begin because we have people waiting. All right. So we are going to start with a quick moment of silence followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Gonzalez who just joined us and then we will roll into the agenda. Thank you. Before we begin we will set the reasonable opportunity to be heard. This is an opportunity for the public to come up and speak on any item on this agenda that is not a public hearing item. So if there's anybody here that wishes to speak on any other item please approach. I have cards but I have cards for our actual public hearing item. Seeing none reasonable opportunity is now closed. Thank you and please show Commissioner Cohen Higgins has joined us. And so with that I'm going to jump into any additions, any edits, anything that we need to know before we proceed to set the agenda. Madam Chair for item 1G1 the prime sponsor has requested a deferral to this committee's May 13, 2026 meeting. In addition for item 2A the prime sponsor has requested that her floor amendment be taken up by one of the committee members. Other than that the items for consideration are those in the printed official agenda. Okay thank you. So do we have anybody who will be, do I have a motion set? Okay. The floor amendment we will read into the record now so when we set the agenda it's ready. To set the agenda. Second. The floor amendment from item 2A is to amend the title to require that the county mayor, county mayors, county mayors designate need to determine the 100 most purchased plumbing supplies by dollar value by Miami-Dade County instead of the 100 most utilized. Such amendment harmonizes the language of the title in section one of the resolution. That's fine. So that is just a title on a change. Okay, that's fine. Before we take the balance of the agenda, I'm going to call up item 1G2 since we have speaker cards for that item. Please read it into the record. So item 1G2 is an ordinance relating to noise regulation amending section 2128 of the code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, modifying the circumstances that establish a prima facie violation of the noise regulations governing the radios, televisions and similar devices, providing severability inclusion in the code and an effective date. It's a public hearing item. Thank you so much. With that, I will start the public hearing and call the first name, Lynn Sue, Commissioner. You will have two minutes. Welcome. Good afternoon, Commissioners, and good to be here at the committee. I am here in support of the noise ordinance because in our city, without realizing that Commissioner Steinberg is sponsoring this item, I had created this because we do have a lot of issues. We have boats that are parked in their docks and turning on loud music in neighborhoods that are family-oriented, twerking and putting up Instagram videos of, you know, their dancing and videotaping certain things. And we see that all the time, and I think that having that prima facie violation available and also getting a little bit more strict with the distance and being clear about it is very important. So I encourage the committee to support this as well, and we are right behind you. It's our second reading next, and we have already followed the lead that Commissioner Steinberg and Commissioner Lopez had implanted. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. I'm sorry. Lynn Sue, North Miami Beach, 16546 Northeast 26th Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida, 33160. Thank you. Next speaker, Gerard Plouvis, and I apologize if I pronounced it wrong. Thank you very much. It happens all the time. It's place like choice. Oh, of course. So that makes it easier. Thank you very much for the committee. State your name and address for the record. Yeah, my name is Gerard Plouvis, 1135 103rd Street, Bay Harbor Island. Appreciate the opportunity that I can speak in front of the committee for the noise ordinance change. I'm a resident of Onda, which is a building on Bay Harbor Island, right in front of the sandbar. And I've been living on Bay Harbor Island for about 10 years. The sandbar was never an issue. It's an old Miami institution. And I want to make sure that everybody understands it is not against boaters. It is because the boats have really moved very close to the residential area, and they are constantly, and when I say constantly, it's literally every weekend, exceeding noise levels in front of the buildings of all neighbors. As a result, the police has received thousands of neighbors who simply can't use their balconies. They can't use the pool on the rooftop because the noise is just so strong. I've made an effort to really commission a study, and, you know, I have a video, and the noise levels, which clearly show they exceed levels that are acceptable. And this was only done during a day when it was not sunny. It was even rainy. When you have a weekend, you know, it is just by far exceeding it. So I'm speaking on behalf of the honor community, and I know that neighboring communities as well, we are very much in favor of changing it, and it would also help the police to do their work, which I also want to mention they are really doing as best as they can to stop the noise levels. But very often what happens is that, you know, the moment the police goes away, the boats just increase it. And the fines, the way they are today, are really not hurting boats of 20 young people who hired the boat and just have only one thing in common, that they want to have fun. And if they divide by 20 people a fine of 100 bucks, it is meaningless. Thank you very much again for taking the time. Thank you. Our next speaker, Brett Bibbo. Good afternoon, honorable county commissioners and administration. Brett Bibbo, managing director of the Miami River Commission, with offices located at 1407 Northwest 7th Street. Miami River Commission Chairman Horacio Stewart-Aguire and Vice Chairman Jim Murley were unavailable to attend today. Therefore, they asked me to express their support for approval of Agenda Item 1G2, which would reduce the volume of music on boats after 11 p.m. to become consistent with state law. Although we support enjoying music while boating, after 11 p.m., the volume should be turned down to protect the quality of life of the thousands of taxpaying residents living on the Miami River. In addition, the Miami River Commission respectfully recommends increased marine patrol to enforce all applicable regulations. I appreciate your support from the Miami River District. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, James Torres. Good afternoon, committee members. My name is James Torres, president of the Downtown Neighbors Alliance. We're here to support Item 1G2 as it relates to the noise ordinances along the boats. The thing for us in downtown Miami is the river, the mouth of the river as you kind of come in. It impacts the quality of life of all the residents on the buildings. I also do know that the city of Miami at one point was trying to do some enforcement along the river, but with this ordinance coming to fruition, it would really kind of work together in enforcing what should have been done a long time ago. And hopefully this is a big wake-up call to the city of Miami to really enforce in working with the county on these items together. Thank you very much. Thank you. Kenneth Brown. Good evening, everyone. Kenneth Brown, 120-300 Northwest 17th Avenue. I agree with everyone about the noise ordinances, but I have a neighbor, so when you start implementing laws, the laws are going to affect everyone. I have a neighbor, a Spanish neighbor that lived next door to me, and he's deaf in both his ears and also his wife. And he keeps his TV up really loud at night, and it doesn't bother me because I know it's circumstances. So when we start implementing laws, we've got to remember, we've got to take into consideration of other people that have illness or have a deficit that they actually have a problem to where it affects them. So if you cut down the noise, if I go and tell my neighbor to turn his TV down, and now he can't hear it, and then that's a problem. So I understand that we have a noise, regulations, and all these codes and violations that we put out, but sometimes we have to take into consideration of people that really need to have their television up loud, their radio up loud in certain areas. And also the last thing I would have to share is that you have a young man that actually been working for the county for years, Kenneth Kirkpatrick, and he made some statements on a meeting that they had back by the MAC, and the suggestion that he made to some elderlies that was there was to go back to Egypt, and this young man is still working for the county. If he had said that to other ethnic groups or other people, he wouldn't be allowed to be an employee of Miami-Dade County. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, Chief Charles Press. Hello, Commissioners. Thank you for having me today. Quick background. I'm the police chief in Surfside. My name is Charles Press, 9293 Harding Avenue, Surfside. My background as a chief has been 17 years in Key Biscayne and now currently 15 months in Surfside. I can tell you that I have personally witnessed a dramatic increase in noise, chaos, and things that are described earlier that happen on boats, in the water, right behind people. And the people at Surfside are directly impacted. We support this new ordinance, and we hope that you all pass it unanimously. And thank you for your help. Thank you. Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office, Lieutenant Barrios. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here on behalf of the Sheriff's Office. My name is Michael Barrios. I'm the lieutenant for the Marine Patrol Unit for the Sheriff. We're in support of this ordinance. As you guys know, there are more registered vessels in the state of Florida than ever before. That and the proliferation of livery business and charter business allows more people to get in the water to enjoy our beautiful waterways. But with that congestion and that amount of fun time on the water, it becomes a nuisance to other people. Sometimes they take the fun just a bit too far. I think the other issue that happens is throughout the years, technology has gotten better when it comes to electronic components, and it allows the amplification of music or sound to be even that much louder than before. So I think the amount of people enjoying the water as well as technology is an issue. And the problem is it affects not only other residents, as stated before, but other boaters as well. I can't tell you how many times I'm out there on my own boat trying to enjoy my own music, and it's just overwhelming from other vessels. So we're in support of this. This is a tool that will help us, not only in the sandbar, throughout all the waterways, and including the river. Thank you. All right. Thank you. North Bay Village Lieutenant Peter Guevara. Good afternoon. Yeah, Lieutenant Pete Guevara. I'm in charge of the Marine Patrol Unit with the North Bay Village Police Department. And we do have our share of complaints as well, mostly in the night, late after 11, noise complaints. We're practically surrounded by water, and, you know, the noise just travels over water, and we're definitely 100% in support. This will be an extra tool for us to use and enforce the noise ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think our final speaker, Roseanne Prado. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Roseanne Prado. I'm the village clerk of Indian Creek Village. I'm here representing the Indian Creek Village in support of this noise ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else here? Yes. I just need a name and address. Roseanne, will you let the clerk know your name and address, please? We need your address. You can give the village address if you're there on their behalf. Thank you. Hello, commissioners. Good afternoon. My name is Emmett Moore. I'm a resident at 631 Northwest 7th Street Road. That's the Spring Garden neighborhood in Miami. We're right on the Miami River. Oh, you found my car. No, no problem. Yeah, I live a few houses in from the river, and you can hear the boats going by at all hours, especially on weekends and holidays. It really got bad during COVID with these new apps that allowed people to charter boats, and it hasn't really let up since. And some of our neighbors, we have an elderly neighbor that lives on the river. She doesn't have air conditioning, so she keeps her windows and doors open at night, and the boats wake her up all night, and she tells me and encouraged me to come here today. And another neighbor has an infant at home and a toddler, and he also lives right on the river, and he's woken up constantly, even with his doors and windows closed. So we feel it very strongly in our neighborhood. We hear it all the time, and I think we support this ordinance, and we think it would be a good step in the right direction towards controlling the noise in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak before we close public hearing? Okay. Seeing none, public hearing is now closed, and I will recognize my colleagues. I just wanted to say one thing to explain to everybody. So this is not a new ordinance. The ordinance exists. What we are doing is amending this ordinance to have it. Originally, it was from 100 feet. And so now we're just minimizing that and actually giving, as was said before, another tool in the toolbox, as a quality of life issue for many who do reside, live in border and county waters, this is, they're constantly being negatively impacted. So what we're doing now, we found that 100 feet was just not effective, which was the original ordinance. So we've amended it to be 25 feet, from 25 feet. As a matter of fact, the state legislature just actually passed legislation as it relates to vehicular noise to 25 feet. So we're emulating that concept. And so I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware this is not a new ordinance. We're just updating the existing ordinance to make sure that we are doing what we can to give enough tools in the toolbox and to help the quality of life of those who live in the water and who enjoy the water as well. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Hardiman, I saw you were eager to speak. Well, isn't this a plum picking privilege? 25 feet is less than the distance that's between you and I, Commissioner Lopez. Most of us in Miami-Dade County live within 10 feet of our neighbors, unless you're like you're from Indian Creek, like one of the speakers was, you know. They got a few neighbors and surrounded by all water. And so, you know, one of the gentlemen spoke earlier. He talked about how he can hear his neighbor's television. You know why? Because he's within 10 feet of the person's house. But he doesn't enjoy the benefit of a 25-foot sound waiver and rule. And even if he did, that person won't be violating the law because they're at 10 feet from his house. This is one of those things where it's like you have the privilege of being on the water, for instance, and you want to take even more privilege. So the fact of the matter is that it takes so much unpacking because so many people look at, they, they, one thing is, you have to first look at what the definition of noise is. The county attorney, how do you define noise in his ordinance? Noise itself is not defined. It's understood by its plain meaning. There are standards, but noise itself is not a defined term. So noise is usually, let's look into your whereas clauses. Section 21-28 of the Code of Miami-Dade County prohibits unreasonably loud, excessive, unnecessary, or unusual noise. Right? Correct. So noise, let's agree to something. Is music noise? Yes. How is music noise? Is it unreasonable? Well, unreasonable noise and noise are two distinct concepts. And so what this ordinance prohibits is unusual noise, unnecessary noise, excessive. I mean, what the code prohibits is that this ordinance isn't amending that standard. But I want to be very clear. Music can be noise. It is not itself noise. Music makes a sound. Right. Okay. Instead of walking you down that path, I'm going to say it like this. Um, this is noise. Honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, has no purpose, unusual, unnecessary, loud noise. Music, right? Music is beautiful to some people. And some people, they hear certain music and they think it's trashy. I think one of the speakers talked about twerking. There's only some type of music that people twerk to. So to her, that music is noise. Some people may or may not like salsa music. You know, you come into certain communities and the neighbors are playing salsa at a very loud rate. And people think that that's noise because they don't enjoy that particular music. What's interesting about all of this is that we have a noise ordinance, right? And we regulate unnecessary noise, et cetera, plainly audible, 100 feet away. A hundred feet is not a far distance. A hundred feet is, you can easily hear music on the water at a hundred feet especially. You know, when you have things that break up the sound, then it becomes a little bit more difficult to hear noise, noise at that rate. And then you have music, right? So part of this thing says that, in the whereas clause, the prohibition further provides that the operation of any such set instrument, phonograph, machine, or device between the hours of 11 PM and 7 AM in such manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet from the building structure, vessel, floating structure, or vehicle in or which it is located shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of the section. Now, what's interesting about this is this, that's what's really being changed, it's two different things, noise and music that's being amplified. And so when we're making these arguments about all of this, we're making it one and the same, and they're not, right? You can be violative of this section if you're creating noise. I demonstrated that earlier, right? You can also be violative of this section if you're amplifying music between certain times at a certain distance away. That's any music, right? Now, what's being changed, and this one particularly, is that music from a vessel 25 feet away shall be violative of this rather than being 100 feet away. So it takes me back to my example about those of us who live in our typical family homes in Miami-Dade County, or, you know, where you're usually, usually 10 feet away from structure to structure. The street from you, at least on your, in the frontage, is usually 25 feet away, right? So any cars passing by, if you live in a downtown area, I mean, you have your bayside area, I used to live there, I know what the sound is. I tell people all the time, I move there for the hustle and bustle of the sound of downtown. There's the honking of the horns, there's the music, there's the people walking by, people laughing, there's the people eating outside. There's just a bunch of noise. There's always noise, always things going on. But particularly, the people who live on the water get to enjoy the benefit of reduced distance for noise. To me, all this does is provide another reason for police to harass people on the water. Because if I'm a resident living there and I'm playing my music, it doesn't affect that. I don't violate the law if I'm at 25 feet and it's playing the audible to someone next door. But if I'm on the water, if I'm a vessel on the water, then it violates that law. So it's like, if I'm 100 feet away from your, typically it's their backyard. And then their backyard is a certain distance from the structure on the property. And many of those sort of waterfront properties, they really do enjoy the distance from the structure to the water and then from the water to where the boat needs to pass. So it's a far distance. So you can see why they're doing this. They're doing this so that they can make people violative of the law. We're creating a rule to make people violate the law. That's why we're doing this. That's what this is for. Because before, maybe the police officer arrives and says, it's nothing I can do. It's not plainly audible at 100 feet. The guy's 200 feet out. This is one of those things where it's like we're creating something for a class of people who already have it all. Meaning you enjoy the benefit of not having many neighbors. Your backyard is the water, as they put it. Your backyard is the water, and that's perfectly fine. But now that anybody who rides by on the boat, if they're plainly audible 25 feet away, which is less than the distance of this here, then they're going to be harassed by the police. I just don't think that's how government should work. I don't think that we should be creating people, giving reasons for police to be stopping vessels on the water just because they're 25 feet away from someone's property and you can hear music. Now, if they were 100 feet away from someone's property, as it is now, and you can hear music, maybe the music is too loud. Even though at 100 feet, you know, it can travel. But maybe I give you that. Maybe I say, you know what, 100 feet, that's the standard today. If your music is plainly audible at 100 feet from a vessel, it's too loud. But of course it's too loud at 25 feet. If I play music on my cell phone right now, you can plainly hear it from the distance that you are across the way. So with that being said, you know, technically, I'm violers of the law. Am I not? Let's try it. Should I give you something that you can twerk to? You know, it's just not, it's, it's, what you're, what you're saying in this is just, it's, it's not a standard. I think it's below this. It's not a standard that we should uphold because it's just too far. You know, this country used to be a country that didn't want police in the state in our business all of the time. I mean, there was a time when it was like, hey, let's, let's keep people out of, out of our, keep police, you know, you, you, you don't want to, no one should be breaking the law. But, you know, you don't create laws that are going to put the police in your vessel, in your vehicle. And all these laws that have been created, they talk about the law in the, in the state where they're making it 25 feet from the vehicle. They're doing that for a reason. But I, I just really believe that this is too close. I think that the standard where it is at 100 feet is a good standard. I think if people are playing the auto about 100 feet, which is not far, especially on the water, then you have, the police have the right to stop that vehicle, cite that vehicle, and then do whatever other investigation they want to do once they're on those vehicles. It's not about the number of vehicles. It's not, it's not about the number of vehicles that are on the water. It's about the people who are on land who don't want people close to their homes. But the water is for everyone, you know? And so, with this committee, I just want us to really think about that. It sounds good. You have all these police officers, all these people come from fancy, nice neighborhoods, some I represent. Spring Garden is a beautiful area. I love Spring Garden, right? We decided that the stadium for soccer wasn't the best place. They wanted to put it adjacent to Spring Garden. Like, I get it. I understand, you know? But some things just go too far. And I think a 25-foot standard in an environment like this goes too far. You just give the police a reason to harass residents. That's not what we should be using our resources for when it comes to policing. We should use it for other things. But making them now the go-getters of those who violate a 25-foot music, because that's what that one is. That's a music 25-foot standard level. It's not noise. It's music. It's just not the right answer for this circumstance. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to Commissioner Hardiman for his thoughts on it. I think he raises a number of really excellent points. And so I have a few questions to follow up. What happens if this passes and a voter is deemed to be in violation? Are they issued a warning or are they issued some sort of a financial penalty? It would be within the enforcement discretion of the enforcing officer. Under the county code, typically a warning is called for. And then civil penalties could kick in. But there are other remedies as well. And then the police have their remedies. Okay. So I think, as we always and often have here on the dais, is a situation where we are balancing interests. And to Commissioner Hardiman's point, he is advocating, and rightfully so, for our beachgoers and those that want to engage in having a joyful time on our waterways and on the opposite side, our property owners who are certainly entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property and how do we balance those interests. I think it's important to note that this ordinance and the amendment of it, actually, let me not assume, what is the time frame in which this ordinance applies? The current 100-foot standard and the proposed 25-foot standard apply only between 11 o'clock p.m. and 7 o'clock a.m. Okay. So to Commissioner Hardiman, I have a question for you. Are you in a similar position understanding that this harassment, as you describe it, is only going to take place between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.? And my thought is this. I understand your position. I get it. I'm on the waterways. I was just out there. It is extremely congested. Like, I was blown away. Like, we have something happening in this county on our waterways where there are literally traffic jams happening where you are literally steering off to avoid hitting other boats how close you are on the river and going out to the water. I have not seen the volume of vessels on the water the way that I have seen most recently. And so I get it from the perspective of a property owner and a mother of young children. If it's 11.30 at night or 12 o'clock or 1 a.m., right, I'm not sure that I want to deal with elevated noise of anything. So I get that. So to Commissioner Hardiman, are you okay with the 11 p.m. to the 7 a.m.? Or are you saying there should be no time restrictions whatsoever on this sort of a narrowing of the distance? Madam Joe, the time frame already exists. The time frame at the 100-foot distance already exists. It exists for many people in many places. There are distinctions in certain areas where you have entertainment districts and things of that nature, things that can be more relaxed. So the rules are in place. What I'm against is reducing it from 100 feet to 25 feet because, as you can see, this is not one of your new phones. You know, I have an older, small phone, right, that's not very good at amplifying sound. But yet and still, you can hear it. And so what you have to understand about this law is that it makes it a prima facie evidence of a violation of this standard, which means that, you know, it's assumed that you broke the law. Well, that's what prima facie, unless you present evidence that disproves that it can't be heard. But, you know, by that time, you have an officer on your vessel. By that time, you have an officer looking into other things that, you know, you, and I don't own a boat. You know, I'm not one of the officers that I have a boat. I'm not on the water frequently. But I just, I know what inherent fairness looks like, you know. And if I had a boat or if I were on a boat, I would not want for such a standard to exist because I think that that's, it's cut it too close. I think 100 feet is very fair. 100 feet is very fair, especially on the water because we know that it can carry sound. You don't have the obstructions, et cetera. And if you have a lot of boats, like you said, you experienced a lot of, you know, a lot of boats. Maybe you were, when this exists, if you're close to land, like if you're out in the water somewhere, it's going to be extremely loud. That's what they do. On a cruise or anything like that, when they get a certain distance out, they turn up the sound, right? So the problem is that if someone gets a certain distance in towards the land and their sound is amplified at 100 feet plainly to the person, then they're violating the law. Some people who don't observe the law or who decide not to observe the law, then they're going to continue playing their music loud. And that's who the police officers should be, should be criminalizing. But to criminalize someone who's playing a cell phone that amplifies music that can be playing the herd at 25 feet, I think it's gone too far. Anybody else would like to say anything? Because I do have comments. So I think there's been a lot of fair points. So I'm just wondering, is there a specific metric to the volume? Like how, because what I'm curious about is how would we regulate this? Because I think Commissioner Hardim is making a great point. Because if it's just up to the person that's hearing it, then it would be a problem. But if it's not up to the person that's hearing it and there's like a metric of volume, I'll give you a perfect example. I have a neighbor that lives like four houses down. And they have like this, I guess, like an entertainment system in their backyard. And somebody that lives there loves to watch telenovelas at one o'clock in the morning. Very, very loud. And God bless them for doing it. But I have a two-year-old baby, right? And, you know, when suddenly somebody starts crying on the TV, four houses down outside, you know, it wakes up the baby, right? Not opposed to them watching TV, they should be able to do that outside, right? Especially when there's nice weather. But is there like a volume metrics? Because to, you know, for them not to be able to, I don't know, as Commissioner Hardiman said, go through TikTok outside, right? Like that's not fair. But if there's a volume metrics, then maybe this is something that could be necessary. The standard for this provision is plainly audible. So it's not a quantitative. Yeah, and let me explain something about this. I want to explain something. So years ago, in order to, we're going to talk about the vessels for a moment or any sort of noise. They used to have decibel readers. Those were faulty. They had to be calibrated. Not everybody had a decibel reader. It was a nightmare. They couldn't quite, and they were always thrown out of court, right? Because you had to prove that they were calibrated and that they were this. Anyway, this is held up constitutionally, right? So that means that if you are hearing it in your home, then you call code or whoever, and they come and they determine, is it actually, you know, really loud? And then they, you know, will go visit your neighbor. We're not trying to stop. Listen, I want to make it very clear. We're not trying to stop people enjoying life, right? We all want to enjoy life, and there are always opportunities to do that. In this particular situation, the reason we're looking to amend this ordinance is I don't know how I can articulate to you any clearer, but this is a dire situation that we are dealing with on the waterway. And also, this is also not just for the water. It's also for vehicular. And if anybody wants to even amend this further, bring another item in the future to have it be for homes and other things, I'll support it. But for right now, today, we're trying to close an issue that has been causing such grief and aggravation. We have everybody from community residents, from multifamily neighborhoods, from our organizations that care about wanting to make sure people have a great time on the waterway. But we need safety, and we need to make sure that people are also not taking advantage of the fact. I think one of the speakers talked about how it exploded during COVID, how the party went outside. We have party boats that are happening on a constant regular. You have so many issues that are happening that our law enforcement – and by the way, we're having real tragedies that are happening on the waterway. Like, guys, the party has to stop on the waterway in this way. Now, that doesn't mean they can't have a good time. And I know our law enforcement. They're not out there. They don't have the resources to just go to every loud party, right? They're going to have to really make sure that it rises to the occasion, that it's worth them taking two people out of service to deal with what's happening. A lot of times, it's not just music or other things happening. It could be the horn honking. It could be all these other things. But there's also other things happening on these boats. So it gives them an opportunity to make sure that they are doing what they can to just protect the quality of life. Those of us who live or near the waterway deal with so many different challenges that are unique that it's hard to sometimes articulate all the challenges we deal with. Because they are very fluid, it changes, no pun intended. But it's a complete free-for-all. And at some point, we need to say and be the adults in the room and say, you know what, the party's over. Or you can party, continue. Listen, we all like to go out and have a good time. And it's not about stopping the enjoyment of the water. I want everybody to enjoy the waterway. I want them to come and use the waterway and recreate. And it's one of our most amazing assets here. But they need to be safe. And they need to be respectful. And that is all we're asking for. As a matter of fact, this also applies to vehicular as well. And that's just codifying state law. And that's actually, it was Marine Patrol that came to me because we get all these complaints that said, Listen, state law just changed it to 25 feet for vehicular noise. We can now use that potentially for all what we're dealing with. Listen, if 100 feet worked on the waterway, I wouldn't be bringing this forward. I don't believe in overregulation. I really don't. I do believe that we need to try something. And so I can't just not put something forward that I know could potentially be something that could alleviate some of the burden that the residents are dealing with. And so that's why I brought it forward. But I also understand the real conversation. And I respect Commissioner Hardiman's point of view a lot. I know where he's coming from in the sense of wanting to make sure that we're not being overly excessive. And he keeps us on track to make sure that we're always reexamining and relooking at what we're doing. The original version, if you saw, was much wider, was much broader. And I was very concerned about that. I thought it went too far, which is why we tried to tailor it really to the complaints that we are currently receiving in my district. So that's where we're at. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think, you know, I want to commend the Chair for putting this forward because I can see the issue. I can definitely see the issue. I think, you know, it's difficult because I firmly see that there is definitely an issue here. But without the metric, it's hard to identify the solution because I think Commissioner Hardiman also brings up some great points. To the attorneys, my question is, you know, several noise ordinances have been struck down by courts in Florida. And I just want to make sure because I understand where Commissioner Hardiman is coming from. And I want to make sure that we can put something forward that alleviates the situation for the residents. But it's not going to get struck down, right? So did you take into account those ordinances that have been struck down when this was drafted? We looked at the Florida state statute that had been previously declared unconstitutional. And then the Florida legislature amended it after that court decision. And so the language used here is is mirroring from that amended statute. OK, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first of all commend you for taking leadership. I know you and I share so much water and we hear complaints every single day. And I just wanted to point out that this is between 11 and 7 and it's interesting. It deals with people who, at least in my district, it deals with people who anchor, right? And they've been out all day and now they're going to party all night. And so the anchoring at 100 feet, you could still, you can hear, it's true what Commissioner Hardiman says. The water has no obstruction, right? So noise can travel very quickly and very loudly, right? So my constituents who live on the water see these boats anchored and they turn it way up. And I think the answer here is that it's at 11 p.m. we're saying it's a reasonable hour to shut it down. Not shut it off, but lower the volume, right? So that it doesn't disturb. But I must tell you all something. So I have lots of little pockets of islands, as does Commissioner Steinberg. This is happening during the day. And I'll give you a perfect example that this doesn't cover. Bayside has a number of boats that go out with 50 to 100 people on them. And here's what my people who live on the water hear. So to your right is where Madonna used to live. They're outside trying to be enjoying their pool or their backyard. And it is a constant for those boats that are leaving Bayside to all of the islands in the vicinity of Bayside. This goes on all day. So this doesn't even cover that problem that we have, which, in all honesty, there's a different way that you don't have to impede the business. People could wear headphones and the person could be speaking into it. So you don't have to have it so loud so everyone on the water hears, you know, the presentation, the tourist presentation, right? So it's not like we're trying to impede it. But that doesn't even cover this. This is strictly 25 feet at 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. I've got bigger problems going on during the day. So this is why I have co-sponsored this, because I have to hear from all of my constituents, both those that live on Miami Beach, on the island, and then those that live on the water in the mainland. And so I don't know, like Madam Chair, I don't know what else we could try to see if during those hours we can finally, you know, have some peace and quiet for those people that do live in the vicinity of where boats are either anchoring. And this doesn't cover if you're, like, you know, driving by and you have your music on. This is for people that are literally anchored very close to homes and who, for the most part, are not cognizant of the fact that they're loud, you know, whatever it is, whatever noise it is, whether it's loud talking, loud whatever, is disturbing the peace of those that want to sleep between the hours of 11 and 7. So I'm very supportive of the item. Yes, Commissioner Hartman. You know, what's interesting about what you just said, Commissioner Lopez, is that I will be agreeable to something like that. You got a commercial business that is causing noise on the waterway constantly, you know, with the pronouncements, et cetera. Maybe they should have something for their ears, right? We do that in museums many a time so we're not disturbing everyone else who's in a museum. You can talk very softly and they can hear exactly what's going on. I think that's a wonderful idea, right? That makes sense. The problem that I have with this ordinance, though, is that it overreaches in a way that is the same thing as the overreaching that's being done right now in the state with the vehicles. And I'll explain. So your average vehicle, if you turn your volume on when your favorite song comes on, it's going to be plainly audible to anyone if your windows are down outside your vehicle within 25 feet. I mean, it just clearly is. So the law makes that a violation. An officer can stop you, right? These laws, they weren't written for those people, though. They were written for people who have sound systems that go way beyond what you hear in the standard sound system, who drive down your street, who are in your certain neighborhoods, and you can feel the vibrations from their vehicles on neighbors and on other vehicles. That's why it was created, so a police officer can stop them. The problem, though, is that when you lower the standard like that, everybody's caught in the net. And what you all assume is that the police are going to say, oh, well, let's just get this person out of the net and you out of the net because you're harmless and this person and that person. And maybe it happens until it doesn't happen. Maybe it happens until the person that's caught in the net is your child, and your child is stopped because they played their standard sound system in their vehicle a little too loud. And then, you know, your child, not your child, but just happens to have a little bit of marijuana, and people don't consider it to be really much of a drug, except that that kid doesn't have, who's going to ransom Everglades doesn't have a car that allows him to have that. And then he gets arrested, and then, you know, you have to deal with the consequences of those actions. Why was he stopped? Well, he was stopped because his song was playing too loudly from his vehicle. And so it happens, that happens because the law allows it to happen. What you're asking an officer to do, you're saying, okay, well, officer, the problem that we have is these boats that are anchored out there that are plainly audible at 100 feet. That's your problem, right? But what happens is, is that now everybody who is, now that you've reduced the distance, right, you're going to capture a lot of people who this wasn't designed for. Your problem is with those vessels who are breaking the law. Now, why would you make it where you're basically giving someone a hammer to kill a mosquito? You know, it's like, it's over, you're doing too much because it is too easy to violate the law. That's like saying, you know, if you're walking and talking down the street, then you deserve a ticket because you're causing too much noise. Well, we all walk and talk down the street, right? So it's, I understand that we have a problem. The problem is that people are violating the law. It is too loud. The standard that we have right now works. If you can hear a vessel music from that vessel at a certain time at 100 feet away, then they're breaking the law, right? What was described by Commissioner Gonzalez on the record, a house that's four houses away. If the average frontage of a house is 50 feet, this may be like 200 feet away. That person is violating the law between 11 and 7. It's too loud, right? But when you make it 25 feet, then you're getting a lot more people caught into this trap. And it wasn't designed for that person to have a problem. So when a person says, why are you stopping me? I have my cell phone watching a TikTok video and you stop me because you say it's too loud. I need to turn my cell phone down. Now, do you know how many problems that you're going to cause? And that's assuming that you, because what the argument is going to be, well, a police officer wouldn't stop them for that. If he has the tool to use, why wouldn't he? If he chose to, depending on who's riding by in the boat. Maybe he won't stop you. Maybe he will stop Commissioner Gonzalez. And none of it is discriminative because he could just say, I have the power to do this. I can't catch everyone. There's only two of me. But everyone that Indian Crete tells to stop, they stop. Everyone that Miami Beach, Southfield 5th, they tell to stop, they stop. But my friends on Spring Garden, every time they call, they never can get anyone stopped. We don't have the resources. They move by too quickly. So you're just creating another something to, to me, further harass people in a way that you shouldn't. I understand what we're trying to do. I think the standard is there. I think you're creating, you know, an enforcement tool that is just, it's gone too far. And hopefully, you know, you all agree with me. We got to think out of the box on this one. I don't think this is the solution. Thank you. Thank you so much. And with that, yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you. And again, I'm obviously listening very closely. And Commissioner Hardiman, again, your points are well taken, as are the sponsor and the co-sponsors. And Commissioner Gonzalez, to the attorneys, I asked what the consequences were. Should a violation be determined by the officers? And I'm not sure that I got the clearest of answers. I think that if a warning was issued as a first impression, I think that that would close the loop on a lot of these issues. Commissioner Hardiman does not want anyone criminalized for having a great time and enjoying the waterway. And we have residents that are renters or property owners that want to have, you know, the quality of life and have the quiet enjoyment of their property. If our law enforcement, and mind you, we're woefully underfunded on the waterways, right? Marine Patrol is woefully underfunded. There's certainly not enough officers on the waterway for the number of vessels that are traversing our waterways. So enforcement is difficult just from a practical perspective because there's far more vessels than there are officers to enforce it. But to the attorneys, to the sponsors, and to Commissioner Hardiman, if the first impression was, hey, friends, we know you're having a great time, but we are issuing you a warning. Please turn your music or your noise down because this is the law. No one's being criminalized. No one's having to pay a fine or a penalty. Would you be more comfortable with that if it was written in the ordinance that we are educating you and informing you that this is the law in Miami-Dade County? We're not trying to bring any unnecessary problems. We're not trying to create any unnecessary financial burdens to you, your friends, and your families. But this is the law. We need you to turn the music down. It's 1130, and it's too loud for the neighbors. I don't know that that's explicitly written in the ordinance to the attorneys. The answer that I heard was that it's discretionary, that they have the opportunity to either issue a citation or issue a warning. But if it was explicitly stated that the first impression to this sort of an incident within the narrowing 25 feet was the issuance of a warning to Commissioner Hardiman, I'm asking whether or not that would make you feel more comfortable with the ordinance. As an American, I don't want to interact with the police if I don't have to. So what happens is, even if he's coming to give me a warning about this, because he's on my boat, he sees that Gonzales, you know, because Gonzales, I don't think so, because I play my music a little louder. But, no, what happened, the reason I use Gonzales a lot is because Gonzales happened to have gone to law school. So have you, Madam TCH. But the point is that you know what it means when, you know, you see something and further investigation occurs. You know, one thing leads to the next. You want to stop it where, that's where the whole fruit from the Poison Street thing comes from, right? You want to stop it at the violation. I understand. I understand where you're coming from. What I will proffer, though, is what I think also what's come up of this, and I think what would behoove us, and I would like to also do, is direct an educational campaign. You know, because we also want people to be educated and understand that this is going to be, well, we'll see. Let's see if it advances out of committee. But I think an educational campaign would be very important and a big part of, a big piece of this that I think would help and go hand in hand. With that. Madam Chair, if I may, I would say, because I don't know if you accepted the amendment from Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. I'll be honest with you. I'm uneasy about it. I think a warning would help me to at least advance it. But I want to continue the conversation. I don't know if you would accept that amendment. It would help me to advance it and then explore it a little further because what I'm concerned with is the metrics, right? Anybody can say, hey, it's too noisy, and then you don't know what is too noisy and what's not too noisy, and then I think I see where Commissioner Harmon is going. Would you accept the amendment? Yeah, I think we already have it as a warning for the first offense or the first, what, no? Please, yeah. Currently, this item is not drafted to require a warning. Actually, Lieutenant Barrios, maybe let's hear from someone who actually is on the waterway and has to enforce things and kind of get his idea before. I don't want to speak out of turn in terms of how you do what you do. Good afternoon. Thank you. Warnings, right? It's important. One of the strongest or more powerful things an officer has is discretion. I can tell you as almost six years of running the Marine Patrol unit, we may have written less than four or five tickets for noise, but we've given thousands of warnings. We're not out there to cite people for noise ordinance. We've got many bigger fish to fry. We don't have the time. I'll tell you, nine out of ten times, it's us pulling at a boat. We don't board the boat and look for other findings. It's we get close to the boat and we yell at you to turn it down, or we'll give you a hand signal to lower the volume. If there's compliance, we pull away and we leave. We have other fish to fry. Yeah. Now, if it's a nuisance and it's the same boat that we're repeatedly telling you, hey, lower it, lower it, then yes, we're going to use this tool. But aside from that, I mean, even when I worked as an officer, I mean, I've been an officer for 18 years. Even on the road, we'd go to noise complaints from homes. Nine out of ten times, it's a warning. If you get compliance, we leave. And that's it. If I may, Madam Chair, I know because I used to have a 2005 Ford Mustang and it had the dual exhaust. Oh, man, they would tell me all the time, I can't lower the engine. Like, I can't. It's a beautiful engine. Okay. Well, I hope you got rid of that car. Just kidding. Okay. Go hybrid or electric. Just kidding. All right. But in all seriousness, where are we at now in terms of my colleagues? I know you had a question. Are you more comfortable? Did that address your concerns? Okay. I know it's not going to address everybody's. And I know there's always going to be more work to do, but do I have a motion at least to move this forward to the BCC? Move it. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Thank you. All right. So we have a motion, a second. It's a roll call. And that's as drafted. As drafted for now. This is a roll call. Excuse me. One second. No, I thought when the lieutenant came up, you felt more comfortable, but that's fine. We can amend it between now and when it comes to the BCC to have it as a warning on the first strike. This committee could amend it? Okay. So let's do that. And forward it with the amendment or? If that's going to make you comfortable passing it out of here, yeah. You want to give them more work and make it a written warning? They would really love that. Wouldn't you please? I know. Look at your face. It's funny because it's funny, right? Because you know it's not true. That's what I'm saying. I didn't ask for the warning. I'm trying. No, no, no, no. No one. The police officers don't want to issue written warnings because they never require you to make contact. Right? You would have to, like you put it, they come up next to the boat, they speak, you know, give them a hand signal. If you make it a written warning, now they need to, they're forced to have contact, right? But how do you, how do you show that you gave someone a warning? But by having a written warning, that's the only way, well, that's the only objective way of doing it. Other than that, you're depending on the sworn testimony of a police officer that said that I gave him a warning or his colleague saying I saw the warning that was given, et cetera. I think you're right when you say that when it comes to noise complaints, all people want is compliance. If I call the police about someone in the noise, I want compliance. Hey, it's just too loud. Can you, can you, you know, you don't want anything more than that. And so people comply. So that's what makes sense here. But what's going on is that obviously you're not getting compliance or if they are getting compliance, it's after someone has violated the noise ordinance. So what's going to stop them in the first place? You're trying to create something to stop them in the first place, but I don't think there's anything to stop them in the first place. The only thing you can do to stop them is the citation or arrest or things of that nature. That's why I say you're creating a more of a problem than you know of because you're not going to stop the problem. So if I might speak to, I'm sorry, but I'm kind of don't understand where you're trying to go with this because you're talking about a written warning. Now that's going to force me to have one-on-one contact with you. It doesn't make sense to do a written warning. I think me just yelling at you keeps the distance and anything, any other criminal activity you're afraid of, it's not going to happen because I'm just waving at you. I agree with you. No, no. I think a written warning is contradicting. Contradicting. Madam Chair, to the Chair. Lieutenant, that was coming from my commissioner who was. Yeah, a written warning I don't think would make sense. That the warning may be a better. Yeah, I wasn't asking for a written warning. I was asking for one of these. Yeah. They do that. But the point that I was making was that you would be depending on the officer saying that I issued him a warning because someone would say, he didn't warn me. He just came up there and gave me a citation. But the thing says it requires a warning. So the way that you would, if you would technically, the best way to evidence a warning is through a written citation. However, that's not, that's problematic for the police because it creates an obligation for them to be there, to spend more time with them, to write the citation, et cetera. That's why it doesn't really work. Well, that's why we have to, well, that's why originally I, after speaking to Lieutenant, I went this route. But I will say that they do wear body cams even on the water. Is that correct? Yes, we do. So then you have some sort of evidence, and I don't know, I mean, I won't open up that conversation for the attorneys here. But with that, Commissioner, I don't know how you feel about moving forward. Okay, thank you. So with that, we do have a motion. We do have a second. As drafted at this time, if there are any more changes that need to be made, I'm happy to hear amendments, you know, at BCC if you think of anything between now and then. But I just want to let everybody know that this was not, you know, we didn't just wake up one day and say, let's just do this. Like, we knew this was going to be a real discussion and a heavy discussion because we're trying to just balance the needs of everybody and making sure that people can still enjoy the water and be safe. But yet we don't compromise the quality of life. And that was all we were trying to do is strike that balance. And I know some think it may not be striking that balance, and I'm okay with that for today. Thank you. So please call the roll. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. I vote yes. I just wanted to make a comment, but I'll make it after we call the vote. I'll make it after we call the vote. Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes, for now. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Vice Chairman Hardeman. Against. Chairwoman Steinberg. Motion passes 4-1. Yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make the comment to our officers, you know, serving on the Biscayne Bay Commission with Commissioner Steinberg. We have dealt with these issues related to our waterway and safety and management for a number of years now and to our officers. I hope that come this upcoming budget season that you will advocate and you certainly will have at least my support as it pertains to adding additional officers on our waterways. It's because the level of congestion out there, it feels like the wild, wild west. And it's almost every week that we're hearing about some horrific tragedy, about somebody losing their life because of recklessness on our waterways, and we simply do not have enough of a presence out there considering the volume of boats. So as we enter budget season, I hope that we'll have that conversation. And I look forward to working with our officers in supporting them because I know they've been asking for additional officers for years. So thank you for bringing this item. It's the beginning of addressing an issue that is much larger, which is how we're managing our waterways here in Miami-Dade County and keeping our residents and our visitors very, very safe. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. All right. We have the balance of the agenda. Do we have any items that wish to be bifurcated or removed? Do you want to move the balance of the agenda? Does anybody have anything to bifurcate? We have a second. All in favor? Aye. So that passed by acclamation. Are there any other business that we need to tend to? Madam Chair? Yes. I'm sorry. I just wanted to ask if we could do the committee waiver on 3D. And the reason for that is because this particular vendor has been waiting years to be paid. And we finally sorted out. I know the administration worked very hard. I want to thank you. I'm sorry. You want to do advance? Yes, to advance it to the next commission meeting. Oh, okay. 3D as in? 3D. Okay, 3D, you're requesting to advance to the next BCC for next week. Correct. Okay. All right, is it 3D? That's fine. I guess we need to have a memo. But I wanted to thank Chief Coley for working so hard, he and his team, to sort out all that was due. I really appreciated that very much. Thank you. Yes. All right. That's fine. Do I need to do anything else at this time for that? No? Okay. Thank you. So with that, Commissioner Lopez, motions to adjourn. Thank you. Thank you.