Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the City Commission meeting this September 2nd, 2026. What do we got there? Oh, all those medals are clacking away. So my name is Dean Trantalis. I'm proud to serve as your mayor, and I'm here with our members of the City Commission. You'll please notice that Commissioner Herbst is not able to attend this meeting. I just want everyone to be aware of that, so there's just the four of us. So for those of you who are here for the first time, welcome. We appreciate your attending tonight's meeting, and we have a lot of exciting things happening tonight. We start out with our Pledge of Allegiance, and we go through various agenda announcements, and then there are going to be some presentations tonight. Presentations are normally what we recognize individuals, organizations, or events that take place in our city, and tonight we're very excited that there'll be four such opportunities to invite those who are going to participate in these presentations to be here. So may I all ask you first to please rise so we can do the pledge, and I'd like to invite Benjamin and Thomas Lopez from... Benjamin and Thomas Lopez from Creuson Park Elementary to please join me by the podium. Okay, so please join these gentlemen as they recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Put your right hand on your heart. Go ahead. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Very good, very good. Very good, very good. Good things for you. Here's one for you, and one for you. Okay, please be seated, everybody. Thank you. Good picture, right? Where's Jemen here? Your family's over here. Come on. Well, we got plants here. So at this point, I would like to invite you all to join the commission in sharing a moment of silence, and in doing so, we'd like to recognize two individuals that have passed away. First, we have Juanita Gray and Commissioner Beasley Pittman. This afternoon gave an eloquent eulogy as to who Juanita has served our community in so many great ways, so we appreciate your bringing that to our attention. And also, our former city manager, Floyd Johnson, passed away recently. Yeah. And I served with Floyd when I was first a commissioner a number of years ago, a great individual, and we give our best to his family. So if you could please share in this moment of silence, we would thank you. Thank you so much. So at this point, we take a moment of personal privilege here to recognize individuals who have retired, who have served more than 20 years here in the city of Fort Lauderdale. And tonight, we have just one individual, Maria Casanova. She is a police supply specialist in our police department, and she has served us for 23 years. So congratulations, Maria, and thank you for your service. So having said that, Mr. Clerk, would you please call the roll? Commissioner Herbst is not present. Commissioner Glossman? Here. Commissioner Beasley Pittman? Here. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Here. Mayor Trentos? Here. We have one agenda announcement. We have a walk-on, a motion accepting grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration for the Procurement of Vehicle Movement Area Transponders at our executive airport, the amount of $54,596. We'll take that up at the end. We have an agenda revision, R2. The CAM was revised to correct the date of the commission meeting in the header and the footer. Having now addressed those agenda items, would someone like to move to approve the agenda as amended and the minutes? So moved. Second. Move to second it. Please call the roll. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. Now, our first presentation, I'd like to invite our fabulous State Representative Chip Lamarco. Where is Mr. Lamarco? There, over there. If you could please join me at the podium. He is about to present the City of Fort Lorient with some big bucks. So, Mayor, it's a privilege to come here to the new police station. Won't be here for the opening. I have another event to go to, but I'm glad to be able to see it myself and to the commissioners, and specifically to Commissioner Herbst, who's not here because part of this is in his district. This is a check for a total of $1.85 million and some change for the remaining dollars of the Galt Drive safety project, infrastructure project, and a fire reserve boat. So, our firefighters have an additional boat to get out in the water with, and I see a lot of people with medals on here. I see fire plaques and fire badges. So, this will hopefully go a little bit, a long way to help with the boat, and a privilege to bring this back. Great. Well, thank you, sir. Congratulations. This is $1.850 million. Wow. Don't forget the $79 at the end. So, thank you again, Representative Lamarca. We appreciate your efforts at the state legislature for providing such a significant amount of money to our city, in addition to the other significant amounts which you have brought to our city, especially with regard to the Galt Mile Street Safety Improvement Project. I'd now like to invite our Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor Ben Sorensen, to present a proclamation regarding Hunger Action Month here in the city of Fort Lauderdale, and we'd like to invite Davika Ramkasun from Feeding South Florida as the Director of Development to join him at the podium. Did I pronounce that name correctly? Yes, you did. Yeah, that's pretty good. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Davika, for being here. Thank you for your work. I want to read a proclamation and then love to have you share some words. So, this is in recognition of Hunger Action Month, whereas in 1981, Feeding South Florida has been a leading force in the fight against hunger, providing food, resources, and support to individuals and families, whereas nearly 1 million individuals across South Florida face hunger, including nearly 500,000 children and seniors, making access to quality food and groceries, making access to quality food and groceries an ongoing need for our neighbors throughout the region, whereas Feeding South Florida's vision of a hunger-free South Florida guides its mission to provide immediate access to healthy foods while helping individuals and families achieve greater stability and self-sufficiency through education, advocacy, and innovative programming. Whereas Feeding South Florida helps reduce food by recovering fresh, quality food that might otherwise go unused and redirecting it to communities throughout its service area while maintaining high standards for food safety, quality, and responsible stewardship. And whereas Hunger Action Month, the City of Fort Lauderdale recognizes Feeding South Florida, its partners, volunteers, and supporters for their continued commitment to addressing food insecurity and encourages our community to help ensure that every neighbor has access to the nourishment and resources needed to thrive. Now, therefore, we as City Commissioners of the City of Fort Lauderdale proclaim September 2026 as Hunger Action Month, signed this day by your Mayor, Dean J. Trantellis. Thank you. Hi, my name is Devika. I am the Director of Development for Feeding South Florida. I cover the Broward County area, so I'm very honored to be here today. Thank you all very much. I want to say a special thank you to the City of Fort Lauderdale for providing this proclamation, recognizing September as Hunger Action Month. We encourage everyone to take lead and do something in honor of Hunger Action Month. You can come through our facility in Pembroke Park or Boyden Beach, have a volunteer day. You can donate. That's where we always need the funds to help us do the work that we do. In the City of Fort Lauderdale, I have some statistics that I'd like to share. In the City of Fort Lauderdale, we provided nutritious food and critical resources to more than 118,000 individuals with over 5.7 million pounds of food distributed right here in the community. So I just wanted to leave you guys with that. The need is continuously growing, dealing with circumstances in our society today, so we really do need all of the help, and we would be honored to have you guys serve with us. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go over here. We'll take a picture. All right. We'll be right. Very good. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you for your good work. So I'd now like to invite Commissioner Beasley Pittman to present a proclamation regarding National Sickle Cell Awareness Month, and I'd like to invite Kyla Thorpe Brissett, Vice President and COO of the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research. Female touch. I have a bag. Oh, good evening, everyone. Good evening, good evening. I have the pleasure this afternoon to read the proclamation that will be presented to the National Sickle Cell Association in regards to recognition for National Sickle Cell Awareness Month. From the Office of the Mayor of the City of Fort Lauderdale, proclamation, again, in recognition of National Sickle Cell Awareness Month, requested by Commissioner Pam Beasley Pittman. Whereas sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder affecting approximately 100,000 Americans that alters the shape and the function of red blood cells, restricting healthy blood flow throughout the body. And whereas sickle cell disease affects more of a diverse background and particularly common among those with ancestry from Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Middle East and India and the Mediterranean countries, underscoring the importance of education, screening and awareness. Whereas individuals living with sickle cell disease may experience severe and recurring pain, frequent hospitalization, other serious complications that can be affected by their daily lives and overall quality of life. Whereas the foundation for the foundation for sickle cell disease research was founded in 2012 as a national first outpatient center dedicated solely to sickle cell disease, provides specialized care, advanced resource, research and support to individuals and families throughout its networks of 15 sickle cell disease centers of excellence across Florida. Whereas the National Sickle Cell Awareness Month provides an opportunity to increase public understanding, recognizing the strength and the resilience of individuals and families affected by sickle cell disease and supports ongoing efforts towards better treatment, equality care and also ultimately a cure. Now, therefore, we, the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, do hereby proclaim September 2026 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Month, dated this the second day of September, and it is dated by our, signed by our Mayor, Dean Trantellis. It will be, we'll be honored if you would grace us with some words, please. Good evening, everyone. I am here this evening on behalf of our President and CEO, Dr. Linela Bronte. My name is Kyla Thorpe-Rissette, and I serve as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research. Commissioner Beasley Pittman, thank you so much for presenting this proclamation and recognition of National Sickle Cell Awareness Month. It is truly an honor to accept it on behalf of Dr. Bronte, our organization, and most importantly, the individuals and the families affected by sickle cell disease. At the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research, we operate 15 medical centers throughout the state of Florida, providing specialized care and support to people living with sickle cell disease, whom we proudly call warriors. Every day, we have the privilege of serving an extraordinary community of individuals who demonstrate tremendous strength, courage, and resilience. National Sickle Cell Awareness Month is an important opportunity to educate the public, bring greater visibility to this disease, and remind our warriors that they are seen, supported, and not alone. Recognition from our community leaders helps amplify that message and encourages continued community support, research, access to quality care, and meaningful action. Commissioner Beasley Pittman, we sincerely appreciate your leadership and commitment to recognizing the sickle cell disease community. This proclamation is a powerful acknowledgement of the lives, experience, and needs of the individuals and families we serve. Again, on behalf of Dr. Bronte and the entire Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research, thank you for this incredible honor and for standing with our sickle cell warriors. Thank you. Thank you so much. There you go. Thank you so much. Hey, Chief. It's all yours. All righty. So good afternoon, everyone. Standing before you this evening is our junior lifeguards and our lifeguards protecting our beaches on a daily basis. Our junior lifeguards are our group that, over the summer, learn what it takes to be a lifeguard. Then at the end of the summer, they have the opportunity to compete. And normally, it's at a different location. Last year, the ocean rescue lifeguard chief, Alex Bagwell, came to me and spoke about hosting the competition for USLA here this year. I don't think she realized what she was getting herself into when she made that commitment to us. But 12 months later, over 1,200 competitors from all over the United States, as far away as Hawaii, joined us here in Fort Lauderdale Beach. USLA said that it was one of the largest competitions they've ever had in the history of the organization. And it's important to point out that it's not only just 1,200 competitors, but it's also the family members of those competitors contributing to hundreds of hotel stays and all the other parts that take place by them being on our beach. The other side of that is this is also the 100-year anniversary of our ocean rescue program. So this is a program that is truly the ambassadors to our beach, the individuals that anyone visiting Fort Lauderdale comes in contact with on a daily basis, whether it's from the safety of when to go in the ocean to what restaurants or hotels they should see. This is the group standing before you that provides all of that as our ambassadors. So today, this evening, we just want to take a second and recognize all that they did. Not only did most of the ones that are in uniform compete, but they also were putting the entire program together simultaneously. So literally coming off of the water and immediately helping the other teams from all over the country and putting it together. This all took place during, of course, our summer storms here in Fort Lauderdale and the lightning. It was rather interesting while I was out there to hear some of the teams from California who aren't used to lightning, seeing the lightning strikes that were way offshore and they'd go on and we'd be like, no, get in the water. You're fine, you know. So it was really interesting to see all the different teams from all over the country, Alex and all of the lifeguards. I couldn't be prouder of all that you all do on a daily basis. However, this truly took it to the next level. So this evening, we have our first, second and third place winners. And if you would, please join me in just giving them a congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. thank you all right juniors next summer right you guys ready for another summer i hope we lost our audience what happened you know i know i know this was a this was a happy moment for us all to share but let us not forget the importance of why lifeguards uh are is significant in our community here in fort lauderdale you know those who drown uh who die from drowning the numbers are too high and water safety is so important here in our community so if you have an opportunity if you're a child try to join a class or community that teaches you how to swim uh it's so very very important that you know how to swim but even if you know how to swim sometimes wave action you know undercurrents and so forth can be so dangerous always pay attention to what the flags say the lifeguards say whether you should go into the water or not go into the water it's really really important and we are we are a yachting community we're a boating community and we're a swimming community and it's and to be to be mindful of the of the um the the risks that these types of of recreational activities provide to us we'd be ignorant if we didn't pay attention to the rules and to make sure that water safety is very much a part of your life so i want to i want to congratulate again all the the youngsters who who were able to achieve this you know the level of success in the competition and i want to thank the coaches and the teachers that uh provide the talent and the direction to these individuals these young adults and i think it's so important that we continue to recognize them as future leaders of our community and that you know they're the ones that are going to be saving us as we try to take take part in the beautiful uh environment in which we live so again congratulations to all of them and and chief thank you so much for uh for helping us recognize these individuals so okay having said that um okay so now we get into our agenda and we have uh the consent agenda i'm going to ask any member of the commission if they have any consent agenda items they'd like to pull if that if they do then we'll we'll discuss and vote on them separately otherwise all the consent agenda items will be um will be uh voted on together um mr city manager were there were there one or two that you wanted me to remove yes mayor cr1 and cr2 please cr1 and cr2 okay so those will be pulled and will not be voted upon tonight um and uh mayor yes i think we're going to vote on them just pull them for individual recognition that's right for discussion yes okay i'm sorry i'm sorry i misunderstood that okay so we'll pull cr1 and cr2 and also um commissioner beasley pitman are there any that you wish to pull tonight um cm3 cm3 okay and uh commissioner glassman none thank you and vice mayor none thanks okay so except for cr1 cr2 and cm3 do i hear a motion to approve the consent agenda items moved second moved and seconded please call the roll commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley pitman yes vice mayor sorensen yes mayor trentals yes and those consent agenda items are now approved if you are here on any one of those uh um congratulations your item has been approved and um we invite you to remain for the rest of the meeting i guess you're not going to remain for the rest of the meeting fine uh um okay city manager cr1 yes sir i think we had a uh i think representative lamarco would like to speak on these two items okay uh cr1 and cr2 correct okay very good you're back again did you bring a check just the one sorry just one tonight so i'm not sure which one is cr1 which one cr2 you can speak to both of them all right so uh i have the privilege of being here with some folks and i want to give you a little bit of background um in tallahassee we get to work on legislation policy we get to try to ask for money for resources as we just did earlier today and then uh one of the committees that i was privileged to chair the last couple of years economic infrastructure handles uh something you've probably seen before road designations and i was talking to my wife one of my last few weeks going to tallahassee i wanted to get something into a bill and said you know why don't you recognize people who were significant in your life and there uh there's some in other cities but uh one of the gentlemen that we decided to put in the uh transportation package which included roads at road designations uh was phil smith the late auto dealer uh read just something real quick because i think it's important to understand what some of these giants of our community did and the other one has quite a quite a representation here tonight but uh phil smith the late auto dealer and philanthropist who passed away at the age of 70 after suffering from als known as lou gehrig's disease phil smith owned automobile dealerships automobile dealerships in lighthouse point lauder hill pompano beach vero beach and tallahassee as well as dealerships in north carolina he and his wife susan spent recent years giving millions of dollars to holy cross hospital florida atlantic university and other institutions such as cardinal gibbons high school he donated five million a five million dollar gift with his wife to florida atlantic university's college of business in boca raton where he is an alum and a seven million dollar gift in september to holy cross hospital in fort lauderdale to create the phil smith neuroscience institute at holy cross hospital smith wanted to pass on to his alma mater what he learned about being an entrepreneur he believed that treating customers and employees well came first under the phil smith management company he led an automobile automobile dealership and property management company with 780 employees and some 500 million in annual revenue smith once owned as many as 17 auto dealerships in florida and north carolina he also owned the core rich country club in fort lauderdale smith bought into a small toyota store in homestead southeast toyota toyota distributors chief jim moran needed to approve the purchase and smith recalled moran as a legend and inspiration just as moran had helped him once smith worked with promising employees to help them become part owners in each of his ventures smith served on boards for fau as well as the orange bowl committee and other non-profits mainly in health and education he was honored with the nova southeastern university's entrepreneur of the year northwood university's outstanding business leader leadership broward's leader leader of the year and junior achievements business leader award the road designation will be identified as phil smith memora highway located on north federal highway u.s run state road 5 in fort lauderdale from northeast 38th street at the south end to east commercial boulevard state road 870 at the north end uh phil was a was a good friend he was a giant in our community uh but he uh he as well as the other gentleman i want to talk about uh we're very significant in my success in public service and we're very supportive the other gentleman and you'll see by the full left side of the room here uh is a gentleman gentleman we lost too young at uh by the name of terry styles late builder developer from fort lauderdale terry built the styles corporation from a small contracting business to develop building and managing 24 million square feet of office buildings retail centers industrial buildings parks corporate parks associations and public facilities mr styles helped shape the fort lauderdale skyline developing more than four million square feet of development in the las olas boulevard corridor working in conjunction with the late h way in hyzinga mr styles was larger than life and loved his employees as if they were one big family the company is being led now by terry's son kenny styles who's here former fort lauderdale mayor jack stiler said quote he helped our town mature into a city when terry styles proposed a project i knew it would be well received by the community a lot of people have learned that when you do something right in fort lauderdale you do it the styles way mr styles was sincere genuine and self-deprecating he was also an alumnus of northeast high school where our where our commission where commissioner pitt easily pitman also went as did i go canes we say that in the northeast high school form not the college form in 1985 styles won the sun sentinel excalibur award annually presented to the top business leaders who also demonstrate outstanding community service the terry w style school of real estate development was also formed at nova southeastern university's h wayne hyzinga college of business and entrepreneurship to honor the memory and legacy of terry styles as a visionary real estate developer as a broward county business leader this designation will be identified as quote terry styles memorial boulevard and it will be located on east lost boulevard in fort lauderdale from south andrews avenue at the west to southeast 6th avenue at the east and worthy of saying uh we had the opportunity to work together uh terry and i along with some other northeast high school graduates and uh i think it was when your city met your city attorney excuse me was a commissioner in the great city of oakland park your baby your baby uh next door neighbor and we were able to finally shine a light on some investment that needed to be made at that northeast high school and there's now a two-story building standing there and it's uh really in part thanks to uh terry's initiative to get some community leaders together as well as keith koenig and alice jackson so uh mayor commissioners i appreciate your time indulgence on these two items i hope you'll support them and hope we'll all get together once the florida department of transportation puts the sign on the road all right very good thank you so much it's really an honor for the uh city uh the members of this community and members of this commission to be able to participate in this recognition and we're very happy to do so uh kenny do you want to say anything you want to where are you where'd he go you're hiding back there no i just want to say um thank you for taking this as um as a resolution here i really want to thank chip this was a surprise to me uh i had no clue he was doing this and uh when i got the call you know i think mayor seiler back in the day we've talked about this for years and nothing's really come of it so for you to take this to the state level i really appreciate you uh i know everybody here is as excited as i am um it's an amazing honor and it's something my family's very proud of so thank you very good thank you so uh so will i introduce uh cr1 this is with regard to the phil smith memorial highway introduced it's been introduced please call the roll a resolution city commission of the city of fort lauderdale florida supporting honorary designation of that portion of state road 5 us1 between northeast 38th street and east commercial boulevard in the city of fort lauderdale florida s phil smith memorial highway and providing for an effective date commissioner herbs uh commissioner glassman yes mr beasley pittman yes vice mayor sorensen yes yes and cr1 is now approved cr2 the resolution supporting the florida legislature's honorary designation of state road 842 between south andrews avenue and southeast 6th avenue as the terry styles memorial boulevard someone would like to introduce the resolution introduced resolutions introduced please call the roll a resolution city commission of the city of fort lauderdale florida supporting the honorary designation of that portion of state road 842 east los angeles boulevard between south andrews avenue and south east 6th avenue in the city of fort lauderdale florida as terry styles memorial boulevard and providing for an effective date commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley pittman yes vice mayor sorensen yes mayor trentos yes and congratulations it is now recognized as the first time you two are invited to remain for the rest of the meeting i guess not i don't take it personally no worry about it never did congratulations thank you yes congratulations okay cm3 commissioner beasley pittman yes thank you um i ask that we pull this i am in support um of approving this um funding from florida department of transportation i just wanted to to bring some light to it um it is in regards to awareness campaign um for bicyclists and pedestrians and um in the six front quarter we were um blessed to receive um funding to add the pedestrian crosswalks to the boulevard and i'm really excited and why i asked for this to be pulled i also wanted to bring attention um from a conversation um from a conversation i had during our um agenda briefing and wanting to make sure with our um campaign of advising or educating everyone about the um safety i want to make sure that we are going to take it to the next level with explaining to the community um what where the crosswalks are and what they are um and also to the drivers that are coming through the community um i had talked about um the opportunity of having those intersections raised but understanding what a conversation we had um including fire rescue uh sometime that does um cause a delay with our um first responders coming through with the the elevated roadways um so we did talk about the opportunity for having visual um cues on the actual asphalt so individuals will know that they are coming up to a crosswalk so i i wanted to um make that a part of the record um saying that this is what we would like to see um on that quarter because there are individuals who are attempting to utilize the crosswalks but being that drivers are not familiar with why these um lights are flashing to the right or to the left of them we want to make sure that we give a great campaign and i know which stratcom we would accomplish that but i wanted to take the opportunity to share that have it part of the public record and with that being said mayor i would like to move this forward for the vote okay so there's a motion to approve cm1 do i hear a second second to move the seconded please call the roll commissioner glassman before i vote mayor um just want to ask the city manager with regards to this item on august 23rd on nbc national news there was a very enlightening uh piece done about um safety uh as it pertains to e-bikes uh the the startling number of accidents the startling number of injuries across the nation uh is really something to pay attention to will will this grant program enable us to in any way talk about that kind of safety or is it just your typical bicycles and pedestrian safety or will there be any any opportunity to educate about safety with regards to e-bikes yeah chief schultz will come up and speak to that good evening mayor vice mayor commission chief schultz uh yes this grant is primarily meant for pedestrian crossing uh but it's certainly also meant for our traffic unit to do enforcement so with that and we've had discussions about this before uh with the developments in our own city ordinances i too agree that e-bike safety is a true concern in our safety and in our city and well beyond so this grant specifically is meant for pedestrians but bicycles as you know are being ridden in uh pedestrian areas so it certainly will have a crossover okay no thank you and if if anyone has not seen it i would just recommend it's a very enlightening uh piece that again was on nbc national news at uh on august 23rd thank you chief thank you city manager thank you mayor all right so um since you brought up e-bikes um what's this where do we leave things off with regard to e-bikes entering public parks remember we had a discussion regarding that we were saying that you know because of the potential for interaction with pedestrians and and people who are not on bikes in these parks especially the way some of these bicyclists are you know kind of rampaging through the parks where have we left off on that good evening midloch my story is uh transportation and mobility department director thank you for the question first of all we have been working on the ordinance uh to bring for uh before city commission for consideration over the last couple of months we have created a working group we started actually in early 2026 um with the police department parks um city attorney's office and transportation and mobility we have a solid solid draft of the ordinance we plan on bringing um um a draft to city commission as during conference presentation on october 6th followed by hopefully first reading on october 20th and the second reading in uh first meeting in november okay great and that would cover the parks and also side will carry us shared use bad pads and so forth okay excellent thank you so much i appreciate that we already vote on cm3 correct no we were in the middle okay so let's uh let's let's uh vote on that commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley pitman yes vice mayor sorenson yes mayor trentales yes and that item is now approved moving on to motions and one motion authorizing the purchase of excess workers compensation insurance safety national casualty corporation no one has signed up to speak does anyone have any questions with regard to this if not um someone like to uh move the item moved do i hear second second moved and seconded please call the roll commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley pitman yes vice mayor sorenson yes mayor trentales yes and m1 is now approved m2 motion approving a service agreement with court cortada foundation related to the execution of the execution of a sculpture in esplanade park in the amount of seventy five thousand dollars um no one has signed up to speak does anyone have any questions with regard to this there being none would someone like to move the item moved second moved and seconded please call the roll commissioner glassman yes mr beasley pitman yes vice mayor sorenson yes mayor trentales yes and m2 is now approved r1 appointment of board and committee members mr clerk would you please read the names into the record thank you mayor for the september 15th resolution board of adjustment danella williams nominated by vice mayor sorenson nuisance abatement board avigdor pemper nominated by commissioner glassman and for tonight's resolution beach business improvement district advisory board ina lee that's the greater fort lauderdale chamber of commerce representative laurie johnson primary member representing the west and fort lauderdale lisa namor namor uh day more primary member and priscilla guardo alternate member for the bahia mar cody bertor bertone primary member and alex caseros alternate alternate member for the w fort lauderdale michael berry primary member alvaro hernandez alternate member for the b ocean jose torres primary member and samuel fiersten alternate member uh representing the ritz carlton mali caro primary member and jenna boragine alternate member representing the four seasons sharon howell primary member car and carlos young alternate member representing the courtyard oceanside stewart levy primary member and janet alvarez alternate member representing hotel marin robert lackley primary member representing the conrad and jeffrey peterson primary member and daniel mcdermott alternate alternate member representing senesta fort lauderdale report of adjustment deborah peters nominated by vice mayor sorensen james brenner nominated by vice mayor sorensen central city redevelopment advisor board olga zamora nominated by commissioner glassman education advisory board martha gutierre steinkamp nominated by commissioner herbst public art and placement advisory board carly sumner nominated by vice mayor sorensen tara rose nominated by vice mayor sorensen tyena dareville that's consensus designee of the chair of the broward county's public art and design committee and that rounds it out okay are there any additions or modifications to those recommendations those nominations okay they're being known 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 appointing or nominating if applicable boarding committee members as set forth in the exhibit attached here too made a part here of commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley pitman yes vice mayor sorensen yes mayor chantal yes and those appointments are now approved and i want to thank those individuals for volunteering their time in the betterment of our beautiful city r2 a resolution authorizing the issuance of a water and sewer revenue subordinate bond in the principal amount of 121 million 250 000 and a water and sewer revenue subordinate note in the principal amount of 1 billion 179 million 649 000 and 650 dollars give or take a few for the prospect lake water treatment plan oh so that's why they gave the presentation yeah see where our money went yeah butter us up okay um someone like to introduce the resolution okay resolution's been introduced no one has signed up to speak um any questions or comments i think we're all pretty much assured of what's going on here so uh mr clerk please uh please call the roll a resolution city commission of the city of fort lauderdale florida authorizing the issuance of a water and sewer subordinate revenue bond series 2026 and the principal amount of 121 million 250 000 and a non-interest bearing water and sewer subordinate revenue note series 2026 and the principal amount of 1 billion 179 million 649 thousand 650 as required pursuant to the comprehensive agreement described herein determining the details of said subordinate bond and subordinate note and delegating the city manager authority to make necessary changes therein with the parameters set forth herein authorizing and directing the execution authentication and delivery of said subordinate bond and subordinate note appointing the city as paying agent and bond register authorizing other required actions and providing an effective date commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley pitman yes vice mayor swordsman yes mayor trentas yes and r2 is now approved thank you very much for all your good work in this regard and uh spend it wisely okay uh r3 this is a quasi-judicial appeal a final order of the board of adjustment regarding case number plnboa 2602001-1017 regarding southwest 19th street 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 uh i have um i have a couple people signed up to speak staff want to yes okay i was getting to that so uh this is an appeal filed in accordance with sections 47-24.1 and 47-24.12 and 47-26b.1 of the uldr as a result of the board of adjustment entering a final order denying a variance application for the case number that i just described which is plnboa 24-0-2-0-0-0-1 a single family residence located at 1017 southwest 19th street in fort lauderville florida 33315 seeking variances to allow an accessory dwelling to remain as built encroaching on the rear yard setback uh the petitioner is sharon duncan so section 47-26b.1 of the uldr provides as follows if an appeal is filed from a board of adjustment decision the city commission shall hold a public meeting on the record and shall determine if a there was a departure from the essential requirements of law in the proceedings appealed or b competent substantial evidence does not exist to support the decision i'll repeat that they have to we have to determine whether there was a departure from the essential requirements of law in the proceedings appealed or whether there was competent substantial evidence that does not exist to support the decision if the city commission determines that there is not a departure from the essential requirements of the law or that competent substantial evidence exists to support the decision then the decision will be upheld through the adoption of a resolution upholding the board of adjustments final order of denial if the city if the city commission finds either there was a departure from the essential requirements of law in the proceedings or that the or that competent substantial evidence does not exist to support the decision then the city commission shall adopt a resolution setting a de novo hearing in accordance with section 47-26b.1 of the uldr the de novo hearing shall be set for hearing no later than 60 days from today at the de novo hearing the city commission will either reject the decision of the board of adjustment approve or amend the decision of the board of adjustment now the city commission will first hear from the applicants followed by deputy city attorney dewayne spence representing the board of adjustment and then we'll hear public comments the applicant may come forward to present its appeal at this time good evening evening commission uh my name is miles jolly i represent sharon duncan the applicant in this variance um this appeal as you read through uh all stems back to an accessory structure that was built in my client's backyard uh unfortunately she trusted somebody who claimed to be a licensed contractor who turned out not to be uh he told miss duncan that all the work would be permitted would be properly approved according to the city requirements including the uldr and that turned out not to be the case now miss duncan was told that a permit was applied for but that was with respect to an addition and a renovation that was done to her existing property all that was permitted properly approved closed out no issues this structure that we're talking about tonight was not included on those plans by this this unlicensed contractor unfortunately my client was not aware until the city um came knocking and she had several violations for unpermanent work is this we're talking about the whole building no we're just talking about an accessory use structure in the back it's uh like a 10 by 12 with a frame roof and that's that's what we're talking about today i understand that but i'm looking at the exhibit exhibit um uh exhibit seven it's the shed right correct it's the whole shed correct and it encroaches how so there were three variances that we requested the the one that was denied was encroaching on the rear setback of 15 feet for a structure of this type we were asking for a variance to to cover that distance it's approximately five feet from the rear property line it's it's right now it's five feet correct and and the and the requirement is 15 feet that's correct okay and so when when we filed the appeal uh you know in more detail we explained all the facts that i just went through and the the board approves three two of the three variances that we requested but they denied the one for the rear setback that you just you just asked about what were the two that they approved so the two that they approved there's one um a setback for mechanical equipment that's attached to the same structure and then there was another variance that we requested for the lot size because the lot size is slightly small for the minimum size required to have an accessory structure like this so the board approved those and the board approved those all in the same set of facts that we presented in support of all three of the variances miles did the board and it's not clear from the minutes what rationale or basis did the board provide for approving the two but the nine the third so for the two that they the rationale that they provided was that there had been a unique hardship that had been shown based on the fact that miss duncan relied on a contract who claimed his license was not licensed and that she you know essentially did not bring this upon herself she thought she was doing everything right until she found out after the fact that she she had been lied to and been taken advantage of unfortunately um but that rationale it's sort of inconsistent between approving two of the variances and denying the third because they're all based on the same facts and the criteria is the same for each one of the variances they all have to be decided based on the same criteria and the same set of facts so our our belief is that there was no competent substantial evidence to have denied that one while they also approved two of them based on the same same circumstances right and the the one that they approved was mechanical right is that yes right and yes another was another uh another setback for it was a minimum lot size requirement size correct right so they viewed the hardship that she experienced being that she hired a unlicensed contractor without being aware of it and that was the hardship that they supported to allow for the passage of the two in addition to the other criteria which talks about impacts of the community that there are a couple other adjacent properties that have similar structures like this that are close to the setbacks um nobody none of our neighbors voiced any sort of concern in fact the the president of the neighborhood association said that everybody had had no problem with it period in the neighborhood um and at the end of the day this what neighborhood is this in this is correct and then in addition to that this is an rsaid zone property it it's a approved use as long as you meet all the technical requirements to have one of these structures there so it's not necessarily uh uh a use that's not in line with the uldr it's just these technical requirements that weren't met and to to miss duncan's credit the second she found out about it she immediately went to work trying to get this permitted and approved the right way so in addition to the the the lack of competent substantial evidence to to deny the the one variance that was denied we think it also departed from the essential requirements of the law because the criteria are the same for each variance no matter which one the the board was considering so if they applied those criteria to to the variances that they approved they necessarily must have didn't applied the criteria in an incorrect way to the third one that they denied because they're all the same and all the facts supported the two that they approved so um for those reasons we would ask that the the commission adopt a resolution finding that there was a lack of competent substantial evidence to deny the third variance and that denial departed from the essential requirements of the law and setting a de novo hearing okay thank you thank you i'm sorry just one quick question i apologize uh so maybe if you could just expound upon the fact so there there were three motions right at a board of adjustment correct and they did grant um the request on two out of the three correct so the main issue again was what was the problem with the third one that they denied five to one 15 feet setback just that it's only five feet correct that's the only one that was denied but it was all the presentation and the variance application for all three of the requested variances it was all one package were all based on the same set of facts considering the unlicensed contracting issues the fact that she was taken advantage of and everything else um so if those facts were sufficient to approve two of the requested variants it would necessarily follow that that third one should have been approved as well understood thank you so wait before you sit down um so when this person this person get did your client get title insurance uh i believe she does so this this all happened after she had owned the property that i mean this she had owned the property for i think roughly 10 years and then she decided to do an addition and build the structure in the back that she said was fine according to her contractor okay so she didn't buy this with the addition already there she built correct okay that's correct and so uh and she she engaged a contractor that did get permits or did not get permits he got permits for part of the work that he performed did he get permits for the main structure the main structure yes and the city approved it based on the site plan that that was presented to us uh so the site plan that's in the packet that's the site plan with the structure on it um the permit that this unlicensed contractor applied for did not have that in there um unbeknownst to my client she she relied on this contractor she thought everything was included but it was not mayor if i can add so i've been to the property met with her so oh wait a minute before you say anything i forgot to ask about disclosures yep what are your disclosures uh disclose uh site visit with the applicant any communications with the applicants uh yeah when i visited i was communicating with her and with uh ted the neighborhood president okay uh commissioner no i have none do you have any none okay i'm sorry i didn't mean to no no good yeah i forgot glad you caught that glad you got that so she and miles correct me if i'm wrong on any of this she was doing two things at once with this unlicensed contractor one she was doing some renovation to her main house he provided permit approval for that part of the project she was also having this accessory unit built he did not provide permit for that and didn't indicate that furthermore he because he's unlicensed and she uh engaged the state of florida he's now being uh investigated by the state of florida and um being uh you know his his lack of licensure is being addressed so i just want to add did i say that right just to clarify that last point it's actually been addressed the dbpr found him guilty of that including the the licensed individual that pulled the permits and applied for him um they both have been found guilty of the various uh allegations and um that's all at least a year ago that's already been decided okay nice thank you and the one other question miles for the two that passed did for the mechanical is it a mechanical setback of 15 feet that they approved a variance for that mechanical setback is that language correct so not exactly i don't remember the exact dimensions it's not exactly 15 feet i think mechanical equipment's got to be five feet from any any any property property line at least the rear um but this one was i think with within a foot of that okay but that was approved okay so it sounds like there was maybe a smaller variance uh was maybe part of their their thinking okay great and probably for the second one as well and a smaller the distance and for the third that was denied it was about so the the other one that was approved was a minimum lot size i think there was about 1200 square feet that it was undersized that the property was undersized to have an accessory structure on it right minimums about 10 000 and change and the property is about 9200 got it okay thanks so is the is the mechanical what we're seeing on page two here which looks like uh which looks like an air handler or something that's right it's a small individual unit air compressor yeah okay all right all right thank you um thank you uh city attorney so isn't there a new law on accessory dwellings um that precludes cities from denying uh the right to build an accessory dwelling do you do you do you know what i'm talking about didn't state legislature recently passed something about accessory dwellings and in their attempt to try to um create more affordable housing you know what i'm talking about no i don't know specifically what you're referring to mayor but i would like mr spence to address this matter because uh he's here on behalf of the board of adjustment and i believe he could answer those questions and of course address mr jolly so do you know what i'm talking about oh yes so that law allows for the use of accessory dwellings um without a need for rezoning but it doesn't uh preclude the requirements to obtain permits and get the the right zoning for that accessory structure so even though it's on a smaller lot the state the the statute doesn't preempt us from denying them the right to build their correct okay correct they can build the structure if it complies with our zoning code i see okay but could you classify this structure as an accessory dwelling unit i don't think it has everything that you would need to define it doesn't matter it's mood anyway i know but yeah i i just would like to know the answer to that would this structure qualify even as an accessory dwelling unit i don't think so so under our code where we we define accessory units as being habitable and in terms of this unit it's not it doesn't fit the definition of a single family dwelling unit but it does meet our code definition of an accessory dwelling unit does it have a bathroom bathroom and a kitchen it doesn't so how could that be an accessory dwelling unit it's a habitable space okay interesting okay that was going to be my my question as well because i'm hearing accessory dwelling as well as a shed so i was going to ask could we define what are we talking about accessory dwelling or a shed right so a shed is non-habitable um and it has different setbacks if this were a shed um i believe and anthony can correct me i believe it would have met the setbacks um if it were a shed but the size of the structure is larger than the square footage allowed for sheds in the city of fort lauderdale so this sort of caught between a rock and a hard place here yeah all right so so good evening mayor vice mayor um city commissioners my name is dwayne spence deputy city attorney on behalf of the board of adjustment uh before you today is the first part of a quasi-judicial appeal at this first part your decision is whether or not the um review of the variance request whether or not to review this variance request de novo your determination today is limited to the two things which are whether or not the board of adjustment departed from the essential requirements of law or whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the board of adjustments decision in this case let's begin with the essential requirements of law uh with this analysis the standard requires a showing that the board of adjustment applied the incorrect legal standard or misapplied the correct legal standard to the facts for it the record shows that the board of adjustment followed the review process exactly as set forth in the uldr the application was properly noticed and heard at a public hearing on april 8th uh 2026 the speakers were sworn allowed to present evidence and allowed to argue their case the board's liberal deliberated based on the applied criteria within section 47 24 12 a 4 and they voted the applicant in their notice of appeal um suggests that the inconsistent conclusion in the approval of this of two variances and the denial of one variance is somehow a departure from the essential requirements of law because the decision is based on the same facts and argument however he fails to indicate the law or principle that supports the incorrect application of law in that instance in terms of competent substantial evidence the second prong is whether or not competent competent substantial evidence exists to support the board of adjustments decision relevant and material evidence it um that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the board's factual finding substantial evidence does not mean overwhelming evidence it does not mean uncontested evidence it means that the evidence needs to be sufficient to support a particular conclusion and so that is what you are weighing here it's not a reweighing of the evidence itself you're looking at the record and what you have before you is the the minutes of the board leading you have the submission from the applicant which is the evidence that the board considered well a reasonable person considered this substantial to support the decision to deny this particular variance request um earlier you had questions in terms of what those variance requests were now briefly go over those requests uh the first request was in a rs8 district the lot has to be uh ten thousand eight hundred and ninety gross square feet in order to allow an a an accessory dwelling uh this lot is smaller than that and so that it was that variance request that was granted so based on that variance request they can now have an accessory dwelling on that lot the other request yes sir for that first one so for the lot size what was the essential requirements of the law that they based that on the essential requirements of the law goes to the proceeding itself as i've mentioned that notice was had it was a public hearing uh individuals were sworn i i think i think your i think your analysis tonight should be based upon the competent substantial evidence question and whether or not the evidence that was presented whether or not there was competent substantial evidence to support it in this particular case the applicant is not challenging the approval of that particular variance request sure but what was the substantial evidence that they based their decision on for that variance approval was the information on the record as stated by the applicant's attorney no the applicant's attorney um answered that question earlier okay why don't you restate it please just to refresh remember he stated that as the record shows that they had indicated the issue with the contractor okay so having a unlicensed contractor provides substantial evidence to grant the variance the record that the board of adjustment uh based their decision upon apparently that was it was it was the record and you support that you agree it's not whether or not i support that or not do you agree with that it's not my place to say whether or not i agree with that okay okay so so an unlicensed contractor adjustment and and you'll probably get there if you um want to go to a de novo hearing they have uh they have criteria in the code five criteria that they have to find that a variance meets in order to grant that variance yep that analysis the record doesn't show that that analysis has been done if that is a clear enough indication for you so the board of adjustment did not do a thorough analysis of the five step five indications is that what you're saying so so commissioner what i'm saying is the record speaks for itself and i think that the line of questioning may result in a challenge to the actual variances that were granted in this particular case okay in other words you won't have any of the variances if we continue down this line of questioning okay um great why don't you go to the second variance then what's the what's the uh substantial evidence for that same thing again if i can refocus you a bit so your task here is to determine you all are to determine whether or not their record shows that there is evidence to base that decision upon they are challenging the denial of this particular case it's very you can look at the record and you can look you have that prerogative as the four of you sit here to look at the record and say as i read the minutes as i review the packet do i think that this is competent evidence to support the decision of the board of adjustment that's completely a threshold issue for you all to decide can you define hardship but our code says these are the five things that they would have need to prove in order to be awarded a variance and it requires meeting all five of these criteria it says that a variance from the terms of the uldr shall be granted only upon the demonstration of a unique hardship attributed to land by proving by preponderance of evidence all of the following criteria a that a special condition and circumstance affecting the property at issue would prevent reasonable use of such property so that's the first hardship standard that the use of the property um would be prevented the reasonable use of property would be prevented by a special condition that they mentioned in their application the second the circumstances which cause a special condition are peculiar to the property at issue or at a small number of properties that they clearly constitute marked exceptions to other properties in the same zoning district three that the literal application of the provisions of the uldr would deprive the applicant of the substance of a substantial property right that is enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district it shall be of no importance to this criteria that a denial of the variance sought might deny the owner of a more profitable use of the property provided that the provisions of the uldr still allow a reasonable use of the property d that the unique hardship is not self-created by the applicant or his predecessor nor is the result of mere disregard or ignorance of the provisions of the uldr or antecedent zoning regulations and the last that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property and that the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the uldr great thank you that helps duane i'm sorry would you read c again for me that the literal application of the provisions of the uldr would deprive the applicant of substantial property right that is enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district it shall be of no importance to this criterion that a denial of the variance sought might deny the owner of a more profitable use of the property provided that the provisions of the uldr still allow a reasonable use of the property thank you duane i have a question sure and i i have very mixed feelings about this because it's you know it's an interesting case you have to understand what's happening on all sides but when i listen to what you're saying so let me ask you this question um if you wanted to get these variances in the future or anyone else or what are we basically saying just hired an unlicensed contractor and then use that as a reason for you to get the variances i don't think you're the decision of the border for adjustment or your decision tonight that creates any precedence in that sense but i do think that in terms of the integrity of the code that they should evaluate each variance request based on that criteria of the code and determine um determining whether or not they meet that criteria i understand what you're saying i'm hearing other things though i'm hearing that we should take into other you know take into consideration other factors but again i'm nervous about that because once you do that and you say to someone we feel bad that you hired an unlicensed contractor maybe that should have been vetted before you hired the contractor then we're saying anybody else hey just go hire an unlicensed contractor and tell us you got taken i mean am i making any sense at all or am i looking at this the wrong way you can't answer that never mind it's a it's a rhetorical question thank you you know following up though on the vice mayor's questions um like what was the substantial competent evidence to allow for the compressor you know um but that but that's not being challenged no no i understand that it's not being challenged that's the whole point could that same substantial competent evidence be applied to the the the one that was denied is the the you know it's the same set of facts on all three applications and why couldn't the same substantial competent evidence be applied to the actual dwelling itself you know the bottom line here is if we if we don't if we agree with the board of adjustment they're going to tear down the building and there's going to be a compressor sitting out there five feet within the within the property line which makes no sense to me whatsoever so and the fact that they the fact that they allowed for the accessory dwelling to be built there but just said it can't be built there it has to be built somewhere else on the lot within 15 feet away from the property line now i don't know how narrow the property line is i mean i guess if they moved it over 15 moved it over 10 more feet you know that would bring it into compliance but getting back to the vice mayor's question you know the same substantial competent evidence that was found for the compressor could might also be found for the building itself that is the argument that the applicant's making yes yes i know okay another rhetorical point um okay um any any is that complete your your uh it does okay um uh i have a couple people sign up to speak so uh uh ted and sarah followed by uh miles jolly yeah but that's you yeah okay hello my name is ted and sarah i'm the president of the river oak civic association and i live about just a few houses down from sharon duncan uh the proper person that should have been punished was punished the the contractor we can't then punish her also for something that she really was out of her hands i mean to make her tear this thing down it would it would be uh the worst crime than anything um she's a great the river oak civic association supports her unanimous unanimously the neighbors support this thing unanimously this has been a hard hard on her on on her well-being on her mind and uh while this was going on she still two weeks ago like she always does volunteered at our green year routine starlight musical uh when when river oaks had that she she's at all of our green year routine clean the streets day and all those things her her special needs son actually is a greeter at our river oaks meetings and sells our 50 50 raffle tickets at the front desk i mean this is a lady that is involved in all all parts of the neighborhood and this is just an unfortunate situation and and to do two out of three i just don't understand that from the beginning and we can't go ahead and punish her you know also and uh we we speak in favor of sharon i speak in favor of her so so let me ask you this okay um apparently this was just part of uh a part of a job that this lady hired this contractor for right yes so are we to assume that there was um that she was unaware that he was unlicensed for the rest of the project as well like like other work was done so all done by an unlicensed contractor was she unaware of that i don't believe you're right i don't we don't know that but this was never there's no plumbing in this this was never supposed to be an inhabitable dwelling in the back no i'm talking about that there's other the main house i understand had worked right mayor she was unaware he was not licensed for the totality for the totality yes thank you ben yeah so i'm saying that we stand behind her the neighborhood stands behind her the civic association stands behind her and we would like you to uh also you know stand behind a good uh contributor to our neighborhood thank you thank you anyone else wish to speak on this item there being none do i hear a motion to close public hearing moved second seconded please call the roll commissioner glasman yes mr beasley pitman vice mayor sorensen yes mayor trentals yes so i'll now open the floor for discussion amongst the commissioners anyone else want to make any comments so continue the discussion i'll reiterate my you know my view is that yeah that the that the reliance upon competent and substantial evidence if it's applicable to two of the variances it begs the question why was it not applied to the third and so for those reasons i think it was competent substantial evidence does not exist to support the decision of the board of adjustment whether it's approve all three deny all three but uh i'm not understanding the difference in my read of the evidence that indicates a different evidentiary basis for denial and support so you feel there was a so you feel there was a departure from the essential requirements of law i feel there was a no i feel there was um a uh competent that competent and substantial evidence does not support the decision of the board of adjustment that the evidence that i'm understanding they base their decision on is not competent and substantial and thus we need to have a de novo hearing to evaluate it as a commission okay anyone else have any comments or questions just that is does the motion also have to include setting that de novo hearing with the date or is that a separate motion it needs to be within 60 days and we will we will um make sure that that happens within 60 days okay all right so if if a commissioner if the commission finds that there was either a departure from the essential requirements of law on the proceedings appealed or that competent substantial evidence does not exist to support the decision that commissioner may introduce a resolution to set a de novo hearing and please state as follows um and this is what the this is what you want to say commissioner uh vice mayor i introduced a resolution to set a de novo hearing within 60 days to review the board of adjustments final order um as there was not substantial competent substantial evidence uh to support the board of adjustments decision is that your statement vice mayor yes okay and we'll include a date david do you have an idea when a good date would be within the next 60 days agenda wise i mean i guess any could be there from next meeting to within the next 60 days how about october 6th october 6th okay can i add that to the resolution is that yeah yeah amenable okay so mayor i'd like to introduce that okay so the resolution has been introduced uh please call the roll a resolution and city commission of the city of fort lauderdale florida regarding the appeal of final order of the board of adjustment regarding case number pln-boa-2602001 denying one of the three variants requests of the applicant share duncan making certain findings and setting a de novo hearing to consider the appeal before the city commission at 6 p.m on october 6th 2026 and providing an effective date commissioner glosman yes commissioner beasley pitman yes vice mayor sorensen yes mary trentals yes so that resolution is approved we're hearing 6th thank you okay moving right along we are now uh on public hearings uh looking at ph1 public hearing this is a second reading an ordinance amending the city of fort lauderdale unified land development regulations to amend the list of permitted and conditional uses of the community business and boulevard business zoning districts to add i don't know why are we doing this we know how it's going to work out come on is there a demand for this someone knocking on our door say second reading come on hurry up we know how it's gonna to add fortune tellers psychic readers as accessory uses to retail sales i didn't realize we're okay so here we are no one has signed up to speak what's gonna work out someone moved to close public hearing someone moves to close moved moved they moved and seconded please call the roll mr glassman hold on a second yes you're not yes yes mayor trentals yes so public hearing is now closed would someone like to introduce the ordinance introduce the ordinance has been introduced please call the roll in order to the city of fort lauderdale florida men and unified land development regulations article 2 zoning district requirements more specifically section 47-6.10 list of permitted and conditional uses community business district in section 47-6.11 list of permitted and conditional uses boulevard business district to include fortune teller psychic readers to the list of permitted and conditional use tables for the community business district at boulevard business district and providing for correction of scriveners errors severability repeal of conflicting orders provisions and an effective date commissioner glasman yes mr. beasley-pittman yes vice mayor sorensen yes mayor trentals yes and ph1 is now approved ph2 public hearing second reading and ordinance amending the city of fort lauderdale unified land development regulations regarding fences walls and hedges and to revise the method for measuring height of fences and walls um no one has signed up to speak but i do have a question um who's who on city staff can help me here okay so anthony so if if the if the measurement begins on the neighbor's property which is probably lower so if a person is going to build a seven foot fence it may end up being only three or four feet on the on the property owner's side no understood uh anthony for harder director of development services so the way we handle this the the the grading of the property now has to go down to no more than one foot adjacent to the neighboring property no more than one foot so the grading helps resolve that so what we did was we said you have to measure it from the grade of the neighboring property so that accounts for the one foot so you get to six feet of solid fence right and then we announced for another foot of architectural features that would allow some light and air to come through but allow some additional privacy to kind of get some parity between the two properties next door to each other right but you're saying it can't go down more than one foot exactly so what you would end up with is an overall fence height if you measure from the ground of of seven and a half feet versus six and a half feet okay all right i just want to make sure that because the bottom because the reality is if it went all the way down to the neighbor's property it could be possibly only three or four feet right okay and that was the problem before we changed the requirements for the grading at the edge of the property okay got it all right very good um uh okay so no one has signed up to speak with someone like to move to close public hearing move seconded move and seconded please call the roll commissioner glossman yes commissioner beasley bitman vice mayor sorensen yes mayor trentals yes and public hearing is now closed on ph2 someone like to introduce the ordinance mayor i'd like to introduce you but i just want to take a moment so this is something anthony's been working on a long time we had i've been just involved with it for a while too we've had mayor we had some uh high fences uh and walls as a result of this grading challenge so this correction i know it may sound a little um you know nuanced but it really is going to make a difference to have uniformity in neighborhoods and it's going to be a great outcome and i just want to recognize anthony you were doing who else remind me who else was involved in just from a staff side yeah carl ann devonish yes uh and orlando oram okay and we had a couple of the people ella parker was involved in the in the process jim hetzel but yeah it was definitely a team effort and we did a lot of outreach and discussion with the neighborhoods to make sure that we weren't going to get sideways with anybody so right we're pretty happy with the result we hope it's going to resolve the problem we're pretty confident that it will yeah i think it's great i don't know city attorney how involved your office was they were very involved as well right work in progress what i thought so thank you i just want to thank this took a lot of expense dwayne thank you this took a lot of hours uh of of nuance so thank you mayor i just want to support and move it forward thank you okay um the ordinance is introduced please call the roll an ordinance of the city of fort lauderdale florida amending unified land development regulations article one general requirements more specifically section 47 dash 2.2 measurements and article three development requirements more specifically section 47 dash 19.5 fences and walls and hedges to revise the method for the measurements of the heights of fences and walls and providing for correction of scrivener's errors severability repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions and in fact date commissioner glossman yes commissioner beasley pitman yes vice mayor sorensen yes mayor john tallis yes and ph2 is now approved in second reading ph3 public hearing second reading and ordinance amending the city of fort lauderdale unified land development regulations regarding historic preservation district including an update to the list of permitted uses and limitations on permitted uses um um one person decided to speak ted and sarah ted and sarah president of river oaks i'm sorry i generally don't like to speak on two different items in one night but i couldn't help it tonight but i just want to speak on this area that's second street downtown i've worked on second street for over 30 years i started at bonton square with the lang yap cajun house then i worked at the first restaurant people's uh the restaurant down there the himishi bar and grill tarpon bend the river house and then i spent uh i worked from the day it opened to the day it closed for 13 years at the obi house so i know second street and i know back in the day it was a it was a great street and it's had some of its problems you know now with with the problems of of underage people and you know all the problems that we have but i i just i just want to say how great you know fat cats has the best philly cheesesteak in fort lauderdale and that we have to you know it's having a late night live music uh area of town is not a bad thing it's a good thing as long as it's it's policed properly and i have all the faith in the world in police chief schultz that he can figure out a way to to make this a better area for the people but i just don't you know i read the list of all these new permitted you know things that can be used man talk about psychic readers and all that so there was candle shops and and shoeshine shops there was all kind of things there's actually a grocery store that was listed as a permitted uh possibility there when i just like to bring up that river oaks and edgewood doesn't have a grocery store for for a long time we really need one bad but uh one of the things that caught my eye on this possible list of of uses is uh the mixed use development uh that to me i i don't want to see second street turn into northeast third avenue and have it look like i've seen all these reimagines of these neighborhoods all these renderings they all look exactly the same flagler village lower uh the south rack of andrews avenue the north andrews avenue sister they all look the big square buildings your gym at the bottom floor with a bagel shop and then residents right above it all square you got a couple of these simpson stoppers trees along the sidewalk with a cut out you know thing you know eight feet tall and and that's they all look the same the city is all looking the same too much all over the place you know it does need help it does need work but please let's keep the integrity of second street with what you know i i work in the restaurant business you know when you guys get off at five o'clock in the afternoon you don't go home and go to bed you know you go to happy hour you do this when you're in the restaurant business you get off at 11 o'clock 12 o'clock so i mean we just don't run home and go to bed i mean that that's our time it's nice to have a late night uh mute uh area of town as long as it's police properly and done properly but we don't need to change it really into just to look like flagler village and the rest of uh what the city of fort lauderdale is becoming thank you boy i was right on time i happen to like flagler village i think it's a wonderful component of our city and i'm sorry it doesn't look like river oaks but not everybody likes all the same not everybody likes all the same thing so uh there's no one else who signed up to speak with someone please move to close public hearing so move do i hear a second second second please call the roll i'm closing public hearing commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley pittman yes vice mayor sorensen yes mayor trentales yes public hearing on ph3 is now closed would someone like to introduce the ordinance introduced the ordinance has been introduced 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 update the list and limitations of permitted uses providing for codification and correction of scrivener's errors and for an effective date commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley pittman yes vice mayor sorensen yes pay your turn to us yes and ph3 is now approved on second reading uh this is of r1 this is the first reading of the ordinance amending chapter 28 of the code of ordinances to increase water fixed cost recovery establish multi-family fixed charges based on dwell units behind the meter revise irrigation volumetric tears update water capital expansion and miscellaneous fees and revise leak and unusual consumption credit provisions that's a mouthful uh no one is signed up to speak mary if i could um so who's speaking right on here hi in the uh in the draft ordinance that was presented with this item for tonight um we failed to include the credit for the wastewater side of things so we have the 12 month average credit for the water right credit um so we're asking it to be approved as amended so that we can include that sewer credit on second reading okay so uh as amended would someone like to do the ordinance mayor if i could just say this and we've all been working on this we've all been talking about this this is a pain point for so many of our residents in fort lauderdale when they're getting bills that are not accurate or they're having leaks and so this i'm just pat the commission on the back for now expanding the degree to which city staff can credit neighbors for um leaks and and errors and so forth so just thank you it's needed really appreciate the work we're doing as a commission it's just um i'm just grateful for that and thank you staff yvette and linda and al and everyone else who's been part of this thanks mary i'll happy to what do you want me to do introduce it introduce you introduce as amended as amended okay for approval for approval okay um any other comments or questions there being none please call the roll so this is as amended as amended as amended okay in ordinance of the city of fort lauderdale florida amending chapter 28 of the code of ordinance of the city of fort lauderdale florida to increase water fixed cost recovery establish multi-family fixed charges based on dwelling units behind the meter revise irrigation volumetric tiers update water capital expansion and miscellaneous fees and revise leak and unusual consumption credit provisions provide for severability provide for repeal of conflicting ordinances provision or all for repeal of all ordinances in conflict and provide for an effective date commissioner glossman yes commissioner beasley-pittman are you sure david yes vice mayor yes mayor twintels yes and of r1 is now approved not first reading of r2 a first reading of an ordinance amending the non-bargaining unit compensation table of schedule six of the pay plan of the city of fort laudale providing for a three and a one-half percent general wage increase effective october 11th 2026 um no one has signed up to speak uh anyone have any questions or comments there being none would someone like to introduce the ordinance the ordinance has been introduced please call the roll in ordinance of the city of fort lauderdale florida amending the pay plan of the city of fort lauderdale florida by replacing the non-bargaining unit compensation table with a revised non-bargaining unit compensation table replacing schedule six special employees with revised schedule six special employees thereby providing a three and a half percent general wage increase to all non-bargaining unit employees and all schedule six special employees and providing for severability repeal conflicting ordinance provisions and an effective date commissioner glassman yes commissioner beasley-pittman yes vice mayor sorensen yes mayor trinthales yes and of r2 is now approved on first reading now we're going to have a number of ordinances a second reading which i'll go through and uh start with osr1 this is an ordinance amending chapter 15 article 10 on vacation rentals to clarify enforcement authority and so forth um no one is signed up to speak someone like to introduce the ordinance this one is for uh deferred to september 15th oh i see that at the end yes okay never mind moving on just a motion yeah oh do i have a motion to uh defer to september 15th second 2026 to move and seconded please call the roll commissioner glassman yes mr beasley-pittman yes vice mayor sorenson yes mayor trinthales yes and osr1 is now being deferred till september 15th osr2 this is a second reading of an ordinance repealing the ordinance number c-84-88 to facilitate the renaming of southwest 1st avenue and northwest 1st avenue from west lussels boulevard west to sun sistrunk boulevard to mary brickle avenue uh no one decided to speak uh anyone have any comments there being none please call the roll oh someone like to introduce your ordinance introduced your ordinance have been introduced in ordinance of the city of fort laura floor repealing ordinance number c-84-88 in order to facilitate the renaming of southwest 1st avenue and northwest 1st avenue from west lussels boulevard to sistrunk boulevard in the city of fort laura florida to mary brickle avenue in providing for severability repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions and effective date commissioner glassman yes mr beasley-pittman yes vice mayor sorenson yes mayor trinthales i'm going to say yes but i really i think we could have been more creative instead of calling it mary brickle avenue like mary brickle way or something more you know charming avenue but because i think um but anyway i've i yes but i just think we could have been a little bit more creative because i know what we're trying to do here we're trying to create a neighborhood street that that um defined by the spine of northwest uh and southwest first avenue because it goes right into uh fat village but anyway it is what it is so mayor actually we're bringing that item i'm over here again we're bringing that we're uh we're planning to bring an item this voice of god yeah a ventriloquist um we plan on bringing an item to the next meeting to apply the name to this street again so milos could maybe tell us if there's options do you have a more interesting or creative it's okay i mean i'm just i'm just just thinking aloud right now i mean mary brickle way would have been a little bit more you know it's charming than you know avenue anyway what's what's the definition for like avenue play street they have do they not fit specifically yeah i think you're right i think there's certain certain i think north i think certain streets go north right north south versus east west yeah like a court goes into west but i think way goes north south also yeah way goes north south but what in miami b in miami what is their mary brickle is it mary brickle boulevard i think it's mary brickle boulevard i believe it's brickle avenue as well it's brickle avenue it's brickle avenue but they have mary brickle village that's what it is mary brickle village um so maybe we shouldn't have avenue if they also have avenue no it's brickle avenue right now we have brickle avenue yeah but calling it mary brickle avenue to call it Mary Brickle Way. I just think it's more charming. It's nice. I agree. It might be confusing if we have a Brickle Avenue and a Mary Brickle Avenue. People might get a little confused. I don't know. All right, we'll bring it back. Yeah. Way. Blame it. Mary Brickle Lane. All right, OSR 3. This is a second reading, an ordinance cementing the City of Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Buildings and Construction, including Article 2, Permits and Inspections to revise the private provider permit fees and fee reductions in compliance with state legislation. Yeah, I know. I heard that they passed something. Okay, so we've had one person sign up to speak, Mr. Ian Cohen. Mr. Cohen, good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. As CEO of Inspected, a private provider operating in 400-plus municipalities throughout Florida, I worked with state legislators on updating Florida Statute 553791 as part of House Bill 803. House Bill 803 was adopted to bring a higher level of uniformity from a process standpoint so contractors could get permits issued faster and more efficiently. This also required building departments to update outdated processes, which I'm happy to say Fort Lauderdale has actually done. The problem here is the implementation of a fee schedule that is grossly out of compliance with state requirements and is based on a methodology that is severely flawed. Let me first start with the compliance aspect of this issue. The plain language of the statute states, if a fee owner or fee owner's contractor retains a private provider for purposes of plan review or building inspections, the local jurisdiction must reduce the permit fee by the amount of savings realized by the local enforcement agency for not having to perform those services. Your building department has led you all to believe that adding a private provider to a permit requires a whole lot more work, and that is blatantly false. See, one of the key changes that we made during the updating of the statute was that we added a registration process so you didn't have to submit reams of paper with every single permit application. All of that stuff was housed with the building department, and that registration process allows the private providers to be approved well in advance of permit applications. The only difference now is that this document accompanies a permit application, and your building department has led you to believe that it takes an hour to read a three-page document. The actual name of the fee on the permit invoice is called a fixed permit provider fee. My time's up. I'll give you a little bit more time. I mean, we're probably going to approve this. Yeah, I know. Yeah. All right. Is that what you're asking us to do? I'm asking you not to because... You're asking us not to approve it. It is... When I tell you it's grossly out of compliance with statute... You're saying this is not consistent with the statute? Permit... So contractors right now are being charged $400... Right. ...to hire a private provider. Right. $400 more than they would have paid working with the city directly. But isn't that a benefit to the applicant to be able to facilitate... to expedite the permit process? No, no, no. So what I'm saying... So as I was saying, if there was a... If you're an HVAC contractor and you decide to work with a private provider... Right. ...a typical permit fee you would call $150... To hire a private provider, they're paying $550 for that permit fee. Total. Total. And why are we charging another $400? Because the building department has led this group or the commission to believe that there's a whole lot more work being added to the process. Well, why don't we ask our staff? Good evening again, Mayor. Anthony Fajardo, Director of Development Services. So we are in a weird situation here because of the way the state wrote the legislation. There's two pieces of legislation we're dealing with. One is the private provider reductions of fees, which says 25% or 50%, depending on what you're doing, inspections or inspections plus plan review. The other is the methodology by which we determine our fees. Our previous methodology was to do it as a percentage of construction costs. The state has now said that we have to do a methodology for cost recovery. They also said that we can have reasonable indirect costs as part of that. What we're doing to deal with that is we've got two components. One that went into effect July 1st, which was the private provider fee. The methodology has to be effective by January 1st. So what we did was we went to cost recovery for private provider. We had two that we did. We did one immediately so that we could come into compliance by the July 1st date. So we used the methodology that the state put in the second legislative amendment to do cost recovery. We got pushback and we talked to our city attorney's office. I've also subsequently spoken to the auditor about the methodology. But what we did is we took out the indirect fees so that we could have a lower rate and let our consultant who we're bringing on, which is Stantec, do a proper study about all of our fees so that we could come into compliance genuinely first for everything. It's kind of a weird situation that we're finding ourselves in. So larger projects that had private provider, they've seen a substantial reduction in their fees. Smaller projects like the ones that he does have seen an increase in fees and it's just an outcome of the methodology. This isn't a situation that the city caused and we're doing our best to come into compliance. If you want more details, I have Assistant Director Juan Rodriguez here. He helped put all this together and can give you a lot more detail or answer any questions but the result is by January 1st, all the fees are going to change again anyway. Stantec is probably going to say that we have to increase it again because we're artificially low. Well, I mean, in terms of actual cost recovery, other than using the methodology that we were assigned to use, can we put our own limits on how much we charge? So there is a provision in the legislation for private provider. We can do, you do have the ability to do a deeper discount to go beyond the cost recovery if you so choose. We were functioning under the previous direction which we've heard from the commission on multiple occasions to at least do cost recovery. So that's why we did it that way. But you do have that option. But I mean, like in this particular situation, if someone is applying to replace their air conditioning system, does it cost another $400 to... So what was happening was as a percentage of the fee, basically we weren't doing cost recovery before. For these smaller projects, we weren't even covering our costs. But the larger projects kind of made up the balance for that when you average it all out. That's why it's resulted in these smaller projects going up. But I would say that we did do an analysis. We got it just today. Some of the fees did go up. Some of the fees went down. It just depends on what you're doing on these smaller projects. So we don't have the ability to divide and conquer. We can't say larger projects are one methodology and smaller projects are another methodology. We have to be consistent across the board. And in the current situation that we're in and in speaking with the city attorney's office and the auditor, I'm just not sure what other options we have at this point. Well, can you use the methodology, can you use the same methodology but then put a cap on how much you can raise? For example, if I were replacing my air conditioning system and I was told my permit fees went from $150 to $550, I mean, it's a big jump. Can you say it's a minimum of $150 and no more than like $300 or something? What I'm saying is you can put a cap on things. Would we still be shortchanging our development department? Well, any situation we're in, we are shortchanging the development department. The paperwork that was held up a little bit ago by Mr. Cohen. That's not just the paperwork. So everything that is included in that fee is every time someone touches it when it first comes in the door and then every time someone touches it going out the door. So the assistant building official, the building official are involved in the COs for those things. So that paperwork was designed to cover it all so we could keep it to a minimum. I think the problem or the challenge we would have is determining what types of permits and what methodology would fit into this type of situation versus the larger projects. We are using a base fee for everything and then cutting that fee down. The base fee originally was $131 or 1.75%, whichever was more. Okay. Yeah. And we did have a reduction on private provider before, but it didn't meet the threshold. It was 5% and 10%, I believe, so this takes us to 25% and 50%. Okay. Mr. Rodriguez, you want to add to this? No. Everything that Anthony said is correct. It depends on the specific case example depending on the construction value of the project of whether under this new permit fee schedule if they're actually going to be paying more or less. So because we cannot use that old methodology anymore, then we have to go to a straight cost recovery fee with the applicable reductions according to the state statute. Okay. And is it our position that we want a 100% cost recovery on big and small projects? So typically that's what the minimum we would do, but the state is now mandated because of private provider they would get a 25% discount for inspections and a 50% discount for inspections and plan review. So we are automatically not going to make ourselves whole because of legislation, but it's okay. I mean, that's what the law says. So even though, so for smaller projects, even though we're charging more than we had based on the cost recovery model, we are still not operating from a full cost recovery standpoint? We are not. Okay. $137 sounds really cheap to consider. I know the inspection process have been through it a few times and I can't imagine we're recovering our costs at that level. So the other part of this equation is to remember that when we go through this overall study of all of our permit fees, because right now we're focused on private provider because we had to do that by July 1st, but we have to do all of our fees. When that comes back to you probably in December, because we have to have it adopted before January 1st, you're probably going to see A, all the regular fees that he's concerned about. And I understand the differential because you do look on the website and it says if you private provider it's going to be this. If you do it yourself, it's going to be a different fee. Right. But when we clean this all up later on, it will have parity and then you'll see that whatever that base fee was for the regular permit will then be cut for the provider per the statute for the 25% and the 50%. So it should all even itself out in a couple months. We're just not there yet because our fees are very complicated. It takes a lot of work to go through that, which is why we hired a consultant. The last time we did it in-house, it took us many, many months. I think it was well over a year, city manager that that took. So we know we have these deadlines, so we felt it was necessary to have a professional come in and do it for us. Does the revenue from the permitting, does that go into the general fund? No, that goes to the building fund. That's what I thought. It goes in the building fund. What's the balance of the building fund approximately right now? And then my next question, Anthony, is could we set an artificial cap on cost recovery? For example, for these next several months, could we say 25% cost recovery for everything? I'd probably want to defer to the city attorney to see if that's something that would be palatable. I'm not sure. We'd have to carefully calculate that, and they have done the analysis and determined that these fees are appropriate at this point, and I think what they're trying to establish is that when they apply the final analysis of it, it'll all flush out. Sure. So it might be premature to try to do that at this point. So, Vice Mayor, we do run models with Stantec every year, so just like we do for the general fund, we do modeling with them for our enterprise funds like the building fund, so we'd have to look, and we have looked in the past at what it would look like to run into a deficit year-to-year based on our fund balance and drawing that fund balance down because there's also a statutory requirement to maintain a certain fund balance, we can't go above a certain threshold per statute, so certainly we can look at what that looks like, but I'd want to model it and make sure we're on the right track. And I do want to mention too, I just don't want it to be lost with the fees for these private providers right now. We are really looking for cost recovery on the administrative process to do the paperwork attached to the private provider application and finalizing the project. The private provider is the one doing the work with the plan review and the inspection, so they're charging their customers whatever it is for that, for their cost recovery. We're focused on this, just on our cost recovery for the administrative process to manage the program. Is there a way to make, because I want to incentivize private providers doing their work, because in my mind that should then lessen the burden on city staff, but it's sounding like there's still a significant administrative burden on us, even when a private provider is doing it. So there's an administrative burden, and I want to be clear that when you're looking at a typical private provider project, what I call typical is a very large project, so a tier 66, something like that, was a private provider project. When we looked at our prior fee structure and we were doing the same permit multiplier that we do for every other building permit, plus a little bit of a discount, those permit fees would be in the tens of thousands of, you know, million dollar range. We're looking at now going to a very, very small amount for those projects, because it's just the administrative paperwork, which is fine, because that's what the state's told us to do. Where Mr. Cohen and folks that operate in the kind of types of projects they work on, when you look at a $10,000, you know, job, and you look at our 1.7% multiplier now, that would have been $187 just to come get a permit as a contractor through their city process. So, yes, the new fee of, you know, $400-some odd dollars for that permit is an increase, but I think, as Anthony had said, when we go back and we look at recalibrating our building permit fees under the statute, which we can't use the percentage of job costs anymore, we have to look more at that cost recovery model for all those building permits, this may level out, and we may be able to go back and revisit it, but it will take us until that time, unless there's an interest in kind of artificially, or almost arbitrarily, but artificially reducing this private provider fee at this point. Yeah, I mean, because it would only be for a short duration while we're in this limbo until we hit January and then adjust. Yeah, sorry, fund balance, thanks. So, Yvette Matthews, assistant city manager, so our fund balance in the building fund is about $26 million, their operating budget each year is about $30 million, so we are below that statutory requirement, which is a four-year average of their operating expenses, so this is a very healthy fund. Yep, okay, thank you. Okay, yeah, I mean, Mayor, I'd just be interested in, is there a way we can figure out how to lower the cost recovery percent, and again, it's only, my view is it's only for a short period of time, so even if we are running a little bit of a deficit while we, you know, get to December, January, you know, we'll survive. Sure. Go through the calculation as is required, but also just put a cap on it, because for mom and pops like us who just want to put a new AC in, to spend, you know, so much money for a permit, I just think is a little egregious, so. Right. And I just think also with these small projects, Mayor, I just think of, you know, difficult financial times for so many people right now, and so if we can provide a little bit of a, you know, a break that we're able to sustain for a few months. And also keep in mind, it's a disincentive for some people who say, oh, I don't want to spend the money for a permit, so I'm not going to get one. Right. Yeah. So, why don't we, would it be okay if we amended this ordinance? Yes. The only thing I would like to make sure is clarified, are we talking all private providers, so large project and small project, because we don't have a differentiation between a threshold or anything. They just, they increase with the type of project. Can we differentiate between large and small? I don't know where that, here right now, I don't know where to draw that line, so I'd have to. Well, we can draw the line based on a dollar figure. So, if a project is under $20,000, then we can differentiate that between, I'm just picking a number out of the hat, but $20,000 is usually, people's air conditioning systems, you brought it up, so I'm just using that as an example, but the air conditioning systems are usually under $20,000. So, any projects below $20,000, the maximum should be like $300. Anything more than that, there's no max cap. Mayor, here's a suggestion, is, could we have, could we defer this and just let staff do a little bit of work on this and bring it back next commission meeting? Can we defer this? Yes. We can do that. Why don't we defer this to the next meeting, give us a chance to, yes, sir. I'm sorry. Come to the mic. Yes. So, right now, there's a $400 fee applied to permits, right now. So, what do we do about that $400 fee? Well, we're going to wait two weeks so that we can, it remains until we get a better recommendation and work and then come back. Got it. See if we can find a better fit. Yeah. Thank you. Fair? Thank you. Anthony, is that all right? Yes. I think that's fine. All right, great. Thank you, guys. Okay, thanks, man. I appreciate it. Do I need to move to, we're just going to. Yeah, we need to defer to the next meeting. Yeah, we don't need to. Motion. Do I need to make a motion? Yeah. Do we need a motion for that? Yeah, it'll carry the advertising and everything. Someone want to move, so to the next meeting or the meeting after? I'd say the next, is that. No, in terms of advertising and so forth. Oh, yeah. Sure. Do we have the ability to just move it to the next meeting or does it have to be two meetings from now? If you defer it to a date that's already been advertised, so the 15th will be fine. I think, yeah, we can work this out by then. Okay, so the 15th of September? Yes. I'll make that motion to move. Someone would like to second that? Second. Move to seconded. Please call the roll on deferring OSR 3 to September 15th. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Bettman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes, and OSR 3 is now deferred to September 15th. OSR 4, second reading of ordinance, amending number C-95-41, which established a defined contribution money purchase plan for certain city employees by changing the plan administrator to one designated by resolution. No one is signed up to speak. Someone would like to introduce the ordinance? Introduced. The ordinance has been introduced. In ordinance of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending ordinance number C-95-41 by providing for the administrator of the city's 401-A defined contribution money purchase plan to be designated by resolution, amending the definition of city-sponsored defined contribution plan in section 20-107 of the code of ordinances of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and providing for codification, severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of scriveners errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentos? Yes. And OSR 4 is now approved. OSR 5, second reading and ordinance amending ordinance number C-80-67, which established deferred compensation plans for city employees by changing the plan administrator to one designated by resolution and changing the public official designated to make certain determinations. We have two people sign up to speak, Greg Miller and Jeff Francis. Is this just to answer questions? Who are you? Would you like to speak? Come on up. Jeff, Greg Miller, you're from Corbridge Financial. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and city staff. I'm here, Greg Miller, on behalf of Corbridge, to respectfully support the Retirement Committee's decision to select Corbridge as your retirement services provider. At the last meeting, we were really disappointed at some comments made by one of our competitors and one of the current deferred compensation providers that's being displaced. Their comments, which included several inaccuracies, attempted to create uncertainty and fear around the merger agreement between Corbridge and Equitable. During the meeting, they indicated multiple times that Corbridge is being acquired. They questioned our ability to comply with the commitments that we've made. They also made comments indicating that we don't know who our leadership will be, that we don't know where we're going to be headquartered, and that insinuated that we might not be in this business in the future. I want to be very clear here. Corbridge is not being acquired. In fact, there's going to be a merger between two leading financial services companies where Corbridge shareholders are going to be the majority stakeholders in the new company. The new organization will be led by the Corbridge current CEO. It will be headquartered in the current Corbridge headquarters in Houston, Texas. And this merger is not going to diminish our commitment to the city. It's not going to diminish our ability to provide the services that we've agreed to provide to the city. On the contrary, we remain fully prepared and committed to the city to meet the city's expectations, supporting its employees, and honoring the terms of the contract. And moreover, we really expect that this is going to unlock more resources to further invest in our business. I know I'm running short on time, and I didn't bring one of those fancy checks, but this change is expected to make sense. Sorry, you're out of order. And never come back. You guys won't be voting on this tonight, but since there were comments made, I wanted to address. Thank you so much. We appreciate you coming tonight. Mr. Francis, is Mr. Francis here? There you are. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Pleasure to see you again on this conversation we're having this evening. And I'm just here to one follow-up on the letter that was sent to you after the last meeting, and essentially ask for a follow-up discussion on a thoughtful pause. I hear the comments made by Mr. Miller. I respect the comments made by Mr. Miller. But I think there's still things that we don't know. And to paraphrase a thought around, you know, trust but verify. And it's an opportunity as commissioners, as a board, to do just that, to take a thoughtful pause, trust but verify, wait and see what occurs with the merger, and then reevaluate. And in that time period, it gives the city the opportunity to make sure that the choice that they made, which we respect, we understand the process, the RFP, the decisions that were made by the committee and staff, but it gives you an opportunity then to make sure that that choice is still the best choice for the city. And more importantly for your employees, as you think about their retirement futures. It's such a key benefit item. It's voluntary dollars that your employees are saving on their behalf, right, for them and their families. And this is an opportunity to make sure that that decision that was made is still the right decision for them. And so they're not sitting there wondering, what are you doing to me, but can say, what did you do for me? And as fiduciaries, that thoughtful pause gives you just that opportunity to sit back, reflect, watch what occurs with this merger, and make sure that decision is right for your employees. And that's the thoughtful pause. And in doing that, as it stated in our letter, we're willing to reduce our administrative service charge down to zero. So therefore, your employees are going to benefit immediately from a cost reduction while you go through the process of evaluating this merger and acquisition, and at that time, make the decision if that choice was the best choice. So with that, again, I appreciate the opportunity for the last 40 years to serve the city of Fort Lauderdale. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you this evening, and look forward to continuing this dialogue and this conversation and ask for that thoughtful pause. Thank you so much. Thank you. Zero, huh? Come back. Can you beat that? You pay us, but you have to use it. So city staff has recommended your company, and Linda, you want to come up here and give us the final word on this? Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. So this ordinance is not to change the plan administrator at this point in time. This is just to correct an ordinance change that we had from back in 1995 and 1980 that named vendors as administrators for the plan. What we're trying to do is make it generic and by resolution approve who the vendors are. At the next commission meeting, we're anticipating bringing the actual award of the RFP that everybody's talking about. But this action is just to be able to allow us to be able to change plan providers without having to do an ordinance change every time we do it. Got it. Okay. Anyone else have any comments or questions? There being none, would someone like to introduce the resolution? Excuse me, the ordinance. I'm sorry. Introduce. Thank you. Please call the roll. End ordinance to the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, amending ordinance number C-80-67 by providing for the administrator of the city's deferred compensation plan to be designated by resolution for the director of finance to be designated individual to ensure certain statutory requirements and providing for codification, severability, repeal of conflicting ordinance provisions, correction of script for nurse errors, and an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Halls? Yes. And OSR 5 is now approved on a second reading. We have two more items left on the agenda. Now we're talking about resolutions. This is continuing our resolutions agenda. This is R4, resolution designating International City Management Association Retirement Corporation, now known, excuse me, doing business as Mission Square Retirement as the plan administrator for the city's internal revenue code section 401A defined contribution money purchase plan and providing for an effective date. Okay. Anyone have any questions? There being none. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. A resolution city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida designating International City Management Association Retirement Corporation as the plan administrator of the city's defined contribution money purchase plan and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Halls? Yes. And R4 is now approved. R5, a resolution designating International City Management Association Retirement Corporation and Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. as plan administrators of the city's deferred compensation plan and providing for an effective date. No one signed up to speak. Would someone like to introduce the resolution? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida designated International City Management Association Retirement Corporation Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. as plan administrators of the city's deferred compensation plan and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Halls? Yes. And R5 is now approved. Is there any further business to the commission? Yeah, we have the walk-on motion. We have the walk-on, which I have right here. Almost walked away. Oh, here it is. All right. This is an ordinance of the city of Fort Lauderdale amending the non-bargaining unit class. No. Nope. Nope. Not that one. Where's the walk-on? Oh, just that? Yeah. Okay. You just want me to sign this. Oh, yeah. Those are just... Okay. This is a motion accepting the grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration for the procurement of vehicle movement area transponders at the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. $54,596. Would someone like to move the item? Moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent Halls? Yes, and the walk-on item is now approved. Now, is there any further business? No, Mayor. City Attorney, do you have any announcements to make? No, Mayor. Okay. Any further business with the commission? We're good. Meeting concluded. Thank you. All right.