City Commission Regular Meeting on 2026-07-02 6:00 PM - Jul 02, 2026

Okay, good evening, everybody, and welcome to the City Commission meeting this July 2nd, 2026. This will be our last meeting before our summer break, so we have a lot to talk about tonight. And a lot of good things are happening, so we're very excited. I just want to remind everybody that tomorrow, the, excuse me, on Saturday, the city, not tomorrow, on Saturday, the city will be celebrating the 4th of July, and it will take place on Fort Lauderdale Beach near Las Solas Boulevard. We'll have funding games for families and kids starting from 12 noon into the evening, and our concert will begin at 7.30, and fireworks will begin when it gets dark, probably like 8.30, quarter to 9. We'll have fireworks and, for the first time in our history, a drone show, so we can save the ears on our animals and those who are sensitive to noise. So we're very excited about that, hoping everyone from the community can join us on Saturday, again, beginning at 12 on the beach and going throughout the day into the evening. So having said that, for those of you who are here for the first time, thank you and welcome to our City Commission meeting. We begin our meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance. So tonight, we get to ask Shawna Roberts and Zuri and Zoe Williams. Where are you, folks? Where are you? Where? Oh, they're there already? Oh, okay. May I ask you all to please rise? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the plough of which it stands, one nation, under God, and the visible, and liberty and justice for all. Beautiful. Thank you so much for doing it. Join us on Saturday on the beach to see the fireworks and the drone show. All righty. Thank you so much. Mom? Yeah? Turn around. Yeah. There you go back. Teach them young. Okay. So tonight, I would like you to all join me in a moment of silence. And in that moment, I'd like you to express your prayers and your thoughts on behalf of those who have passed away. This past week, an icon of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Dottie Mancini, passed away. And very sad to see her go. Yeah, she passed away. Yeah. Oh, I thought you knew. Oh, no. Okay. And also, we found out this week that Chrissy Everett, our Florida star, her cancer has returned. So please share in our prayers and hoping that she enjoys a quick recovery from that. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me. Mayor, can I say something before? Yeah, please. Yeah, yeah. Just to stay in a positive mode, this is just something I do. When we are giving good thoughts for individuals, I never say their cancer came back, the cancer, because we don't own that that invades our bodies. So just a word for all of us when we're thinking positive about anyone going through something, don't claim that disease or situation. For them, it is just a situation. Okay. I'm sorry. I just wanted to say that. It's okay. I appreciate you. Let's hope I never have to say it again. Yes, exactly. But it makes a difference. Words matter, right? Yeah, I agree. So at this time, I also want to announce some retirements of long-term employees. First of all, we have Sariman, I know I'm going to butcher your name, Sariman Simelis. She's been a, Sariman has been a facilities worker in our Parks and Maintenance Department and has been with us for 20 years. So congratulations. Thank you so much for your service. And normally 20 years is our cutoff date when we take this moment to thank long-term workers. But we're going to make a special exception tonight because we're also going to announce the retirement of George Hruska, who has been in development services for a mere 19 years. But everybody knows George, and everybody knows what an amazing angel he has been in our community. So thank you, George. And he'll be working with us until September, and there'll be a retirement party for him in the next few days. But I just want to express the city's thoughts and thanks on behalf of everybody in the community for his retirement. So thank you so much, George. So having said all that, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Here. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Present. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Here. Mary Trinthals. Here. Thank you. So we have a couple of agenda announcements. There's going to be one walk-on resolution regarding the city manager. And then there's an agenda item revision, CR1, corrections were made to pages 17, 18, and 21 of the CAM. M8, corrections were made to the resource impact section, shown on pages 9, 10 of the CAM. And M9, corrections were made to the resource impact section, shown on page 22 of the CAM. So would someone please move to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and the current agenda as amended? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Mayor Trinthals. Yes. And the minutes and the agenda as amended are now approved. We have two presentations tonight. City of Fort Lauderdale recognizes individuals, organizations, or events, and takes this moment. And tonight we have two presentations. The first one regarding employer support of the Guard and Reserve to present the U.S. Department of Defense's Seven Seals Award to the city of Fort Lauderdale. And the incoming chair and retired United States Army Sergeant Major Ken Judy. And accompanied by the ESGR volunteers Rebecca and Peter Kaspari. Want to please join us? There you are at the podium. Good evening. Push the button at the bottom of the speaker. Great. All right. Mayor, I'm going to invite you down in just a couple seconds, but I did prepare some short remarks. Good evening, Mayor Trinthals, commissioners, and city manager and distinguished guests. My name is Kenneth Jude, and I have the privilege of serving as the incoming Florida chair for the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, also known as ESGR, a Department of Defense program that promotes cooperation and understanding between civilian employers and members of the National Guard and Reserve. As a retired United States Army Sergeant Major, I understand firsthand the importance of community support for those who serve in our National Guard and Reserve forces. It's an honor to be here this evening to present the Seven Seals Award to the city of Fort Lauderdale. The Seven Seals Award is the broadest and most inclusive recognition presented by ESGR. It recognizes organizations and community leaders who support significantly benefits members of the National Guard and Reserve, veterans, and military families. The award symbolizes a commitment to those who serve and to the partnerships that help make military service possible. Our National Guard and Reserve members occupy a unique role in our nation's defense. They balance civilian careers, family responsibilities, and military service while standing ready to respond to national disasters, national emergencies, and overseas deployments. Their ability to answer that call depends greatly on the support they receive from employers, community leaders, and local governments. When a community demonstrates support for Guard and Reserve service members, it strengthens military readiness and reinforces the bond between those who serve and the communities they protect. The city of Fort Lauderdale has demonstrated commitment through its support of service members, veterans, and military families. This recognition reflects the city's understanding that supporting those who serve is not only an investment in individuals and families, but also in the strength, resilience, and security of our nation. On behalf of the Department of Defense and ESGR, I want to thank the mayor, commissioners, city leadership, and employees for their continued support for our military community. Your leadership helps ensure that members of our National Guard and Reserve can continue serving our nation while remaining connected to the communities they call home. It is now my distinct honor to present the Seven Seals Award to the City of Fort Lauderdale. Congratulations, and thank you for standing with those who serve our nation. Mayor, if you can join me up here, I'd appreciate it. Great, thank you. And I'd like the members of the commission to come and join us. Over here. Sunshine. How you doing? So the seven seals, for those of you who don't know what the seven seals are, these are the coat of arms, the seals of each branch of our armed forces, and we'll put this proudly in our office, so thank you so much. Okay, that was very nice. Thank you so much. And we appreciate the men and women of our armed services, and of course, the vice mayor is a reservist in the Navy, so we thank you for your service. Thank you for all the members. Anyone else who's a veteran here in our communities, please stand up so we can recognize you. Anyone in the audience? Please stand up. Again, thank you for your service. Now, I'd like to invite the vice mayor to present a proclamation regarding July 2026 as Park and Recreation Month here in the city of Fort Lauderdale, and if the Parks and Recreation Department Director, Carl Williams, and the department's management team, if they can please join him at the podium. Thank you, Mayor. And Parks and Rec Advisory Board Chair Joy Oglesby, you here? Come on up. Is she not here? Okay. Okay. Great. Well, this is your excellent Parks and Rec team. So, in recognition of Parks and Rec Month, whereas Parks and Recreation plays an essential role in enhancing the quality of life for residents and visitors and communities across the nation, and whereas Parks and Rec promotes health and wellness for residents, and to reflect this commitment, the city has earned national accreditation from the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreational Agencies, and whereas the Parks and Recreation Department encourages time spent in nature through programs like the city's Circle of Life Experience at Snyder Park, which is great, offering monthly nature tours and children's activities, and Club 55 Plus, supporting 800 members with social and wellness opportunities, whereas Parks and Rec promotes active lifestyles through sports leagues, four-lateral dive team at the iconic aquatic center, where a total of four world records were set over the last year, and whereas Parks and Rec supports childhood development by serving more than 53,000 snacks, 61,000 meals through the summer program, enrolling 478 children in the play after-school program, and whereas Parks and Rec are vital to the infrastructure of our community, in 2018, four-lateral voters approved a $200 million parks bond to fund improvements across 90 neighborhood parks, which are all underway and progressing, and whereas the city of four-lateral recognizes the many benefits of Parks and Rec that they provide to over 960 acres of beach and parkland that protects natural resources, strengthens community connections, and creates lasting opportunities for residents. Therefore, we as city commissioners of the city of Fort Lauderdale proclaim July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month in the city of Fort Lauderdale, dated this day, the 2nd of July, signed by your Mayor, Dean J. Trantellis. Carl, I'll turn it over to you. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Carl Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. This is a truly special month for us and our field. You know, Parks and Recreation provides so much joy to families and outings that we provide and experiences because that's what we provide our neighbors and our citizens. So I do have a brief synopsis here, but before I actually start, I would like to recognize several of our outstanding leadership team here, and they are, and if you can just kind of wave, Dr. Nancy Gassman, Amy Jean-Baptiste, Enrique Sanchez, Glenn Hadwin, Judy Erickson, Laura Vogt, Viona Asamoah, Susan Riester, Mark Almey, and Kim Pearson. So this acknowledgement reflects the work of an extraordinary team that serves our neighborhood every day. Our parks, programs, and public spaces strengthen this city. They support the health and wellness, create safe spaces for play, build community, and improve the quality of life for all those who call Fort Lauderdale home. I want to express my sincere appreciation to our team, which is represented with some here today, seasonal employees that we also help provide the services that we do. It's our commitment to keeping our parks welcoming, vibrant, and maintained. Their work often happens behind the scenes, but its impact is felt throughout every neighborhood. Thank you for this recognition and your continued support, and we look forward to celebrating Parks and Recreation Month all month this month. Thank you. Sorry, I missed one person by mistake. Rob Dexter. Want us to stand? You're going to have to hold that phone up higher. You've got to hold it up higher. There you go. Very nice. He's all right. What's he doing here? He's Ben Rogers. He's everywhere. He's everywhere. He's everywhere. Okay. So thank you very much, and thank you, folks, and all the great work you do throughout the year. I think it's Parks and Rec every day. There's so many great things happening in our city. So we have a walk-on item, which I'd like to bring up now, if I could. This is a matter. Last Sunday, I got a phone call from a good friend of mine, Gene Pettis. He's an attorney here in town, and he called to say he needed to talk to me about something that's very important. So I said, well, what is it? And he said, no, I have to meet you in person. So on Tuesday morning, Gene and I met, and we sat down, and he said, well, I'm just here to tell you that your city manager wants to conclude her work here in the city. And it came as a surprise to me that she wanted to leave the city. And so anyway, since then, we received a request by the city manager for the terms that she would like us to conclude her employment with. And in the backup to the agenda item, you'll see a mutual separation and first amendment to the city manager's employment agreement, which constitutes the terms and conditions that she submitted to our city attorney, who in turn put this together for us. And we're here to discuss it and to determine if these terms are agreeable to the commission and something we will now vote on. Mayor, I'm sorry if I can interrupt you. Yeah, go ahead. I'm accustomed to the walk-ons being at the end of the meeting, and I would like to see it remain there. That would give opportunity for our city manager to conduct business as we are accustomed to and not throw off the rhythm for our meeting tonight. I don't think that would be a direction we should go in. Okay. Well, it's up to the commission. I just thought I'd bring it up because I know there are a number of people who are here regarding this, and I didn't want them to have to wait until the very end of the meeting. I thought it would be disrespectful to have them wait if this meeting lasts, you know, very, very late. I didn't want them to have to wait very, very late. But it's up to the commission what they would like me to do. Commission, do you want it brought up now? Do you want it brought up later? Anyone have an opinion one way or the other? I'm fine with taking it now. Okay. Commissioner Glassman? Well, I understand what Commissioner Beasley-Pittman is saying. I'm really fine either way. Thank you. Well, I need an opinion, if not in either way. Yes. Okay, so let's do it now. Okay. Commissioner, Vice Mayor? I'm fine to wait until later. All right. Well, the majority want to move forward with it now, so let's do that. So all of you have seen the terms and conditions that have been presented by the city manager. Raquel, is there anything you want to add to this or comment on it to explain anything that you feel might need further explanation with regard to the terms that are here? It's a seven-page document. I think it might be best for the city attorney to outline any terms, but I would like to start by saying thank you to Mayor Trantalis, Vice Mayor Sorensen, Commissioner Glassman, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, Commissioner Herbst, for the tremendous opportunity to serve the residents of the city of Fort Lauderdale. So it has been a true pleasure and privilege. I also want to thank the dedicated members of city staff who have embraced my leadership approach in pushing for integrity and delivering excellence and raising the bar. So I want to thank each and every one of them for their service during my tenure. I have seen nothing but great people who are dedicated and hardworking. I also want to thank the members of our community who have been very supportive over the past several months. I truly appreciate the opportunity to engage with you, all of the association meetings, all the city events. Every opportunity that I've had to engage has been very positive, and I think that my time with the city of Fort Lauderdale has allowed the organization to advance even further and to build on its success, and I am forever grateful. Thank you. All right. All right. Thank you. Okay, does anyone on the commission have any questions or comments with regard to any of the terms of this agreement? I don't know how much time you've had to look at it. Not a lot. I'm sorry? Not a lot, but that's okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. So much of it reflects the terminology that was in her original employment agreement. It's just it's now just been incorporated in a separation agreement. Pardon me, Mayor. Would you like me to give an outline of the material terms? Yeah, I was just going to pass it off to you. Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Commission. The material terms to this agreement are that this is a mutual separation, and the manager will have 60 days notice and be paid through the notice period. She will immediately cease her manager duties and turn in city equipment. She will be entitled to 20 weeks severance, which is the maximum amount allowed under Florida law. She will then be on unpaid administrative leave from September through December and be available as needed to assist with the transition with the new or interim city manager. By the end of the unpaid leave period, which is December 1st, she will be paid her severance, all accrued, vacation, and sick time, and sick leave, and any other benefits to which she is entitled. Those are the material terms. Okay. Raquel, are there any other modifications or additions that you feel you want to make to this? No modifications to what is before you. Okay. So this contains all the terms and conditions that you requested? I'm satisfied with the terms as proposed. Okay. Mayor, if I could ask just one question of the city attorney, and again, I apologize because I just read this very quickly. So on number four, unpaid leave of absence, it says, in the event the manager is engaged by city to perform work during the unpaid leave period, she will be compensated for such work time at the hourly rate equal to her then-applicable aggregate-based salary on the effective date of this agreement. So who actually would make that decision? Is that a commission decision to hire the city manager to engage her to perform work, or is that the decision of the interim or subsequent city manager? That is correct, Commissioner. The contemplation is that the manager would be available to assist an interim city manager in the transition and in any other way he or she would need, and that person would contact her exclusively. Okay. So that would be the interim manager's decision? That's correct. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Yeah. Mayor, so is there going to be public comment now, public participation? Yeah. I have one person who signed up to speak, so I will allow that person to speak, but I want to first give the commission an opportunity to make any comments or questions with regard to this. Sure, so I don't know if everyone knew about this, so I think we've got to give a chance for folks to, you know, participate. We are giving them a chance to participate. Okay. So one person to sign up to speak. Anyone else have any comments or questions from the commission? Comments now? Yeah, yeah. Okay. I don't know if you want to wait until after. Well, we can wait. There's one person. Vanessa Apotheker. Is Vanessa still here? Okay. Mayor, it's my understanding that there's an overflow room that has been opened up, so I'm not sure. But only one person to sign up to speak. I'm just mentioning that I don't know if that speaker is in that overflow room. Oh, she is in the overflow room. So can someone go to the overflow room and try to? Oh, they are? Okay. I can't hear. Beverly Chambers. Beverly Chambers. No. I have one person who signed up to speak. I can't hear. Vanessa Apotheker. In the meantime, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, if you want to say something now? Yes, I do. When I got notification that this would be the direction of our meeting tonight, I did prepare a statement that I wanted to share. First, I want to say to you, City Manager, thank you for accepting a position here at the city. You were what we were looking for, someone who would come with integrity, be willing to give transparency, and to give 100%. I applaud you, even from your contract that you initially put into place with the city. You came with intentions for longevity. Everything in your contract had opportunity for a relationship that would have been long-term. Unfortunately, there are some things that transpired that changed that. But even through that, from May, I believe it was when the conversation, in my opinion, shift, you remained the person of integrity. You continued to represent this city without any remorse, without any, I would say, any backbiting. You stood as a person who represented this city with all of your heart. You, 100%, you know, I watched you balance this position as a wife, as a mother, with young ones. And you were there when sometimes we were not there. So I want to thank you for that. But for my documented statement that I have here, I have, it is my view that Manager Williams elevated Fort Lauderdale at a higher level of business, the next level of business, more professional, more transparent, and with more respect. I felt it in the room. I saw it through our neighbors, and I saw it on many occasions. From her elevation and her experience, I want to share some of her highlights of what she did bring to our city. In regards to labor and stability, public safety and investment, she led negotiations that has brought the Fort Lauderdale Professional Firefighters, IAFL, Local 765, into a contract that would be eradicated, something that we hadn't seen in the city for a period of time. And they're prepared to take that negotiation for their contract before their body. Also, I saw her streamline public safety overtime that was, by partnering with our Fort Lauderdale Police Department, along with the Office of Management of Budget, cutting overtime at a percent of 20%, or equaling $1.2 million. I'm proud to see the recruitment and the graduation of the largest fire rescue class since 1999, which included 35 firefighters. And that is an investment into our safety and the future of our safety. In regards to neighborhood enhancement, I appreciate the implementation of enhancement for our preparation for hurricane season. Before Ms. Williams got here, I had a conversation and said it several times about being proactive preparing for our hurricane season. And with that, she came in and put into place an opportunity for our neighbors to receive pre-filled sandbags before the storm. Right now, in the middle of our hurricane season, once a month, you're able to go and get those free bags that are prepared for our neighbors. Last year, the city provided 4,400 pre-filled sandbags for our neighbors, eliminating the need for residents to fill them themselves and then stand in the line once a hurricane watch was declared. Being physical, responsible, and innovative, I've watched her reduce the city personnel budget, gross from $8.1 to $7.5. Also, there was a decrease of $5.8 that's coming up in our fiscal year, that's projected for fiscal year 27. Also, we are on track for revenue to be generated in the amount of $2.6 million. That's new revenue without raising property taxes. Four, in regards to professional culture, I want to thank you personally for your early mornings, your late nights, and those 10-day work weeks. Thank you for ensuring agendas were posted online timely. Thank you for creating and maintaining a professional atmosphere within the city of Fort Lauderdale. City Manager, for the last 15 months, you challenged complacency and you delivered results. I am grateful for your service to our city. I wish you well, God bless you, and I know there's much more for you and your career. The next city that picks you up, bravo. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Vanessa, followed by Beverly Chambers, followed by Barbie Pearson. Hi, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Raquel, City Manager. I have not anything prepared because this was very last minute, and there's like 40 people in an overflow room right now, so that's why I wasn't able to get it. As the District 4 rep for the council of Fort Lauderdale, I've heard so many positive things about your leadership, and I'm here as the Tarpon River president and the D4 rep for the council just wanting to express to you all of the positive things I've heard about you and all of the support we've been so happy and appreciative of from you, your role model, to myself, my daughters. I'm just here to show our love for you and our support, and we will miss you so much, and I think that's it. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is Beverly Chambers here? If you could press the bottom of the speaker, the bottom of the speaker where it says, yeah, there you go. One, two, one, two, my check. You're good. You're good. Two minutes. Okay. I thought it was three. Two. There you go. Come on. Miss Williams, I love you. You have excelled way beyond most expectations. I had a whole different thing that I wanted to say to you, but I'm going to just come off the cuff. Please do not believe that everybody, as you know, does not feel the same way as the people that put you in this position today. Because I believe you had to make a very intelligent decision as to whether you were going to do your job, and you were doing it and doing it well, or sacrifice your family. Your family comes first, so I understand your decision. I understand you got pushed against the wall, and you didn't even fight because you have that spirit of humility. You are an anointed woman. You are a woman of God. Don't let the evil fool you and make you believe that this position that you're leaving today because of the decisions to keep your family healthy will stop you. You have so many people that will encourage you. You need to be encouraged. Keep up the good work. I love you, and please, by all means, please remember, you have an anointing. Don't ever let nobody try to take that away from you. They can slow you down, but they cannot stop you. All they can do is slow you down. To God be the glory and the best wishes and praise for you and your family. You are awesome. Is Barbie here? Oh, Barbie, hey. And followed by Tina DeMarco. Does anyone else wish to speak? Okay. Tina would be the last person. Did you sign up? Yeah, you need to sign up. Go. You have to go right at the front desk. At the front desk. Hi, Rooka. Um, everybody on the dais and everything, and Raquel, I want to thank you for being here in Fort Lauderdale and helping guide us through. You were really special. I don't know what to say. I just, we're going to miss you. You worked so hard to get us all on track, and you worked with everybody, and you're a special lady. And I wish you the best. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Tina, Tina DeMarco. Good evening. Good evening. I just found out about this two hours ago. I want to read something to Raquel from the residents. I know we don't get a vote on this, but as one resident in this city, one of the thousands you've served, I'm saying it anyway, I do not accept your resignation. Not because you owe us more. You've given plenty. I'm saying it because the city is losing exactly the kind of public servant it claims it wants. Steady professionalism. Focused on work instead of the noise. Earlier this year, when it mattered, the civic associations of this city stood up for you. Not out of politics, but out of respect for how you do the job. That respect hasn't gone anywhere. If anything, it's grown. I won't pretend the last few months have not been ugly. They have. But it's always the darkest before the dawn. And the dawn doesn't come for the people who walk away in the dark. It comes for the ones who hold on a little longer. That seems reasonable. True leaders aren't made in the easy stretches. They're forged in exactly the kind of storm you've been standing in. We fall. We get up. The whole story of anyone worth remembering. So, it is my ask and some other residents, and I know it's a big one, to reconsider. Not for the commission. Not for the city hall. But for the neighborhoods. For the people that don't have a seat on the Dallas and every decision that's made. You've done more support out there than the loudest voices would have you believe. Just one second. And if your decision is final, if it really is goodbye, then know you leave with the gratitude of presidents who saw what you carried and how you carried it. But I hope this isn't the end. Thank you. Thank you. Amanda. Amanda Wilson. Thank you very much. I wasn't prepared to speak this evening. I wasn't sure this was even happening. But I know from my own personal experience how much that you've even helped the affordable housing city of Fort Lauderdale. And I've heard so many wonderful things about you from HOAs and other people. And now I'm a little confused because you come with such a great reputation. And how many city managers have we had in the last seven years? I mean, it's been an open door policy. And now I'm starting to think, jeez, is there a problem with the commissioners and the mayor? You know? Well, I mean, I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. But I think this is a really sad day. And all I can do is wish you the best. And I think all the voters out there, you have to think of who you're putting on the commission, who you're making mayor. And maybe it's time for a change. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak on this item? There appears to be nobody else. So someone would like to – so the request here, as I read this, is the city manager would like this to be effective tomorrow. And so whoever makes the motion, I just want everyone to understand that that's a request. And we also have to determine who the interim or acting city manager is going to be. And we'll do that in a separate item. So do I hear you? Mayor, I have some comments. Yeah. Thank you. City manager, this is a sad day. It's a sad day for the city of Fort Lauderdale. You have acted with – you've acted with excellence. You've driven an effective budgetary process. You have done an incredible job of navigating through complex union negotiations. You have done a fantastic job realigning the city organization, department, staffing. You've done that all with grit and dedication. We, as a city commission, have not supported you as we have should. Sad. Not only have you led with excellence, but your family worked right alongside you. I know your husband, Fionn, is here. Thank you for your commitment to this and your children's having to support a mom who works long hours in dedication to the city of Fort Lauderdale. Every day, and I've seen it, you get up, and you work to fight for the residents of Fort Lauderdale. And you drive a tough bargain, and you seek the best for our city. And I am so grateful for that. I'm grateful for all you've done for so many neighborhood leaders across the city, across all the districts, regularly. Come up to me and say, hey, the city manager is doing a fantastic job. She's coming out. She's supporting us. She's hearing us. So you don't just talk it. You walk it. This is going to be a loss for the city. It's going to be a loss for us on the commission. And a loss, most importantly, for all the people in the city of Fort Lauderdale. So I thank you for all you've done, and I wish you all the best. And I am so thankful especially to all those who have supported you and seen the vision and the ability that you have. And I'm appreciative of that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Mayor, I would, but I'd like to just say a few words also. Oh, go ahead. So thank you. I appreciate it. I want to echo that thank you. You know, Raquel, and I want to make sure that folks understand that are watching this meeting, because I was getting a lot of text messages this afternoon from people that were telling me that we were terminating the city manager. And that's just not what is happening right now. When the city manager did call me Tuesday evening, I expressed to her that I was surprised that she was giving me this information, that she was telling me what her plans were going to be. And as I said to her that evening, I was surprised because I really did think that we were turning the corner. We had some issues, but we were turning. So that did surprise me when she called, and I'm assuming that she spoke to everyone that evening or that day. So I just want to also wish you the very best. I will always remember our conversations. I will always remember the fact that we had pretty much open-door policy. We've been very honest with each other, and I just want to wish you and your family all the very best, and thank you. This is not an easy job, but I do want to thank you for your service. It's meant a lot. And for those folks that didn't have a chance, I just basically read this myself very quickly, because we just really received this before the meeting today. This is, I think, in terms of looking at a separation agreement, because you did have a contract a little over a year ago where everything was spelled out in terms of what would happen if you were terminated, what would happen if you resigned. And I'm very happy to say that when I look at this separation agreement, I think this is as good as possible because it really, in terms of your contract, looks at it almost as if you did not voluntarily resign, because the terms are much better for you. And I'm happy that we were able to be that generous. You know, this is a time when we are looking to almost try and save the taxpayer, nickels and dimes everywhere, even this afternoon. Commissioner Herbst talked about being frugal by nature and making sure that we're financially prudent when we consider the choices for our residents and our taxpayers. That aside, I think that we treated you with this separation agreement. I think really well for you, and I'm happy to see that because I think it shows that appreciation for the work that was done. I think it also shows the respect for you because these are good terms. I think these are generous terms that enable you to continue with the city in the capacity as stated in the agreement. So I just want to say thank you, and I'm glad that we could be as giving as this separation agreement calls for. So thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak? Thank you, Commissioner Glassman. Anyone else wish to speak on this, on the commission? Okay. I need two things. I need someone to introduce the resolution, and I need to ask in that resolution what would be the day that this takes effect. Isn't that an articulated, Mayor, in the agreement, the date this takes effect? Say it again? Isn't that included? City attorney, isn't that included in the? It's a suggested date. It is, but you're free due. And the suggested date, city attorney? July the 3rd, tomorrow. Is tomorrow. Okay. I'm happy to introduce the motion with the suggested date. Okay. So the resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, city commissioner of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving a mutual separation agreement and first amendment to the employment agreement between the city of Fort Lauderdale and city manager, Raquel Williams, authorizing the mayor to execute the separation agreement on behalf of the city, providing for an effective date, and providing for related matters. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Standing in agreement with what the city manager has requested. Yes. Vice mayor Sorensen? No. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor, turn to us. Yes. And that resolution is now approved. So we'll continue until midnight. I'll try to make the meeting go before midnight. Raquel, thank you for everything. We appreciate all the work that you did on behalf of the city. You set an example for a lot of people in the city, and we thank you for that. I know it was your decision to move on, but I know there are a lot of reasons for it, and we don't really need to go into all those. I know many of them were personal, and I do think that you brought a lot of good people with you, and you've helped move the city forward. So that resolution is now approved. So, Mayor, if I could, I would just like to say thank you as well, Raquel. You and I have had a lot of opportunities to chat about this, and I know that this is the right move for you and your family. This has been a tough couple of months, and I don't envy you. I've always said city manager is the worst job in the world. That's why I keep turning it down, and I don't recommend anybody ever apply for it. But thank you. I do appreciate everything you've done and the partnership and collaboration that you've shown to me. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Herbst, and thank you, Mayor Trantales. You're welcome. So upon the effect agreement, we need to have a city, and it would be an interim city manager or an acting city manager? Yeah, I don't know what. Well, the charter change has not passed yet, so it's currently interim. Interim. Interim. Okay. No, it's currently acting. It will be interim. Okay. So we need to appoint an acting city manager. I recommend our deputy city manager, Chris, you're standing there in the back. Chris, is this something that you'd be willing to take on? Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. Before I answer, I'd just like to also acknowledge Manager Williams personally. She has afforded me great opportunities here with the city. I've been here for a while, and to be in the position I am today is largely due to her support. So I'd like to just thank her, you know, in this moment. And to answer your question, yes. Okay. All right. So do I hear a motion to approve, Chris, as our acting city manager? So move. Second. Move the second. Okay. Please call the roll. Just a resolution, however, it does say effective July 2nd on it, so July 3rd. Yes. And I'm sorry, was it? So it's a resolution? It's a resolution? Yeah, resolution. Okay. So who is the person who first moved? I believe I am. I heard three people. I'll move the resolution. Okay. Introduce the resolution. Introduce the resolution. As amended for July 3rd. As amended for July 3rd. Thank you. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing Christopher Cooper as acting city manager of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trent Toss? Yes. Unanimous. Thank you so much, Chris, for doing this, and we appreciate it, and let us continue with the meeting. Thank you. And Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, I appreciate your letting us put that behind us so we can get on with the meeting. Now comes the consent agenda. The consent agenda is in our meeting where each member of the commission is asked if they would like to pull an item and vote on it and discuss it separately. Otherwise, we vote on these items all at once and with a single vote. So, and if there's anyone who wishes to speak on any of these items, they can do so now. No one has signed up to speak on any consent agenda item. So, let me begin with Commissioner Herbst. Do you have any consent agenda items that you wish to pull? Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? None. I have none. Commissioner Glassman? None. Vice Mayor? None. None. With regard to all the consent agenda items, do I hear a motion to approve? Moved. Second. If they're moved and seconded, please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trent Hulse? Yes. And all the consent agenda items are now approved. So, if you hear on any of those items, your item has now been approved. And you're certainly welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. Moving on to M1, motion approving a change order. Number 3 to task order number 12, Joseph C. Carter Park Improvement Project, AECOM Technical Services. Would someone like to move the item? Moved. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trent Hulse? Yes. Is that Commissioner Beamfer? I didn't see you back there. Are you leaving already? I'll be right back. Oh, okay. Did you see? Yeah. And that's been approved. Okay. Moving on to M2, motion approving the final ranking of firms, negotiated fee schedules and agreements for requests for qualifications. Transportation and Public Spaces, Planning and Engineering, Continuing Services. This is a three-year estimated aggregate amount, but this is just a contract for the first year, correct? Correct? Correct. There are renewals contemplated in this item. Right. Okay. So, do I hear a motion to approve M2? Moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trent Hulse? Yes. And M2 is now approved. M3, motion approving a change order number 35 for construction management at risk services, phase two, for the new police headquarters, Moss and Associates. So, City Manager, this is for things that we have come up with that we want changes to the property. Is that basically what M3 is about? There are some city-directed changes that are a part of this change order. There are also some changes that we feel should have been captured in the design of the project, and we're working through that with our vendors. And some of the items here also are under warranty. So, there's a multiplicity of change order items in here. They don't all have the same origin. So, but is the $1.191 million covering those other items as well? So, there are several items in this change order, and the totality is valued at that $1.19 million. I'm going to ask Anthony Fajardo to come up and share any additional details. Yeah, because we're not paying for those. We're not paying for warranty items or things that we thought should have been in the original design. Mayor, no. Anthony Fajardo, Director of Development Services. So, the items that are in here, some of the bigger items relate to the dumpster enclosure that we had to revise, to some fencing for the sally port, those types of things. Anything that falls under errors and emissions, we're putting in that bucket. Anything that falls under warranty, we're dealing with that way. So, that's not really this. That's not part of this. Okay. So, that's not really part of this. Okay. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure. Barbara Stern, you, Wes, to speak on this. Thank you, Mayor, Commissioners. Ben, here again, I'm glad that there was a question. Clarification to make sure where we are. Because I don't think we've seen an update on where we are on errors and emissions. And with these change orders, it's a little bit concerning that we keep coming back. And I know there's going to be more, because we've now heard about additional problems at police headquarters. There's a design issue, from what I understand, with the AC. So, when the AC dies, it shuts down throughout the system. I'm understanding that there are issues with the exhaust and the shooting range. If these are all design flaws and we're getting change orders again and again, how is this being addressed? And how we learned from our mistakes, we're going to be dealing with City Hall and the parking garage and Holiday Park soon. We need a peer review study to make sure that the plans are done properly the first time. But it is concerning to keep hearing about change orders that come back due to design flaws. So, I'm just hoping that we get that squared away and that we get our money that we're supposed to be getting back as we're approving these change orders. And this is nothing against Moss. They do a great job. I know that these design problems come from a different entity. Mayor, I just also want to take a point of privilege. Earlier tonight, we had a moment of silence. I just want to mention, as well, the lives that were lost and the destruction in Venezuela. And for the community who's gathering support and materials, one of our very own partners at FXE, W Aviation, they've been collecting supplies. I know they've sent information. So, they've got their planes. They're bringing down supplies down there. They're doing everything. And they're such a great partner for the city that if you have some point this evening, it would be nice if we give some recognition or put out that information that was emailed around the city. Commissioner Herbst, I know that's in your district. But it's great. They have the plane. We should be taking advantage of those resources. Who is this again? W Aviation. And, Commissioner Herbst, I don't know if you want to fill in with more information. Sure. No, thank you, Barbara. So, yeah, so W Aviation and Ignacio, the CEO, has undertaken this effort to assist in disaster relief. So, again, anything we can do to gather more supplies and assist them in this effort I think would be just greatly appreciated by everybody. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it up, Barbara. I had read that they were having issues getting the supplies into Venezuela. Has that been taken care of now? I had read that there was a real bit of backup because they just did not have the ability to get everything to the country. Has that changed at all? From my understanding, W Aviation is not having any issues. They have a lot of boots on the ground. I know we've got a lot of our firefighters down there, too, doing rescue efforts. The stories that you're hearing, not even remotely close to how devastating it truly is. So any kind of aid and support, even if there's a delay, an extra day, something, everything helps. And I know they shared information with the city. I know the city, we just put out a blast about resources and what we're doing. And I just think it would be great to utilize one of our own resources here. They've got the planes. They're taking supplies down. And I think we as a city need to step up and take advantage of that if we can. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. M3 has been moved and seconded. So it has not been moved and seconded. Would someone like to move M3? Moved. Second. Okay. M3 has now been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And M3 is now approved. M4, motion approving the final ranking of firms negotiated fee schedules and agreements for requests for qualifications, structural engineering, continuing services with BCC Engineering. Would someone like to move the item? Moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Anyone have any questions? No one to sign up to speak? Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And M4 is now approved. Moving on to M5, motion approving the final ranking of firms negotiated fee schedule and agreement for requests for qualifications, construction engineering inspection services for fire station number 13 and emergency medical station number 88. Someone please move the item. So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. An M5 is now approved. M6, motion for the City Commission to accept grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration for construction of the Runway 27 Bypass Taxi Waves Project at the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. No one has signed up to speak? Second. Moved and seconded. Any questions? Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. An M6 is now approved. M7, motion approving the final ranking of firms, negotiated fee schedules, and agreements for requests for qualifications, design of sidewalk improvements citywide. No one has signed up to speak. Someone would like to move the item? Moved. Second. But moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. M7 is now approved. M8, this is a motion approving an interim agreement with Holiday Park Parking Partners, LLC, for the Holiday Park Parking Project, in substantially the form attached here to. Has everyone had a chance to review it? We have a few people who have signed up to speak. I'll start with... You are so entitled. Do you know that? Okay, so representing the River Oaks Republic, we have Mr. Ted and Sarah, followed by Cody Kice. You signed up. Wait, she has you down here. Okay. Please proceed. My name is Ted and Sarah, President of the River... What is STP? Is that an oil... I'm going to explain. Is that an oil additive? STP stands for Same Ten People, which was actually brought up years ago with our former city manager, Greg Chabarria, who called myself and Vanessa Apotheker nothing but STPs, the same ten people that show up and speak up at meetings that we really don't care about, which was kind of a degrading statement. And then the STP statement was brought up again last week. So the more things change, I guess the more things stay the same. But the same ten people are speaking up and the officials just do not pay much attention as like it's happening right now. But... I'm sorry. I thought STP was a sexually transmitted disease. I'm sorry. Well, David Solomon thought it was Stone Temple Pilots, so it has many connotations. But what I'm here to speak about on the garage is I know Holiday Park needs a garage. There's no doubt about it. What I don't understand is why do we need a garage and a surface lot? To me, that says it's bad planning on the garage. Just make it taller or make it be able to park on the roof where in some time in the way future you have the vertiport where flying taxis are supposed to land on it. But right now, I mean, you have an opportunity. Right now, the urban forestry, we're supposed to have a 33% by 2040 is what our goal is. And right now, you keep making decisions that are sending us backwards from that goal. Right now, we have a 25.3% urban canopy, which I think is higher than it should be. And we have a perfect time to take back a little bit of Holiday Park. It's now turning into the Holiday Complex because it's nothing but buildings now that are being constructed on it. Take this same area. You don't need a parking garage and an enormous flat surface area. Either put another floor on the parking lot, let people park on the garage. Let some of our great parks and recreation people that were here earlier have do their thing over there and make a nice park, plant trees, have it up with some streets or some benches. I just don't think we need one or the other. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, could I ask Quentin to come up? That's okay. Thanks, Quentin's coming up. Because I like to counter misinformation. It's important to make sure people have facts all the time, not just words. So, help me understand. By the way, as the District 2 commissioner who represents Holiday Park, I want you to know that the neighborhoods that I go to for meetings constantly in and around that park are thrilled with what's happening in Holiday Park. Thrilled. And they don't look at it as it was just described at all. In fact, it's a beautiful place for our city to have, to recreate, and to enjoy so many amenities. But we just heard that the surface parking lot is going to destroy the greenery of the park and just add to, you know, something that some people think is not a good thing. I want you to tell us so the public understands the landscaping that is going in and around where that surface lot is going to go. I know there's a list. I'd like to hear that list. I know the list because I've been working on this project for a while. But if you could let the public know, again, just to counter the misinformation that all we're doing is putting in an asphalt parking lot. Do you have that list that you can tell me about in terms of all of the different types of trees and hedges and bushes and everything else? Around that 300 space surface parking lot. I can. I got to go back to my notebook. But good evening, Quentin Pugh, Assistant City Manager. Roughly, we're bringing in about 60 canopy shade trees at this particular location. We also have about 46 understory and flowering trees that are coming in. Thank you, Eva. How many are there now? None. None. None. None. There's some on the outskirts, but there's not a lot. Right. But this project is bringing in a very healthy landscaping approach to this project. Again, about 60 canopy trees, roughly about 46 understory or flowering trees. Some of those species for the canopy trees include live oak, ball cypress, mahogany, red maple. And again, that total is roughly 60. The flowering trees consist of the cabbage palm, satin leaf. There's a few pink trumpet trees as far as those palms. So, you know, there's other shrubs and ground covers and things like that associated with this project. But it will be helpful. So at least 100 trees? 100 plus, yes. Almost half flowering trees. Correct. And in addition to the shrubs and the hedges and the greenery around the surface lot? That is correct. And right now that surface lot is gravel and what else? Can you describe it for the public? Right now it's gravel and just general ground cover. I mean, there's nothing there. Nothing there. And it's really kind of hazardous, actually, when people do park there. And I will tell you that I believe that we need every one of those 300 spots in addition to the 1,000 spots in the garage because there are so many events happening now in Holiday Park. Wonderful events happening. Right now we have every Friday night the Starlight Musicals. The Panthers have done an amazing job with the ice rinks, one open for the public, one for the team. The odd is, again, doing events there. These 1,300 spots need it. PACA, the Broward Center for the Performing Arts Group, needs it for the Parker Playhouse. It's doing a wonderful job there in terms of arts and culture. So I'm all in favor of the 300 spots, but I wanted to make sure that the public understood that we are not taking up green space. We're taking up gravel space, a muddy gravel space, and we're turning it into, yes, a surface parking lot, but one that is going to be basically surrounded by a lot of lush landscaping that is not currently there. Correct? You are correct, Commissioner. And if I'm not mistaken, didn't we, wasn't this a compromise because we were looking to build a structure there as well, and we decided not to build a structure there because we were trying to take away structures from the Holiday Park, and that's why we made the other parking garage taller so that we could have a surface parking lot with landscaping, which was a less imposing opportunity for parking without having to have two big structures there for parking. So this actually, what I recall, was the compromise approach, and also it provides parking more immediately than the parking garage was going to take a couple years. And families who go to the IcePlex and go to Holiday Park and go to the Parker currently suffer, and, you know, their cars are my car. I don't know how many times I've, you know, thrown the alignment out just trying to park in that so-called surface parking space. So when do we expect this to be completed? Do you know off the top of your head? Yeah. So we anticipate this project being completed fall 2027. You know, should you approve the interim agreement this evening? We plan on completing the plans and obtaining those permits and turning over those plans to the proposed developer by the end of this calendar year. And immediately from there, you know, start that construction sometime in January and complete it by fall 2027. Thank you. Great. Thank you for clearing up the misinformation. Cody. Cody Keiss, you just for questions. Okay. And Merrick, I'm going to jump in. Quentin, sequentially what I think we're planning is doing the surface lot first and then the parking garage, right? And so that while the surface lot is being built, the parking deck area will be available for parking. Is that still what we're planning? Yeah, that's accurate, Commissioner. Yeah. Phase one, we're not trying to do both of these projects, phase one and phase two at the same time. But yes, phase one will be done first. Once that's completed, then if everything lines up correctly, we plan on starting phase two. Great. And why that matters too, Mayor, is because even with athletic events on the Holiday Park field, we're out of parking near the athletic fields. And so we need added parking. And that's what this will also help with. And it's at a premium in Holiday Park. One of the other components we've talked about, Quentin, and I know there are maintenance and cost implications, but we've explored some degree of semi-permeable, permeable material for that surface parking lot. Are we still heading in that direction? Yeah. Those plans are still being refined. We've had those discussions. We're floating in between that 60 to 90 percent completion with the plans. But they're still under further discussion. It does affect the pricing. We're trying to keep this at a particular figure. But yes, we have had those discussions internally. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Quentin. Thank you. Gary Olson. Gary here, followed by, I guess that's it. Just Gary. Good evening. This is on. Gary Olson, big fan of green space in Holiday Park. If you vote to approve the proposed interim agreement tonight, the paved surface parking lot, phase one, is a done deal. Holiday Park will lose almost five acres, 4.82 acres, of green space, the equivalent of over three and a half football fields, including end zones. You will be paving nearly five acres of paradise, putting up a massive paved parking lot. Shout out to Joni Mitchell. To add insult to injury, Fort Lauderdale taxpayers will lose almost $5 million to fund this boondoggle. All of the FTL War Memorial businesses are told to, quote, please use the field across from the FTL War Memorial for parking. The FTL War Memorial businesses have basically converted the five-acre parcel into their own private parking lot. There is no rationale for Fort Lauderdale taxpayers to pay $5 million for FTL War Memorial's paved business parking lot. Commissioner Herbst, Holiday Park desperately needs your help. At the City Commission Conference meeting on December 16, 2025, you addressed and debunked the arguments for a surface parking lot. Starting at the 5750 mark, you addressed why you never understood the point of the surface parking lot, stating that you were a big fan of green space instead. But, Commissioner Herbst, the public overwhelmingly agrees with you. In July 2025, Change.org had a petition entitled, Help Protect the Grassy Green Space at Holiday Park. The petition got over 500 signatures, including mine. In September 2025, the petitioner was convinced by a city commissioner or commissioners that the surface parking lot plans were moving forward and the surface parking lot was a done deal. There was nothing further the petitioner could do, so she dropped the petition. City commissioners, represent the public interest and reject the proposed interim agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I want to thank you for bringing history back around. And I'm happy to say I still think it's a very bad idea. And the reason for that was when we committed to build a multi-level garage over there, the purpose of that was to eliminate the parking on the grass. The whole idea was to create more open space for the park users. It wasn't to have two. It wasn't to have a surface lot and a multi-story garage. I agree with comments that have been made that if we need more parking, we should have gone up another floor on the garage. It's asinine to me that we are going to take away green space, put up a multi-level garage, and then turn around and pave over green space. It never made sense to me. It was not the original intent when we did the parks bond. The intent was always to free up green space that was being utilized for parking for events over at Parker Playhouse and so forth. So I don't understand why we're doing this, and I certainly don't support it. And Commissioner Hurst, if I could – am I still out or can I respond? I really think your comments have concluded, and we appreciate what you had to say, so thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioner Hurst. Anyone else wish to speak on this item? There being none. John, anyone have any other comments or questions with regard to this item? I'd like to – What does your neighborhood say about this? I've heard – actually, I've been meeting regularly, obviously, with Victoria Park, which is right there at Holiday Park, and Flagler Village right across the street from Federal Highway from it. And I've heard absolutely nothing but positive comments looking forward to it. They're looking forward to the concept of a vertiport on the roof of the building. And they agree that they need the extra parking. They also agree that this parking garage is not taking up the space that the surface parking lot is. The surface parking lot is further south, right sort of opposite War Memorial Auditorium. The garage is to the west and north of this spot. So these are different spaces, different places, and I've heard nothing but support from both Flagler Village and also Victoria Park. I have a question in regards to the parcel that's going to be paved, that it's being called the green space. And not to be disrespected, but I've been here all my life, and I've only known that to be a place where people parked. I don't recall grass being there. Because someone, is that a fact? Because I've only known it to be an unleveled area that was used for parking. Right, that's true. So are we actually taking away green space? No. It's basically been a dirt site. Gravel. That's all I remember from graduations from 1975, the first graduation I went to. Right. If I can reply to that, because it's a good question. So the whole intent was to return that to green space. It was acknowledged that it had been utilized for parking for generations, to your point. And the idea was we would go vertical with parking so that we could restore that and actually make it an open playing field for people to use as passive recreation, as opposed to, you know, one of the things that we have with most of our parks is active recreation. We've got ball fields, we've got dog parks, we've got soccer fields, football fields, pickleball. Can't forget the roller skating rink that became pickleball. You know, now we have ice skating rinks. So we've got, you know, jogging trails and fitness trails and basketball courts and assorted other active uses in our parks. We have very few spaces that are just passive use, where you can just go out there, put out a blanket and relax and have a picnic and enjoy, you know, the open space and being in nature. Not everybody wants a field. Not everybody wants a playground. Not everybody wants a basketball court. Some people just want to sit out there and listen to the birds. And the idea was that we would recapture this space and return it to the public use. You know, one of the most famous places in Central Park is the Sheep's Meadow, which is just a big open space where people throw Frisbees and fly kites and have picnics and just enjoy being out on the grass. And that was the plan when we decided to incorporate this funding into the parks bond. I will tell you the biggest mistake that we made was we picked a round number for the parks bond of $200 million, not because that was the amount of money that we needed to complete all the projects, but it sounded good. And that only included $7 million for the parking garage. And we knew the day that we did that, that it was a $30 million project. And there was never been any funding. And that's why we've waited, you know, all these many years to be able to get the project done. That's why we had to go the P3 route, because the funding wasn't there. So had we actually done some truth in budgeting and put a $225 million bond in front of the public and gotten the appropriate level of financing that we needed to build this, we would have had it done at the same time Parker Playhouse was being renovated. I talked to the folks from the Performing Arts Center who begged me to come back, because I sat on the finance committee there, begged me to come back to the city and allow them to build it. Because candidly, they could get it done a lot faster and a lot cheaper than we could, because they were already mobilized and out there. And we couldn't move quickly enough, and we didn't have the financing, because we only had $7 million. That being said, the idea was always to return that, restore it, and return it back to public use. So I agree with you. It is a gravel parking lot, but it shouldn't be. All right, but wait, wait, let me just say something. Let me just say something. You know, the wonderful thing about Holiday Park is it's a big park. And for all the uses that you described, the active uses, there's plenty of space for passive use. Holiday Park is a big place. And all the times I've passed by or walked through Holiday Park, I never saw anyone felt like they were crimped in their wanting to throw a Frisbee or walk their dog or lay a blanket out. And that's a wonderful thing, because the park is something for everybody. And I believe one of the reasons why we wanted to put the surface parking lot there was as a convenience for those who are using the Isoflex, because the parking garage is not across the street from the Isoflex, and it's a convenience for families who go there whenever they go there, but oftentimes late at night, so they have that option. And, again, I do recall the conversation of not putting a structured parking garage on that site in order to keep it more open and not have more structures in Holiday Park and only have a structured parking garage next to the parker. So, you know, with 100 more-plus trees happening there, I feel that it's a compromise that we've achieved, and I think that we should move forward, and I believe that this is in the best interest of the city and certainly in the best interest of the community. And, Mayor, it's not actually, that surface lot is actually not taking up that entire space that you might want to label green space. There still is green space to the south of where that surface lot is going to be that'll still be green space. I just wanted to make one correction, though, if memory serves me correct. When we were contemplating the park spawn, actually the... 150. Right. We actually, Commissioner Hurst, increased that number because we thought we might need some additional funds. It would go up maybe almost $50 million, from $150 million to $200 million in the ballot, which the voters voted on. But that was a very conscientious decision to increase that number, and we did that in conjunction with all of our partners that were working on that bond with us. With the exception, Commissioner Glassman, of the requisite amount of money needed to build the garage. We knew from day one that $7 million wasn't going to get the job done. That basically barely covers a surface lot, let alone a four-story parking garage, with, I will remind everybody, a contractually guaranteed 600 spaces for Parker Playhouse. We knew we had to build at least a 600-space garage to begin with. And average price of a parking space is $30,000 of space at a bare minimum for that. So $7 million, we're never going to get the job done. I can do the math. Okay. I understand. I just wanted to correct the record for the amount on the bond. Okay, let's move on. Thank you. All right. The motion's been made and seconded. Yeah. Someone would like to move the item? Yes, I'd like to move the item to approve the interim agreement with Holiday Park Parking Partners. Okay. I need a second. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herb? Because of the surface parking lot? No. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And M8 is now approved. Moving on to M9. This is a motion approving an interim agreement with FTL City Hall Partners, LLC, for the City Hall project. I have a number of people. Cody, this is just for questions. Did you want to speak at the end? Okay. Let's see. Robert Kelly. Robert. First of all, thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, for letting me speak. Some of this might not make as much sense because I should have probably gone later on in the presentation. I don't know if you're going to speak, but I'll make the best out of it. So what I do is I run a program for Leuna Training, which is located here in Broward County, and that's to train laborers for Local 1652. And I'll kind of explain how it could help some of your constituents, for example. Our apprenticeship program is recognized by the state of Florida. It requires 144 hours of training by, say, me and some other trainers. And then they get 2,000 hours of on-the-job training, which they get paid for. Okay. And they have to do that for two years. So it's 288 hours of training with me, 4,000 hours of OJT on-the-job training, again, which they get paid for. So it's like pay, you know, as you learn. The other thing is we don't charge the participants anything for training. Okay. It's free. So a lot of this training would be very expensive if they ever tried to take it from an outside provider. And the idea of all the training is, obviously, if we improve the skills of people, it improves their opportunities out there. It's good for both your constituents that are interested in the program, and it's also good for the contractors that are out there, the employers out there. Just to name a few things we train in, our emphasis is always on safety, but we do OSHA 10, OSHA 30. Can you speak to the item? The item is about the City Hall interim agreement. Can you speak to that issue? Well, this is kind of what I was told to speak about, the aspect of, like, what we train people in that would be maybe helping do that. So you feel that the people that work within your union would be able to contribute to the construction and development of the site? Yeah. In a sense of, yeah, that's what we do. Like concrete. I mean, I'm almost done. Okay, go ahead. I mean, like we train people in concrete placement and finishing. Obviously, you know, if you look around Florida, it's mostly concrete, right, placement and finishing. Or it's cinder blocks, right, with mason tending, scaffold building. We do Florida DOT. We're approved for that. And pipelines, sewer work, stuff like that. Yeah, or members are, we train them in that. It would be maybe somebody interested, like some younger people that want to learn, become apprentices that you guys represent. We would give them that opportunity. It's not going to cost them anything. So thank you for your time. All right. Well, thank you so much for coming tonight. I have Paul Gibbs, followed by, is it Andres Relly, followed by Christian, Christian Reed. Yes, sir. Commissioner, my name is Paul Gibbs. I've been in labor for a number of 17 years. And I'm a member of Local 1652 in this part of South Florida. I want to build it, walk in. Some of them I could point to right now. I came here tonight because I want to help build a new city hall too. Not only because it's work, though the work matters to my family, I want to build it because I know what it takes to do a job right and watch it stand for 30 or 40 years. That is what this city deserves. A city hall built once by people tied in it. We've gone more than 30 years without a real city hall. Your staff have been working out of borrowed offices. Residents haven't had one place to go. That is long enough. It's time to build. And when you build it, build it with local hands. Give it to the men and women who live here, who know this climate, who will still be in this country long after the job is finished. We will treat it like, because in a way it is. It is. You're paying for it. I'm not here against anybody. I'm here for something. Good work done right by local people on building this community. We use a decade. Thank you for your time and thank you for moving it forward. Thank you. Please say your name. Yes, Andre. Hello, Mr. Mayor. Good evening. Commissioners, how are you doing this evening? I'm here to, you know, talk about the necessities and the convenience of having this project here in Broward County in Fort Lauderdale. I'm here just to bring notice to you that we want to push forward with this project. That it's not only the project for the commission or the staff, but it's for the community and the residents of the community. And we're here as residents of the community that we want to participate into the building of this new city hall. We hope that you guys look forward because, as you say, in order to stop crying, give someone a job. A job stops crying. So this city is just not only for just the beautifulness of it, but to bring down trying, because it will be a situation where when your residents look at it, especially those local residents who actually live in this area that's able to participate in this building, they'll be able to look and say, I built that. And in that sense, it helps build generation. It helps families of men and women in this community to participate in their community with work in their community. So we're here to say that we're pushing forward into building this project and building it with a responsible contractor who has shown that they are a part of the community and that's going to build within the community. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. My name is Cody Keese, and I'm the managing partner of FTL City Hall Partners and president of Core Construction. I'm not going to take up too much of your time, but I just wanted you all to see that we talk a lot about the reports and about square footages and budgets, but I wanted you guys to see tonight just a glimpse of some of the people that would be participating in this project should it move forward. So if you're here tonight supporting the new city hall, would you mind standing real quick? These are real people with real faces, with real mortgages. We'd be happy to work on a project like this, whether it's styles construction, our architectural partners, everybody that's here. So I just wanted you all to see what actually goes into a project and gets us to this point. And I also wanted to thank the staff that's worked with us for the last year through this entire process. Thank you. You guys have a seat. Thank you. Cody, quick question. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Will Liuna be part of the city holiday park parking garage? Will they be working on that? Yeah, so Core ourselves have been partners with Liuna since the late 70s, and they've been a part of our projects all across the country. And we work with the apprenticeship program with us, and they will have a seat at the table to competitively bid all of the work that we have going on. Great. Including substations? Everything. Everything we work on. Yes, sir. Thank you. Absolutely. Kristen Reed. Is Kristen here? Mark Dickerman. Mark, I haven't seen you in a while. Okay. This is Mark Dickerman, community activist, City of Fort Lauderdale. I'm here to speak in favor of the project. The city needs a city. We need a city hall. We need to meet in a regular city hall. The design is beautiful. I think the partnership with City Hall Partners, a.k.a. Core, is a great partnership for the city. And I think we're going to end up with a wonderful building, something that the city can be proud of for the next 30 years. Thank you. Thank you. Let's hope it's 100 years, but not 30. Is there a Rich D? It just says Rich D. It's easier than DiGeralmo. Oh. Is he here? Oh, okay. Oh, there he is. Followed by Sylvester Robinson. Followed by Bobby Henry. Is this on? Hello? It's on. I wanted to make your life easy. My name is Rich DiGeralmo. I serve on the City Budget Advisory Board, the Affordable Housing Committee, the Flagler Village Civic Association as well. I'm very heavily involved in the city. I care about a lot. Tonight, though, I'm solely speaking on behalf of myself as a constituent and a commercial real estate professional. I spend every single day working with developers, investors, institutions, and business owners buying and selling commercial real estate assets, such as these large city halls across the country. A city hall is not just an office building. It's a physical symbol of our city. It should reflect who we are. Ambitious, innovative, creative, entrepreneurial, resilient, forward-thinking, and world-class. That's what our city is. It should be a building our residents can be proud of, honors Fort Lauderdale's rich history and character, while boldly representing the exciting future we're building together. Next week, I'm closing a transaction with a developer who actually built the first large-scale office building conversion in my hometown of Philadelphia, Go Eagles. Back in the day, it was about 1,000 units, and they no longer do that. Last week, they just raised $700 million, and none of that is allowed to go towards office conversions. Once they did that one project, they basically said, hey, we're not doing these anymore. I asked them why, and they said they're messy, they're risky, they're too expensive, and they're heavily subsidized for a reason. So, if the developer that helped pioneer one of the country's largest first-scale projects had decided not to ask ourselves why. City Hall is an extremely specialized building, as we all know. The people in this room know that. The city staff knows that. Unique security, technology, public assets, and operational requirements. Very, very unique. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here to build a new City Hall that honors Fort Lauderdale's history, while serving the needs today and reflecting the city we'll become for the next 50-plus years. We shouldn't settle for adapting a building designed for a completely different purpose. We have the opportunity to create something worthy of our residents, our amazing city staff, and our city's future. If we don't buy these buildings, nobody will. There's no market for these buildings, just as plain as it is. Nobody else is buying this. The private market has cast their vote. I think we need to cast our vote accordingly. Thank you. Thank you. Sylvester Robinson, is Sylvester here? Oh, there you are, sir. And followed by Bobby Henry, followed by Tina DeMarco. Good evening, everyone, commissioners. I just wanted to speak in support of this project. I think it's going to be great for the citizens of Browell County, our community, especially the African-American community as well. And I also believe that the services provided will support our growth as we continue to be the best county in the state of Florida. So I support this City Hall building wholeheartedly. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Bobby Henry. Good evening. Did you get all dressed up for us? Thank you very much. Look at you, all dressed up tonight. Let's see here. Wow, what a crowd. The diversity, I like. It's very important that we have diversity. But what's most more important than that, that we respect diversity and not step on it. Good evening. The greatest city manager in all the world. How are you? Thank you. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and commissioners. My name is Bobby R. Henry, Sr., publisher of the West Side Gazette newspaper. That's Browell County's oldest and largest black-owned newspaper. I'm not a racist. I'm a realist. And I understand and I support that. I'm here tonight to support moving forward with the proposed new Fort Lauderdale City Hall. Is this thing on? Am I hearing myself? Okay, I talk that loud. I'm here to support that. And I'm sure there are those along with me who support this as well. This decision is about much more than a building. It is about what kind of city we want to leave for the next generation. Over the past several months, the commission asked difficult questions. You requested independent appraisals. You directed staff to compare existing buildings. You asked for costs to be reduced. You sought greater transparency and public input. The revised proposal reflects that work. According to the city's presentation, the revised interim agreements reduced the project delivery costs from approximately, and this is from your statistics, $267.7 million to $217 million eliminates the developer fees. It removes participation and lowers the city's projected annual financial impact. Just as important, the evaluation of existing buildings demonstrates that buying and renovating another property is not the bargain some believe it would be. Once acquisition and renovations costs are combined, each alternative approaches are, and in some cases exceeds the cost of building a new city hall while still requiring significant code, ADA, resilience, and infrastructure upgrades, meaning that there is no need for us to try to retrofit an old building to fit our new needs. We should not spend tomorrow's dollars trying to fix yesterday's buildings. Fort Lauderdale deserves a city hall that is welcoming, accessible, secure, resilient, efficient, and reflective of the city we are becoming. Those principles were established through months of community engagement, workshops, services, and recommendations from the Infrastructure Task Force. Uh-oh, hold tight here. Come on back here. Technology is something else. I kept adding to your time, Bobby, but can you please conclude your remarks? Thank you. I certainly appreciate that. Could you please conclude your remarks? I'm going to try my best to. Okay. As someone who has spent decades advocating for community involvement, I appreciate that this process has not been perfect, but I also recognize that this commission asked for revisions and meaningful revisions were made. Every generation has an opportunity decision that will serve citizens for the next 50 years. This is one of those moments. This project simply offers spaces. It's about creating a civic home where every residence, regardless of race, neighborhood, income, or background, feels welcome and respected. It is about creating a place where government is accessible, transparent, and prepared for the future. We cannot continue to delay in the process while opportunities slip away. Leadership requires careful study, but it also requires the courage to decide. Tonight, I respectfully ask that this commission move this project forward. Let history record when Fort Lauderdale has a feel for the future. Its elected leaders chose vision over fear, preparation over postponement, and progress over paralysis. Our children and grandchildren will not remember every debate held in these chambers. They will remember the decisions that shaped the city they inherited. Let's give them a city worthy of Fort Lauderdale's future. Move this project forward. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Commission. I'm going to be the oddball here. I'm going to ask that we be fiscally sound and defer moving forward with the new city hall or anything until after the property tax bill in November is voted on. We need to be fiscally sound. We have no money for this city hall. If we had $950 million, great, build it, but we don't. Next year's budget, we will be $27 million in deficit, and we're talking about over 30 years spending almost a billion dollars. As a taxpayer, that's a ridiculous amount of money, and we're footing the bill. You want to talk about your children and your grandchildren? They'll be paying for this. Thank you. Jack Traynor. Is Jack here? There you are. Does anyone else wish to speak on this item? Okay. Take your time. Take your time. Up there, we're giving up your time and your commitment to make Lauderdale a better place. My name is Jack Traynor. I'm a retired teacher at Fort Lauderdale High School and probably the best baseball coach in Florida because I beat the Cubans in Miami to go to the state playoffs, but they hit the ball to my shortstop, and he was a Cuban. If they hit anybody else, we've been a loss. Now, I'm up here to speak about the Fort Lauderdale and the students at Fort Lauderdale whose parents went to Lauderdale. Their grandfather, their great-grandfather made this city the city it is, and I go to their reunions. They invite myself and my wife to all their reunions, and I had six kids that graduated from Lauderdale, and I talk to them on Friday night when they all get together, and on Saturday night they have a dance and have a little dinner and all. Every student I talk to does not live in Fort Lauderdale because they cannot afford it. I don't think with this city, if you want to go to the big city, go to Miami. Go to West Palm Beach. We want to stay small. We want a budget, and it comes to the city hall. The architect that drew that drawing went to high school with me in Huntington, West Virginia. He is not known as an architect. He is known for running across Parker Playhouse stage with nothing on, so that's what he's famous for. You can look up and see. I won't give you his name. He's famous for. And so I don't think the building is that bad because he was a pretty good architect knowing he came from West Virginia. And for any of you people who are on the board, if you know the words to, uh-oh, I'm supposed to stop? Okay. You're cutting me off? Well, please conclude your remarks. Okay. Give us a punch. I came to Fort Lauderdale in 65, brought my wife with five children. I came here in March of 55 and fell in love with Lauderdale. I love it. My problem is I live on a house that dirt's worth $800,000. My escrow went up double in the last three years because the guy two lots down from me played $835,000 for his lot. And your property taxes went up, and so I'm penalized. Well, is that your homestead? Pardon me? Is that your homestead? That's my homestead. I've got all the exemptions that I could get. So your value of your house can't go up more than 3% a year. It's a lot more. So my six kids will get something. Yeah. But I want to stay there because next month I'll be 91 years old. Well, happy birthday. And the secret is marry the right woman. She's 87. And the other secret is in West Virginia, you need to keep them pregnant. Okay, that concludes your remarks. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you so much. Just please, please, think about the budget. We have. Thank you. Well, the plumber, the guy that has the time clock, he can't afford to stay here. That's not true. One more thing. I lost a piece on my shifter. I went to have it fixed. The piece cost $4.95. The labor was $510 because that's what they have to pay the mechanic to live in Fort Lauderdale. All right. Thank you, sir. Help me. Thank you. Help them. Thank you. Thank you for the time. Okay. Have a good night. Okay. M9, the motion's been made and seconded. Please call the roll. The motion's not been made and seconded. Someone please move M9. Yes, I think I did make the motion. I thought you did. I did. Who seconded? Is there a second? I have to move and second. Yeah, second. They're moved and seconded. Thank you. Mayor, before we take the vote, if I could ask. So are we choosing a design? I would rather not choose a design tonight because that's a whole different subject. Okay. All right. Okay. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? First. I want to say thank you to the teams, the finance department budget that went through and gave us a great presentation this afternoon, explaining and answering a lot of questions that made it easier for me to make this decision to say yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? No. Commissioner Herbst? So this is very difficult. CORE has done a great job of trying to address many of the concerns that I've raised during this process, and I commend them for that. They've come back with what I think are some greatly improved design features, and I'd like to support this, but if we're not choosing a design, if we're not choosing a design, Mayor, apologize to me earlier, so I'll do the same thing to you. Okay? It goes both ways. So if we're not going to choose a design, then I have to vote no. I would like to support them. Why don't you vote yes, and then we can go to the next level and choose a design? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I need to know what I'm voting on tonight before I vote to approve an agreement. So, no, this is not an agreement to agree later. This is an agreement to enter into the comprehensive agreement with them, and I simply can't do that. I've asked several times for us to choose one of the options, and without knowing which option it is, I can't approve it. So thank you. Okay. Please proceed. Commissioner Glossman? I just want to counter that by saying the reason I don't think we have to choose the design this evening is this is just an interim agreement. Interim. This is not the comprehensive agreement. This is not the final agreement. We typically have between three and twelve months to work out all of those details, the design, every single penny, every single space, every single use in the building. We have that time now. So I want to reiterate again, I think we did a great job as a commission bringing the cost way down. I think this is a very fiscally prudent project. When you look at other cities in Broward County, again, if Oakland Park can build a new city hall, if Sunrise can build a new city hall, if Miami, down Miami-Dade, can build a new city hall, if Pompano Beach can build a new city hall, then Fort Lauderdale can build a new city hall. So I vote yes. And Mayor Trenton? Yes. And that's approved. Thank you. Okay, guys, get to work. I think we're losing our audience. Okay, moving on to M10, appeal. Let's wait till they leave. Okay, so we're moving on to M10. This is an appeal of the Chief Procurement Officer's denial of protests submitted by Communications International on the recommendation to award requests for proposals regarding radio communication system refresh, replacement, rebid, Motorola Solutions. City Manager. Thank you, Mayor. During the last... Please proceed. Thank you. So at the last City Commission meeting, I recommended that the City Commission reject all bids pursuant to this RFP process. Based on the discussion that ensued that evening in your absence, we are here today to discuss an appeal of the Chief Procurement Officer's denial of a protest submitted by one of the proposers, Communications International, Inc. I'm going to call forward our team, inclusive of our Chief Procurement Officer, to highlight some of the observations. All right, so Glenn, let's put this in a posture that we can all understand, okay? So an RFP went out to solicit proposals from vendors out there to replace our communication systems for our police and fire departments. And we received responses, and you and your staff, your committee, ranked different vendors, and you came back with a proposal to the commission, and I understand that, as the City Manager said, she recommended a rejection of all bids so that we could come back because there was some concern about the review process. But Motorola has appealed that, and now we are being asked whether or not the appeal should go forward. Yeah, so it was actually... Can I summarize it okay? So CI, it was the one who appealed, the recommendation for award to Motorola. Okay, so the award went to Motorola. So the recommendation. The recommendation for the entire system, for the infrastructure as well as the radios. That is correct. Okay. And just to clarify, Mayor, it was an intent to award to Motorola. We never officially made a recommendation to the commission to award. Okay, got it. So, and the City Manager suggested, hey, let's just throw everything out and start all over again. What's the status of this appeal? Thank you, Mayor. The appeal is the, it is of the determination, whether to affirm or deny or some other motion, affirming his appeal, or rather, affirming his denial of the appeal, rejecting it. So he denied the appeal. Correct. And on grounds that he found legally sufficient to deny the appeal. I would be happy to have him explain, but in a nutshell, I'll make it as simple as I can. There were two points made that stated that the responsive bidder was not, in fact, responsive because of two items that were not sufficient. They did not accurately, two items. The Chief Procurement Officer's team and the consultant reviewed and determined that the opposite, that, in fact, they did not err, and they were indeed responsive. Therefore, the Chief Procurement Officer denied that appeal. It is now before you for your consideration. City Attorney, Mayor, just so I can clarify, Glenn denied the appeal of CI. Correct. Right? Same. Correction. The protest. Sorry. The protest. The appeal is now before you. I denied the protest. Right. So there's a protest and there's an appeal. Yep. So that's just the nomenclature they use. So there was a protest by CI, and now there's an, which was denied. By Glenn. By Glenn. Yep. Which is, which is his prerogative. Yep. And then, and now it's coming to the commission, the full commission, as an appeal of that denial. Yep. Great. And we have to make a decision tonight as to whether or not to accept the appeal or throw the whole thing out and start all over again. Well, your decision, your consideration based on the evidence that you've had. Yeah. Is to affirm Glenn's decision. Right. You may reject his decision. Reverse it. Or you could do something else, and that something else could be rejecting all this. Right. Okay. Very good. All right. So a number of people. So Glenn, if you give us a chance to let these folks speak, and then we can make a decision. The commission can make their decision. So start, I'll name three in a row. Mark Stempler, followed by Raju, and followed by Danielle Santibrid. Is Mark Stempler here? Oh, there's Mark. Try to keep it to a couple of minutes if possible. You're here on behalf of Motorola? Yes. And I think I could do better than that. So I'm really here to respond if the commission is going to hear the protest appeal. I'll respond on behalf of Motorola. Well, we're here to get testimony as to what should we do tonight? What do you recommend the commission do tonight? Deny the appeal. Deny the appeal. Look, CI has raised a couple of issues, issues that have been denied entirely by the city, issues that have been denied entirely by TUSA, the city's consultant, and which have been refuted by Motorola. We have filed responses to all of their post-protest correspondence that was outside of the protest period, and the issues that they've raised in their protests are simply without merit. It really boils down, as the city attorney said, to two of them. One has to do with whether Motorola met the RFP's requirements for their proposal required a waiver from the FCC. In order to meet the compliance with the RFP, they needed this waiver from the FCC. They stated so in their proposal, contingent upon this, but it's been determined not only by the city, but by its consultant, that for all of the proposers. So that's simply not a non-responsive issue. Motorola's RFP satisfied the requirements without fail. Then CI claimed that Motorola's infrastructure and end-user equipment, but Motorola's RFP response to its proposal clearly demonstrated that it had. Not only did Motorola's proposal include such a warranty, it exceeded the RFP. So, you know, we stand here tonight urging the Commission and I's appeal to move forward with the opening and start these critical communication services. Okay. Thank you. Pratima. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. With all due respect, the last time you did an appeal, the purchasing officer is our appeal, so we are asking to provide our presentation. What did you do at the last meeting? I'm just saying that was the protocol from the last time you did an appeal. There was not. No. That makes sense, Mayor. Mayor, let me ask City Attorney, is this a de novo hearing on the merits of this application? Mayor, it is your job to consider the record presented to you. Right. So it is not a hearing. It needn't be a hearing, but it is your discretion to hear whatever testimony you want. And that testimony for your consideration needs to relate to the items raised narrowly in the appeal. Will there be any information that we don't already have in all of the extensive backup that we've already read? We've read letters from both parties. We've read our procurement others, basically his take on it, our consultants' take on it. So will there be new evidence if we go through all that I've read already? Is there anything new? Commissioner, you have the record. You could take testimony, but I caution you that. The appeal is focused on the appeal submitted to the procurement officer. So if you were to hear other items, other testimony related to different complaints that are beyond the four corners of the appeal, I would recommend that you, in fact, I urge you, do not consider them. It's not within the purview of your review. All right. Thank you. How much time do you think you need? Ten minutes. Go ahead. We're waiting for our slides to be posted. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Pratima Raju. I'm a national, along with my colleague, Danielle. I took the time to speak with us and ask thoughtful questions about this appeal. Before Danielle addresses the merits, I would like to briefly answer two questions that came up, since they provide important context for the record you're about to hear. Next slide. Can the commission consider the supplemental evidence and public records that filed the protest and appeal? Yes, of course. CI complied with every requirement, every deadline in the city's procurement code, even though it did not yet have the complete procurement record. The city continued to move forward with MOTO's negotiations and open discussions with CI's protest, with openly discussed CI's protest with them. When CI learned of the negotiations, we promptly requested those records, including transcripts. Oops, sorry. Including transcripts. Before producing those readily available records, the chief procurement officer denied CI's protest. Respectfully, this commission cannot disregard evidence simply because the city produced it after our appeal was due. The city cannot now ask the commission to ignore or unsee the very record that resulted from your own process, especially when those records confirm the protest CI has maintained from day one. MOTO provided a non-responsive proposal to be to decide on the complete record of your own process and timeline and your own materials. The next question. Would CI have been selected if price was not considered? The answer is yes. Four out of five committee members ranked us first on the technical merits, including police, including fire. But respectfully, that's not what this appeal decides. The question is whether the city may lawfully award a contract to a proposal that failed to comply with your own mandatory requirements of the solicitation. I'm going to turn it over to Danielle. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. Danielle Snobri on behalf of Communications International. At the core, this appeal asks one simple question. Can the city knowingly award a public safety contract to a proposal that failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of its own solicitation? Respectfully, the answer is no. Okay, let's stop right there, and I'm stopping the clock. City Attorney, what does that mean? What did she just say? Can the city knowingly award a public... This is the question on appeal. Can the city knowingly award a public safety contract to a proposal that failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of its own solicitation? Mayor, that is not the question on appeal. That's their question. That is their question to you. Because, as the presentation is suggesting, there was information supplied to the chief procurement officer post their submission of their appeal. And our process has a strict timeline to submit a protest. And accordingly, when that information is provided, that constitutes the protest. And therefore, the trial of it is what you're reviewing today. And so you're reviewing the items presented in the protest. You may hear other things. Apparently, you are. And you're hearing... Well, she used to go all the way back to the original solicitation and say that Motorola failed to provide certain requirements that were mandatory in the solicitation. And I don't know. Are we going that far back? There are things that that was the error that they are alleging that was meaning that that was the problem with Motorola's bill protest. In their opinion, they should have agreed with. So, city attorney... I get into that. City attorney, so we should be considering, as we evaluate this, the appeal should be sustained. Your chief procurement officer with a legal or procedural obligation in rendering his denial of their protest. Okay. Well, it is not for me to answer that for you because ultimately that's a question you need to answer. Perhaps, manager, if you would, would you want the chief procurement officer to speak to this? He certainly can if that's the will of the commission. Again, I remind the commission that I recommended to reject all bids because I do feel like there were some irregularities in the process and the information provided, which I believe caused some misinterpretations of what was being requested. And therefore, the submittals from each proposer really didn't meet what we were asking for or intending to ask for. So, again, my recommendation was and is to reject all bids. But didn't we get that recommendation and say we did not want to reject all bids and we wanted to hear the appeal? That is correct. That is why it's on the agenda today. I cannot support what is on the agenda today. My recommendation has and is to reject all bids for the reasons I've laid out. Well, just to take everyone back to the meeting, I know, Mayor, you were not here, but I think one of the reasons we decided to hear the appeal and not reject all bids would begin from scratch. We heard a very, I thought, important testimony from Keith Costa, the president of the fire union, talking about we really can't delay this anymore. We're talking about life safety here. We're talking about something that is really, really crucial to move forward. But rejecting all bids, as we just heard, would take us back to, I mean, months and months and months and months and months to do this. I, I, I, and, you know, and I, trust me, I have heard from both sides. CI makes a great case. Motorola makes a great case. For me, though, and I want to ask this question to the city attorney. For me, it boils down to, and we, we did get a little bit of information from the city attorney's office today in terms of this process. It says from the city attorney, to prevail, CI's protest must prove, imply, issues raised, non-responsive, because one response was conditional if FCC approved. Number two, warranty did not meet requirements. Any evidence or legal argument presented that was not presented in CI's letter of protest should not be considered by the commission. But CI is saying that's not true. So that's where I'm stuck, because you're saying that if it was not presented in their letter of protest, you're saying that's not true. So help me, help me figure this out. It is, it is my opinion that you must remain focused on the four corners of the, of the protest, and that you should not consider information that is provided or presented today or any other time that is beyond the four corners of the protest. Okay. May, may, may I ask a follow-up on that? So, you know, I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, but if the city failed to turn over, how is it referred to, exculpatory information, isn't that usually a basis for an appeal in, in most types of cases? So if we had information in our possession that would have been relevant to their appeal, and they would have raised that in their appeal, had it been provided timely by the city, we had an obligation to turn it over to them. We failed to turn it over to them. Actually, that's not accurate. Okay. It was not the problem with timeliness of information whatsoever. So let me, let me revisit that because I thought you requested information. The information wasn't provided until after the appeal was, I'm sorry, until after the protest was already denied. Is that, I want to know if that's factually correct. That is factually correct, and also negotiations had not yet occurred, which the most egregious violations happened there. And those violations are not the basis of our proposal, of our protest. Our protest has always maintained that Motorola submitted a non-compliant proposal. And my question before you is a question that applies to the city commission at all times. You cannot legally, the city commission cannot legally award a contract that is not responsive to the requirements and is not lawful. And I actually, quite frankly, did not even need to file a protest. Once the city knowingly came upon those deficiencies, it has an obligation to find that proposal non-responsive. All right, so it's my understanding. Hang on, if I can continue that question. If I may, Mayor, thank you. So speak to those issues, please. Clearly, it is their argument that they did not meet a standard and their position that is therefore not legal. That is not our position. That is certainly not my position. Understood. But if I understand the process. So there was a protest to the bid award. They raised certain arguments in that protest. The argument was that Glenn should have tossed out the bids because it was non-responsive. He determined that it was responsive. They're appealing that conclusion that Glenn reached. Okay. And is that not the question that they just raised there, if we go back and look at that slide? No, because you... Should it have been awarded in the first place? In order to get there, you would have to determine that he inappropriately made the award or recommendation of award. But I just want to go back to, you know, the slide that they put up there that the question we have to ask is, was the city obligated... Thank you. Can the city knowingly award a public safety contract that fails to meet a mandatory requirement of its solicitation? Our procurement department is effectively saying, yes, we can do that. No. What they're saying is that it did not not meet the mandatory requirement. That they did, in fact, meet the requirements. This is an argument that they are making because it's not fact. Okay. Respectfully, if you let me do my presentation, the transcripts confirm. Hang on. Right. You can. I'm happy to let you address that. Right now, I just want to understand... I want to understand the advice from my attorney. So you're saying the dispute is not... So you're saying that the city's position is that we did not knowingly award a contract that failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the solicitation. Correct. That was the conclusion of our chief procurement officer. Right. And so then, if I understand this correctly, then, you're saying that, in your perspective, they are appealing his conclusion? Yes. They're appealing his conclusion. They're appealing his conclusion. Right. Exactly. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand that. Because that seems to me like what we're talking about. And you're saying, okay, so I think we're getting into a matter of semantics here. Can the city knowingly award a public safety contract? And you're saying, we didn't knowingly award a public safety contract. So the question is, should we have known? That's sort of their argument. The question would be, is it? Is it, right. Not, should we have known? That assumes that it was. Okay. Good. Fair point. Fair point. Thank you. Okay. Is it, did we knowingly award a contract? And did we, do we agree it did not meet the mandatory requirements of the solicitation? So isn't that the essence of the question that we're trying to get to? Yes. And your chief procurement officer and his consultants said that it did, in fact, items. So in our review, is it to determine if that conclusion that. Wait, wait, wait. And what, what this, this, the question is not whether or not the, the Glenn had made a right decision. Right. The question is, was he within his authority? Right. As a procurement officer reviewing a protest. Right. Did he exercise his authority? Did he comply with legal or, with law and procedure? Right. We'd only have to go back to where requirements were met. Okay. We'd have to go back to, did he exercise his authority in a legal way in making his decision? Okay. And that's what I'm trying to get to. Thank you. Okay. I'm trying to understand what the nature of the question actually is. Yeah. It's not whether his, whether his conclusion was in fact correct. Right. It's whether he believed it was correct at the time he made it. And, and he, did he act within the scope of his authority? Within his authority. Did he follow him? Knowing, believing it was, believing his, his conclusion was correct. Did he have the authority then to act in that? Now I understand. It's very nuanced, right. And I want to make sure that, I want to make sure what is, what is being argued and debated. Thank you. Let me just add it, make sure I'm clear. Not only did he act within his capacity, but did he comply with law? So it's, it's all of the above. Correct. Right. In denying the CI protest. Correct. Am I saying that right? That's ultimate the question. Yes, my. Okay. Great. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. And we're all going to take a procurement one-on-one crash course soon. So I also hear the concern that delays in public safety radio system procurement can create risk for the city, right? CI does not dispute that. The city's public safety radio infrastructure needs to be replaced. The question is not whether the city should move forward. The question is whether the city can move forward by awarding this contract to a proposal that failed to comply with the city's own mandatory public safety requirements. Respectfully, it cannot. No one is asking the city commission to compromise public safety. We are asking the commission to uphold the standards it adopted to protect public safety. Those are not competing principles. Those aren't the same principles. And if any of the city's procurement rules somehow jeopardizes public safety, again, I would respectfully disagree because the opposite of true. The city adopted mandatory requirements because they are essential to public safety. Enforcing it is how public safety is protected. This appeal is not about whether Motorola is a respected company. It's not about whether Motorola can eventually build a compliant system. It's about whether every proposer was required to compete under the same mandatory rules. Those rules existed and were submitted. They applied equally to every proposer. CI complied with them. Motorola did not. The evidence you'll see today leads to one unavoidable conclusion. Motorola's proposal failed to comply with most of the solutions to the procurement law. Those deficiencies could not be negotiated away after exactly what occurred. And I'd like to start with the city's own procurement rules. Before we look at the record, I want to ground this appeal in three basic rules. First, proposals must comply with the mandatory requirements of the RFP. Second, proposals cannot be materially modified after the submission deadline. And third, the city cannot knowingly accept a proposal containing material deviations. That's important. CI's rules, these are the city's rules. And the question before this commission is whether those rules were followed. Actually, we were just told. It's not whether the rules were followed. It's whether or not the procurement officer in denying the protest did so within the scope of his authority. Correct. He needs to follow the rules, too. Everybody needs to follow the rules. So what rules did he not follow in denying the protest? I'll get there. The record will show that Motorola's proposal failed to comply with multiple mandatory requirements of the solicitation. The city, it will show that the city recognized those deficiencies during negotiations. But instead of rejecting Motorola's proposal as non-responsive, the city attempted to negotiate those deficiencies after proposals had already been submitted. And despite those material deviations, the city ultimately recommended Motorola for award. Everything I'm about to show you comes directly from the procurement record. Before we examine the individual deviations, the principle that governs this appeal, the commission is not being asked to decide whether Motorola, again, is a capable company. It's being or being asked to decide which proposal it prefers. The question is whether the city followed the procurement rules it established in the solicitation and in denying this appeal. Florida courts have made that standard abundantly clear. The legality of a procurement decision turns on whether the public entity complied with its own solicitation requirements. And that is exactly what we're going to examine. Did the city follow its own rules? Rule number one, proposals must comply with mandatory requirements. That's straightforward. Those requirements are not suggestions. They're not preferences. They're conditions of responsiveness that apply equally to every proposer. Every proposer, including CI and Motorola, are required to compete under the same set of rules. The next question. If a proposal does not comply, can those deficiencies be negotiated away? The answer is no. Negotiations have an important role in public procurement. They can finalize contract terms. They can clarify implementation. And they can resolve issues consistent with the proposal that was submitted. But negotiations have legal limits. Florida law does not allow a public entity to accept a materially noncompliant proposal and then negotiate it into compliance after proposals have been submitted. In other words, negotiations may finalize a contract. They may not create a compliant proposal. Rule number three. That brings us to the third rule. Once proposals are submitted, proposers are competing based on the proposals they actually submitted, not proposals they wish they'd submitted, and not to change later. If one proposer is allowed to materially change its proposal after the deadline, every other proposer is placed in a competitive disadvantage. The final legal principle is perhaps the most important. Under Florida law, the city cannot waive a material deviation requirement once a deviation is done, and it cannot award the contract despite it. And that's important because you do not have to agree with us on every issue that we raised. If you conclude that Motorola's proposal contained even one material deviation from a mandatory solicitation requirement, the law does not permit an award to Motorola. Our original protest alleged that Motorola's proposal was materially nonresponsive. That remains true today. The negotiations and the transcripts that follow don't create those violations. It exposed them. And now I want to show you what the city's own record actually says. So let's start with warranty and support. The city told Motorola, The MSI response was inconsistent with the RFP. Motorola responded, We'll change that. Mayors, commissioners, This exchange is the case in a minute. The issue is not what happened during negotiations. The issue is what Motorola submitted. If Motorola had to change its proposal to comply, then it did not comply when submitted. The negotiations didn't create that. They revealed that the city recognized it. The same pattern repeats across multiple requirement after requirement. This is the old one. So on project timeline, The city said Motorola's response was inconsistent with the RFP. And Motorola responded, On parts availability, The city said Motorola's response was RFP. The word, again, matters. This was no longer isolated. Motorola responded, We'll review this and get it back to you. Acceptance testing. You're coming to the end of your time. Are you pretty much summarizing your position? I don't think so, Mayor. If you would allow the remainder of the presentation, How much more time do you need? Can I have six minutes? How much? Six minutes. Thank you. Just to let you know. Okay. I'll skip forward to... So these violations show a repeated pattern. It shows that the city knowingly accepted and allowed Motorola the opportunity to bring its proposal into compliance. Let me get to parts. Okay. So the issue becomes even more significant here because this is the first time that you hear directly from your chief procurement officer. The city's consultant tells Motorola you're not doing physical plant modifications. This is a Motorola requirement. Then the chief procurement officer says it should have already been included. Motorola responds. Understood, Glenn. That statement matters. The chief procurement officer is not asking Motorola for something new. He's saying this requirement should have already been included in Motorola's proposal. That means Motorola's proposal omitted something the city believed the RFP required. It's not ambiguity, and that omission matters because plant modifications has obvious cost implications. If these costs should have been included in Motorola's proposal but were not, then Motorola's price was not being evaluated on the same basis as every other proposer, and that goes directly to materiality. It affects scope. It affects price. It affects the fairness of competition, and again, that's not my interpretation. That's the chief procurement officer's own words. The same official, who later denied CAA's protest, acknowledged during negotiations that Motorola's proposal should have included the requirement from the beginning. That is why, commissioners, you must consider the negotiation transcripts. They do not create a new issue. They show that the city itself understood Motorola's proposal was missing mandatory requirements when submitted. Okay, so hold on. I have a question. So, Mayor, if you can just pause the time for a moment. So, City Attorney, what I'm seeing here is discussions post-intent to award to Motorola. Am I saying that right? Pre. These are transcripts from negotiations. These are not legal questions, and perhaps your chief procurement officer might want to answer some of these for you. Okay, sure. Glenn, do you want me to come up? Yeah, just let Glenn come up. So, Glenn, am I capturing the timing of this correct? Is these are communications to Motorola? It's during negotiations. It is during negotiations. Post-intent to award. Not going to be protested. It should not be brought in front of the commission. What you're seeing here in front of you is a lot of persuasion, persuasive arguments. In order for us to get the best, but CI is trying to limit our authority, and I can tell you, Commissioner, you take that away from us. We're not going to be able to negotiate any further city contracts from this point forward. So, I think that they're trying to establish new precedent, and I can assure you that if we move forward with anything else but awarding to Motorola, it's going to be extremely difficult to negotiate any future contracts, even if it's with CI. They're going to do the same thing as we're seeing right now. And so, again, I cannot implore you or the commission enough to understand the basis of what's going on here after the protest. Your procurement ordinance does not allow what's happening right now and being presented in front of the commission, yet they know this, and they're still doing it. It's a consistent pattern that's been done. Even after the protest was filed, they continued to target. They continued to make further arguments, understanding the fact that their first two arguments within the four corners of the protest was not sustained. I denied it, so they continued to try additional arguments to see what sticks. That's what you have in front of you. So, Glenn, just to follow up with the vice mayor, so the award was made to Motorola, correct? That's the recommendation. That is the recommendation. Recommendation, okay. And that included the pricing as well, correct? It did. And now they're trying to even remove that criteria. Well, let me just finish. So, what they showed us on the screen was that their company came in number one before pricing. Now, does pricing skew the ranking that much? The pricing was, I believe it was 30%. Right. So, it's all-encompassing. Now, they cannot argue. No, no, I'm just asking you in general. The screen they showed us was that in four out of the five categories, they came in number one. And then, but that was pre, that was before the pricing ranking. So, but once pricing was, you're saying that Motorola came in number one, correct? That is correct. Okay. And that's your ranking, and the committee decided that Motorola was number one. They protested that. And yet, you still continued negotiating with coming to compliance with the RFP, or was that to try to still get a better deal for the city? Do you understand my question? Just one thing. The city does have a presentation that we can provide after. I understand, but it's- And it outlines exactly what was put in Motorola's presentation compared to the RFP that their proposal was aligned with the RFP requirements. Was aligned? Was aligned. Okay. We have our technical expert here, as well, who did the initial review of their proposal response, who can also clarify anything that was provided. As the manager stated, there were some ambiguities in our RFP document, which led to some confusion in how people answered specific questions. Our technical consultant reviewed each and every one of those and provided a response to indicate that Motorola's proposal was aligned with the RFP, though their interpretation was a little bit different as it related to some of the technical specifications. And so, if you would like, I understand that the proposal is providing some information related to the negotiation session, but really, this protest is about the proposal that was submitted and the alignment with the RFP requirements. Well, that was their protest. Right. But you made it, you and Glenn, your committee made it, they made the determination that there was alignment and that the mandatory requirements were fulfilled at the time of the award. That is correct. Okay. So, their question that, they're trying to resurrect that question and saying that the mandatory requirements were not met by Motorola and therefore they should not have been given that award. But from your interpretation, they were met and that's why the protest was denied. From the interpretation of the evaluation committee, as well as our technical consultant who reviewed the proposal response, that was the final conclusion that was made. And so, yes, that is the conclusion that was drawn in the denial of the protest. Does that answer your question, Vice Mayor? Yeah. Yeah, that's part of it, Mayor. Yeah. Thanks. And you're getting to it. So, Glenn, as you evaluate a protest, you have to follow certain laws and procedures in evaluating a protest, right? That's correct. So, if you would, walk me through, what are those laws and procedures that you have to follow in evaluating a protest? So, the issue within the written protest stated the specific facts and laws of ordinance and whether any of either the state or the city, including the fact, violated our own procurement process. And the answer is absolutely not. And the question being, during what period? Just narrow that down to me. The competitive process, not negotiations. Okay. So, that matters during the competitive process. And what, for laymen, describe what's the competitive process, not negotiations. So, from the time of issuance of the solicitation all the way through proposals received by the city, those forwarded to the evaluation committee. The evaluation committee looking at those proposals, including demonstrations. Once the committee makes its decision, that concludes the competitive process. A notice of intent to award is posted, and any aggrieved or perceived aggrieved proposer can protest the award, the intent to award. And they have five. So, the communication we're seeing is post-notice to intent to award. That is correct. And during that time, post-notice of intent to award, negotiations happen, right? That's some of the language we've seen here in the discussion. And what I'm hearing you say is during that negotiation process, the laws and procedures are different than prior. Is that right? That is correct. We have more discretion to try to get the best value out of the high-ranked, responsive, and responsible firm. Okay. And so, what you're seeing before you is negotiations to get us to that point. It also allows, during the negotiations, that if there's any of Motorola's response, where perhaps it's not clear, they made statements such as comply with clarifications, which, by the way, CI went ahead and did the same thing. During negotiations, I have the ability to compliance there. So, that's exactly what the city went ahead and did. We want to make sure that they were complying. At that particular point, Commissioner, if we would find out through negotiations that they're not going to comply, we would have terminated the negotiations and perhaps negotiated with CI. So, that's the actual process. Great. And, again, just to reiterate, evaluating whether you failed to comply with law and procedure and design the protest is based on your action from the start of this process. Yes, sir. Nothing after. Nothing after. So, this communication, post-intent to ward, is not relevant to our question before us. That is correct. Exactly. City Attorney, is this accurate? Yes, Vice Mayor. Okay. So, we need to evaluate your actions. Yes, sir. Great. Thank you. Mayor, thanks. Thank you. Glenn, do me a favor. On the top right, that should be December 5, 2025. Duly noted. I have it in my notes. Thank you. Yes. You're such a... My presentation. Okay. Sorry. I stopped the clock just so that you... Thank you. I saw time tick down, though. Who's doing it? We have some technical difficulties here. Yeah, this is the city's presentation. Yeah, I know. Are we... Do we know that we're supposed to be uploading a screen here? We should have a commercial break here now, right? I'll click through from here. Thank you. A new logo. We've had it for about a month now. Maybe around the city once in a while. Yeah, maybe I should. Yeah. Sorry. You've been around the block. I'm telling you. I sure have. Let me tell you. You have to read the LTE. I'm ready whenever you are. I'm ready. Okay. Thank you. So I want to take the opportunity really quickly to clarify something. Negotiations are entirely part of the protest. I'm sorry. Entirely part of the procurement process. The only dangerous rhetoric on here is that negotiations are allowed to bring proposals into compliance. Negotiations are intended... A good negotiation will add additional value, get you a better price. They do not bring proposals into compliance. That is against the law. But they said that they had already been in compliance with the mandatory requirements in response to the RFP even before the protest was filed. And quite respectfully, Mayor, the words on the page are not... Consistent with that point of view. They're not consistent. They're not... That's not employee. That's not attorney rhetoric. That's not flair. That's the city's own words. Okay. In writing, confirming that the proposal deviates, was not compliant, was not what the city asked for, and then on record asking them to come into compliance. Okay. The law does not allow that. Okay. So this system configuration is probably the most significant issue in the procurement because this is not just a technical deviation. This is capacity. And in a public safety radio system, capacity matters most when the system is under stress. So capacity determines how many simultaneous communications the system can handle when police, fire, EMS, mutual aid, and emergency responses are all operating at the same time. The city understood that, and that is why the city representative told Motorola the system needed at least 16 channels. Motorola proposed 10. And the chief procurement officer said the key sentence, it should have already been included in your proposal. That sentence matters. The city was not asking Motorola for additional value. The city was saying this was part of the system Motorola should have proposed from the beginning. A 10-channel system is not the same product as a 16-channel system. It's not the same capacity. It's not the same price. It's not the same safety performance. CI and other proposers had to price the system the RFP required when proposals were due. Motorola submitted a smaller configuration, received the benefit of a lower evaluated price, and then was given the opportunity, after proposals were opened, to decide what it could add, revise, or absorb. This next excerpt moves the issue from technical compliance to the procurement fairness. The chief procurement officer says he is speaking from a procurement standpoint. And then he says, I know for a fact that all other proposers went along with the city's position on this. Again, this isn't ambiguity in language. He continues, Each and every proposer that responded to this had agreed to the city's position and the system configuration aspect. That is a critical admission. He was, again, not ambiguity. According to the city's own chief procurement officer, every other proposer followed what the city was asking for. Motorola did not. That is an unequal playing field. Every other proposer had to price the city's required system. When proposals were due, Motorola did not. Was that a mandatory requirement? Absolutely. Okay. This is one of the most important excerpts in the entire record. The chief procurement officer says the protester is going to get a copy of these negotiations. Then he says they're going to play this in front of the commissioners. And what did he know C.I. would point out? He knew C.I. would point out that the city's intent was 16 channels. He knew C.I. would point out that the city had moved forward with something lesser than what it expected. And he knew C.I. would point out that the city had moved forward with something lesser than what it expected. And he knew C.I. would point out that C.I. had provided what he called an optimal solution for, and I quote, everything we asked for. That is not C.I.'s hindsight. That is a chief procurement officer during negotiations identifying the very problem now before you. The very problem that we identified in our protest. Okay. That concludes your comments. Does it? I've given you a lot of time, and you needed to pace yourself. But I think we got the point. All right. Thank you. Joe Carpenter is part of your group. Vice Mayor Joe Carpenter, I'm a resident of the city of Fort Lauderdale. Also, I'm on the board of a condominium here in Fort Lauderdale, and I'm on the board of C.I. So I've been following this RFP since the beginning. The facts really are not in dispute. There's an RFP. There were timely responses. There was a recommendation to Motorola, and a competing vendor, C.I., filed a timely protest with the chief procurement officer, alleging that Motorola's proposal was materially noncompliant with the RFP. During the pendency of the protest, the chief procurement officer began to negotiate with MSI, or Motorola. That in itself was a violation of your procurement procedures, where they were supposed to be stayed pending the decision of the protest. He specifically told them when he started, I'm here because there is a protest. And during those negotiations, the chief procurement officer denied the protest, while at the same time invited, suggested, and required Motorola to change its answers to comply with the requirements of the RFP. This happened time and time again. The transcript of the negotiations are damning, and they document just what we're saying. To accept Motorola's position now, this commission must ignore the facts that have been uncovered. The RFP process was fatally flawed. The commission, sitting as the appellant review authority, can do nothing other than uphold the appeal, or it will become, too, an active participant in an improper and illegal action. I respectfully suggest, commissioners, you only have one choice. Uphold the appeal and instruct the city to move forward with the highest-ranked compliance bidder. Let me ask you a question. If the city commission were to throw out all bids, like the city manager had recommended, so we're back to square one, your company would make a proposal, Motorola would make a proposal. So all the issues that Motorola had to, we'll say, correct in the process will now be part of the initial proposal. How do you gain in that situation? I think if you look at what the city manager responded early on in this whole process, I think it was two meetings ago, what she said was she was going to recommend to reject all, and because of the issues that had arisen in the interpretation of the RFP and the competing interpretations of that, there were going to be more clarified specifications that would be bid, but because both Motorola and CI had bid this twice already, she felt, and I believe, we feel it can be turned around relatively quickly and get a true apples and apples. Right, but you're not answering my question. To answer my question, you know, if there were deficiencies, you're saying there were deficiencies in Motorola's response, correct? And you feel that as a result of those deficiencies, they should not have been awarded the contract, right? Or the recommendation should not have been made on their behalf. So if we do what the city manager recommended, which was to throw out all protests, now we're starting from square one, and now CI will make its response, Motorola will make its response with all the corrections. Correct. Okay, how does that advance CI's application? Because we believe, and we did, in fact, what we were pointing out, we bid a much more robust system than Motorola did. And apples and apples RFP, where we're both bidding the same thing, will compete on price. Well, based on the history of this process, do you actually think that's going to be the result? I do. I do. I think there are a series of clarifications that can be... Ma'am, you've already spoken, so I can't have you come up again. There's a series of clarifications that can be made to the RFP that would make it much easier and much less subjective on this whole thing. Okay. Thank you, sir. The other people that have signed up to speak are on behalf of Motorola, Joe Warner, Josh Trifoletti, and Ellen Bogdanoff. Is there, you don't have a presentation, you have a presentation, you just want to respond to certain points. And are any of these other folks, Josh or Joe, are they just going to appoint you to make these? All right. I'll give you a couple minutes, so... Mayor, Commissioners, thank you. Ellen Bogdanoff from Motorola. I just want to clarify a couple of things. And then Mark Stempler's actually here as the attorney who responded to the protests. And he may need to come up if you have any questions. But, you know, to CI's credit, they've done a phenomenal job of muddying up the waters. And I just want to kind of clarify a couple of things. The response for Motorola was out there, and they had the opportunity to add those to their protest. And I'm just going to use one example, this whole 10-channel versus 16-channel thing. The RFP put in requirements. This is what we need. Tell us how many channels you need in order to accomplish this goal. They said 10. Your consultant, who is your expert, who I probably would suggest you call up, said that is in compliance. CI decided, well, we're going to do 16. That also complies. Doesn't mean the 10 didn't comply. And with all due respect, what happened in the negotiations, which should not even be considered, is what we call in sales, puffing. And to Glenn's credit, he extracted another 3.5 million. So if I'm in negotiations and I say to you, wow, you complied with everything. You did everything to the letter of the law. But I want more. I'm going to look at you and say, no. What he did is he kind of used language that they took advantage of because he wanted to extract more from Motorola. And he did. So your position is, Motorola's position is, that they complied with the mandatory requirements of the RFP. And that during these negotiations, post-award negotiations, that Glenn or someone on his staff was able to exact additional benefits that were not otherwise in the response. Correct. But they still, you're saying they still complied with the RFP for the mandatory elements of the RFP. Correct. And if we remember, when they filed their protest, they only brought up two issues that were summarily dismissed, not only by your procurement director. Which were the two? The two were, Glenn, I'm going to ask you to come up because they added, they kept adding. It's okay. All right. Glenn, do you recall? One response was conditional if FCC approved and also warranty did not meet requirements. The warranty requirements and then the actual system, the actual range of the system are the two issues that were brought forth. And they were both denied. I did not act in a vacuum, Mayor. I went ahead and consulted with the city's consultant. And so we looked at the protest. And from a technical point of view, they failed on the merits. So those two, you felt, were compliant. Those two elements, you thought they were compliant with the RFP? Yes. Based upon discussion with the city's consultant, absolutely those two were in compliance with the RFP requirements. And those were the only two elements in their protest? The original protest? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Glenn, while you're up here, I apologize for interrupting. Okay, I need this clarified. Is it true that other than pricing that CI received four out of five first place votes, was it simply the pricing that changed the award? Commissioner, I would have to go back to do that analysis. What I can say is that Motorola was recommended by the EC, and your public safety officials ranked Motorola number one. So I think you would have to take that into account in consideration. But doing the analysis that they did, of course, they're going to do an analysis that's going to favor their position. But they're actually now almost rewriting the RFP requirement and criteria. So now what they're doing is they're acting arbitrarily and capricious. Now, if I would have done that, I would have been in violation of law. But now they're coming before you using persuasive arguments, which I did during negotiations. Now, they're saying that wasn't allowed, but yet now they're doing some of the same thing to convince you otherwise. Thus, I do concur with Ellen. They're muddying up the waters. And so I implore the commission that you should not listen to some of the things that they're raising because, once again, it's outside the four corners of the original protest. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Are you kind of finished? Sure. I think we got it all. I think we understand. You did a great job. Mark Templer's here if you have any of the legal issues. Yeah, if we have any other questions. Okay. Let's leave it up to the commission now. No one else has signed up to speak. We need to move on. So, commission, what's your pleasure? What would you like to do? So, right now, the posture, again, is to whether or not to allow the appeal of the denial of the protest. You understand that? The appeal of the denial of the protest. That's what we're asked to consider. And the basis upon which this appeal rests is whether or not the denial of the protest exceeded the authority of the procurement officer in his denial of the protest. Did he go outside the bounds of his authority in the basis of his denial of the protest? So, shall I? What's that? So, I think that there are infirmities in the process. I don't ascribe any ill intent to any of the parties. I think Motorola is a great company. I think CI is a great company. And I think Glenn did his best to get the best deal for the city. So, again, not casting aspersions to anybody involved in this process. But I do think there are infirmities in how it was conducted. And I think the city manager's recommendations to start over again is the best path forward. I think it puts the city on the most secure legal grounds. I don't want to see us engage in litigation over this because that will slow this down a lot more than taking three months to put it out to bid will. We can do this very quickly. We already have all the specs. We're not starting from scratch. This isn't going to be months and months and months and months and months. It will be three months. Start to finish, we can do this by the time we get back from summer break. So, I really think that the best posture and the safest posture for the city is to go with the city manager's recommendation. We reject all bids, put it back out there. We know who's going to respond. They've already put their responses together. It's no work for them to do this. You know, something was brought up earlier by Yvette. We talked about how there was some confusion in the RFP. So, part of my consulting practice is working with companies responding to RFPs with the federal government. And we have pre-bid conferences. And the reason for pre-bid conferences is to clarify ambiguity. That's why we do it that way. So, any questions that any respondent has is clarified in the pre-bid conference and the FAQs that get put out. That's the purpose of that. So, I don't think we should get to the point where we're clarifying ambiguity after award. So, I think the safest posture for the city is to reject all bids, and that would be my motion. Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Okay. No second yet. Okay. I'll have a question before making that. We're going through this process. What's going to be different with what's being presented? That's the point. You know, everyone, both teams know exactly what's put in that RFP. So, what's going to be different this time that's going to make a change in the results? That's what I asked the CI representative. I said, even if we go back, where is that going to put us all? We're just going to go back. Everyone knows what the other party has submitted. Each side has now presented their best offer. However, unless CI is going to say, okay, I can give 26 channels, you know, I don't know how that works. All I know is that I don't know how far ahead that gets us or how far ahead the applicants get us because they're just going to resubmit the same offer. Well, I think, Mayor, if I may, I think it gives us an opportunity to clarify those ambiguities and confusing details like do we need to shed? How many channels do we actually need as a minimum requirement for the submittal? If there was any issues that apparently were not cleared to the bidders, a rebid is an opportunity to put out a document that everybody understands. So, we don't find ourselves going through this a third time. Well, actually, is this the third or fourth? I just have to, I think, I have to disagree with that approach. And, again, at the last city commission meeting, the commission rejected that approach. That's why, that is why this is in front of us tonight because we said at the last meeting that we did not want to reject all bids and start all over. That's what we said as a commission. Again, why do we always have this pattern where we make a decision and then all of a sudden we have amnesia and we forget and we go back and we change our mind? And let's just be consistent. All right. So, do you have a motion? So, if I may, though, so I'd like to answer that because I think that's a very good point because I think we did it without benefit of this presentation. Had we gone through this presentation, we may not have come to that same conclusion. I would disagree. Did you meet with – I met multiple times with both parties. I have had all of this information for over a month. You haven't had that information for over a month? I have, but it's a lot more powerful to see the presentation, hear the back and forth, have an opportunity to have this dialogue. And, by the way, in front of the public in a transparent manner, not a one-on-one conversation that I have with them behind closed doors. Well, I think it's important that – You create that drama in my head just by reading the information, so I've done that already. I think it's important that the public gets to hear this as well. This is a very important decision. It's a major contract, and I think the public has a right to hear how we're making these decisions. All right. Would someone like to provide another motion? There was a motion made. Didn't get a second. Does someone want it? What kind of motion? Now we have – the question is this is an appeal of the chief procurement officer's denial of the protest. So, someone would like to make a motion whether or not to deny the appeal or accept the appeal. Well, again, this is a difficult one. First of all, I want to commend both parties. You guys are all experts. If I had my way, I would split the baby, and I'll let one party do the infrastructure and one party do the equipment. But that obviously is not going to happen. But that being said, both parties – and I agree with what Commissioner Beasley-Pittman is saying. What would be different if we threw out everything and started – Okay, so let's move this thing along. Okay, I am going to move this thing along. Calm down. So what I really feel like I want to say is considering all of the record evidence, everything we've read, everything we've heard, everything we've seen, I just believe that the commission needs to affirm the chief procurement officer's decision and deny the protest. That's exactly what I would say. Deny the appeal. Deny the appeal. Right. Okay. All right. Is there a second to that? Second. Okay. So we moved and seconded. So the item here before us now is to deny the appeal of the chief procurement officer's denial of protest. Any further questions? Say that again. Repeat that. Okay. So the motion that has now been seconded is to deny the appeal of the chief procurement officer's denial of the protest. May I rephrase that for you, Mayor? Yes, you rephrase that for me. Well, I believe, and Commissioner Glassman, I believe what you are saying is that you wanted to affirm your chief procurement officer's denial of the appeal. Is that your motion? Yes, that's what I said. Thank you. It is what I said, isn't it? Yeah, but, okay, either way, it's not the chief procurement officer didn't have the appeal. He had the protest. You're affirming his denial of the protest. The appeal is considering his denial. We're affirming his denial of the protest. Right. Get rid of the word of appeal. Right. Oh, thank you. Well, it happens to be on the motion. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And then, I don't know what, the motion's approved, whatever it was. Whatever it was. All right. All right. Let's take a, let's take a 10-minute break. City Commission evening meeting will now reconvene. R1, appointment of board and committee members. Mr. Clerk, could you please, where's Mr., where's the clerk? We've got a lot of people here for R7, so we've got to get through R1 to R6 pretty quick. Thank you, Mayor. For tonight's resolution, we have for the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, Chantel Jaram, nominated by Commissioner Herbst. Aviation Advisory Board, Kelly Gordon, nominated by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Beach Business Improvement District Advisory Board, Jeanette Alvarez, alternate member representing Hotel Marin. Fire Rescues Facilities Bond Issue Blue Ribbon Committee, John Hooper, nominated by Mayor Jean Tallis. Homeless Advisory Committee, Robin Martin, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen. Raymond Detman, nominated by Vice Mayor Sorensen. Parks, Recreation, and Beaches Board, Joy Oglesby, nominated by Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. And Sustainability Advisory Board, Susie Bailey, nominated by Mayor Trent Ellis. And we did, I sent, or our office sent on an email last night with regards to adding an additional name for the Central City Redevelopment Advisory Board, Charlene Gunn, nominated by Commissioner Glassman, if we could add that to the resolution. And that's it. Okay. Any other additions or modifications to those nominations? Okay. There being none, would someone like to introduce the resolution? Yes. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. And that's as amended? As amended. As amended. Thank you. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing or nominating, if applicable, Boarding Committee members as set forth in the exhibit attached here to, made a part here of. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis? Yes. And those Board and Committee members are now approved, and I want to thank them for their commitment to our community and for the betterment of the City of Fort Lauderdale. Moving on to R2, resolution approving a landscape maintenance memorandum of agreement for State Road 845 and the Florida Department of Transportation for landscape improvements. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Introduced. No one has signed up to speak. Any questions? Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving and authorizing the execution of a Florida Department of Transportation District for landscape maintenance memorandum of agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Florida Department of Transportation for the installation and maintenance of landscape improvements within the right-of-way of State Road 845 and an assumption of liability and hold harmless agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Gala Home, LLC, in providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trenthalos? Yes. And that item is now approved. R-3, resolution approving a 22nd amendment to the landscape maintenance memorandum of agreement for State Road A1A and the Florida Department of Transportation for landscape improvements. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. It's been introduced. No one has signed up to speak. Anyone have any questions? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving and authorizing execution of amendment number 22 to the Florida Department of Transportation District for landscape inclusive maintenance memorandum of agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the Florida Department of Transportation for the installation and maintenance of landscape improvements within the right-of-way of State Road A1A and an assumption of liability and hold harmless agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Broward County, Florida, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mary Trentos? Yes. And R-3 is now approved. R-4, resolution authorizing the issuance of stormwater utility systems special assessment revenue bonds, not to exceed $333 million. Okay. No one has signed up to speak. Anyone have any questions? I know bond counsel are here. If you have any questions, there being no questions, someone would like to introduce the resolution. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, authorizing the issuance and sale of stormwater utility systems special assessment revenue bond series 2026 in the aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $333 million for the purpose of paying a portion of the cost of improvements to the City stormwater utility system, including without limitation reimbursements of the City for costs of such improvements, advanced by the City from its internal funds and paying the cost of issuance of the Series 2026 bonds, delegating authority to the City Manager to determine the terms of the Series 2026 bonds within the parameters set forth herein, authorizing the public sale by competitive bid of such Series 2026 bonds, approving the form of the official notice of bond sale, authorizing the City Manager to award the Series 2026 bonds within the parameters set forth herein, authorizing the execution and directing the authentication and delivery of such Series 2026 bonds, authorizing the printing and use of a preliminary official statement and the execution and delivery of an official statement with respect to said Series 2026 bonds, approving uncertificated book entry-only registration of said Series 2026 bonds with the Depository Trust Company, providing for the application of the proceeds of said Series 2026 bonds, appointing a paying agent and bond register and a disclosure dissemination agent for the Series 2026 bonds, approving the form of and authorizing the execution of a paying agent and bond register agreement, covenant and to provide continuing disclosure in connection with such Series 2026 bonds in accordance with Rule 15C2-12 and approving the form of and authorizing the execution of a continuing disclosure commitment with respect thereto, authorizing other required actions and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Thank you. I was going to say, read it again. Don't you dare. Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mary Trantels? Yes. A couple things. Now, this is to cover all 12 projects. Is that the intent, the $333 million? So, we're going to start design work for the first batch of those projects. The first eight? Yeah. Okay. But, I mean, does this cover construction as well? It does not cover construction. We're going to have issuances in the years to come. If we were to draw down all the money at one time, it would put a significant burden on our users. I understand that. So, this is just covering design for the first tranche? I see our public works director. Oh, hi, Brad. Hi. Good evening, Mayor. So, the money that is allocated for this set funding is approximately $200 plus million. It is to go to complete phase one of Fortify. And then about $110 to $120 million will go to design of the first three projects in phase two. Okay. So, phase one, if I'm not mistaken, goes up to, is it number seven or number? So, all of the projects listed, one through 12, those are part of Fortify Lauderdale phase two. These are phase two projects that are listed. So, this is for design for phase two. Okay. Right. And it will finish the aisles. It will finish Victoria Park. And it will finish Melrose and Riverland. It's construction. Construction. Okay. All right. All right. We'll spend it wisely. That's Merrose Park. I need you to specify. I'm sorry. Merrose. Merrose Park. Merrose Park. Thank you. I apologize, Commissioner. We'll spend it wisely. We don't want it to go down the drain. And, Mayor, we've planned for the next debt issuance to continue along the Fortify Lauderdale initiative in 2029. So, we are planning on continuously issuing debt as we complete projects to fund the next phase of the project. And I understand the process. I just wanted to know what the $333 million was covering. Because it's a lot of money. Okay. All right. Moving on to R5. Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale. Lauderdale and the Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency to add capital improvement master plan project for the Central City Community Redevelopment Area. No one is signed up to speak. Someone would like to introduce a resolution? Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Any questions? Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving an amendment to interlocal agreement between the Fort Lauderdale Community Redevelopment Agency and the City of Fort Lauderdale, adding the Capital Improvement Master Plan Project for the Central City Community Redevelopment Area, authorizing and appropriating funds in the amount not to exceed $200,000 for planning services related to same, providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Chantals? Yes, and R5 is now approved. R6, resolution approving the appointment of Special Bond Council and Special Disclosure Council for the issues of water and sewer revenue bonds, Series 2026, and funding improvements to the water and sewer utility system and prescribing compensation. No one is signed up to speak. Someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Any questions? There being none, please call the roll. A resolution, the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, appointing Albert Del Castillo of Greenberg, Traurig, PA, as Special Bond Council and Steve Bullock of Steve E. Bullock, PA, as Special Disclosure Council to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in connection with the issuance of water and sewer revenue bonds, Series 2026, for improvements to water and sewer utility system, prescribing the compensation to be paid to such special counsel and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Gentiles? Yes. And R6 is now approved. Okay. Now moving on to R7. This is the resolution to adopt the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Disposal and Recyclable Materials Processing Authority of Broward County, Florida. A number of people have signed up to speak. City Manager, does the City have any introductory remarks it wants to make, or do you want to just go into public comment? I'm going to defer to our public works director, Brad Cain, and I know there's a companion item as well. All right. Correct. Okay. Brad, please. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, fellow commissioners. So, to start with, I'll give a little update of where the process went with the Solid Waste Governing Board. On June 15th, the board met, and they made some modifications to the Second Amendment for the opt-out provisions that, after consideration from other municipalities' inputs, they took that and they put that in the agreement. And what those two provisions do is, one, it will allow any municipal member to get out prior to the pricing that comes back through a competitive selective RFP process in 2027. And there will be another provision that allows any municipality to get out of the agreement in 2048, 20 years through the agreement, because it's a 40-year agreement. So, you know, this reminds me of, like, a prenuptial agreement, right? You want to get married, but you're already planning a divorce, okay? What is the thinking there? I mean, what is the – why are we talking – why are we focusing on timetables to get out? What is the benefits of getting in? That's what we really need to hear about. Well, I'm going to – I'm just going to talk about a little of these things first, and then I will get into that for sure as well. Well, so to clarify also, so in order for the Second Amendment, and that's relating to RA tonight, to be in effect, all members who are of the SWA who've passed the Facilities Amendment, and I believe it's approximately 20 cities at this point, but I have staff from SWA that can correct me or update me because it does change quite frequently, have to pass the Second Amendment in order for those provisions and opt-outs to be eligible for any of the members. If any city who has passed the SWA Facilities Amendment and then – that does not pass the Second Amendment, it dies. And what that means is then any municipality who has passed those Facilities Amendment will be in that agreement for 40 years. I think it's just an important thing to understand when we're talking about moving forward. But those provisions, with all of the cities passing it at 100 percent, we have an ability to opt out once the pricing comes in next year. Staff can evaluate it and see if we like the pricing on the different waste streams and recycling, and then we can make a decision if we want to go forward or not. So do we have to make the decision as to whether or not to participate before or after the Second Amendment is voted on? That's a very interesting question. So the two items tonight, one is to pass the Facilities Amendment and go forward, and the second item or eight has to do with the Second Amendment, which also needs to be passed, and obviously we wanted the cities passing it. But to be transparent, August 14th is the deadline. So if all of the other cities do not pass the Second Amendment and we sign on to the agreement, and perhaps any time after that happens, one city, for whatever reason, doesn't pass it, we are locked into this agreement for 40 years, irrespective. So, Mayor, so an option that we can prevail ourselves of if we want is to say we will support be in favor of the First Amendment on the condition that the Second Amendment passes unanimously. Thus, if it doesn't pass unanimously, we can opt out. We, in other words, we don't, we are not part of the SWA in agreement with the First Amendment. Is that option being given to us? I think it's a legal question, and we would have to kind of work through that between the SWA and the City Attorney's Office. I'm not sure exactly how that proviso would work. You know, if we can conditionally enter it with that provision or not, I don't believe any other municipality has done that. So, this is kind of a first, so I think we would have to work through that. Well, the other municipalities are already part of the group, so they're already in it. We're not in it yet. But they're, in order to entice other members to participate, they are proposing the Second Amendment, which makes it more palatable for cities like Fort Lauderdale to participate and be part of the group, right? Right, but some cities that do pass it at this point that have passed it, they have not passed it with any proviso like that. They've just passed it. Well, because that's because the Second Amendment hadn't been invented yet. It's just now coming up. Correct. Exactly, Mayor. Exactly. And a lot of the cities who have already passed the First Amendment might not feel as strongly as we do about having the opt-out post-RFP, right? And so, it could further entice other cities who may be on the fence like us to say, hey, now that there's a Second Amendment with an opt-out provision, we might consider it, and or we might, those other cities might do exactly what we're suggesting, which is conditional approval of the First, dependent on passage of the Second. Mayor, could I offer some historical background on this? Please, please. So, commissions through my 20 years here have repeatedly passed things with conditional approval. I know in many instances when I was the auditor, we would pass an item, and it was conditioned upon the auditor's review and approval of extra documents that had not been provided. So, we've done this before. So, there is past practice of this, and I agree with the Vice Mayor. I'm not a huge fan of this, but one of the things that the opt-out provision allows us to do is continue to work on some of the things that I think are not quite in our favor at this point in time, but we can't get these resolved between now and August. But there are certain things that I would like to see in the future agreement, and that's a guaranteed seat on the Executive Committee and some things like that, but there's no way we can get those things resolved in the time frame that we have for this, and I don't want it to die for that issue. So, you know, I trust that whoever is sitting up there for the next year will be able to get those provisions put in there. We could amend the bylaws, do whatever we need to do to come up with an agreement that better suits the needs of Fort Lauderdale, but it gives us time to do that if we approve this on a conditional level. If we don't have, if all the cities don't approve, as the Vice Mayor was saying, that Second Amendment, it's the Second Amendment that has the opt-out. Exactly. So I completely concur that we need to make our approval tonight, if we so decide to go in that direction, conditional upon the Second Amendment being adopted by all the cities. Otherwise, I think it fails for us. Okay. Agree. And just one additional point, Mayor, to Commissioner Herb's point, is if we do that, if the Second Amendment passes, we can opt out post-RFP for any reason we want. Within a year. Right. Within a year. Once RFP comes back. Yeah, exactly. So it doesn't have to be price-determinative is why we opt out, to Commissioner Herb's point. It could be because we haven't secured a permanent seat, or it could be any host of other issues as we decide. Okay. All right. That's good to know. All right. Continue. No. So just going back to a couple of the points you made, being part of the SWA offers a lot of benefits because there are pricing that they get on a Most Favored Nations provision for different disposal streams of waste, personally for solid waste, because obviously we're in the interlocal agreement now with the county. So we will get, you know, really good pricing on disposal. And, you know, some of our, as we did in our comparison, some of the pricing we're getting on our own disposal systems are very similar. So, you know, we'd like to obviously see what their recycling processing numbers are going to come in. So there's benefits to that, and being, you know, partners with all the other cities, they provide education for recycling and things like that as well. So, you know, there are some positive benefits to being in the SWA. Okay. Do you have any further, any further? Okay. So let us now hear from the public, and, of course, I'm going to want to hear from our commissioners first. So, Commissioner Beamfer, well, that, I don't know. Who is the chair? Oh. Chair, take a seat. No, no, go ahead. Okay. This is Mayor Michael Ryan from Sunrise. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. First of all, thank you. Do you swear to tell the truth? The whole truth is nothing but the truth. I want to begin on behalf of my colleagues, municipal colleagues, and thank you for the CLE on procurement. We learned a lot tonight. And, once again, Fort Lauderdale has led and allowed us to maybe avert some of the shoals. I stand here as mayor, of course, and as chair, but most importantly, as your colleague. On the governing board of the Solid Waste Authority. And it's ironic that I stand here tonight because it was over 10 years ago that it was Sunrise in Fort Lauderdale that took on the county when the RRB was collapsing. We made the decision together, one and two, to take on the county to protect the assets, and we filed suit. Commissioner Herbst was our auditor in that process. And we fought together for all the cities, even those that didn't join us in the litigation. And today we stand here with the opportunity, a once-in-a-generation opportunity, to correct decisions that occurred 50 years ago, and 40 years ago, and 30 years ago, that we were not part of, that destined us to this environmental and economic crisis that we face in trash. We have the ability to do what the county said we could not do, and that was to work together as cities to govern ourselves. To the credit of the county, they have stepped aside. This has been a city-led effort. The Solid Waste Working Group, which you were a part of, and by the way, just like you did tonight, you corrected the date from 2026. You had your red pen out the whole time, correcting commas and otherwise. And we fought together with sharp elbows. I know him. I'm surprised it took that long to raise it, actually, in the presentation. But we had the opportunity together to make those once-in-a-generation decisions to take on this crisis as cities. Do we need the county? Don't we need the county to be part of this? And they are part of this. And to their credit, what they did is said, and it is absolutely true, if this fails, if we do not live past August 14th, it will not be because of the county. No, but do we need the county's resources and participation in order to be able to create that critical mass, to be able to negotiate for best pricing, in order to have the funding for facilities that would create waste to energy? What do they call those? Burners? Plant? Yeah. I mean, I just came from a mayor's conference. It was a world mayor's conference. And all anyone talks about is waste to energy and how all these different countries are so far ahead of us in the technology and making this a reality. And so don't we – you say this is a city-led effort, but don't we need the resources of the county? We need the county, and I am glad they are at the table. They have participated in this process, not only through the concepts of their staff and the ability to galvanize, particularly as it comes to county-enforced ordinances or otherwise as we move forward. They are a welcome partner. But my point is, unlike the RRB, we had an advisory board participation. The county led this. They made all the decisions. We had no involvement. We now all have a guaranteed seat on the governing board. The SWA is the cities that participate. So what's the role of the county then? The county is participating, and there are features that are important. For instance, the BIC and what happens with certain aspects of that. They're just one vote? They are just one vote. Put your mic on. Put your mic on. Put your mic on. Put your mic on. So our collective mayors, so one of the things that I recall from my past here, sadly, is that it's the county that actually has responsibility under the state for solid waste disposal facilities. So I believe they have to be a part of this, don't they? They have to be, but they don't have the responsibility for disposal. They have a responsibility to provide the opportunity for disposal. Right. That's all they need to do. So they have to create. They have to create, basically, waste planning. They do waste management, recycling, all that reporting that they have to do with the municipalities handle daily residential garbage collection. So that's why I think that partnership matters, right? It does. It absolutely matters. And it matters in the sense that when the county says that the option for cities is the SWA, they have met their obligation. And I put that into context because for cities who do not participate, they face the risk, as was said by Mr. Cain, of not only not having the most favored nation, but not even participating in the disposal options that we will be taking. And I want to be really clear. We've talked to other cities about this. There is finite capacity at waste energy. There's finite capacity at the landfill. For those who do not participate, they are going to be faced potentially with finding their own disposal. And that's fine. But for the cities that do participate, as you know, and you've been participating, the focus is, and Commissioner Herbst understands this, on a most favored nation to make sure that we are managing our own environmental and economic destiny as the cities together. And so the first time, unlike the RRB, we all have a vote. And I want to just address two issues. The Second Amendment. This was a product of the discussions that we had with Fort Lauderdale, with open and transparent, honest discussions about it. And in the first instance, it was not clear that that would pass. There were some cities that did not want to have any opt-out. They felt it sent the wrong message to the market, and it sent the wrong message to our colleagues. You said it. We're planning for the divorce. And they felt principled against it. But what came out of that process through the discussions we had is that if we have faith in what we're doing, we do not fear December 2027 and what decisions cities will make, because it's our obligation to prove this is the right system. And when it came back, and I brought it back, when it came back as a proposed amendment, it passed unanimously of all cities. So this fear, and I think it's one of these theoretical bit more than asteroid striking, but what lawyers do best, right, as a lawyer and one who slept at Holiday Inn Express, is that we worry about the things that could happen. But every city agreed at the governing board on this opt-out, and there's no principled reason not to. What we're doing now is going back to the 15 who originally agreed to this and getting it on their agenda. Sunrise has already passed it, and a number of other cities have already passed the second amendment, because it makes no sense to go against it. That's the second amendment? Correct. So we've already done that. And that's what the work of the SWA staff has been, as well as the members on the governing board, is to get that back, to send the message for you all that we are committed. Right, but you need unanimity. And we're going to get there. Okay. We're going to get there. I mean, can I promise you that lazy legs can meet over the summer? I can't promise you that. But we— Are they signers? Yes, they have. And they are working to put the second amendment on, because let me make it clear. They understand the importance of what the message has been sent, and they will do it. And the second part is, Commissioner Herbstead, we have the opportunities, because we are the cities, we are the governing board, to address any of the issues between now and December of 2027. And it includes what it looks like. And I have a proposal I'm ready to provide that will guarantee a seat, will give you the voice on the executive committee you want. But I will just end with this. Okay. As Commissioner Sorensen pointed out, every member of the governing board who shows up to an executive committee meeting is treated like a member of the executive committee. We do not constrain dialogue. We—I think it's because, in part, we're colleagues. We understand what it is to have a voice. And we understand the criticisms that have been raised before that we can't govern ourselves. Does the executive board have any authority to make decisions that don't include the entire group? No. And that's an incredibly important point. The executive committee's decisions, even on budget or otherwise, are pure recommendations to the governing board. And we have seen on occasion, very rarely, where the executive committee has raised and pushed along, and the governing board has said, time out, we want more information. It has not been a rubber stamp, and I think it's fair to worry sometimes that working groups or executive committees can be, you know, the actual place where everything is done. In not only deference, but in, I would say, accommodation and a compliment to our colleagues on the governing board, they treat that role seriously, and they do not rubber stamp the executive committee. And so I think that this is the opportunity for us to send a message that we will control our own environmental and economic destiny, that we will do it together. And this has been one of the first instances where we have galvanized not just environmental groups that are here and the League of Women Voters, but the Broward Workshop, Florida Panthers, City Furniture, Corporate America, saying we have to move forward together on this. Because if we don't do this together, the fragmented system we're stuck with will continue to be a failure. But, you know, Mayor, none of those entities have taxpaying constituents that they have to answer to. We do. You do. I do. Right? Of course. So, you know, and we have to make sure that we're going to get the biggest bang for the buck. Agreed. In terms of what we charge our ratepayers. So it's great that all these business groups are, you know, going rah, rah, rah, you know, please pull this together and make it happen. But, you know, we have to be very careful about that this is going to be the more cost effective than if we do it independently. I agree with you. But there's another component why they've come to this. We are running out of space. And at the point at which we do not have disposal options, we will be held over the barrel by the market. We have already seen those market forces that drive pricing. We live through that through the RRB and the post-RRB. And there are players out there that are chirping in the ears of elected officials to say, don't get behind this. Don't get behind this. Because they own disposal facilities. Because they are worried about their ox being gored. Because they know when we put our tonnage together and we work together, we will get the best pricing and we will not be held over the barrel. Because once we control tonnage and time, the market forces have to bend to our desires, not us bending to the market forces. And so I implore you to give this thought to not only pass this tonight, but to continue in your leadership. From the seagrass to the sawgrass, we have been taking this on. And we've been doing it for 15 years together. Commit that to song. I know you. And it was, it was, let me just say, it was born out of, you may not remember this, it was born out of when the strikers came back. And we were standing there supporting the strikers in Fort Lauderdale. And we said from the seagrass to the sawgrass, we support soccer here in Broward County. Long before Messi decided to show up. So anyway. All right. All right. Thank you for your consideration. So, I mean, a lot of other people have signed up to speak, but can we assume that Mayor Ryan has stated the case? Yeah. Okay. All right. So now I'll leave it up to the commissioner. We're going to ask some questions. Fair. Thank you. Thank you for your time and accommodation. Thank you. Before the mayor steps away, could I just ask him? I want you to start with the questions. Well, great. Before he leaves. So are you comfortable with the concept that I proposed about a conditional approval? So I want to make sure that we are signaling to everybody that we want to be part of this, but there's always one of those things. I just want to make sure that you're okay with that as a way for us to move forward and get this done tonight. Commissioner Herbst, I welcome that. And I thank you for raising it because it is a way for us to move forward. And I'm confident we're going to pass the Second Amendment unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Herbst. All right. Commission, it's bumping up to 10 o'clock. Could I ask the mayor a question? No. Wait. I need a motion to extend by 30 minutes. We're going to need 60 minutes. I'm trying to encourage a sense of haste and urgency. All right. So there's a motion for 2, 11 o'clock. Second. Second. Please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now go ahead, Commissioner. Thanks. Mayor, thank you. I appreciate it. Can you just let us know where this is now in the process with regards to all of the percentages? I mean, what's the percentage right now of cities that have taken on the saying yes? I know you have to get to 80% of the population by August 14th. Correct. How are we doing? We're doing really good. Waterhill is putting it back on the agenda. Everyone who's considered has passed it so far. And so we are hopeful. Next week, we have Hollywood. We have Miramar coming up. And we have Lauderhill coming up. And at that point, we'll be over the 80%. So those four cities, we'll put it over the 80%? Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions of Mayor Ryan? Not for Mayor Ryan. Thank you, Mayor Ryan. Appreciate it. Appreciate your leadership. City Attorney, just want to track our concept of conditional approval based on Second Amendment. And as much as Mayor Ryan accepted that as an option, yes. Okay. No problem. Great. So we don't have anything to lose at this point. Exactly. So what do you think, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Oh, I'm in agreement. I think we should take advantage of being a part of the process. Don't want to be closed out of this generational opportunity. Generational opportunities. Okay. So, Mayor, I'll make a motion. A resolution. So how do we want to introduce? So you want to introduce a resolution to adopt the First Amendment subject to condition? Commissioner Herbst, you want to phrase how the resolution is to state? Certainly. Thank you. So, yes, I would suggest that we introduce a resolution to approve the agreement subject to the adoption of the First Amendment. The adoption of the Second Amendment. Second Amendment. Right. The First Amendment is the one that gets us basically. No, no, I'm saying you want to adopt the First Amendment subject to. Right. Adopt the First Amendment subject to the approval of the Second Amendment by all the participating cities. Okay. Second. Just a technical question. City Attorney, we have a companion agenda item to this, don't we? That's the second item. It's the next item. It's the next item? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on this item? I know a lot of people signed up. I just don't want to foreclose anybody on this. Okay. Very good. Okay. All right. Please call the roll. A resolution to the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Disposal and Recyclable Materials Processing Authority of Broward County, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Sir. Is that implied, City Attorney, that it's conditional to the Second Amendment, even though he didn't say that? Yes, by the way. No, he did say it. No, he did. It was in the motion. Sorry, but he didn't. The City Clerk didn't say it. It was in the introduction. So I just want to make sure that's good. David, did you say that you said that in the introduction? He did not say conditional to the Second. Commissioner Herbst did say it in his introduction, and I just read the header as is. Okay, that's fine. As is. But it is subject to the approval of the Second Amendment by all the governing board. Great. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. That was a yes for me. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And R7 is approved. All right. Don't go away. Okay. But Commissioner Ryan, I mean, Mayor Ryan, do we have the right to vote on the Second Amendment? If we should. We do. Okay. I don't know if we're eligible. I don't know if we're eligible since we haven't. Yes. Okay. All right. All right. So, R8 resolution to adopt the Second Amendment. Introduced. A number of people have signed up to speak. I do. Okay. You waived that right. Okay. All right. So, Vice Mayor? Introduced. Resolution is introduced. So, R8 resolution to adopt the Second Amendment as is. Correct, Commissioner Herbst? I believe that is correct. I will look over to my esteemed Madam City Attorney. That is correct, sir. You're comfortable with it as is. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Disposal and Recyclable Materials Processing Authority in Broward County, Florida, authorizing City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. Now, go home. Well, we have, we're entering into this agreement with the best of intentions, and I hope we can, you know, it's all very successful for all of our cities. So, thank you for your persistence, and thank you for your patience, and have a safe drive home. Thank you. On the way. Okay, moving on to PH1, public hearing approving an amendment to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Home Investment Partnership American Rescue Plan. No one has signed up to speak. Do I hear a motion to close public hearing? Moved. So moved. Second. The movement seconded. Please call the roll on closing public hearing. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. Public hearing on PH1 is now closed. Would someone like to move the item, approving the amendment? Moved. Do I hear a second? Second. The move is a second. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes, and PH1 is approved. R-9, this is a resolution approving a local government area of opportunity loan commitment of $640,000 for McDowell Housing Partners. This is a 9% low-income housing tax credit program in Melrose Manor Affordable Housing Development. We've had one person to sign up to speak, which I believe is on behalf of the developer, right? Scarlett Perez? Yes. Scarlett here? She's back there, yes. You don't have to speak if you don't want to. Someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduce. Resolution's been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving a local government opportunity loan of $640,000 for McDowell Housing Partners LLC and or its affiliates, subject to an award of low-income housing tax credits from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation in a firm commitment for the construction of Ecos Melrose Manor Affordable Housing Development, located at 2790 West Broward Boulevard, authorizing the City Manager to execute any and all instruments related to the loan, delegating authority to the City Manager to take certain actions and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herb? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Gentiles? Yes. An R-9 is now approved. Ordinance on first reading. Ordinance amending the classification table of the pay plan of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, by establishing one new classification. No one has signed up to speak. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance? Introduce. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending the non-bargaining unit classification table of the pay plan of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as amended by creating and adding one job classification and providing for severability repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions correction of Scrivener's Arizona effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Gentiles? Yes. And that ordinance is now approved on first reading. Now, these are all going to be ordinances on second reading. This is OSR 1, Ordinance Amending the City of Fort Lauderdale Unified Land Development Regulations on Historic Preservation District. Two people have signed up to speak, Elon Metoyer and Hope Calhoun. Are you still here? Do you want to speak? You're good? Yeah. Okay. I haven't seen you in a while, Hope. Still bouncy. Okay. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending section 47-16, Historic Preservation District of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Unified Land Development Regulations to amend the list of historic districts' modification of dimensional requirements, including an increase in height modification to sign regulations, amending section 47-24.11, Historic Designation of Landmarks, Landmark Site or Buildings, and Certificate of Appropriateness to amend the effective date to provide for an approval process for an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness visible from the public right-of-way in codification and correction of Scrivener's heirs and for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trantels? Yes. And OSR 1 is now approved on second reading. Congratulations. OSR 2, second reading ordinance amending the city of Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances regarding business tax receipts and miscellaneous business regulations. And to establish a Certificate of Use Pilot Program. No one has signed up to speak. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In the ordinance of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending chapter 15 business tax receipts and miscellaneous business regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to establish the Certificate of Use Pilot Program, providing for correction of Scrivener's heirs, severability repealed, conflicting ordinance provisions, and effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trent Tulles? Yes. And OSR 2 is now approved on second reading. OSR 3, second reading, this is a quasi-judicial ordinance approving a rezoning from residential multifamily mid-rise medium-high density district to the Northwest Regional Activity Center mixed-use West District. This is regarding Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 7th Terrace. Anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in, and the Commissioner will announce any site visits, communications, or expert opinions received, and make them a part of the record. Commissioner Herbst, do you have any disclosures? None. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman, do you have any additional disclosures? No, no. No, no. I have no additional disclosures. Commissioner Glassman? None. And Vice Mayor? No additional. No additional disclosures. No one has signed up to speak. Would someone like to move to closed public hearing? So moved. Second. Who is seconded? Please call the roll on closing public hearing. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trent Tulles? Yes. And public hearing on OSR 3 is now closed. Would someone like to introduce the ordinance? Introduce. The ordinance has been introduced. Please call the roll. In ordinance of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending Section 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 there to and by reference made apart thereof, so as to rezone from residential multifamily mid-rise medium-high density district to northwest regional activity center mixed-use West District Lots 7, 8, 45, and 46, Block 15, North Lauderdale, according to the plot thereof, is recorded in Plot Book 1, page 48 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, together with that portion of the 15-foot vacated alley per official records book 15316, page 195, in the Public Records of Broward County, Florida, lying adjacent to and contiguous with said Lott 7, 8, 45, and 46, located north of Northwest 5th Street, west of Northwest 7th Terrace, east of Northwest 8th Avenue, and south of Cistrunk Boulevard, all said lands lying and being in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trent Hollis? Yes. And OSR 3 is now approved on second reading. Okay, so now we're getting into the budget items. Is there any script that I need, or just read what's here, right? No, no script necessary. Okay, you take your chances. All right, we're moving into the budget items. Budget 1, resolution setting the fiscal year 2027 proposed millage rate and debt service rate for the City of Fort Lauderdale setting the millage rate for the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District and acknowledging receipt of the City Manager's budget message and proposed budget. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution is introduced on Budget 1. No one has signed up to speak on any of these, so please call the roll. A resolution, the City Commissioner of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, acknowledging receipt of the City Manager's budget message, estimates, and recommendations, together with the proposed budget for fiscal year 2027, setting the proposed millage rate and debt service rate for the City of Fort Lauderdale, setting the millage rate for the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District and authorizing the City Manager to compute the rollback rate and execute all appropriate instruments in order to advise the Broward County property appraiser of the proposed millage rates and rollback rate. Commissioner Abuse-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And Budget 1 is now approved. Budget 2, this is a motion setting the public hearing dates to consider the proposed fiscal year 2027 millage rate and the budget for the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District. Would someone like to make the motion to set the public hearing dates? So moved. Second. Moving second. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And Budget 2 is now approved. Budget 3, a motion setting the proposed fiscal year 2027, non-advalorum assessment rate and public hearing date for the Lauderdale Isles Water Management District tentative budget. Would someone like to move the item? Moved. Do I hear second? Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And Budget 3 is now approved. Budget 4, preliminary rate resolution for the fire assessment establishing the estimated fiscal year 2027, of a non-advalorum assessment rate and authorizing a public hearing on September 14, 2026. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, relating to the provision of fire services, facilities, and programs in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, establishing the estimated assessment rate for fire assessments for the fiscal year beginning October 1, in 2026, directing the preparation of an assessment roll, authorizing a public hearing, and directing the provision of notice thereof, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. Budget 4 is now approved. Budget 5, a preliminary rate resolution for the Beach Business Improvement Assessment establishing the estimated fiscal year 2027 non-advalorum assessment rate and authorizing a public hearing on September 14, 2026. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, relating to the provision of beach business improvement services in certain portions of the beach area located within the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, more specifically described herein, establishing the estimated assessment rate for the beach business improvement assessment for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026, directing the preparation of an assessment rule, authorizing a public hearing, and directing the provision of notice thereof, providing for rescission of conflicting provisions, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. Budget 6, a preliminary rate resolution for the fiscal year 2027 non-advalorem assessment for utility undergrounding and authorizing a public hearing on September 14, 2026. Someone would like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, relating to the provision of the underground utility line facilities in Los Angeles neighborhood, imposing underground utility line assessments against assessed property located in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, directing the preparation of an assessment rule, authorizing a public hearing, and directing the provision of the notice thereof and providing an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And Budget 6 is now approved. And finally, Budget 7, preliminary annual assessment resolution for the stormwater assessment, initiating the process for imposing the fiscal year 2027 non-advalorem assessment and authorizing a public hearing on September 14th, 2026. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, initiating the process for re-imposition of the stormwater management services assessment in the City of Fort Lauderdale for fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026, directing the preparation of an assessment rule, authorizing a public hearing, and directing the provision of notice thereof, providing for rescission of conflicting provisions, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Beasley-Pidman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And Budget 7 is now approved. That's the last item on the agenda. But I just want to say a couple things. First of all, this is our last meeting before summer break, and I want to thank everybody for all the great work that's been done since the year began. But I also want to thank the Broward Center for hosting our meetings here for these many, many months. I know it's been an imposition from time to time, and, you know, but it has really, it's really been a great help to us, and now we get to move to the police department over on Broward Boulevard, and looking forward to having our August meeting there. It's very, very exciting. But, again, the Broward Center has been very great, and we want to thank them for being great partners with us during this time when we're in exile from our city hall building. Also, the U.S. Tennis Association has indicated that they want to give Fort Lauderdale an award for having a super-duper tennis center here at the Jimmy Everett Tennis Center here in Holiday Park. I think it's a great honor to be able to receive that, and I believe everybody on the commission has been invited to accept. I plan to go, and I understand Commissioner Glassman has indicated his intention to go. But the reason why I bring this up is because, first of all, anybody else who wants to come, please let us know. Mayor, what's the date? I'm sorry, I don't recall. It's August 31st, which is a Monday. The problem with that is that the meeting is the next day. So I wonder if we could move the meeting over to September 2nd, which is a Wednesday, so that we'll be able to come back and, hold on a second, yes, it'd be September 2nd, a Wednesday. I was just told I wasn't supposed to announce what I just said, but whatever. The meeting is scheduled for the 1st, right? The meeting is scheduled for the 1st, so... So you want to move it to the 2nd? The next day. So the commission conference would be September 2nd at 1 p.m., and the commission meeting would be September 2nd, 6 p.m. Yeah, so I'll make sure I'm tracking. Okay. I'm good with that. Me too. Okay. All right, very good. My husband just reminded me, he said that's our anniversary. Oh, boy. What better place to spend your anniversary in the 2nd, though, right? You say in the 2nd? You're both together. We're both together. You have a banquet facility. We'll be... Okay. Mayor, could I just go back to the August 18th meeting? Yes, sir. Do I have... Are we having a joint workshop with Budget Advisory Board that day? Yes, we are. It is scheduled for that day. For the 18th, okay. And that, Mayor, last commission meeting we had talked about just making sure we're scheduling enough time for the joint workshop. So I've got 11.30 a.m. on the 18th. Is that... It seems like that's enough time before the 1 p.m. meeting. I just want to make sure. Yeah, and we also have the ribbon cutting. Are we still going forward with the ribbon cutting for the headquarters? So we are planning for that date. If the commission would like to move to another date, we would identify availability. We're going to be there anyway. Yeah, let's do it right before the... Yeah, might as well spend the day there. Do it right before. Okay, so the 18th, we have the 11.30 joint workshop. Yeah, we're going to be living at the police department that day. Conference. What time was the ribbon cutting? Nine o'clock. It seems like we should do it later. Since our workshop is at not till 11.30. 10.30 or something. Like 10.30, yeah. Ribbon cutting? Does that make sense? Mayor, the tentative itinerary for that ribbon cutting is very extensive. Lots of speakers and... Really? Yes. Yes. So 10 a.m.? Is 10 a.m. good? All right, you figure... Let's staff figure it out. You know, Chris... Yep. Where's Chris? Did he leave? Okay. Chris figured it out. Okay. City manager, any further business of the commission? Only to say thank you once again. Great pleasure and privilege. We wish you all the best in your future endeavors. May God bless you. Thank you. City attorney, do you have any further business? Any business of the commission? None? Meeting concluded. Happy summer, everybody. See you at the 4th of July on Saturday.