cannot be purchased easily. Visitors will bring in not who just come to play. They'll experience locations, stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants. I also believe it's important to recognize that public meetings often attract those who are most dissatisfied. That's the nature of public hearings. The individuals who take time to attend meetings are not always representative of the thousands of residents and visitors who support the recreational improvements. I was told, please, please. I was told three minutes when I wrote this. No, two minutes. I know, you changed it. Please conclude your remarks. Okay. Whether we, so the question is, to make room for progress, we say yes to activity, yes to community, yes to tourism, yes to economic opportunity, and yes to recreational amenities that serve thousands. When a city moves forward, everybody wins. When a city creates opportunity, everybody wins. Okay, thank you. I respect the commission to stay the course and keep the project. Okay, thank you. Dan Dixera, followed by Sandra McCartley. Keep defamed me. Followed by Susan Peterson. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioner, City Attorney, Dan Dixera. I'm the president of a condominium on Birch Road, Harbor House East. I own a place at the Four Seasons, and I also have my business in the lobby at the Ritz-Carlton. Oh, gosh, maybe 10 years ago, someone asked me what pickleball was, and I thought people were throwing pickles around. I had no idea. And all I can tell you is, even though we're not the concierge, we get questioned by almost all the hotel guests, where can we play pickleball? And, of course, we send them to George English Park or Holiday Park. But it would be nice to have a pickleball court open to the public on Fort Lauderdale Beach. This is something, you know, when I was growing up, we didn't have soccer stadiums and fields in our high school. We had football and basketball. But now if you go to the high schools and you go to, you know, Holiday Park, you see soccer. So we have to keep up with the times. Obviously, people love pickleball. And when you look at my residents in the building, they all go and play pickleball. At the hotel, people come and stay. And I think this is a great amenity for everyone on the beach. The beach is a compromise of many different buildings, hotels, gay guest houses, little inns. None of those have amenities. So this is a great amenity. I ask that you support this. I think this is great that the CDD is paying for it and that this is completely open to the public. The basketball court really needs to be upgraded, which is part of this plan. And the other part is the exercise equipment reminds me of something from the 50s. It needs to be upgraded. I think the plan is beautiful. I think EDSA did a great job. And I just want to keep the beach in line with the other parks. I think you've done a fabulous job with Huizinga Park. Holiday Park is probably one of the most used parks I've seen in the entire state. So I ask that you approve this beautiful plan. Thank you. Sandra McCartley, Susan Peterson, followed by Jennifer. Good evening, Commissioners. Good, Mayor. I'm going to read what I posted on Nextdoor in response to the Sun Sentinel article about this project. And I'm really opposed to it as a person who's been going to this beach since 1962. It's a place of tranquility. You can hear the sound of the waves, a turtle nesting area. So I'm going to wrote what I posted. I see this as another attempted land grab by the St. Regis developers to chase out the locals from our sandy beach. A beach is a beach is a beach with real sand and open vistas, not paved pickleball courts with artificial turf in between. Who goes to the beach to sit on artificial turf? It seems like the city, in effect, has been trying to avoid advanced public discussion on this deal. And that is what makes it seem shady. And then another community poster, Martina, said, so shady. Another one said, we no longer have any faith in anyone who runs our city. A hundred years ago on this site, there was a boatyard that was owned by a man called Jimmy Duquesne, who was a gymnast and a fiddle player and started the first do-it-yourself boatyard. He would get somebody started. Then he would go down to the beach and do gymnastics on the exercise equipment that was first there that he donated and built. And that's the community spirit. It's a place where, over decades, people go there for holidays to barbecue. Pickleball, just like a certain speaker who just spoke, is, like, really uptight and angry. The beach should be for quiet enjoyment. Pickleball people are angry. And a turtle nesting area also. So I'm really opposed to this. So please go to the beach. Sit there on the sand. Enjoy the quiet and the tranquility. That's what I am asking you to do. Okay, thank you. Is Jennifer here? Did she just put these on my desk? Jennifer Long, followed by Lisa Namor. Is Lisa here? Come on up. Erin McNeil. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. As a hotelier, I work here in Fort Lauderdale. And every day, I see firsthand how many of our public spaces matter, not just to residents, but to the overall spirit and experience of our community has to offer, as demonstrated through our last IPW a week and a half ago. That's why I'm here tonight in support of this park plan. What really resonates with me is that this proposal is not about something being taken away. It's about adding more for everyone. It keeps the basketball courts while creating new opportunities for people of all ages and interests. Whether that's fitness, wellness, or simply enjoying the beach, time outdoors with your family, and yes, pickleball. As someone who interacts daily with both residents and visitors, I can tell you that spaces like this shape how people feel about our city. A well-designed, welcoming, and accessible beachfront park sends a powerful message about who we are and what we value, like families, tourism, new businesses, economic development. Something for everyone. I also appreciate that this plan is community-focused and city-led, funded through public and community contributions, and ultimately owned and managed by the city for everyone to enjoy equally and elevate the current footprint, something to be very proud of. I encourage you to support this plan and continue to move our community forward in a positive and equitable way, because when we build for everyone, we elevate our whole community. Thank you. Thank you. Are you Erin? Erin, followed by Trudy Germanovich, followed by Nancy Thomas. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and City Manager. My name is Erin McNeil, and I'm a Fort Lauderdale resident and a Coral Ridge resident. I'm here to voice my support for the proposed improvements to Fort Lauderdale Beach Park. Like many residents, I love our beach. It's one of the most iconic places in our city and one of the first things visitors see when they arrive. Because of that, I believe our public spaces should reflect the quality and beauty of Fort Lauderdale itself. Over the past several weeks, I've seen numerous posts and comments circulating on Facebook opposing this project and making claims about what is being proposed. After reviewing the actual plans, I do not see those claims reflected in this design. What I see is a thoughtful improvement that preserves recreation while creating a more welcoming and attractive public space for the broader community. Today, this area consists primarily of aging recreational facilities and underutilized space. While those amenities serve an important purpose, the proposed redesign does not eliminate recreation. It enhances it and expands it for more people to enjoy. The plan includes upgraded basketball courts, new pickleball courts, an outdoor fitness area, open green spaces, landscaped walking paths, additional seating, improved beach access, and gathering spaces for residents and visitors alike. Rather than taking something away, it creates a destination that can be enjoyed by families, athletes, beach goers, and residents of all ages. What I appreciate most is that this proposal embraces what makes Fort Lauderdale special. It enhances the natural beauty of our beachfront while creating a park that feels inviting, vibrant, and worthy of one of the most prominent locations in our city. Cities either invest in their public spaces or they allow them to stagnate. This proposal is an investment in Fort Lauderdale's future. It's an opportunity to transform a dated area into a world-class public space that residents can be proud of and that future generations will enjoy. No project will satisfy everyone, and a healthy debate is important. However, I believe discussions should be based on the actual plans and the long-term benefit to our community, not misinformation or assumptions about what the project may become. When I look at these renderings, I see a park that's more beautiful, more functioning, more welcoming, and more inclusive than what exists today. I respectfully encourage the Commission to support this project and continue investing in public spaces that improve the quality of life for everyone who lives in and visits Fort Lauderdale. Okay, thank you. Trudy? My name is Dr. Trudy Germanovich, and as usual, I try to bring this time I brought Ted and Sarah's picture of the turtle nests that are right here and the pickleball courts that are supposed to go right up above them. So I want to make sure that everybody looks at those. And also, I put on the back many of the things that people have talked about, how this is being advertised as a private beach. That's what they're saying, is a private beach. I am opposed to the plan for pickleball courts and surrounding artificial turf area, which is proposed in this item. I suggest the city sets up a free shuttle and send beachgoers to the pickleball courts, which the city destroyed part of Snyder Park to approve. That is supposed to be a world-class pickleball. That's why it was put in there. So use it. This was not sufficient time for the zoning board and the public to express their opinions and provide the city commission with information to make the right decision. As the photograph shows you, the area of the beach is an active nesting site for turtles. Is that illegal for you to be building so close to this? I believe this is only one of several reasons why the pickleball courts should not be included in this project. I also sent you an extensive email which outlined why the city should not be using artificial turf anywhere on beach sand. Not only does it shed microfibers, none of which is completely biodegradable, and in our South Florida sun, it can reach a temperature of 150 degrees, which can cause injury and off-gassing, which is a real thing. The plan should include a reasonable walkway to the beach, and there's no need for artificial anything. Put a wooden walkway so everybody can get to the beach with nice, real plants in the sand. Keep it as it is with no artificial anything. Thank you. Nancy Thomas, followed by Mary Fertig, followed by Bob Kimball. Excuse me. Good evening. I'm really disappointed that anybody who is against this particular plan is characterized as some kind of grouch because the public is not against beach improvements, which is why the parks bond was passed seven years ago. But agreeing to accept a million dollars from a private developer to make their desired changes to a public beach without adequate public input is both wrong and unnecessary. The rendering, funded by the PMR, was presented to the commission one month ago. Virtually all other city park changes in the past have included robust public outreach to citizens for their input, and not just within one month. Other city park changes have languished for years, while this one is scheduled for a commission vote only one month after the public got to see it. The Parks and Rec Advisory Board only saw the rendering one week ago, at which time they expressed some concerns and recommended more time for public input. Yesterday, Jimmy Tate, BMR, wrote an email to the commission stating that they're just being good neighbors by donating a million dollars for beach renovations. If it's a good faith donation, then why is the million dollars dependent upon the EDSA rendering being approved, quote, without alteration, unquote, as per his letter? Only one month ago, some of the public got a look at this rendering. Their concerns about having four pickleball courts beachfront, artificial turf, placement of shaded picnic tables and grills, etc., are fair and should be continued. The city has the funds from the park bond to make beach improvements that are reviewed and accepted by the public, without the million-dollar mandatory EDSA design from Bahia Mar. We're asking the city to take adequate time to conduct fair and robust public outreach and not be bound to the EDSA rendering in return for a million dollars from a private developer. Thank you so much. Mary Fertig, followed by Bob Kumbo, followed by Michaela Konka. Good evening. Mary Fertig, on behalf of Lauderdale Tomorrow. This project has taken on a life of its own. It was two and a half years ago, January 9, 2024, that some of us spoke in opposition to R4. I went back to the minutes, and yes, we did speak in opposition, and no, it was not a unanimous vote. The issue was air rights, and any conversation about a million-dollar donation was definitely not the focus of the 141 pages of backup on this item that was distributed the Thursday before the meeting. But does that really matter tonight? One takeaway from recent issues before the city is the different ways in which the public is included. On some park projects, there are community meetings as well as neighborhood association meetings, and person meetings with an option to join virtually. Same thing for some of the other projects that you're doing that are coming before you, while others are not treated in the same manner. On some projects, there's an insistence to follow the contract, while in others, such as Lockhart Stadium, years pass with no park. And just as an aside, I just want to say this. Our local high schools pay $5,000 for each game they play in the small stadium. Okay, so it came as a shock to many of us that this was not even presented to the Parks and Rec Board until less than a week before the second hearing. We could sit and argue about this forever, but at some point, it's time for everyone to try to meet in the middle so that we can move ahead with something on this most special of beaches. On behalf of Lauderdale Tomorrow, I'm here to support the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Board. I'll start reading them to you in case you don't see them. Following discussion, the board reached consensus to prepare a letter to the commission requesting modifications to the conceptual design, including removal of the artificial turf in favor of natural landscaping materials, reducing the number of pickleball courts from four to two, allowing additional time for public input and outreach, and reaffirming that no exclusive access be granted to behemoth our guests for use of the recreational facilities. Thank you. I did, Dean, I just passed that little, I cut that from the minutes that they circulated, their draft. Is that okay? And I just want to make one correction. You say there was no consultation with the Neighborhood Association. We received an email this morning from the president of the Central Beach Alliance, in which Bill Brown said that the, you're going to let me finish talking? Of course, I want to hear what you're going to say. That the Central Beach Alliance is supportive of this project. Well, I was on a meeting with him last week. I'm just telling you. Yeah, I understand that. But I was on a meeting last week, and I'm not saying they didn't present it, because we all know that there was a presentation on Thursday. And specifically, at the beginning, my understanding was he said that the Central Beach Alliance was not taking a position on it. I did not hear a vote. But that's okay. My point to you is there has been so much controversy over this, and it could continue forever. It can continue forever, and we're not going to let it continue forever. Exactly. And we need to come together. We're going to make a decision tonight. And hopefully tonight you defer, but whatever. I mean, it's a parks project. I mean, all right, anyway. All right, thank you for listening. Thank you. Is Bob Kimball here? Okay. Come on down. Bob Kimball. I'm a 50-year resident of Fort Lauderdale. I've always been enjoying going to that beach in front of B.E.M.R., the picnic area, enjoying cooking on the beach in those grills, having gatherings with friends, and we never had the urge to go play paper ball. You're not angry enough. That's why. Excuse me. I'm talking. I'm sorry. Who are you? So here we are. Pickleball courts are in the property of B.E.M.R. They are there already. They are not being used. And do you believe that they can play pickleball in the wind? Oh, nobody thought of that. Well, the pickleball doesn't weigh that much, and it'll go flying, and they're going to lose them, and it's more plastic on the beach. So all the trees, the turtles, and I think you need to re-dream of plastic grass. It doesn't belong in any parks, and that's what I'm saying. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Followed by Tina DeMarco, followed by Leo Lorenz. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Michaela Conka. I'm here as a resident. Imagine, if you will, our city commissioners deciding to pass this resolution that I'm about to share with you. Resolution for the protection and public use of the Fort Lauderdale Beach Park, whereas Fort Lauderdale Beach and Park have served the public since 1893 as a natural, open, and fully public beach for guests, family, and residents of all ages. And whereas the proposal installation of four pickleball courts and related artificial features would reduce flexible public recreation space and prioritize limited paid use activities. Whereas the area contains archaeological resources and sea turtle nesting habitat that should be protected from construction and earth-moving procedures. And whereas the residents of Fort Lauderdale have a strong interest in preserving the natural, historic, and fully public beach park, eliminating artificial turf, concrete pads, increased noise, night lighting, and the reduction and the relocation of the exercise equipment. Whereas marketing materials referencing an exclusive beach club raise concerns about the undisclosed private use of public beachfront land. Whereas the interlocal agreement governing the site expires on December 31st, 2026, and its extension should remain, will be open to further privatization. Does that conclude your remarks? Yes, it does. Yes, it does. Thank you very much. Requesting a deferral. Good evening. Tina. Tina DeMarco, here again. I'd like to ask that the commissioners and the mayor look at deferring this for at least another month. There is so much misinformation out there. There is so much that the public is not aware of, and I believe proper outreach has not been done. There was one meeting with the Central Beach Alliance. It was last minute, and very few people knew about it. I know we keep going back and forth on this, and everybody just wants it to be done, but I think we need more time to decide what the right premise for this property is, and I'm asking you to defer it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Leo. Leo Lorenz, followed by Chris Tchaikovsky. Good evening, mayor and commissioners. Chris, I'm speaking in opposition to the plan. Is he kidding? As one of the daily users out there at the beach, we're out there every day, and I could say every single day there's somebody out there on the courts or at the exercise areas utilizing the spaces. A lot of the people who seem to like this rendering that the EDSA had done, those people are never out there. They don't understand what it's like to be out there in those kind of conditions. I'm just saying that I kind of support the drawings and the renderings, but I think it needs to be revised because what you're doing is you're taking away the exercise area from the basketball courts, and all the basketball players use the exercise area. And we don't want to have to go hiking from one end all the way down to the other end to work out in between games. So we want to keep all that together. Also, the picnic tables and the grills, right now out there in that area, I think there's probably over 40 to 60 picnic tables and grills. Under the rendering that EDSA had done, they're showing only 16 tables. Commissioner Herbst one time had said that he would like to see more tables, more grills, and I think that we need to put the grills and the tables closer to the basketball courts so we can also use them while we're out there, too. It's just something that they're doing to divide the area. Taking the exercise area and the tables and moving them way down to the south of the park is really dividing the people who actually use that every day. And if most of the people that don't go out there every day and don't understand what it's like out there, they're all looking at the drawing and they're saying, oh, it looks so beautiful. But what's the real functionality of it after six months, after we have storms and the sand blows up into the artificial turf, you can't get it out, and it's a mess. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thanks, Ben. Thank you. All right. Chris, could I pause one second? Yep. I just got to ask a question about that. So to the city manager, so we have a rendering, and it has a limited number of picnic tables and so forth. Is that the number of picnic tables we're going to get, or is this just conceptual? So I kind of need to understand that because I've heard this from a number of people that we're going to be losing amenities, and I want to get some clarity on that because I want to make sure that we all understand what we're talking about. So if I see 16 picnic tables on a drawing, does that mean we get 16 picnic tables, or is this just conceptual in nature? Help me understand this. This is all still very conceptual in nature, and the details are being fine-tuned, so I would not assume that because there are 16 now that there couldn't be 20 in the final design for this project. But I'll defer to assistant city manager, Pugh. Because that's an important issue. You know, I think we've been very clear that we don't want to see a diminution in the number of amenities available for families out there. So it's my understanding that there is no change to the overall number of barbecue and picnic tables and everything else, regardless of what the picture shows, that we're not going to see any reduction. Can you confirm that for me? Hi, Kay. Good evening, Quentin Pugh, assistant city manager. Both you and the manager are absolutely correct. We're just identifying the number of picnic tables and grills that will be affected that's within that site planned area. Right now, we show there are 10 grills and there are 16 picnic tables that would need to either be relocated or replaced based on condition. So it would be a one-for-one swap, but we're not reducing any of those site amenities or elements. Okay. So just so we're all clear, there is no reduction in picnic tables. Just want everybody to understand that. That will not happen. Ted, stop shaking your head. That's not going to happen. Okay? Not going to happen. Quentin, Quentin, are you able to put up the site plan? You got it. You got it. Absolutely. On the table. Mr. Stokowski. Hello, Chris Stokowski. Not Stokowski, but thank you for trying. It's a tough one. Conceptual nature is something that kind of burdens us because in conceptual concepts, we were told at Snyder Park that they would have a concession stand. That's a full-fledged restaurant with fire pits by the lake now. So don't curse us for questioning some of this stuff. The park. It's a park issue. Why is a developer involved in a park issue? Why is the park and its bathrooms not even a consideration for improvement? Pickleball courts. I'm so glad that we get to keep our basketball courts, the two of them, and where there's an agreement that none of us knew about for two pickleball courts, pardon me, it's now four pickleball courts. Nobody's been able to explain that to us. It's a money issue. We've got free money. Nothing's free. Never is. Never will be. We don't trust you guys so much anymore, and there's a reason for that. Because you tell us one thing, and we go along with it. It's what you're not telling us. It's what we see down the line. Yesterday, I was on Ben's Zoom call. Thank you. Yesterday, I was on Ben's Zoom call. Every single person on that Zoom call is opposed to this. They're against it. You haven't done your due diligence. There's no reason to rush this through. Your parks committee bond are totally against this whole setup. And again, I will stress the fact that fake grass is toxic, bad for the environment, and right now class action lawsuits are everywhere. When it comes to Jimmy Tate and what he's doing, there should be a cease and desist order on his public-private mentions of what is and what isn't. Thank you. City Manager, do we have someone here from EDSA? Because later, when we get a chance to discuss this, I want to have a conversation about the turf and some of the misinformation that I'm hearing. So I want to make sure that – is there someone here from EDSA? Yes, Commissioner, there is. Okay, thank you. And that's a good point, though, because I really want to point out – I don't know if you all know this, but we've got turf in every single park in the city, right? Holiday Park, Carter Park. Mills Pond. Mills Pond Park. Every park that we play on in the city where we've got fields is turf. I don't know if you know that. Artificial turf. Artificial turf. Artificial turf. Artificial turf. Come to Holiday Park. Have you ever played soccer in Holiday Park? Come on up sometime. It's turf. Have you ever played at Mills Pond Park? Have you played at Carter Park? You know what it is? It's turf. You know what we're going to do at Lockhart Park? Turf. Guys, this is not the only place in the city where we have turf. You want us to let it out. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I reserve my time because I do want to make a couple of points about the turf, and the turf of today is not the turf of 20 years ago. We have to get real. All right. Let us continue with the public. There's a gentleman named Oz, but I can't – your penmanship is – I can't read your last name. Followed by Sean Hall. What is your last name, sir? McCray. Okay. M-C-R-A. McCray. Yeah. Okay. How you doing, Mayor? How you doing, Commissioners? I just want to speak on behalf of the residents and the people that are out there in the parks and seeing the beauty of the families getting together. I see the renderings, and I see a separation, you know what I'm saying, of communities, and I really don't like it. I see the youth with the family out there barbecuing in the grills. And that structure that I see right there, it looks beautiful, but in actuality, it takes what the beauty of the beach really is about. It's about the community. And it's about the families getting together, the friends, you know what I'm saying? So I'm not for that, and I guarantee you I speak for a lot of the residents that are out here. So that's all I want to say. Okay. Thank you. Sean Hall. How are you doing? I'm Sean. So I just was at the beach today, and literally it's rainy, so you can't play pickleball at all because I think the ball is light, and with the wind blowing, you really have zero way of playing the game. Can you play basketball? You could. I can't. Really? You did today. I did today. Okay. I catch sarcasm, but it's all right. Second, meaning that if you can't play pickleball when it's windy, you need a wall or some kind of facade to play the game in a good way because any pickleball gym, stadium, they're always inland. They're not on the beach. And there's no place in the United States where people can play pickleball on the beach because it's windy and the ball is light. It has holes. It is true because it's light. It's like whipple ball. Okay. Anyway, I do think that the rendering, like it looks good right now conceptually. It's okay. But when you look at, like, what it is today, it doesn't need, like, a new, like, the beach doesn't need to be redone like this. I think fixing what we have right there, like, it's changing what's already there, like, making things better for what we have today. I think today we see in the country around Florida, United States, there's, like, lots of, like, building with developers and people who live in these areas. Wildlife are being destroyed, new developments, more concrete everywhere, and we just don't need that. And I think this would be a travesty if this was to happen, I think, in this area. Like, my son's here, he's 11, his first basketball game was at this court, and I think that, you know, when he was, like, two years old. So I think these things are places are memories for people. We're actually losing that in the United States these days given all the construction and development, et cetera. Thank you. Thank you. And I got to speak to this as well. So everybody that's saying you can't play pickleball at the beach, apparently you've never heard of Sandy Pickle. Okay? Sandy Pickle is pickleball at the beach on the sand. People play pickleball on the sand. Okay, but, like, if it's windy, sir, if it's windy, sir. They play pickleball at the beach all around the country. In Bradenton, we have pickleball at the beach. In Cocoa Beach, we've got pickleball at the beach. Key West. They've got pickleball in Key West. Key West. They have pickleball. There is a thing called Sandy Pickle where you literally play on the sand. Is that what we're doing here? On the sand. You play on the sand. No, I'm saying, is that what we're doing here? It's called Sandy Pickle. That's not Sandy Pickle. All right, all right, all right, all right. Stop, stop, stop, stop. What I'm saying is the idea that you can't play pickleball on the beach is categorically false. People play pickleball on the beach. There is a whole sport called Sandy Pickle playing on the beach. Okay, I'll be doing that right here, though. Okay. On every beach. Sir, sir, please sit down. This is not a debate. The commissioner is just making comments. Mayor, what I'm trying to get to here is there's a lot of arguments against what's trying to be done, and I fully support them. There's a lot of valid points against what is being proposed, and I'm happy to engage with those. But, guys, we've got to be factual here. To say you can't play pickleball on the beach when they play it all over the country is factually incorrect. To say that turf is horrible when we have it in every single park is factually incorrect. To say that we can't have concrete on the beach. Do you all know how many miles of beach we have in Fort Lauderdale? Seven. We've got 24 miles of beach in Broward County. We have 1,350 miles of sand in the state of Florida. So please don't suggest for one minute that we can't build a pickleball court because we can't have any more concrete at the beach. Let's have some factual arguments here, please. Yeah, and Commissioner Herbst, I just want to add something to that because I hear that argument all of the time. All of this area that we're looking at now, and by the way, there's another site plan that actually shows all the identifiable areas, and I'd like to see that later too posted. The wave wall was built on sand, so we lost sand for the wave wall. We lost sand for all of the 400 and plus parking spaces. We lost sand for the basketball court. We lost sand for the restrooms. We lost sand for all of the amenities that you see out there now right there on this photo. All of that was just sand. We lost sand when we built the sidewalk on the west side of the wave wall. So that, again, I want to add to Commissioner Herbst, that was all sand that we lost when we did these improvements to the beach. Thanks. All right. Is Robert Healy here? Is Robert Healy here? Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item that you've signed? Is there anyone who's signed up that I did not call? Okay. So let us begin. I guess the district commissioner, District 2, please proceed. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. Just a couple of points. Number one, I do want to thank the Central Beach Alliance, and I want to thank all of the residents. I represent District 2, which is where this is exactly located. And I will tell you that I have not had one complaint from my district about this site plan. Just the opposite. I have heard nothing but support for this site plan, both from the Neighborhood Association and also individuals. I will agree with Commissioner Herbst. A lot of misinformation about where you can play pickleball, what pickleball is like. I've heard tonight angry people play pickleball. There are a few people that I see in the audience tonight that I've played with quite a bit. They are not angry people. They have other faults, but anger is not one of them. But I will tell you that we have to clear the air with this misinformation. So I'm going to start by asking EDSA. You in the house? Where's EDSA? Thank you. I want to talk about this because at the last commission meeting when we first talked about this, we said that we established that synthetic turf technology has advanced significantly, both in manufacturing methods and also material composition. So I've done some research. I want you to correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. Or just say yes if I am correct. First of all, can you please introduce yourself? I can. I'm Kona Gray. I'm with EDSA Incorporated. Okay, great. Are you involved in this project? Yes, I am. I'm one of the partners at EDSA. You're a partner at EDSA. Yes. Were you involved at all in the design of this project? We're a big collaboration. We do a lot of work together. Okay. All right. Thank you. I just want to establish your connection to this project. Thank you. And I appreciate you being here. Can I get another one of the backup slides that shows actually the site plan of all the identifiable areas? This is great. We see the basketball to the north, which is exactly where it is today. It's all being redone. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Stop. Okay. So that's the area that we're talking about. That's the pedestrian bridge going from top to bottom. To the right, you see the current site of the basketball courts. And then you see everything else in between. That's that little turf area that we've been talking about where people will be able to congregate and do yoga or whatever other activity. A little bit of like a plaza area. Then just to the south, you see the four pickleball courts. And then the rest of it's right there. Just to the south of the pickleball courts, you see all of the gym. That's the outside gym area again. Brand new equipment for the gym. Picnic tables, barbecue area. Totally refurbishing the basketball courts. That's the surface. That's the nets. That's the backboards. And then adding that little, I guess what I would call a community area where people can come and do what they choose. And then the pickleball courts. So I'm going to go through this. I'm just dealing with the turf now because that seems to be an issue with people. And we've heard about the toxins and everything. By the way, I'm going to say that I think the turf is better here because if we had real grass, number one, it would be a pain to maintain. Wouldn't even be a guarantee that it would live. And we would have to probably fertilize it and use pesticides, right? That's correct. On the grass. Oh, my gosh. Fertilizer and pesticides is better than the new product that we're talking about now, this turf. So let me take you through this and you tell me what you think. Modern plant-based synthetic turf systems are no longer reliant on the traditional petroleum-based plastics commonly associated with earlier generations of artificial turf. Yes, you're correct. Thank you. Today's products incorporate renewable plant-based materials such as soybean oil, sugarcane, often containing up to 80% renewable content. These innovations have gained recognition from LEED, that's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, and the U.S. Green Building Council for supporting sustainable development practices. You are correct. Thank you. In addition, many eco-friendly turf systems now utilize organic infill materials such as cork, coconut husk, or sand instead of crumb rubber, creating safer and more environmentally responsible playing surfaces. That is correct. Thank you. The following points highlight the environmental and operational benefits of plant-based synthetic turf systems. One, uses renewable plant-based materials that reduce dependence on fossil fuels and petroleum-based plastics. That is correct. Two, plant-based synthetic turf systems contain up to 80% renewable content through materials such as soybean oil and sugarcane. Correct. Three, USDA-certified bio-based turf products support sustainable manufacturing practices. That is correct. Four, conserve significant amounts of water, saving an estimated 1.8 to 3.7 million liters of water annually per sports field. That is correct. Thank you. Eliminates the need for fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and gas-powered mowing equipment. Correct. I've heard some things tonight about, oh, the turf's going to get full of sand. Help me understand. Would a leaf blower, which a lot of people don't like, would that probably blow the sand off the turf pretty easily? Yes, it will. Okay, thank you. Six, reduces chemical runoff, greenhouse gas emissions, and long-term maintenance requirements. That is correct. And lastly, provides durable, year-round, and all-inclusive usability with really no maintenance costs. Correct. Correct. Sounds great. I will tell you, in my district, I have what's called the La Solis Oceanside Park. A1A and La Solis. Are you familiar with that park? We designed that park. You designed that park. Right. Is there any of this turf in that park? Yes, there is. Yes. And what happens in that area now? Do you know the activities that are happening there on a daily basis? Several activities. It's bringing so much economic development to our community. Yes. I will tell you, hundreds of people use that park in my district. They do yoga on that lawn. They hang out on that lawn. We have events on that lawn. And people have not, I have not heard one complaint. Except for maybe when someone gets lazy and their pet does something and they don't clean up after they're on the lawn. That's the only thing I've ever heard about in terms of complaints. Not one complaint have I received. Thank you very much. I appreciate your expertise on this. I just wanted to make that point because I'm hearing and reading so much misinformation about what people are saying about this area with the turf, which you see right there at the foot of the pedestrian bridge. Thank you. And thank you for your work on this project. I think it's great. This is a world-renowned company, EDSA. You guys did a great job. I really, really appreciate it. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. City Clerk. Okay. City Clerk, I want everyone to take a look at this little area that we're talking about. It's just a little bit of area to the north and to the south of the pedestrian bridge that connects Bahia Mar to the beach. Would you please just put some drone shots up that I sent you today that I would like to see people have context, context for this little area that we're talking about when I hear, oh, my gosh, they're taking over the beach. They're taking over the beach. So let's see how we're taking over the beach. Give me the first slide. That's not it. Thank you. I hope I gave you the right slides. I'm getting a little nervous now. Okay. So we're taking a look. Closest to the bottom of the screen is the north, and we're heading south towards Port Everglades to the top of the screen. Probably one of the widest areas of sand and the beach, this is most of my district, District 2, very wide area. When you come a little bit further north, which would go to the bottom of the screen, it gets a lot narrower. Okay. You see the little basketball court there. You see the pedestrian bridge. The Bahia Mara is on the right by the intercoastal. It's got that little mural there. Then you see the pedestrian bridge over A1A. By the way, I also want to challenge people that say, oh, my God, you're killing the views of the ocean. And I heard that. And I'm not going to name any names, but I'm going to tell you, when you drive on A1A, I defy you to tell me that you're seeing the ocean. Because the elevation is up. The parking lot is there. And then the wave wall is there. You can't even see people playing the basketball, practically, when you're driving on A1A. So I don't know why people think that we're blocking the ocean with those four pickleball courts. It's ridiculous. Anyway, so next slide, please. Okay. Here's the – look at – okay. Did you go back to the second one? You skipped. Was it the second one? Second one. Okay. Thank you. Basketball courts, you see it right there on the lower right side. We're only talking about that to a little bit past that pedestrian bridge. Look at all that sand. Look at all that space that people could use. Oh, my gosh. We are really taking up the whole beach. Next slide. Oh, my God. Look at this. Oh, my God. How could we be taking all of this up? Look at the little area where the basketball courts are and the pedestrian bridge. But look at all that sand. That's a lot of sand there. That's a lot of place so people can enjoy – not – excuse me. I didn't interrupt you, Nancy, when you were talking, so you can be quiet. Thank you. Okay. Oh, go ahead. Let's boo. Let's boo. Let's boo. So, again, look at the sand. Next slide. Okay. Here we go. Basketball courts staying exactly where they are and being totally improved. And just a little bit to the left is where this is going to go. At the foot of the pedestrian bridge, we're going to have that little – that awful turf area. Oh, my God. With all those plastics. And then we're going to have the nice little area of the gym equipment just to the south. Next one. Again, another view looking at it from the west. Basketball courts. And then right at the foot of the pedestrian bridge will be that little plaza where people can do yoga. They can do meditation. They can do whatever they want. And then the pickleball courts will just go right to the south. Next one. And there's another overview of it. Again, looking at it from above, just so you have context. This is a very small area of this beach. It's not anything that's going to really impede on anyone's enjoyment of the sand. We don't want to do that. We want to make sure that everyone can enjoy this area. Is that the last slide? Thank you for that. Okay. Next. I want to say that there have been also misrepresentations of how many trees we're going to lose. So, city manager, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the conceptual site plan may require the removal of one tree, one regular tree, and 21 palms. And opposite of what we've heard, no pine trees would be removed. Correct? I believe you're correct, commissioner, but our assistant city manager will confirm. Okay. Can you control the audience, please? Keep talking. Okay. Thank you. Also, staff has talked to EDSA to reconfirm the anticipated palm impacts within the site plan. There are 26 palms in the area. Of those, 21 are proposed to remain and be protected. Five will be removed. Is that correct? That is correct, commissioner. That is correct. And then, can we talk about the addition of the extra landscaping? Because it looks like we're really beefing up the landscaping, both as a buffer around the pickleball courts, because we're hearing a lot about wind, by the way. I have played pickleball at the Marriott Harbor Beach Club on the beach. Guess what? The screening, the vegetation, it controls it. I've actually played in George English Park and Holiday Park. When it's windier there than it's on the beach. I live on the Barrier Island. There are more days when it's not windy than it is windy. So, you can actually compensate for that. And I've actually seen people, believe it or not, play pickleball in the rain. So, I'm just going to say that, too. I just want to make sure that we are also talking about, do we have any stats or data on how much extra vegetation we're actually adding to the beach to make it a much more lush experience? Because right now, if you look at those drone shots, it's pretty barren. In terms of landscaping, it's very, very barren. Do we have any idea how much we're adding in terms of landscaping? Yeah, we have some preliminary ideas. And what is that? We have about 65 palms that we'll be adding. Okay. There'll be another additional 15 hardwood species, but, you know, things such as pigeon plums and other species. But there'll be about 15 of those. The one tree that will be removed is actually an Australian pine. Okay. Which is an invasive species. But that's the one tree that will be removed. That's the one. Thank you. David, I appreciate it. Thank you, Quentin. Can we put up the rest of those slides? You did two from the backup. You did the pickleball basketball. And you did the other one, which is the site plant itself. Can we see the other slides? There's only four or five of them. Okay. Thank you. So this is where the turf's going. This is the area. You see the pedestrian bridge coming over. This is the area, the lawn spaces that will be provided for the folks to be able to enjoy and do whatever activity. Next one. Okay. Again, this is, again, the space for the gym equipment. Please, shh. This is the gym equipment on the sand just to the south of the pickleball courts. Correct? A gentleman before testified and said how upset he was that this wasn't closer to basketball. Guess what? We had it closer to basketball. We had a site plan. What month was that, city manager, when you gave us that 1A site plan that we originally approved? What was that? I believe that was in December. In December. We had a site plan where the gym equipment was really close to the basketball courts, but there was a little bit of a hubbub. People didn't want us moving the basketball courts south, so we didn't do that, and then we lost that opportunity to keep them closer. Next slide, please. Okay. And there's the pickleball. Notice all of that vegetation is added. All of that landscaping is added. None of that is there now. Again, it's going to serve several purposes. It's going to, first of all, beautify that part of the beach, and second, again, add as a buffer for any kind of breeze or wind that might interfere with the pickleball. Next one. Okay. Again, this is another part of the connections. This is, again, sand pathways. These are packed sand pathways. This is connecting all of the amenities that you've seen in the original site plan. Thank you. Is that it? Was that it for the backup slides? Yes. That's it. Yes. Excellent. Thank you. Again, I'm not going to belabor the point. People have said that we've rushed this. They've asked to... So rude. You're really rude. Rude person. Anyway, bad upbringing, Ted. Really bad upbringing. All right. Okay. What I'm going to say to you is people have said that we have taken too long on this. Well, guess what? Now, this plan to remove the basketball courts was actually done in January of 2024, and we've had discussions about it since then, since January 2024. So I don't think that we've actually rushed this, because sometimes you just have to make a decision, and you have to move forward and then go on to the next topic. I think that we've really hit that point tonight. I would ask my colleagues to agree with that, because I think that we've looked at every single aspect of this. Again, I represent this particular district. I have had no complaints about this. And trust me, my district is not shy. If they don't like something, they're going to let me know right away, right away, that they don't like something. Again, the Central Beach Alliance, also in support of this, and others have also written to me in support of this. People are looking forward to this improvement. It's for the public. It's not going to be private. Again, as Commissioner Herbst said, we're not going to be lessening the number of picnic tables and the gas grills. Everything is going to be new. Everything. The gym equipment, the basketball courts, the pickleball, and that entire area there is going to be new. We are not. Maybe a mistake was made by a salesperson, an overzealous salesperson. Some of those marketing materials might have not been correct. They have all been spoken to. Those people have been spoken to. This is an area, correct me, Quentin, this is an area that's going to be operated and maintained and done by the city, correct? That is absolutely correct. Is there any way that we could restrict people's use and enjoyment of this area? Not to my knowledge. Not to your knowledge, because it's a public beach, and these are public amenities, just like we have all of the volleyball further south, correct? Correct. And also a little bit to the north by Sunrise Boulevard, and no one is ever restricted from using these spaces, correct? Correct. Correct. So in closing, Mayor, I'm going to say that it's time for us to just move forward. I think it makes no sense to defer this any longer, because you know what? As one of the speakers said, there'll always be another, oh, I don't like this now, because you know what? I foolishly and naively thought that when we kept the basketball courts in place that everyone would be happy. But again, I foolishly thought that, because we did that on purpose once we saw that there was an outcry about removing them. So I think that we pivoted, and I think we were very cognizant of the wishes of the public. I want to thank city staff for working on this. I want to thank the development team for working on this. I want to thank EDSA for working on this. I think it's a beautiful project. I think people will really, really like it, and I think it's going to get a lot of use. I'm good, Mayor. Thanks. Okay. Does anyone else on the commission wish to speak? No one else on the commission wish to speak? Yeah, so the Commissioner Glassman, so it's rare that Commissioner Glassman and ever I, on the same side, arguing as passionately for something. So this is a rare day. I would just like to point that out. I think it's a blue moon out tonight. There must be. I think hell is freezing over, and it's a rare day. But the thing that bothered me with the original deal was the loss of the basketball courts, and I think that was very important that we were able to salvage those. And I really think that the plan that we have in front of us of saving those and restoring them and making them even better is a good plan. I have no particular feeling for pickleball one way or the other. I don't play pickleball. I don't plan on playing pickleball. I haven't played basketball since I was 15, and don't plan on starting that with my knees the way they are. So in either case, I think there is room for both of these at the beach. There are people that like pickleball. A lot of folks have said, go play pickleball at the fort. I don't know if you all realize this, but the fort is not a public amenity. It is private. You pay to go play pickleball at the fort. So if folks want to play pickleball for free, this is where they need to be doing it. There's a big difference. So for everybody here that likes playing basketball at the beach, guess what? There's people that like to play pickleball at the beach. I don't know if you ever have been down to Hollywood, and they've got the paddleball courts on the broadwalk down there. Those are packed every weekend. There are people that spend all day Saturday and all day Sunday. They show up with a cooler. They show up with chairs. And there's an entire community of people that shows up every weekend in Hollywood at the broadwalk. Guess what? They never go onto the beach. They never go onto the sand. They never go swimming. But they show up there every single weekend to play paddleball. So there's a community for different types of recreational activities. One should not be at the exclusion of the other. You know, I think these can coexist. I don't see that these are somehow not in harmony with each other. I don't see the antagonism between basketball and pickleball. I don't see why we can't have a variety of recreational activities that appeal to different people. And I really have to say, I don't get the hostility. I really don't. I'm very confused by it. And as Commissioner Glassman pointed out, I get why people are upset when we were taking away the basketball courts. I 100% agree with that. The outrage from the community that was expressed by beach ballers and the petition that they started and everybody else was absolutely justified. 100%. I agree with you completely. And I'm glad we were able to keep that. I think what we're doing is improving it for the benefit of everybody. And I think the addition of pickleball courts just adds another amenity that other folks are going to want to utilize. It appeals to a different segment of the community. Maybe at 70, you want to play pickleball and not basketball anymore. I don't know because I don't play either one of them. Regardless, though, I think we should all be focused on trying to create more opportunities for people to come together, get out of your house, get off your phone, get out to the beach, enjoy being outside, enjoy being part of a community. Engaging with other people in a social activity, spend time there, enjoy what makes Fort Lauderdale a special place that all of us love, and come together. And I don't see how that's a problem. With that in mind, again, I will join my colleague, Commissioner Glassman, in supporting this. Okay. This may be the last time. Don't be so pessimistic. It might happen again. Yes. Anyone else on the commission wish to comment? Yes, Mayor. Thank you. With everything we've seen, the conceptual site plans before, I believe that this is the best one that's come before us. Again, we have the basketball courts remaining, being repaired, upgraded, and then also the option for the pickleball courts as well. So, again, simply say, you know, I'm not really much with a lot of talking. My colleagues both have said it very well. But I believe that this consensual site plan is the best one that we received, and I'm comfortable with it. Thank you. Okay. Vice Mayor, you want to wrap this up? Yeah, Mayor. Thanks. So, Juan, appreciate everyone coming out and speaking. I'm very proud of the work we've done all together to keep the basketball courts exactly where they are, which I think is the right thing. I think this plan needs more work. Thank you, Mayor. All right. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, authorizing City Manager or Designed to proceed with the conceptual site plan for the Fort Lauderdale Beach Park Construction and Approved Park Fund Improvement Project, and authorize the City Manager or Designed to execute any and all agreements and documents necessary and so that until thereto, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for correction of scrivener's errors, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? No. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trantos? Yes. And the resolution is approved. Moving on to OSR 1, second reading, Ordinance Amending Chapter 24, Solid Waste, Article 2, Municipal Collection and Disposal Services. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. Introduced. No one has signed up to speak. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Amending Chapter 24, Solid Waste, Section 24-27B, Containers of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, by establishing a civil citation for improper solid waste container placement as set forth in Chapter 11, Repeal of Conflicting Ordinance Provisions and Providing for an Effective Date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trantos? Yes. Excuse me. Can you please, if you're exiting the room, please do it quietly because we're still conducting the meeting. Thank you. Yes. OSR 2, second reading, Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the Code of Enforcement, Charter of Civil Penalties to Establish Civil Penalties for Improper Solid Waste Container Placement. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. Any questions? No one's signed up to speak. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Chapter 11, Code Enforcement Section 11-25, Civil Penalties of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to establish civil penalties for improper solid waste container placement as defined in Section 24-27B of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Repeal of Conflicting Ordinance Provisions and Providing for an Effective Date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Sorensen-Tulls? Yes. And OSR 2 is now approved. OSR 3. This is a second reading of Quasley Judicial Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, located at 221 Southeast 12th Avenue from Residential Multifamily Low-Rise Medium Density District to Community Business District with allocation of 0.14 acres of commercial flex and approval of an associated site plan level 4 development permit for waterway use with landscape yard reduction. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in, and the Commission will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received and make them a part of the record. Commissioner Herbst, do you have any additional disclosures? I've spoken with the applicant subsequent to our last vote. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? No new communications. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, I've had additional communications with the applicant and their attorney, Commissioner Glassman? Commissioner Glassman? Commissioner Glassman, Nothing additional. Commissioner Glassman, Vice Mayor? Commissioner Glassman, Applicant and site visits. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Heasley-Pittman, All right. So this is the thing. We've got like 50 people who've signed up to speak, and I just don't think we need to go through this whole exercise all over again. I see there are people for, there are people against. I see the applicant is here to answer any questions. I know you're not here to make any further presentation, correct? Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioner Stephanie Toothaker, Dykes, we're here, no, we are not planning on making a presentation. We made a full presentation on first reading. We're happy, we've been working with the city attorney's office and our neighbors, and we're happy to discuss that, or we're happy to just answer questions. And I would ask, Mayor, I do think it's important. I do have, we have so many people here that are here for us. I'm just going to ask them very quickly to stand up, and I'll ask them not to speak, if that's okay. The ones that support you, you mean? The ones that support, I'm going to ask them to stand up, and then we'll ask them not to speak with the comment cards. Can I ask everybody here on behalf of Weston Jewelers and the Dykes family to stand up? Oh my God. Yes, don't speak. We'll save you lots of time. Okay. Thank you. I love you forever. Thank you. May I ask those who have come out tonight who don't support this? Okay. There we go. All right. So, all right. So, for those that have signed up, I'm just going to move to close public hearing. Someone move to close public hearing? Moved. Do I hear a second? I've been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trenton? Yes. And public hearing is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Mayor, before we get there. Will someone introduce the ordinance? Introduce. Okay. Very good. Please proceed. Thanks. So, City Attorney, I'd like to kind of debrief where the work that's happened since our last meeting, some of the conditions, if you can give us a full update of where we are with all that work. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We'll do that. We have met with the applicant's attorney, and I'll take you back, and you may recall that there were some proffered conditions made by the applicant, some of which we were able to codify, which was what you asked. Some of them are voluntary and not able really to be enforced, wouldn't be appropriate to be part of the site plan. We did receive and review the proposed, actually there are now agreements for parking, totaling 106 spaces with the term of 2 to 25 years. And you'll also note that the parking agreements are, they're not part of your review of what is required for the site plan for the parking reduction. They're supplemental. And they provided those in large part to accommodate employee parking. So we've reviewed those. We've obtained an affidavit as was requested. And we've created the conditions, which will be read into the record, made part of the site plan as you requested. Okay, great. So that's parking. And just an addition there, that's not only for employee parking, but it's for customer parking as well. Correct. Right. So it's for both of those. Okay. So that's parking. If you have 100 people in your store, you're going to be doing very well. It'll be a one-day sale. Sorry. I'm sorry. No. I hope so. Okay, great. So that's parking. Would you like me to just address them? Probably. Well, yeah. I want to hear from the attorney. I apologize. Turning them all. Yeah. I apologize. What was the question? That's right. So what are you all? Other conditions. Those are the conditions. But hold on. Were you and the city manager working on the parking or what? No, we were just conferring about these, the conditions. I shared that I had not seen the conditions. I don't know if they're going to be read into the record. So I was just curious about that. Ms. Toothaker is prepared to read the conditions into the record. Okay, but I'd rather hear from you what you've been working on with her. So the particular conditions include that a restaurant shall not be allowed until or unless the property owner submits an application through the development permit process. So they could not simply install a restaurant. They must go through the process. We created a condition that prior to any certificate of occupancy that the applicant shall ensure that a minimum of two signs are posted saying to customers that they shall not park in neighborhood spots. That was related to a discussion about towing. The city has no ability to require someone to pull a car off another person's property. So what we did was we created that. They would have these signs posted, direct their staff and customers not to park in the neighborhoods, and we made that as a condition of the certificate of occupancy. Okay, great. We also created as a condition prior to the certificate of occupancy that they shall install that living seawall. They made that pledge. We've made it part of the certificate of occupancy. And as I mentioned, they have provided, we've reviewed their parking agreements and the affidavit supporting them. Okay, great. Any other conditions? Those are the conditions, sir, that we were able to actually attach to the site plan and enforce. Okay. Thank you very much. Is that accurate in your understanding? Those are completely accurate. And I just want to add that the conditions that the city attorney's office did not feel were appropriate to go into the ordinance, which were in the letter, the letter signed by Mr. Dykes to Beverly Heights. Those have already been submitted. Those are voluntary conditions. Those are private commitments from Weston Jewelers to Beverly Heights. We stand by all of those. We've also added, um, uh, intend to add a condition, um, Cooley in discussions with Cooley Hammock, they'd like Mr. Dykes to purchase some Cooley Hammock signs. We committed to purchasing two signs for them to install. And, uh, and we, we stand by all of those conditions. They've all been submitted. They were all in conjunction with discussions with the city attorney's office. So the city has those and we agree to all of them. Okay, great. Um, that sounds excellent. Is that city attorney, all that tracking from your side? Okay, fantastic. So that's great. I appreciate the work with the neighborhoods to really, um, you know, attach these conditions and make this, uh, a win-win for everyone, which is what I'm convinced it will be. So we agree completely. Really appreciate that work, that time, that effort. I know it's a lot, but it's, it's really worthwhile. Yeah, we agree. Thank you for that. Um, mayor, that's all I have. Okay. Anyone else wish to, uh, question or comment? I would, if I could. So could you talk a little bit about the parking spaces? So you said you've got a variety of agreements, some ranging from two years, the other to 25 years. Can you give me a breakdown between how many parking spaces are attached to how many years do we have? Do we have that? I don't have that, uh, particular information related to each of them. Can you ballpark it? I mean, so do we have a hundred for two years and four for 25 years? Do we have 25 for 25 years? What's, what's the... They're all varying, uh, concern. Well, for example, the 25-year contract, how many spaces are associated with that? Six. Six. Okay. And what are the other ones? The other ones, uh, they all have rights to renew, but five years was the maximum. So there's 40, there are 40 spaces completely offsite. Then there are 40 spaces in the Moss building. And there are, there are, uh, 40, 40 spaces. I'm sorry, did I say that wrong? It's 40 spaces in the church parking lot, 40 spaces in the Moss building directly across the street, churches, uh, and, and 20 in the Moss, I'm sorry, and 40 completely offsite. And they're all varying. That's why we, we, we are, are, uh, uh, the, um, the general council of Western Jewelers brought the agreements to the city attorney's office so they could read them, but we, we kept them. We did not want, we did not send them out. What, uh, give, so the, the, the church parking spaces, is that a two year term or a five year term? That one was five, I believe that's a, that's the five year, but it's renewable, but not, no, no, believe me, we tried for longer, but none of the people that were granting spaces would just give us that amount of time. They said at the end of five years, you can renew. Okay. So you got definitely 40 spaces for five years. Definitely. And how about 60 actually, because I believe the, was the Moss two? Moss is the same. Moss is also five. Okay. So we got 60, so we got 60 for at least five years. Okay. So I guess my next question then is if at the end of five years, one of these particular locations chooses not to renew, is there an obligation to replace those lost spaces in another lot? So are we required to have 104 spaces in total going forward, irrespective of where they are? I don't care what the lots are. Do we have to have 104 spaces? Well, no, commissioner, we do not have to have it. That was over and above the requirements that allowed for the parking reduction. This is purely supplemental. So what are they required to have? They are required to have, in order to obtain the parking reduction, they are required to have within an area of the building sufficient parking to pursue it to the requirement of the site plan that the parking was available in the area immediately adjacent and around the building. And they met that criteria. This relates to off-site parking for employees and customers, which is supplemental to the requirement. They met the requirement for the site plan related to the parking reduction. This is entirely supplemental to that. So, again, I guess my question is, help me understand, if these go away in five years, what happens? Well, they would say- If they're not renewed in five years? There is no obligation that they have these, other than that they have pledged that they would maintain these. And each of them has a term. They can be renewed or not renewed. And it is not a condition of the site plan. Okay. I'm not comfortable with that. As you know, I think when we talked, this is important for me that we've got an ongoing commitment for parking. We can't just have this for five years and have it go away. You know, we're making a permanent change to the use of the land that's going to impact this neighborhood in perpetuity. I need something a little bit more than we could have a five-year lease and it doesn't renew and now the neighborhood is stuck dealing with parking. So, how do we get around that? What can you offer me that says that you're going to renew and maintain at least some level of parking? Commissioner, we requested 100% parking reduction and that's what we were granted by the Planning and Zoning Board and subsequently at first reading. I fully understand your position, but we can't commit to something that we don't know in the future. We just- You can't commit to replacing parking if it's lost at one location with another location? You can't say that you'll use best efforts to replace it? I can say we'll use best efforts, but I can't commit that we will 100% be able to do that. Well, if you can at least commit to best efforts and put that language in the permit, then I think that's what the commission is looking for. I mean, the only obligation we have here is for six parking spaces for 25 years. You could literally wind up with 100% parking reduction. Just like every other use on Los Olos. Okay. I'm just telling you I would not have supported that in the first place. So. All right. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner, Vice Mayor, we're going to be voting. Okay. Is it Halloween? Did I miss a date? Is it Halloween? Did I miss something? I know. Okay. So we've closed public hearing. The ordinance has been introduced. So please call the roll on OSR 3. In ordinance amending section 47-1.6.B of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida Unified Land Development Regulations through the revision of the official zoning map of the City of Fort Lauderdale and Schedule A revised compilation attached there to them by reference made to park thereof so as to rezone from residential multifamily low-rise medium density district to community business district through the allocation of 0.14 acres of commercial flexibility, lot 1, block 21, Beverly Heights, according to the Platte thereof, recording in Platte Book 1, page 30 of the public records of Broward County, Florida, and the north half of the 10-foot alley vacated by ordinance number 902, dated 2-15-1938, lying between lot 1 and 16 of block 21 of Beverly Heights, according to the Platte thereof, recorded in Platte Book 1, page 30 of the public records of Broward County, Florida, and approval of the associated site plan level 4 development permit for waterway use with landscape yard reduction and a parking reduction for the development of 20,337 square feet of retail use and 11,816 square feet of office use, all said lands being in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Commissioner Glossman? Mazelsov, yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Again, with the understanding that you'll use commercially best, commercially reasonable best efforts to ensure that parking remains at the level at which you're at today. Yes. Mayor, turn on to us. Is that, wait, is that a yes from you? Yes. We will use best efforts, yes. That is a yes on the record. I just confirmed with our city attorney. Okay. All right. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And OSR 3 is now. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and to our neighbors and our supporters, thank you all very much. We are very, very appreciative. Thank you. Thank you. And we appreciate, and we appreciate your family's initiative so much. And we appreciate your family's investment in our community. Thank you. Try to leave quietly if you can. You're certainly welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. We know how enjoyable the meeting has been for you, so we know, I guess, you're leaving. Okay. Mayor. Yes. Who just said that? Oh. Hello. Kristen LaFleur, Beverly Heights. May I ask a question just about the issue that we just passed? Excuse me. Please. Please. Please. Excuse me. Thank you. In the back. Stop talking. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. I just had one question as, first of all, we're really grateful for the team at Weston Jewelers for working with us and helping us address some concerns that our neighbors had in Beverly Heights and the work that, you know, city staff and the city attorney and the city manager have done on this issue. We did have one question just regarding the, that the changing zoning did not set a precedent. I know I had a conversation with the city attorney and if she could just clarify for, you know, the folks at home that how this, this issue, how this change in zoning will not be setting a precedent for other similar changes in our neighborhood. Mayor, I'm happy to answer that if you'd like. Please go ahead. There was a discussion about precedents and I think it was suggested or believed that it worked like case law and it does not in an instance like this. There's no precedent in that each site plan is taken on, on its four corners alone, each and every time based on the criteria for that specific site plan. So what, um, a commission might approve on certain criteria for one site plan, uh, does not mean that, uh, the precise thing would happen in another occasion. So there is not precedence in the way that you were suggesting. Thank you so much for clarifying that and for our folks. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good night. Mr. Katz, don't go too far. You're on, you're up on the next one. You're done? No, I don't want, no, it's okay. You, you signed up for OSR four. That's all. No, that was, that's no. OSR three was what we just discussed. Is there, okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to exclude you. All right. Uh, OSR four second reading quasi judicial ordinance approving a rezoning from heavy commercial light industrial business district to uptown urban village, Southeast district, 500 Northwest 62nd street. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in and the commission will announce any site visits, communications, or extra, expert opinions received and make them a part of the record. Um, uh, commissioner Herbst, do you have any additional disclosures? No additional disclosures. Uh, commissioner, commissioner Beasley Pittman? None. I have none. Uh, commissioner Glassman? None. And vice mayor? None. Okay. Um, no one has signed up to speak. Uh, would someone please move to close public hearing? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley Pittman? Yes. Vice mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor, turn on to us. Yes. And public hearing on OSR 4 is now, uh, uh, closed. Uh, would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. Uh, any questions or comments? There being none, please call the roll. In ordinance, manning, uh, section 47-1.6.B of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Unified Land Development Regulations through the revision of the official zoning map of the city of Fort Lauderdale on Schedule A revised compilation attached thereto, and by reference made a part thereof, so as to rezone from heavy commercial light industrial business district to urban uptown village southeast district, a portion of parcel A 16-6 properties, according to the plot thereof, as recorded in plot book 114, page 3 of the public records of Broward County, Florida, together with a portion of parcel A 16-6-2, according to the plot thereof, as recorded in plot book 148, page 47 of the public records of Broward County, Florida, located north of Northwest 59th Court, east of Power Line Road, west of North Andrews Avenue, and south of West Cypress Creek Road, all said lands being the city of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for defective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Hals? Yes. And OSR-4 is now approved on second reading. OSR-5, on second reading, an ordinance amending the charter of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Article III, Government of City and Form of Government, Sections 3.03, Qualification of Members, Designation of Vice Mayor, Organizational Meeting, et cetera, et cetera. Mayor, if I may set this up for you for your review? Yes. These are, the charter team is back, and we have, I've prepared for you a book that has the each proposed resolution and the backup ordinance as it will be written. You had asked for 10 different charter amendment questions, and they are, that's what each of these ordinances are, and they're included, as I say, in your backup. The, where are you guys? So the balance of these, the balance of these ordinances relate to charter changes, correct? Correct, that's, that's, and that's why I, I jumped in, sir, because the remaining ones are all the various charters, and they're each discrete ordinances, and so you see the varying topics, and we have Paul and Gabby again to answer questions, as your pleasure. Got it. We all clear on that? Yes. Okay. So, would someone like to introduce the ordinance? So we're introducing OSR-5. OSR-5, just five, yep. Yes, introduced. The ordinance have introduced, no one signed up to speak. Any questions? Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, conditioned on the approval of a ballot measure by updating the qualifications for the offices of mayor and city commissioner, providing for the assumption of office at the first regular city commission meeting following certification of an election, providing for the designation of a vice mayor at the city commission's first meeting after all elected officials assume office following a regular, municipal election, and annually thereafter in providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of Scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent-Tollis? Yes. And that was OSR 5, so that's now approved. OSR 6, a second reading, an ordinance amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Article 3, regarding judge of elections and qualification of members. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. Any questions? Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, conditioned on the approval of various ballot measures by specifying the procedure for candidates to submit documentation to the City Clerk for review and removing the City Commission's authority to receive affidavits and make a finding as to whether a candidate violated charter or is unqualified in providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of Scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. And Mayor Charentales? It's not present. Great. OSR 7, ordinance amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Article 3, Government of City and Form of Government, Section 3.12, Special Meetings, how called. No one has signed up to speak for OSR 7. Any discussion from the Commission or none? Would someone like to introduce? Introduced. It's been introduced. City Clerk, call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, condition on the approval of a ballot measure by providing for special meetings of the City Commission to be called upon at least 72 hours notice, except that in the event of an emergency where there is the potential for imminent harm or the ability to lessen or avert a catastrophe. A special meeting of the City Commission may be called upon such notice as is practical under the circumstances of providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. And Mayor Charentales is not present. OSR 7 is passed. OSR 8, second reading, ordinance amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Article 6, Civil Service System, Section 6.04, Civil Service Board, created composition. No one is signed up to speak. Any discussion or comments from the Commission? Introduced. It's been introduced. City Clerk? In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, condition on the approval of a ballot measure by prescribing a method for resolving a tie in nominations to the Civil Service Board nominating committee, modifying the composition of the election board that certifies the results of elections for the classified employee's recommendation for appointment to the Civil Service Board, removing the Civil Service Board's duty to review, consider, and advise the City Manager concerning job class specifications and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. And Mayor Sorensen tells us it's not present. Nope. It's present. And OSR 8 is approved. On to OSR 9. Move it. Move it. See what happens when he's gone. Wait until June 16th. Wait until June 16th. OSR 9, second reading, ordinance amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Article 4, Executive Officers. No one has signed up to speak. Any questions regarding this? Introduced. It's been introduced. Please call the roll. An ordinance to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, condition on the approval of a ballot measure by deleting references to primary elections, removing the requirement of two newspaper publications for public hearings and other types of notice, and distinguishing an interim city manager in the event of the city manager's resignation or termination from an acting city manager during temporary absences of the city manager in providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, and effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. And OSR 9 is now approved. OSR 10. This is the second reading, an ordinance amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Article 8, Public Property. Sale of personal property, sale or lease of city property to public bodies, sale of real property to private parties, leases with government entities or agencies for governmental purposes, and leases for more than one year and not more than 50 years. A couple of people have signed up to speak. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. I'll call your names so you can come up and be aware that you'll be called next. We'll start with Marilyn Mamano, followed by Mary Fertig, followed by Trudy Germanovich. I would like to speak after Mary, if you don't mind. Go ahead. Hi, but you owe me six seconds. Okay. Good evening, Mary Fertig, on behalf of Lauderdale Tomorrow. Over 10 years ago, our grassroots group began meeting over the topic of public lands, and while since then we have often come before you on other topics such as infrastructure, traffic, and water quality, we have continued our efforts to protect and enhance public lands. One of our first efforts was a petition initiative which sought to ensure support for the concept that public lands should be used for a public purpose. It was a great beginning to our long journey here tonight. Along the way, we learned that the topic of protecting and enhancing public lands was a little more complicated than our initial effort, and so we began to study Section 8 of the City Charter to advocate for changes throughout. Last meeting, you supported the concept of unanimous votes on park lands that the citizens fought for so diligently. In 2004, you included a definition of public purpose. You adopted a tiered approach in Section 8.09. There's just one more thing, just add a third tier to Section 8.09 that reads 3C, any agreement including extensions that exceeds 50 years shall be pursuant to a resolution adopted by the affirmative vote of the entire commission. This offers you the flexibility to incorporate extensions while setting a slightly higher threshold for longer leases. With this last sentence in place, we are ready to work with you to advocate for our public lands. As I said, it's been a long journey, and as I hand you the letter tonight from Lauderdale tomorrow, I'm pleased to have signatures from those who began our journey together in 2016, as well as those who have joined our mission along the way. And I'm just going to hand these letters to David. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Marilyn Momono. Good evening, Commissioners. I have no prepared statement tonight. I believe that the letter from Lauderdale tomorrow was illustrative of what we're asking you for and self-explanatory, actually. And I want to just say that I hope that you will put out of your mind the discussion that we had on the park just previous to this. Commissioner Herbst said you could not understand the angst and the passion on that particular subject. And it's historical angst that goes back a long way. And it's not relevant to what we need to do in the future. In the future, we need to change. We need to make improvements. And we believe that these charter changes give you the options and the opportunity to make changes and be flexible and to add amenities to our public parks, and also to enter into agreements with private parties to do things that, in your opinion, are appropriate, even up to 100 years if you wanted to do that. If you felt that a project was so beneficial to the city of Fort Lauderdale that you will commit the residents to a 100-year partnership with a private party, that's your decision to make. And if you want to do that and you think it's important, I think it's important that you would be able to convince five reasonable people that it's such a good deal that you should do it, which is why we're asking you to just raise the threshold of this last piece of the proposal when you're dealing with private properties over 50 years. Just give it that extra level of concern that it has to be reached by a consensus of five reasonable people. So my statement tonight is really about your legacy. This is a legacy moment, ladies and gentlemen, because if you approve this final amendment, this one amendment to up the requirement to a unanimous vote on leases above 50 years, up to 100, 200, I don't care, whatever it is, whatever you think is right. But if you take this opportunity to make this change, you will be able to say to your constituents and any other constituents you might want to influence, and even to the Lord above, that you did the most you could do to protect parks and public land. I urge you to make this one last change on second reading, and then I will give it my entire summer to go around and support these charter amendments that get them passed. Thank you very much. Well, before you go away. Yes, ma'am. Sir. You know, we've had this conversation regarding parks, and I think we're good on that. We're perfect. Right? The thing with public land, the fact that the city chooses to engage in economic development with some of its public land, to ask for unanimous vote is really a tall order. So, for example, in the CRA, do we have to have a unanimous vote if we decide to engage in a project with a private developer there? But I can't answer that specifically because I haven't focused. I can. I can. Well, I understand if that's a problem for you, if you're going to do a CRA project that commits the city to something for over 50 years, up to 100 years or 200 years, yes, I think you should all agree that it's such a good idea that you are going to commit the citizens and future commissions for 100 years. Well, I may think it's a great deal, and Pam may think it's a great deal, but Steve Glassman may be the stickler and say, I don't like it, I'm not voting for it, and I'm done. Because I won't be dead. Because he's an angry pickleballer. I believe it. I'm an angry pickleballer, and he doesn't want it, and now he's going to hold back the entire city because he doesn't want to do it. That's right. And I won't be dead. Well, you know what? We believe that you're all reasonable, intelligent people, and if the project is so super fantastic, the developer and you all will be able to convince each other that this is the way we should go. And this is only for these very, very long-term, complicated projects. Not a CRA, not a water treatment plant, not even the Panthers, for goodness sakes. That's not what we're talking about. You know what we're talking about. We're talking about one-stop shop. We're talking about projects like that. No, I'm talking about other things. I'm talking about repurposing of our Riverwalk garage. Right. I'm talking about... That's not 100 years. Oh, yes, it is. Oh, yes, it is. Are we talking about building towers on it? Can I interrupt here? I just read something there. I probably shouldn't even get into this, but I was reading an op-ed in the paper today by Keith Pollyacoff about the project in another venue. In Hollywood? Yeah. And that was a unanimous vote of the commission. And I'm just going to point out that you think... It was five to two. What are you talking about? That's not what his thing said. It was five to two. Right. Oh, gosh. Okay. It was not unanimous. Right, that example, I told you I shouldn't have used it. But what I'm going to say is I think if you go back to your agendas, and this is what we did, we kind of looked back at some of your projects because you mentioned a concern about extensions and leases. So we went back and looked at some of the things you've done and said, would this be possible to do? And quite frankly, if you wanted to make it 55 years or 60, I think the point is you do not want to go above a certain level without making sure that it is that important. And I think your projects and your CRAs that you're talking about, I think a lot of those projects aren't controversial, and I'm not sure why you're picking those, but maybe I just don't know enough. Well, because you forget some of the situations. I've been on this commission now for 15, 16 years, and... That's true. We remember that. Yeah. And we were here with you most of that time. Yeah. But, Mayor, I want to just bring up a point that you've mentioned. By the way, it used to be just three, and we made it a supermajority, right? So we increased the number from three to four. Bravo. Bravo. It is bravo. And I'll tell you, you said something, and I thought about it for a while because it made me think. You said at one of the discussions that you didn't think that one person should have veto power on these kinds of projects. I do. And I think that makes a lot of sense. I think we found the balance by going from just a majority to a supermajority. I'm thrilled that we did parks, unanimous, five votes, yes. But I'm tending to agree with you on the fact that one person should not be able to have that veto power against the other four. That's all. Okay. And can I just say to that, I thought that was such a good point, and on almost everything, I support a supermajority. But I think sometimes a project is so important that if it's that important, you ought to be able to convince it. And I'm sorry that our person who suggested this is not here, but we had Michael Snyder here, and we were talking in the audience the last time. And he suggested that you might put a referendum in actually as a safeguard against that. So if your whole community, if you have a community that wants something, and you have one commissioner who's standing in the way, you have another option on what to do. It's a unanimous vote or a referendum. These are things you can work out. But if you don't work this out, if you just say that we're getting away with a limit that we've had in our charter forever, and you don't put any kind of a control in there. Mary, let me ask you this. What happens if we left it at supermajority, okay, with the option of a referendum to overturn it? That language would be delightful. Do you ask me? I don't know what would trigger the referendum. Well, wait, wait. I know what would trigger the referendum. We already have language in the charter that talks about referenda and what allows it to go to a public vote. So that's already provided for me in the charter. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that's not it. We could do that all the time. That's not, that's there, okay? That's there, exactly. That's there, but that's not what we're talking about. And I think we shouldn't complicate the thing because we're second reading, okay? We can't redo this. This is it. This is your one opportunity to up the game, to make sure. We did up the game. We went from three to four. And to make the game really spectacular, you should be able to say to yourselves, okay, this is such an important project. We're going out so long on this project that you should be able to convince five reasonable and intelligent people that it's a good idea. That's all we're saying. Okay. This is what we're urging you to do. I understand. Okay. Say this didn't work. Then we've been working for 10 years to get here. Then we'll work with you for 10 years to do whatever. But I kind of would hope that we're seeing a new trend here where we could maybe all get along and have some of these. I expect to come to another Lauderdale tomorrow meeting. Okay. Well, you better watch out. You're going to get invited. And we corrected our errors so that Commissioner Glassman would write. You notice our letterhead is correct now. Yes, I noticed that. So thank you for pointing that out. It is nice. Just think, Mayor, one day we might even be invited to the Idlewild July 4th Parade again. Oh, my God. Can you imagine just one day if we do the right? Well, we're having the parade of the century. She wants to talk. Okay. Trudy wants to talk. But please, please, just this one more thing. And you're going to strike the band right here. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Trudy. Yeah, Trudy Jumanovich wasn't going to say anything until you decided to. Trudy, followed by Barbara Stern here next. I really think that I'm looking at what's happening at the school board because I go to every school board meeting. And I know that the whole public is not very trustful of people. And unfortunately, that bleeds off into other areas. And I think by saying a unanimous vote, you will get the trust. Remember, this has to pass to voters. And like I said with the parks thing, I think these are the two items that should be at the top so people read those and vote yes on them. Because what happens is a lot of times people don't read everything on the ballot and they just start putting no, no, no. And I want the referendum to be passed for the teachers to get money. And I want everything that you want in your charter to be there. But if you don't really take the advice of people that have spent 20 years, 40 years, I don't know how many years you've been coming to these meetings, but Mary and I have been going to school board for a long time. So I know that you really need to think about what the public's like right now, what they're looking at, what the problems they see, and the problems they're having. And we're worried about people voting no on a lot of things because they're hurting. So you've got to make this spectacular. And I think that would make it to my pass. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners, Barbara Stern. I'm here today. I'm not going to repeat everything that you've already heard. I just want to thank Lauderdale tomorrow for all their hard work. But I do want to echo concerns about ballot fatigue. So we're here. We've got a lot of issues that are going to be addressed. I believe at the last commission meeting, there was a comment from Ben wanting to know what the placement would be. He thought it should be placed upon the order that the ordinance have come forward. I would encourage this commission to do it on the order of importance. What is more important, protecting our public lands or cleanup items on when the vice mayor gets designated? So as you go through this, I would encourage you to put these items at the top of the list. Think about what truly is important about protecting our Fort Lauderdale, what makes us a good place, what is going to be most important to the voters, because I want to try to avoid having voter fatigue on some of our most important issues. So thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? Okay. I don't have to close public hearing. No. Okay. So, okay. Who would like to... Has the ordinance been introduced? Yes. Yes. Okay. Any comments or questions? Mayor? Yes, sir. City Attorney, can you... Maybe this is Paul, but remind us where we are with including OSR 11. What is proposed and or currently required to have a unanimous vote? On the... You're talking about the property ones, vice mayor, specifically? Yes. Yes. So... Property and parks, to just refresh us. For the sale of personal property and land that is not park to public bodies, supermajority. Okay. The sale of real property to private entities, supermajority. The lease agreements to private property, supermajorities. The sale, lease, license of parkland, unanimous. Okay. Parkland is unanimous. Right. So, the parkland is the only thing that... The only items that are unanimous. And again, as a reminder, the suggestion that they're making is for what type of property? Just walk us through that again so everyone's clear. Well, my understanding is they would have that... Any lease for the private... To a private entity that exceeds 50 years would also require a unanimous vote. So, currently, we have it... Sale or lease. Correct. And currently, it is 10 years and beyond, and it would require the supermajority. Yeah. So, beyond, including beyond 50. Beyond 50. Right. Of city-owned land. Beyond 50 land. Of public land. Exactly. Not park, but public land. Right. Is supermajority. They're wanting it to be... They're wanting... Right. Right. The parkland is restricted. Parkland is restricted. So, it's non-parkland, city-owned, public property. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. For clarity, you said sale, lease, license? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments? There being none? No, Mayor, I just... Oh, go ahead. Yeah. I'd like to indicate... I think it's probably a good idea if we're going to be thinking about doing 100-year sale... Not sales. If we're going to be thinking about doing 100-year lease or license, it's effectively equivalent to a sale. I think I'm comfortable with the idea that that needs to be a unanimous decision. And the reason I say that is I think it gives us a lot more leverage when we're dealing with a developer to say, you have to get 100% of the commission on board with this. I think it gives us the ability to strike the best deal possible, knowing that they have to get every single commissioner on board with whatever that business proposal is. I think supermajority up to 50 years is more than fine. As an alternative, I think the idea of putting it out for a referendum also works. But I really do think if we're going to go for 100 years, the business case has to be overwhelmingly in favor of the city. And whoever we're dealing with needs to be able to make that case to us. And presumably, they will be able to. Otherwise, I don't think we should be considering it. Well, Commissioner, let me just say this. Sometimes the city is the proponent of the project, not the developer. And that the city is looking to create an economic development opportunity. And we are looking to the private side to be able to participate with us. So it's not like we should expect them to come up with a proposal that's going to convince five people up here that we should support their proposal. Because it's not their proposal. It's our proposal that they are fulfilling. Well, I think it's our concept. So let's use an example. Wait, wait. I wanted to finish. I wanted it to be an interactive sort of conversation. But go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. No, what I was going to say. So for example, if we were to take City Hall, the City Hall site, right? We've got a four-acre site. The dirt's worth somewhere between $75 and $100 million. And we said, you know what? We would like to do a solicited P3. We'd like somebody to come along and do two 50-story towers. We put it out there to the developer community. And we say, bring us your best proposals. And they do that. But they know if we're going to do it for 100 years because they want to build condos, that they have to put together an amazingly good deal. Even though we've solicited it, to your point, right? We put it out there. We're the ones who are inviting the developer community to come and bring us their submittals. They still have to put together an overwhelmingly good business plan to get us to do the 100 years. And if it's not, I don't want a mediocre plan just because we put it out there. That's what I'm saying. I still think if we're going for 100 years, it's effectively a sale of city property. And I think the idea of having something that is a compelling business plan makes sense. And it should be able to convince all five of us that this is in the best interest of the city and that they can't convince five of us that it's probably not a good plan. So my thoughts on it. Thank you. Okay. Mayor, I just want to make one comment. We have these opportunities where it's brought before us and it's more than 50 years. For me, that's a very uncomfortable position. I've experienced in District 3 where 100-year land deeds were pulled back. So my question was, this is before I was in this position, who sat at a table and projected 100 years in the future about the property and how it would be beneficial for a future generation when we haven't even given them an opportunity to have a voice about it in the future? I believe that it's a disservice to our neighbors. I understand what's being presented about the 50 years. We do that. But anything beyond that, I believe is out of our scope. Well, the thing is there are certain laws that are beyond our control. For example, condominium development cannot be built on property unless there is 100 years. So you cannot build condominium property. So if we wanted to go out and solicit a developer to build, say, workforce housing or some kind of housing that makes sense for the city, let's take, for example, the Bahia Mar site. We get a percentage of all sales. And so to that extent, you know, it's 100 years worth of lease time. But the point is that we get a return on investment. It's not like we gave it away. It's not like we sold it. We're actually investing in our own community. So my concern is always, you know, one person on this commission should not hold back the city. And I'm very concerned about that. And I've seen it happen time and again in the years that I've been on here. And I think it's been a disservice to the city from time to time when one person can hold back the whole city. So I do think that we could add language to allow for a referendum to overturn a 401 decision. And if the people of this community are so against a project, then let their voice be heard that way. But honestly, I just am afraid that if we're ever going to be, you know, the kind of forward-thinking, progressive commission and community that we have been so far, you know, I think that we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not realizing or accepting the reality that one person can hold back a very viable project for whatever reason. So, like I said, I can see adding a referendum provision to this, and maybe that's the compromise we could achieve. What do you think about that city attorney? You're suggesting that that is included in the language in the ordinance? Right. That it would remain supermajority, but that it would be subject to? It would be subject to a public referendum? An automatic public referendum? Not an automatic. But we have a referendum process already. We do have a referendum process. So the referendum process would be available. It could be triggered if the referendum process is complied with to overturn the 4-1 decision. Right. But what I'm asking is if we already have that as a process available, what would we be doing differently by inserting it? To deny. Oh, to deny. So we would include that in this language of the ordinance specifically about the denial? Correct. I believe we can do that. Paul, this will be your crafting, and we certainly are able to make an amendment this evening and second reading of the ordinance if we can do that. If you would like to do that, we can do that. Good evening. Paul Bengel, City Attorney's Office. Revisions can be made as long as they don't change the proposed ballot question, is my understanding, because they have to be submitted to the supervisor. But there is a section on referenda for this purpose in 3.20. The only thing is that it addresses any intended sale or lease of property may be approved or rejected by a majority of the electors. So what it wouldn't cover is those other types of agreements, license agreements, concession agreements, facility use agreements, other types of use agreements that's being written in to these sections now. So your existing 3.20 for referendum doesn't address those types of agreements. Right. So we want to augment this particular section to include those other types of agreements. Right. And we would have to amend 3.20, I guess. Or add it, yeah, as Gabby says, add it to the section that we're amending. We can add it to the section, the 8.9 section, and it wouldn't change the title. So that's not a problem. Okay. As long as it doesn't change the title and presumably the proposed ballot question, because that has to go to the SOE. If it's amended, then tonight, even if the question is amended, if we have it rewritten, I can have that translated. Can we do that? Yes, we can do that. Okay. And so we'll put it in that very section. Right. And so it would remain affirmative vote of at least four commissioners, but then add the other section about referendum to the end of that. We're not going to change it. Okay. Does that work? Yep. Commissioner Herbst, does that work for you? Yes, it does. It works for me as well, Mayor. Does it? Okay. It does. Thank you. Because it gives the neighbors an opportunity to have a voice as to what's going to happen with the land. Okay. Any further questions or comments? It works for me too, Mayor, even though you didn't ask me. But thank you anyway. I appreciate it. Okay. The ordinance has been introduced as amended. So, yeah, Vice Mayor, you? Yep. Introduced as amended. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, conditioned on the approval of a ballot measure, simplifying the sale of city-owned personal properties, such as vehicles, furniture, and equipment, and city-owned land other than parks, adding limitations on agreements with private parties for the use of city-owned land, and adding limitations on the sale or lease of city-owned land to other governments, and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent-Tiles? Yes. And OSR 10 is approved as amended on second reading. OSR 11, second reading, ordinance amending the charter regarding disposing of park property. Barbara, Marilyn, you both signed up to speak. Is there anything in addition you want to say? Okay, you're good. Okay. I'm sorry? Okay. Okay. Okay. Someone would like to introduce OSR 11? Introduced. It's been introduced. Any further questions? There being none, please call the roll. I'm sorry. That one's going to be amended as well? No. No. Okay. This one's good. Okay. Thank you. We'll live with that one. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, conditioned on approval of ballot measure by adding a requirement of a unanimous vote of the City Commission for any license agreement, concession agreement, facility use agreement, or other type of use agreement for more than one year for the use of city-owned parkland and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trentels? Yes. And OSR 11 is now approved on second reading. Uh, OSR 12, this is an ordinance submitting the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, um, articles for executive officers by establishing a charter position of the police chief. We have several people sign up to speak, um, Barbara Stern, followed by Carlos Lang, followed by Bernadette Norris Weeks, and then Bertha Henry. Put your mic on. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. Barbara Stern, I'm here tonight to speak in favor of this transition to charter officers for police and fire chief. When we put out a search for a city manager, we looked for someone who had experience in a comparable-sized city. Uh, the population for Miami Beach is about 81,000, and Ms. Williams, when she sent in her letter, explained it as a city with your daily population of over 200,000. So that includes your tourists, your visitors, the people who are actually working in the city. If we applied that to Fort Lauderdale, our population goes from 189,000 to probably 350,000, depending on what time of the year, maybe 500,000. Public safety serves all of them. This is not like an IT department. This is not like our public works. It serves an entire community much larger than the residential population. We have seen politics play out over the years with our, uh, public safety. Public safety is not politics. We need to be able to have voices that can be heard. Voices that can come to the commission, tell you what the true needs are of the department, not something that is going to be skewed because we have to worry about an overall budget or other various issues. We have seen that over the years where information is molded, it's modified, it's manipulated to give us whatever needs to be presented to make it seem like it's all perfect, when maybe it's not because we're not hearing from the voices of the people who run the departments. We are growing so much. We are not that small town city anymore. We are a big city on the move. We need to make sure that we have appropriate people leading those departments, the people with the professional background and experience to be able to come to the commission, be able to speak freely, raise the concerns, and do within the best interest for the city. And I believe moving towards charter officers is the first step in doing that. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Carlos Lang. Good evening, everyone. My name is Carlos Lang. I'm an active firefighter, Croissant Park resident and a board member of the Fort Lauderdale Council of Civic Association. I want to be very direct about this tonight. This is not a routine charter adjustment. This is a fundamental shift of balance of authority between the commission and the city manager. My question is, what's the issue? This is not theory. This is not a general term. This is a specific problem, or has there been a documented failure? This is a demonstration breakdown of city operations that requires a reduction authority of our sitting city manager. I just want to get to the point that, you know, this was brought to the charter review. It was dropped. There was no public input on this. There was no proposal. This was brought two weeks ago. This never went in front of the council. You had items that were from the charter review that were brought up. This was not one of them. Like I said, this was put in two weeks ago. And this does not reflect the process that was clearly put out there. This is a late stage change that was not given to us. So it's a little concerning why you would put this. So I just want to say real quick, too, the council management system exists for a reason. It separates policymaking administration so that professional management is not subject to shifting political pressure. This does the opposite. Whether you intend it or not, this effectively takes away power from the city manager and creates operational influence from elected officials. So, again, my last thing is, what is this problem solving? I don't understand. It seems to me that this leads more towards a strong mayor. And you hired someone to do their job, and you're taking their authority to do it. Thank you. Thank you. Bernadette. No response. Bernadette, followed by Bertha Henry. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for appointing me to the Charter Review Board. It was a pleasure, mostly. And I enjoyed debating the issues, and it's nice to see many of those issues come before you tonight and be approved. But I must say that I'm surprised to see this issue that I am opposed to. There are two issues on your agenda tonight, this one and the very next one, dealing with the fire chief. And not only is it an unusual measure, and I say this from the standpoint of being a city attorney for multiple cities, but it weakens the council manager form of government. The city manager is supposed to manage daily operations. Removing the police chief from the manager's authority creates a major exception for one of the city's largest and most sensitive departments. And not only that, but this position, in addition to the fire chief, it's well over, it's about 60% of your city budget. It's a huge part of the city budget, and it takes away a lot of responsibility. And the question is, why now? It politicizes the police leadership. A police chief who reports directly to elected officials will face pressure from multiple commissioners with differing political priorities instead of operating through one professional administrator, which is what your government and your form of government is set to do. This would take away the city manager's ability to control costs as well. And we know what's happened with the Florida legislature today, with the property tax proposal moving forward to the voters in November. I will tell you that the police departments often involve major expenses, as you all know, including salaries, overtime. Continue. Thank you. Take-home pay, vehicles, staffing levels, equipment, command structure, and special assignments. And all of these things, the police chief would report directly to the commission and it just loses. It's not really practical. It fragments accountability, and I'm going to go through and skip over a lot of parts, but it fragments accountability. Residents need to know who is responsible when something goes wrong. This ordinance creates divided authority. The city manager is still responsible for the budget, but yet the commission would be in control of the police chief, and I think that's going to create a lot of problems for you. It will undermine the professional management that you have here, with the city manager being hired to operate your government. It gives the commission employment and compensation authority over the chief, and so the ordinance says that the chief will be employed and compensated under the terms the commission deems appropriate, which could lead to inconsistent and politically influenced hiring decisions and also compensation decisions. It will make labor and budget negotiations more difficult. If the police chief is outside the manager's control, the city may struggle to present a unified position on staffing, overtime wages, benefits, and operational costs. And it reduces the flexibility during financial stress, and this city has seen that in the past, and I believe that a lot of cities, not knowing what this property tax issue will do, it could very well pass, it's going to be a problem for municipalities. I know that. I see it firsthand in the first seat. And in difficult budget years, the manager must be able to make citywide recommendations. A politically insulated police chief could make it harder to reduce costs or restructure operations. It will increase the liability and risk for the city. I believe that given the issues that we've seen in policing, and I want to say to you all, and I'll wrap up quickly, Mayor, and I won't speak on the next item, which I'm also listed for, because I'll try to get some of those things in now. But some of the things that we've seen consistent with George Floyd issues and policing, I think this city is getting beyond that at this point. The citizens are starting to have trust in the police department again. And I think a lot of that has to do with having a strong leadership in management. And your manager actually has been doing a good job. I don't know of anything that the manager has actually done to change operations of the police department. Maybe I haven't read every article there is, but if you all know of things, please let me know. I think that heading in this direction is really dangerous for the city. I don't think it's a good idea by any means. And I think, again, it's unusual, and you will find very few cities, not just in the state of Florida, but in this country that have this type of government in place. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, could I speak to something that was raised during this? Because I've given it some thought since this came up. And I do think the budget issue is something that merits some discussion on our side. And my thinking with this is that the initial budget should be done by the chiefs in coordination with the city manager. And if the chiefs are unhappy with the city manager's recommendation, that they can then appeal it to the city commission. I think that's no different than what we have right now with the city auditor or the city attorney. So I know when I was a city auditor, I worked with the city manager in terms of proposing my budget. And I did not have absolute control over my budget. So it's not that the city manager and I didn't work together on developing my budget in a collaborative manner. So I think it would probably mirror to some extent what you see at the county level where the county sheriff puts together their budget, they submit it to the county commission. The county commission is the one that has the budget authority over that and then there's an appeal provision to the governor's cabinet. So I think it could work in that same context that the city manager is responsible for the overall budget. I think all of the charter officers, whether it's the clerk's office, the attorney's office, the auditor's office, or these two new public safety positions if they become charter officers have to work with the city manager in coordination to develop the budget. It is the city manager that is charged under the charter with presenting a balanced budget. If at any point they're unhappy with what the city manager proposes for their department, then they could appeal that to us just like any charter officer can. So I don't think there's an impediment there as it relates to budgetary concerns because I've been giving this a lot of thought since our last meeting and I just wanted to kind of bring that up and just get that out there for discussion purposes. Okay. I have other thoughts which I'll bring up later that have to do with residency but I just wanted to address that in the context of what we just heard. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager, City Attorney. Thank you. My name is Bertha Henry and I speak to you today as a 44-year public servant and a 50-year student of public policy. OSR 12 and 13 are major changes to your charter. Major changes to your charter. And if you're going to have a change in your charter of this significance, I really do believe that your charter review committee really needs to go through and vet this thoroughly. I've heard the gentleman that spoke, I've seen these issues many, many times and I will tell you that there are just as many things that I can sit here and have a long conversation about the good and the bad but at the end of the day, you need to have your charter review committee do its job and vet this issue. They have not really done that. That you don't have, in my opinion, everything that you need to be able to make this decision for the long term. You're changing your charter and that should never be done lightly. This says that this item is a second reading. Well, technically it's not. Well, maybe technically it is but the public, this is the first time the public really has an opportunity to speak because when the item came before, it wasn't something that the public knew you were going to even discuss. That would give everybody an opportunity to really talk through the pros and the cons and what this ultimately means for our city. And I say our city. I live in the city of Plantation but I spent most of my working life in the city of Fort Lauderdale. Fort Lauderdale is the center city of our county. And so many people are here day in and day out and feel like they have a vested interest in seeing this city continue to move forward and succeed. So I wanted to offer my thoughts on it. I don't think this is a good idea. You might be able to work through something that maybe works better but it was rushed and when you rush through something like this and you change your charter that means having the voters actually vote on something that hasn't been fully vetted is never really a good idea. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? Okay, there being none. So we'll start with District 1. Commissioner Herbst. Thank you, Mayor. So again, like I said, I've had a lot of time to think about this and explore this conceptually since it was brought up at the last meeting. I continue to think it is worth moving forward. You know, somebody made mention that this is moving in the direction of a strong mayor and candidly, that's exactly how I see it. You know, the mayor has brought up the idea of having a strong mayor. In the past, there hasn't been full support for that. But quite frankly, Fort Lauderdale is at that level where a strong mayor is starting to look reasonable. We're a very big city. We're a complex city. We have a large budget, large number of staff. We're sort of on the cusp of that. We're not quite there yet, but we're approaching it maybe another couple of years. You know, that might be the direction we go in. I see this as sort of a hybrid between the council manager form of government and the strong mayor form of government. One of the things about having these two positions report to the city commission directly is that the elected officials are the ones that are accountable to the voters, not the appointed city manager. We're the ones that get the phone calls. We're the ones that get the emails. And we're the ones who are, at the end of the day, responsible to the 190,000 residents. I've got 45,000 residents in District 1 that expect me to act on their behalf and hold me accountable for that. And public safety, as was mentioned, is probably the single most important thing that we do. And having that direct line of communication, which I can't do under the charter, is very important. Under our charter, I can't tell the chief of police what I want. I have to go through the city manager. And this is not an issue that for me has anything to do with the city manager. We've been through quite a few city managers in the last couple of years. We've had a lot of turnover. I think the idea of having continuity in the chief as they report to the elected officials is something that stabilizes the department and I think is a good thing for the continuity of operations within those departments. So I'm fully supportive of moving this forward. There is one thing I would like to add, though, and it's a residency issue because this has come up in the past. Before you do that, can I have a motion to extend the meeting by, say, 20 minutes? Motion to extend by 20 minutes. Okay. Second. Second. Call the roll. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Please proceed. Thank you, Mayor. So my thoughts are I believe that the police chief and the fire chief need to reside in the city of Fort Lauderdale. And let me tell you why. As former Mayor Seiler said to me years ago, you need to have skin in the game. I want my chief of police shopping in Publix. I want my fire chief taking his kids to play in the park. I want them talking to the neighbors while they're mowing their lawn and walking their dog and going to church. I want them to interact with the residents of this city in every single thing that they do every single day. So I think it's critical that police and fire have that presence in the city. Now, that being said, I also think we need to ensure that there is a mechanism for people that are current employees of the department that may live elsewhere and want to promote up. I don't want to force them to have to sell a house in Plantation or Sunrise and relocate. I don't think that's appropriate. So what we used to have up until recently for promotional positions was you could promote up and we're not required to live in the city. We just recently changed that. But I think that would be appropriate for this as well. And I don't think we need to include that in the charter. I think we can probably do that, Madam Attorney, by ordinance. But I think we need to bifurcate this. I think if anybody moves to the city from outside the city, if you're relocating from Jacksonville or Tennessee, for that matter, then my expectation is you're going to become part of our community. You're going to live here. You're going to reside here. Again, you are going to become part of the fabric of this community. You're going to know your neighbors every single day. So I want us to think about that as being part of how we do this. The city manager by charter has to live in the city. I think the chief of police and the fire chief by charter should have to live in the city unless they are promoted up from within the department already. My thoughts. Thank you. Okay. You don't think Broward County is enough? You want it to be in the city? No, again, Mayor, like I said, the conversations I have with my neighbors when I'm walking my dog throughout the neighborhood are very important. When I go to Publix, I talk to people in Publix. When I go to church, I talk to people at church. When I used to take my dog to the dog park and Holiday Park, I interact with people. Again, as Mayor Seiler said, and I had to agree with him, you've got to have skin in the game. It's not just a matter of living in the county. It's I want you to talk to your neighbors. I want you complaining to me about your water bill. I want you to know every single thing that the residents are calling me about every single day. I want you to know about the potholes on Bayview. I want you to know about every single thing that's going on every single day. One of the things I used to do when I was the auditor is on Saturdays when I was driving down the street and I'd see somebody cutting down a tree, I'd immediately get on the phone and say, did they pull a tree permit? Because we know that people do work on the weekends when code enforcement may not be quite as active. You don't see that if you're living in plantation. Okay. So, my thoughts. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Thank you, Mayor. I do not support this, the process or the lack of process, I'm going to call it. just the urgency. It has not been vetted through the Charter Review Board. It came on as a walk-on. The community hasn't even had an opportunity to truly understand what this entails and how it will be a part if it passes, how it would affect our form of government. So, I'm not in support of it. Okay. Commissioner Blassman. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I guess lightning struck twice today because I'm agreeing with Commissioner Herbst again. I'm buying a lottery ticket twice in a day. So, I feel the same way. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. I know. I understand. Well, I feel that we had the discussion the last time. I'm okay with that and I don't need to belabor the point but I'm going to agree with what Commissioner Herbst said. Thank you. And Vice Mayor? Thanks, Mayor. So, I think, you know, it's important when we're changing, contemplating changing the Charter, we need to follow the process that we've established and it's a long-held process that involves engagement with the Charter Revision Board. They exist for a reason because they are meant to engage publicly in public meetings important topics that change our Constitution, our Charter. I'm still not clear why we aren't willing to allow the Charter Revision Board to engage with this. Mayor, do you have any idea? I'm still fuzzy. Well, because it wouldn't make this election cycle. We'd have to wait until four more years. Yeah. I think public participation matters for a process that we all agree to and we all support. So, we're skipping an entire important process to engage with the Charter Revision Board. Okay. So, that is one major question that I think we're unfairly eliminating public engagement, public participation from. Part of that is the failure to analyze this. Has anyone analyzed, for example, the financial impact of this? Is the City Manager, has anyone evaluated the financial impact of adding two Charter Officers? Vice Mayor, we've done a cursory review of what that might mean for the City. We do know that police and fire are operational departments and between them, it's about 1,300 positions as opposed to the other administrative Charter Offices. which have collectively maybe 40, 50 positions total. This year alone, between police and fire, their budget requests were for 70 positions. So, you know, we haven't done a deep, deep dive as to what it would mean in terms of the budget preparations every year, but based on this year's request and where we are currently with positions, I anticipate that there will have to be a lot of coordination to ensure that we are on a great financial path. Okay, thanks. So, we haven't done a full analysis. I haven't seen any analysis of this in terms of what impact this would have. So, that's one big question that, again, we're not doing our due diligence. Another is, has anyone determined if a chief is fired, what then happens? What happens to their participation in FRS? Retirement. Has anyone done any analysis of this? Anyone on the dais? No? I'm sorry. So, if a chief is fired by the commission, so if we choose to terminate the chief, as opposed to if they're fired by the city manager? Right. No difference. I don't think there's any difference. So, they're not an FRS. So, our police and fire personnel belong to what's called a local law plan. We have a police and fire pension plan that they both belong to. So, if they are terminated and they are over the age of 50, they'll be eligible to start drawing their retirement as long as they meet the other criteria. I believe it's 20 years or eight years in age 50, if I'm just going off the top of my head. So, they'd be eligible to start drawing their retirement. I'm not sure. I think what we would probably wind up doing, they don't have one currently, but once they become charter officers, my expectation is that we would then do a contract for them. Typically, our department heads don't have contracts, so we would put a contract in place which would spell out what severance they may be eligible for should they be terminated. And just while we're talking about it, I'll give you my thought and you all can weigh in on where you think. Since what we're simply doing in the case of our existing chiefs is changing who they report to, it's not changing anything else about their conditions of employment other than that, that we would probably put a contract in place. I don't see any other financial changes. I see this as simply a change in who they report to and nothing more. That's just my feeling on this. Again, the two chiefs were hired and promoted up to their level with an expectation of salary that they accepted at the time. I don't know if they're expecting a salary bump. I'm not suggesting that I would be in favor of giving them one simply because we change who they report to at this point in time. Certainly at a future date, if we're recruiting somebody else, if these folks retire and or otherwise seek to leave their positions or we terminate them, then that's something that we'll have to address at that time, what the competitive marketplace is for a chief. But all of our charter officers are at different pricing levels based on what they do, how many people they have to manage, their scope of responsibility, their qualifications, for example, an attorney, and what you have to have in order to qualify for that position. So I think we would take all of that into consideration when we're setting a salary level to recruit for that position. We would probably look at what is comparative for, say, the county sheriff and all those things. But other than that, like I said, I would expect that we would put a contract in place which would spell out the terms and conditions of employment. So all good ideas and all worthy of discussion. Again, last minute adjustments just seem very short-sighted. Another question is, right now, if a fire police chief is terminated, city manager, there's an allowance for them to remain in the department, right? Forget what that... There is a provision that would allow them to go back to their most recent rank. Right. So for this charter office, if a charter officer is terminated, would that provision exist? Has anyone thought about that on the commission? Or have thoughts on that? Again, another major question it sounds like no one has any ideas of. Mayor, have we thought about that? Or what's... I would think we just follow the practice that's already in place. So allowing a charter officer if they're terminated to stay in the city employment in that same department. Let me back up on that because that's an interesting question because we put that provision in place for Rick Maglione when we promoted him up from the assistant chief to the chief position because he was actually reluctant to take that step up. So I'd have to ask the chiefs, is that a standard agreement or does that happen to be in your particular contracts? Because I don't think that's a requirement. I think that was... I know we put that in place specifically for Chief Maglione back in 2018, 2019 or thereabouts. That did not exist. There was no reversionary rights for a chief up until we specifically put that in place in a contract for him. I think it was just for him. It was just for him. Right. To answer your question, to answer your question, if we fire a police chief or a fire chief, they're done. That's it. Okay. I think Human Resources wants to clarify. So what are the reversionary rights for a chief? Good evening. Kristen Milligan, Deputy Human Resources Director. There is something called retreat rights that's in the ordinances and it does state that if a non-classified employee were to be terminated, that they have the right to retreat to their last classified position. So in this case, whatever the last classified position held, whether it be a major, I don't think assistant chiefs are classified, I would have to check, they would be able to retreat to that position. I would have to defer to the city attorney's office as to whether we would consider a charter officer non-classified for the retreat right purposes. I would think not, but to the point that's being made, there are some things that we should look at, Mayor, on this. I would suspect, though, when you move from, so as I recall, going back to my days of looking at this, that all of these positions, charter officers included, are part of the non-classified service under the charter. So they are. However, I think when we have a contract, the contract supersedes some of that language. If we have a contractual arrangement, then I would believe that that would otherwise supersede that. That would supersede that. When they're a charter officer. Right. They would work in that same fashion with an employment agreement. Right, because in a contract, you can waive certain other provisions that might otherwise be available to you voluntarily by contract. By contract, but we'll correct. That is correct. Okay. So another question to dig into. Another question. I'm a military guy. I've been in the military now almost 19 years. Command and control matters in the military. Command and control matters in emergency situations. So what would be the command and control in when you have public safety or charter officers, city manager? What's the process there? So in a declared emergency, the city manager is the incident commander. Although they're delegated authority provided to certain members of the team, including in police and fire, emergency management definitely has a major role. But the overall direction and authority is with the city manager during a declared emergency. So I believe that... Doesn't the mayor have authority under the declared emergency? It reverts to the mayor. Right. Under the charter. The operational aspects of our emergency response come through the city manager. Of course, the mayor does have a role, but the operational elements go through the city manager. Well, that's not entirely true. That's not entirely true at all. Under... If I declare a state of emergency, all powers are suspended and I'm in charge of the city. That's how we've... I mean, we still have worked through the city manager, but I think by the way the charter reads, so to answer your question, under a state of emergency, a declared state of emergency, it all reverts to whoever the mayor is. Okay. How about emergencies that are not... You know, we have emergencies. They're independent. They make their own decisions. The fire chief makes the decision. The police chief makes the decision, as they do now. No, I think right now there's a chain of command where they make the decisions in collaboration with the city manager through the chain of command. That would change. Well, that's my point. Well, that's not... I mean, that's the point of all of this. The whole point of this is to let them act independently. That's the whole point of this. Yeah. So, the city manager is not involved then in their decision-making. That's correct. Okay. Yeah, that's another reason. It's like the city manager is not involved in the decision of the clerk and the city manager is not involved in decisions of the auditor or the city attorney. They're independent people. They're qualified. They're in charge. Please, they're qualified and, you know, they're in charge of their departments. That's how it works. And, you know, it's interesting. I spoke with a city commissioner in Sunrise today because they have the same system. He says, it works beautifully. He says, we've, they've had it for years and it's just been a very, it's been a very workable situation. In fact, it's preferable. So, I mean, you know, the idea is to establish independent chain of command with them at the head. They're in charge of their own department. You know, I would, I would imagine and I know over the years the city manager has always deferred to the chiefs no matter what. So, you know, I don't, I don't think that would change anything. If anything, please stop mumbling because it's not fair. Please stop mumbling. Anyway, the, I think that the other issue is the, is the level of accountability. As Commissioner Herb said, oftentimes, you know, people come to us regarding police issues or fire issues and we have nothing to do with it. But now we will. Now they report to us and we be able, we have direct accountability to the chief and to the chief of police and to the fire chief. Whereas before, right now, we don't really have anything to do with it. We go to the city manager and hope that the city manager follows through with what, with what we've expected. But, you know, that's the whole idea. Accountability. That's why I've always believed in a strong mayor form of government. Someday, I hope in years ahead that the city adopts a strong mayor form of government because people come to me all the time. Why isn't this done? Why hasn't that been done? Well, it's not my job. My job is to pass the email over to the city manager. But this is a, this allows for greater accountability and efficiency of service. And I think that we're on the right path in trying to accomplish that tonight. But anyway, I didn't mean to... Thanks. No, all good. Next question is a residency requirement. So, if I'm hearing Commissioner Herbst saying that the need to reside in Fort Lauderdale is very important, which I agree with. Um, so, you're emphasizing that, but then saying if you don't live in the city of Fort Lauderdale and you're currently on staff, that's okay. Is that what you're saying? That, that is my suggestion. And the reason I say that is because I don't want to preclude somebody who is worked in the department and working his way up through the department from having the opportunity to promote up and expect them to, to relocate. I, I don't want to limit the ability of existing personnel who may have been with the department for 20 years to, to have a promotional opportunity. Again, this is very similar to what we've historically done with all of our department heads. So, department heads up until just last year had to live in the city under our ordinance code and we just changed that last year. So, we did the same thing where we said if you're an existing department employee and you promote up to department head, you're not required to relocate, but if you are applying for a job with the city and not currently an employee, then yes, we expect you to be a resident of the city. Okay. So then, should we do the same for the city manager? If they're promoted up, same thing. Is that your view? You know, that's actually a very good question. It's something I think we need to think about. I think the city manager needs to live in the city for the same reasons but if we have somebody who's an assistant city manager that lives in Hollywood and we want to promote them, I think that's something that we might want to consider. I'm open to that, sir. Okay. Great. So is that something we want to consider for the charter amendment? Would that have to be a charter amendment, city attorney? That would be a charter amendment. Charter amendment. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, what question? Would changing the residency requirement of the city manager, allowing a city manager who is already a city employee allowed to remain in their residence if they're elevated to the position of city manager? And the charter requires that? The charter requires residency so it would have to be a charter change. Okay. So it would have to be a charter change. Okay. We don't have time to do that. Okay. So, and Commissioner, just so I understand, Commissioner Herbst, you're saying if you're, don't live in the city, but you're part of the fire or police, is it your stipulation that you're sufficiently involved in the community that you don't have to be in the city? Is that your argument? So right now, the only charter officer that is required to live in the city is the city manager. Right. And that's a recognition of the level of engagement that they have with the public and the importance of their function. The city auditor, the city attorney, and the city clerk are not necessarily what I would consider public-facing positions. They have internal clients, not external clients. And so, even though, as a city auditor, by the way, my contract required me to live in the city, and I always did, it was not a charter requirement. Thank you, Paul Bangill, for putting that in there. There he is. He used it when I stuck that in there. And this is actually the issue that came up when I approached former Mayor Seiler about that, and I asked him if we could remove that provision from my contract, and the mayor said, no, I want you to have skin in the game. All right. While we're discussing that, can I have a motion to extend the meeting? Motion to extend by 20 minutes. To what? By 20 minutes. Okay. Second. Then move the seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trentals? And so along those lines, I think it is of primary importance for the chief of police and the fire chief to be residents of the community because of the importance of those functions to the community. So yes, I think they need to be by charter residents of the city of Fort Lauderdale unless they promote up through the department. But again, I'm getting to why is it okay for them to live outside the city if they're promoting up? Because you're saying I don't want to preclude the opportunity for somebody that is an employee of the city who has been with the city by the time they reach chief. They've been with the department for probably 20 years and I don't want to block them from having an opportunity to promote up or otherwise force them to have to sell a house and relocate. I think when you do that you're going to run into a lot of problems in terms of employee morale for promotion and things like that. Basically, you're saying if you work in the department and you want to get promoted you have to go to another city. And I don't want to foreclose somebody the opportunity to promote up within the department if they've been here for decades. I think that would block otherwise very credible candidates who have a long established history with the city who have worked with us for a long period of time who have probably rotated through every, if you're a firefighter probably through every station in the department and have probably served on almost every shift. So they've probably got more experience with the city than almost anybody else has by the time they get to that level. Okay. I think it's, I think we need to be consistent if we're going to value the residency in the city but that's just differing of opinions. Great. I think those are just a few of the questions I have on this. Thank you. It looks like the mayor's left. City attorney, anything else from you or Paul? No, vice mayor. We were just vetting out some of the possible changes. Okay. Great. So, the, let's see, has this been introduced, city clerk? Not yet? It has not. It has not. Okay. So, we're on OSR 12. So, would someone like to introduce this? Introduced. Any further discussion? Hearing none? Hold on a second. Are we, here's the mayor. Mayor, we just introduced OSR 12. OSR 12. Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Herbst, you're introducing him with, excuse me, with a, as amended with the language allowing someone who was appointed from within through the ranks and likewise not having a full amendment. Are we good? Are we done? It's introduced, yeah. Yes, introduced. It's been introduced, but what's been introduced? As amended. As amended. As amended, correct. Okay, very good. Okay. City clerk, please call the roll. In ordinance of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the charter of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, conditioned on the approval of a ballot measure by establishing the charter position of police chief and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of Scrivener's errors and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? No. Vice Mayor Sorensen? No. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Tulles? Yes. And that's approved on second reading. OSR 13, second reading, ordinance amending the charter of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Article 4, executive officers by establishing the charter position of fire chief. Bernadette and Barbara, you both signed up to speak. Did you have any interest in speaking? Okay. Barbara, did you want to speak? Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. I just want to add just a couple points from what was addressed earlier. We keep hearing that there hasn't been any public input on this. We keep hearing it should have been vetted through charter. The charter is, I believe the charter revision committee is like five people and I think 25, maybe 30 people on average show up to Council of Civic Associations. If we consider that vetting, we're failing because we're a city with a population of about 189,000 people and we're leaving it and we do this all the time. We defer to charter revision committee and we defer to the council and as a small percentage of the people, this is something that's going out to vote. It's going to get the public input. The public will decide if this happens and the registered voters in Fort Lauderdale, 136,265 people. That's who's going to make this decision, not the five people on charter revision, not the 25 people who show up at the Council of Civic Associations. All we're doing is asking, put it out to the people. With that number, you'll get public input from 136,265 people. And if they disagree, they disagree. But at least the public will actually have a chance to have some input on a major decision. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? There being none, don't go too far, Commissioner. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance? The ordinance has been introduced. Yes, same amendment. Same amendment. Same language regarding residency. So introduce this amendment with the residency language. Okay. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida amending the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida conditioned on the approval of a ballot measure by establishing the charter position of Fire Chief and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scrivener's errors and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? No. Vice Mayor Sorensen? No. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trent Tulles? Yes. And OSR 13 is now approved on second reading. R5, the resolution calling for a special election for all the charter amendments. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution and City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida calling a special election be held in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida on November 3, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida for their approval or disapproval various proposals to amend the charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, providing for severability, rescission of conflicting resolution provisions at an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trentiles? Yes. And R5 is now approved. We have two walk-on resolutions. The first resolution is a resolution calling for the time of the conference meeting on June 16, 2026 to be moved from 1.30 to 1 p.m. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. It's been introduced. Any questions? Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida rescheduling the June 16, 2026 conference meeting of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida from June 16, 2026 at 1.30 p.m. to June 16, 2026 at 1 p.m. and providing for publication rescission of conflicting resolution provisions at an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. With the reminder that we will be cottage of the time and have great time management. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trontals? Yes. The next ordinance is a walk-on resolution. Excuse me. The next item is an ordinance, not a resolution, changing the meeting date of the City Commission conference meetings thereafter from 1.30 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. and someone please introduce the ordinance. Introduce. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Section 2-26 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, by changing the commencement time of City Commission meetings from 1.30 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. and providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Mayor Trontals? Yes. And that walk-on resolution is now approved. City Manager, is there any further business to the Commission? Nothing further. City Attorney? No, Mayor. Anybody from the Commission have any further comments or matters before the Commission? There being none, meeting adjourned.