City Council — Aug 9, 2023

Good evening again and welcome. The City of Plantation Council meeting for Wednesday, August 9th is now called to order. City Clerk, please call the roll. Councilmember Anderson? Here. Councilmember Andreu? Here. Councilmember Fadgen? Here. Councilmember Horland? Here. Councilmember Reinstein? Here. Mayor Sortel? Here. Assistant City Attorney Morgan? Here. Thank you. Tonight's opening remarks and Pledge of Allegiance will be provided by Councilmember Horland. Thank you, Madam President. Yesterday morning, the City held a ceremony at Central Park for the installation of water safety life rings around the lake in honor of 17-year-old Aiden Perry, who lost his life last year by jumping into a canal to save a young man who had landed in the water with his car. I want to commend Councilmember Reinstein for reaching out to Aiden's mom, Sarah, and working with administration, Parks and Rec, and the fire department to get that done. Bravo to everyone. Since yesterday morning, I haven't been able to stop thinking about Aiden's mom, who, after unimaginable loss of her child, is steadfastly focused on saving others and still has a heart full of gratitude. So I'd like to share with you a short verse written by author Melody Beattie, who also lost her son and still greets each day with a grateful heart. Gratitude unlocks the fullness of life. It turns what we have into enough and more. It turns denial into acceptance, chaos to order, confusion to clarity. It can turn a meal into a feast, a house into a home, a stranger into a friend. Gratitude makes sense of our past, brings peace for today, and creates a vision for tomorrow. So if everyone will rise and we'll do the pledge. Thank you, Councilmember Horland, for just sharing that with us and keeping that top of mind. Items submitted by Mayor Sortle? Anybody got a proclamation out there? No extra ones? Okay. All right. Everybody get an honor. That's it. Thank you. Mr. Goodrich, Parks and Rec update. Thank you, Phil Goodrich, Parks and Recreation. Just want to update you on some programs. Obviously, we're through the summer, or almost through the summer now, and so we're going to be starting up with our file programming, which will kick things off pretty quickly here. Starting Monday, we had the extended camp that is held at Central Park. We have 60 kids there. We're full. We have a few on our waiting list, but very happy to see that program full again. Also, on Monday, we started our file registration for all of our classes, so that is now open. Any of the community centers, you can register for all the programs. Excuse me. Tonight, actually, at 6.30, out at the Central Park Corporate Pavilion, Baptist Health is having their Wellness Wednesday program going on out there. Friday, the 11th, we're going to have our meteor shower viewing party over at the Plantation Preserve from 9 to 11. Monday, the 14th through the 16th, we're going to be doing golf course airification at the golf course. So, as everybody knows, there are certain times of the year we have to punch a bunch of holes in the greens to keep them healthy and get ready for the upcoming season. So, the course will be closed for a couple days. We do some maintenance work around the facility, both inside as well as outside, while we do that process. Tuesday, the 15th, is our Rec Track update. We're updating our software for the Parks and Rec platforms, and it's a continuous process that we go through, but we're very happy to have this next section. File recreation classes will begin on August, Monday, August 21st. September 6th, we have a teen hang time out at Jim Ward Community Center. We're trying to get some programming for the teens. We've recognized that that's a segment of our population that we're just not really doing a lot of programming, so we're starting that initiative to try and grow that area. So, that's from 3 to 6 p.m. Again, on Wednesday, September 6th, Baptist House will be doing another thing at the Corporate Pavilion at Central Park from 6.30 to 7.30. Friday, September 15th, is our first bus trip of the year. They're going to the Wynwood Wells down in Miami. Saturday, the 16th, it's Parents' Night Off at Central Park. Again, another program that we're trying to initiate is if parents want to have some free time and maybe don't have babysitters set up or whatever, it'll be a time, basically a day camp for those folks to do something. We'll continue that through the holidays and see how that program goes and try and build it from there. September 22nd, I'm going to butcher this, so La Cultura Talent Show Showcase at Volunteer Park. Staff is putting together a talent show, so we're very, very happy to get another, again, a different dynamic in the programming. September 24th, Fishing Derby at Central Park from 8 to 11 a.m. Saturday, the 23rd, another senior bus trip. Yellow Green Farmers Market. And then last on my list is September 25th is another Kids' Day Off at the Jim Ward Community Center. So as I said, we're going to head into the busy season, so here we go. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodrich. And I was not here to thank you for 4th of July. Wonderful, wonderful programming. Thank you so much for you and your staff and all that you do, and for constantly innovating and bringing new, fresh ideas to our city. So thank you. So just a real quick note, we've started with an AI program, giving us some data and some information. We've just started that process. And I can tell you that our 4th of July brought in 18,500 visitors to Central Park, and compared to Sunrise, who was at the Florida Live Arena, FLA Live Arena, they had 17,500 visitors. So we're getting some good data and be able to really understand what we're doing, so we're very happy to have that going. That's excellent. Thank you for sharing that with us. They were, people were everywhere, but it's nice to be able to actually have a number to associate with that, so thank you. We are now at the public request of counsel regarding municipal affairs portion of our meeting. Those of you who wish to speak should have completed a request form. If you have not done so already, it's not too late. They are in the back of the room, and please give them to Ms. Bagrow, the clerk. I do have two at this time. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record, and please address your remarks to the council president. Vicki Gelfand, G-E-L-F-U-N-D, 9381 Northwest 18th Place, Plantation. A couple of things, number one, I'm sure that Councilman Weinstein will make note of the Maccabi Games that we're just, are going through right now, will be done. We have so many visitors to our community, it's amazing. People are hosting six kids in your house or something like that. It's a wonderful thing. The other thing I wanted to speak up was overcrowding the city of Plantation, and the people that are going to want to build more apartment buildings. And if you look at our city, they built this beautiful area where, whatever you want to call them, I guess it's not Plantation Point, where Macy's was. And that's where people of a certain age, much younger than myself and everybody on the dais, they love to live where they go to eat, where they go to play, and stuff like that. Then you get to the next when you get into where you're raising your families and you buy your home. Then you get into me and I get into the home and, you know, the other home. And I think that this overbuilding where it's just going to create so much traffic and so much aggravation for those of us that still will be driving our cars until we, until our licenses are taken away. I feel that we are getting overcrowded and I am asking that when something comes up that you think of it as somebody not in the dais but somebody that lives in the city and the traffic you're going to encounter and you're going to live with it and you're going to live with it for the next 20 years. I won't be here in 20 years. Won't you be happy? But I just feel that something that I'm telling you about now, kids in their 20s, they love to live where they eat and they play and they work from home. That's great. Then you get into the families and then you get into seniors. Either we are in our own single-family home or we're in a condo. But the more traffic, the more people, the more traffic, and the more crowded. That's all I have to say. Have a good night. Thank you for doing what you do for the Maccabi Games. Thank you, Ms. Gelfand. Public comments are now closed and we're going to move to the consent agenda. The consent agenda this evening consists of items 1 to 14 and may be approved with one motion. Does any member of the council wish to pull an item? I have Council Member Reinstein. Yes, items 2 and 8, please. 2, 4, 8, 9. Anyone else? And I also have those same items from the public. Any other additional ones that may not have been addressed? Okay, hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Motion to approve items 1 through 14, minus 2, 4, 8, and 9. Second. Ms. Bagel, please call the roll. Council Member Fadgen. Yes. Council Member Horland. Yes. Council Member Reinstein. Yes. Council Member Anderson. Yes. Council Member Andrew. Yes. Thank you. So, I think everybody wanted item number 2. Item number 2 is the resolution adopting the updated rules for governing public comment, public participation, and conduct at council meetings. Council Member Reinstein. Yes. Thank you very much. I think it's best just to go in order of the resolution because I have a few. So, we'll start with Section 5, Line 78. Line 78 of references in accordance with Section 10 below. So, if you look at right in the middle of, it's page 4 of 14, it says, Council Members may not request the addition of more than two items to be placed on the agenda at any City Council meeting unless those items are raised in accordance with Section 10 below. I've read Section 10, and although I do have some other thoughts on Section 10, even as standing, I don't see how that applies to Section 10. So, I'd ask that that be re-evaluated. I'm not sure if maybe it previously referred to something else, or maybe if it does refer to Section 10. I'm just not seeing the connection there. So, if, in fact, it should not be Section 10, it either should refer to something else, or that whole sentence just needs to be reworked. Okay. The sentence begins on 76, 76, 77, 78. So, if the idea is to keep in line the no more than two items, if it's to be in accordance with something, I don't know what that something is. Mr. Noonemaker, you'll be addressing this? Thank you. I think it refers to if, let's say, an item's denied and you seek redress from Council to add it, that it would be subject to the provisions there, voting shall be conducted by roll call, yays and nays. I mean, that's the only thing I can tie it to, because there were no changes. The changes that were made to this are all underlined. So, this was previous verbiage, so. Yeah, and we, and. But I take your point. Right, and you and I spoke before, and I realize that this is not actually part of the recommended changes, but I read through the entirety, and I just still don't see the connection. And depending on where we wind up, if there are some other changes that are recommended, we can go back and look to clean it up a bit. Okay. Next, if we take a look at Section 8, these are the rules for public comment by residents, interested parties. You know, this is something we've talked about before in terms of the use of appearing virtually, and I'm in favor of virtual appearances. This begins on, well, Section 8 begins on line 150. My comments are really going to focus on lines 157 through 166. And, you know, when I read this, I'm thinking of, at least in the legal profession, where most of our court hearings, our depositions, testimony is taken virtually. We appear by, we're able to appear at court online by Zoom. We're able to depose witnesses, swear them in. If a person is not able to show their camera, show their face on the camera, and they need to be sworn in, then they're not, we can't go forward. They have to prove their identification with IDs, usually shown up on the screen. And I mention those because I know those are some of the concerns with, that are raised here. And these exceptions in here that make it more difficult for a person to decide at the last minute they want to appear and want to speak seem inconsistent with what we allow for in-person appearances. So what I mean is that somebody could walk in here right now, decide that they want to speak, walk up, and turn in a slip saying they want to speak. And unless our rules, unless we're stricter with the rules in terms of when the slips in person are being turned in, then I don't see why somebody can't appear by Zoom, submit electronically a request saying, I want to speak for a consent item or speak for any item, as opposed to, for example, line 160 through beginning line 160, members of the public wishing to provide virtual comments must register by 5 p.m. on the day before the meeting to provide city staff sufficient time to provide instructions to members of the public for comment during the meeting. I don't see why we can't come up with a strategy, a plan to provide instructions for people who want to attend virtually. So that really goes to that entirety of that section. So unless the city attorney instructs that for, for example, quasi-judicial items, that it's a state statute or it's codified somewhere that somebody must attend in person in order to be sworn in, in order to speak, then again, there's, there's, there's also a section here that says, with the exception of quasi-judicial items, members of the public may provide virtual comments during the meeting, registration for virtual comments shall be required, and virtual comment is offered as a courtesy, not as a substitute for in-person comments. Of course, add in, the city is not responsible for technical difficulties, but, you know, it continues failure to register will result in a citizen not being able to provide virtual comments during the meeting. That would be the registration the day before by 5 p.m. So it just seems like we're, we're, we're putting up roadblocks where they don't need to be. We're putting up restrictions where in this day and age, we want to make this as available as possible for people to attend. And we've seen a, we've seen a decline, right, in anybody requesting, and maybe, maybe we haven't had any request recently, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't provide the availability. That's regarding that top part. I don't know if you want to jump in as I go or. Sure, might as well deal with them as they come up. So let me respond to the general Zoom access and then the quasi-judicial. And both of them are somewhat related to the logistics of it. So for the public comment, not quasi-judicial, it's important for us to be able to manage the flow of comments. So the city clerk is not trying to track the hands being raised, pay attention to the meeting, take y'all's comments, take the votes. That becomes a bit of an issue. We also, I would say, we're in, we're in the top tier of cities in the county as far as public access. We had a discussion a while back, you know, taking into account what council's comments were. We brought e-comment to the fore. So that provides a more generous period of response, a new avenue of response, you know, because some folks, they might not be wanting to appear on camera, but they're more comfortable via email. I think you saw a number of those comments when we had the discussion about the comp plan, for example. I think people are very, very happy to have access to that. I don't dispute that there's some inevitability to what you're asking for, but I just don't think we're there yet. I think, you know, to get more access via Zoom, for us, it's going to require probably more staff, probably more tech, particularly when we get to the quasi-judicial, because what we are not set up for is to have the presentation of exhibits that we would feel comfortable with in that setting. We also, and I'm not sure the best way to deal with this, and, you know, I'm sure it will get worked out, but some time ago there was an issue of somebody expressing support for an item via Zoom, and it turned out not to be who they were insinuating they were. So it puts us in a weird position of validating, whereas for quasi-judicial in person, I mean, you're presenting yourself probably a little bit more easy to ascertain who you are. So there's a variety of issues with that. But we are, I just want to emphasize that we're at the forefront of providing accessibility to the public. Most cities, not to say that we have to follow their lead, have reverted back. They've discontinued Zoom, whereas we've kept Zoom available. We've gone beyond that to offer e-comments. So I think we're offering a lot. And there's no doubt we're offering a lot, and I don't think my comments aren't suggesting that we're not maybe doing as well or better than most cities. But whenever I think any of us see that there may be an opportunity that we can still do better, I think it's incumbent for us to not only raise it, but for us to see if it's available. I just should specify that it's line 189 through 191 that says members of the public the wish to speak on quasi-judicial items must provide in-person comments at the meeting. I didn't reference the lines for that. And that was why I made reference to the ability to ask for identification, show up, something if that's what we were really concerned about. I think somebody could probably walk in here for comments, fill out a form, put a name down and address, tell us that name and address, and it may not actually be that person, right, if none of us know the person. So we're not, there's no other verification. That would be no different than somebody online saying they are, you know, Jack Smith, and they're not really that person. If they're, we're looking at them, they're filling it out. That's not the primary issue, but I would say in that circumstance, people have, are much braver in what they do when they're separated via a screen. So they're more likely to manipulate that. We know there are keyboard warriors everywhere, right? But the bigger issue is the logistics. The bigger issue is making sure we have the setup and the personnel to provide the access to the exhibits, whatever testimony is being given, the back and forth so they can really follow the discussion and offer appropriate feedback. Yeah, I understand it will require more staff, more effort. I still believe that it's something that this council should consider. The last one that I have is really is lines 245 and 246. That was just a Scrivener's error that I mentioned to you, Mr. Nunamaker, in advance. Right, statutes and meeting. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Reinstein. Council Member Fadgen? Thank you. The first line I'd like to talk about is line 146. It says the presiding officer may suspend the meeting for good cause. And this isn't something that was, you know, underlined or striked for this discussion. But, you know, when we see these things, as Council Member Reinstein said, that, you know, we read these things and, you know, we have another second chance to look at this stuff. And I guess, and maybe I don't remember the conversation we had when we discussed this, but if the presiding officer, president, decides we should suspend the meeting, should there be some sort of consensus or a vote by the council to concur with that action? So I was just curious what the council feels about that. I will chime in. And I took that not by itself. It was with, to me, the previous lines, you know, and so I took that as the meeting is becoming disruptive at that point because of the line before. I'm sorry, the line before is about kicking a council member out. Well, that's why I said if, so I took it not, again, standing on its own merit. And I thought that the lines before it, to me, implied that the meeting was probably very disruptive at that point. And you might not even be able to necessarily, you know, do a vote and take a roll call vote. You, at that point, want to just end things and maybe have to clear the room. So that's how I took that particular item. So I did not personally have an issue with it because if you're suspending it mid-meeting, something obviously very drastic is happening. No, I understand. I don't think we're going to get there with this council, but who knows about the future. But I don't know. Madam President, the other times that you all have done it, it's been you've paused the meeting for a few minutes for pictures, that type of thing. But it's a rare circumstance. But that wasn't formally suspending the meeting. That's just a reason. I was reading this, you know, if the presiding officer suspend the meeting for good cause, that's stopping the meeting. We might reconvene. I'm just maybe using that suspend and recess or whatever. But I don't know. It's just something I read. Council Member Horland, did you want to chime in on this? No. Oh, okay. I'll let Council Member Fajin finish. I was just, okay, we'll go through everything. I wasn't sure how we wanted to handle this. Okay. The next line is 154. Members of the public must. I would like to change the must to are requested to. And then there's a, and let me read the other ones, and then I'll kind of speak my point to that. Line 155 to line 156. Comment cards will be available at the start of the meeting and must be received by the city clerk prior to the close of the public comment for each item. I consider that a barrier. I read the wrong line. I'm sorry. 154 was the next one. Members of the public must change to or requested to. I totally lost track here. I'm sorry. Talk about the first one. Talk about the second one. I look at the, at these cards that we're asking people to fill out as a barrier for them to express their First Amendment rights. I'm not saying not to do the cards, but I don't want to, I don't think we should be requiring, we should request them to do it. One of the other comments I have along these lines is adding a last call. And we've kind of been doing that out of practice, but it's not, it's not established in here. So what I would, what I would propose is have our procedure like we're doing, fill out the card if you like to speak. It does help create some order. It helps the presiding officer, president to administer the public comment for the various items. But when we get done with everything, all the people that signed up online, everyone who spoke in the chamber, to do one last call out to the, the chamber to find out. Because sometimes you'll be sitting there and someone will say something that's going to make you really want to maybe stand. step up and speak. So I just don't, I'm just concerned that I don't want those, those sheets to be, to prevent someone from wanting to speak on something that they care about, whether they thought about it before they came to the council meeting or whether they got, whether it became important to them watching the meeting and watching the discussion. 177 to 178 comment cards are required. I would like to, our request, change the required to our requested. That's kind of it for the, the comment cards. Line 181 to 184, the presiding officer may consider a request by an individual to speak on behalf of an organization, group or a faction for a time period not to exceed five minutes. I would like to get rid of the five minutes and just leave it at the discretion of the presiding officer, where, you know, if they're going to be speaking for like 10 people, let, let the presiding officer make a judgment as to how much time. I think there will automatically be a time savings by not having 10 people or 20 people repeat what's already been said if someone's going to speak on behalf of the people. Instead of just giving that one person five minutes, let, let the presiding officer say how much time is, um, that they would, uh, they think would be, um, fair and equitable. Um, 191 is really just a comment. It says quasi judicial, a comment on quasi judicial. Is it a comment or is it testimony when it, when you're talking about quasi judicial? So, I mean, that's just kind of wordsmithing, but should it be called testimony in our ordinance as opposed to a comment? Well, it was written generally so it didn't encompass everything. So there may be comments made that aren't testimony. Okay. Um, so I didn't want to limit it to the testimony when there's other comments. But comment covers everything you're saying. Okay. Any, any, any time anyone speaks is what that is intended to, to convey. Okay, so it's really just an umbrella word as opposed to something specific to what's happening in that, that element. Um, 213, the 214 line. Members of the public and city council members who disturb, interrupt, or otherwise impede the conduct of the meetings may be requested to leave the meeting by the mayor or, uh, presiding officer in accordance with section seven above. I don't really think. What? 215 to 217. 215 to 217. Yes. Sorry. Um, I think that's not even necessary. It's, it's defined in section seven. I mean, sometimes these things, you know, bend your brain like a pretzel. Um, so to double up something, I just don't think it's necessary to be there. It's already kind of, it's stated in section seven. Let's see here. And then the last thing, or my last comment regarding this is we used to offer five minutes of public speaking for the, um, for people of the public to come up. Um, I really think that we should, um, allow people to speak five minutes instead of three minutes with the more, you know, I know we're, we try to be flexible with the three minutes, a more hard out with the five minutes. Um, I think if we look at the meetings, unless there's a hot issue, don't really have a ton of people who are publicly participating. And, um, for some people, you know, they come in week in, week out, which is great. I think we're better for it. I think we're, um, we, you know, we can't do bad things if, if the public's here. Um, but I think when some people come in who don't come in often and they're coming with a specific issue, why they're coming in, I think five minutes might be more accommodating to them. So I really would like us to consider, um, enhancing our public comments section. Um, I know when that changed public comments used to be at the end of the meeting. And I think the time changed when we moved the, uh, um, public comments to the beginning of the meeting, which I think was a good change. But I think that, uh, I think we should change it back to five minutes. So those are kind of my comments. Okay. Council member Horland. Thank you, Madam President. Um, I want to go back to what council member Ryan Steen, um, spoke of first. All points well taken, but I think that we had a very vigorous discussion about this when we decided to, um, re-implement Zoom and add the e-comments. Um, I'm comfortable with where we are now, and I think that it's been working. I think that, um, quasi-judicial testimony is a much higher bar. Um, and as Mr. Noonemaker said, it's not the only reason, but we did have that situation with a, uh, development project where people were misrepresenting, and certainly they can do that, um, here. Uh, I don't believe that we're setting, putting up any, um, bars. I think that, uh, the people that have wanted to comment, I know a lot of the residents have been using the e-comment. I think that's been a, uh, a great extra tool. So, again, looking at what other cities are doing, we don't need to follow them. But, uh, I think a lot of cities, if you look at other municipalities, they more than likely do not allow quasi-judicial testimony, uh, via Zoom. So, um, that's where I am on that. I think that we kind of hashed that out a couple months ago, and I'd like that to remain. As for the public comment, I'd like to ask, uh, Madam President, because you, uh, are the only one who's presided now over the comment cards. So I'd like to ask your opinion. I think the, did you, you didn't have the comment cards, but they did start over you. I apologize. She forgot. Um, I apologize. My feeling as the flow of the meeting sitting here, they seem to be working well. Um, I like requiring the comment cards. I don't really want to change the verbiage on that, because I think that if we have a policy in place, we should stick with it. A last call. Can I just make a response to that? Sure. I'm sorry you're interrupting. Because the whole point of the, of the card is, it does create a little bit of order, and I think people have adapted to it, and they're using it. Um, but it is an administerial tool. It's really so that the city clerk can properly get the names, because people start talking before they hit the microphone, experiencing sitting there, uh, maybe a month ago or whatever. There's a lot going on. So there's a lot to keep track of. So it's hard to remind people to make sure that they, um, state their name and their address for the record and all that kind of stuff. So I'm not, I'm not against that filling out that card. I just don't want to require it. I don't like the must. I, I don't like the must. I don't, I'd rather, you know, if, get that last call. I think that definitely needs to go in there, in my opinion, of course. Um, and then once they speak, if they didn't fill out the card, request them to fill out the card so that we can properly have them documented in the record. Um, but, and, but also, if someone is just against, um, filling out that card, I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but we do want to make sure that they, if they come up, we, we should make a real effort to make sure that they clearly speak their name and their address so that the record can be heard. And then request when they're done speaking to take the card, fill it out so they can give it to the, um, the clerk. That, that's what my intention is with it. Mm-hmm. It's not necessarily to get rid of it. Mm-hmm. I do see, um, how it is a little bit more orderly and, um. Yeah, I know. I understand you wanted to change the verbiage on that so that it's not a requirement. Madam President, my question to you is how do you feel it's been working sitting in that seat? Do you feel that it has been, um, more orderly in running the meeting? Absolutely. So, the comment card, um, I'd actually like to, one of my notes, I'm jumping here, sorry, but it's really called the speaker card. So, again, just so we can all be on the consistent messaging across. So, I think the speaker cards have been great. They help not just the clerk, but whoever the presiding officer is. Um, it's very easy to identify the people, to have order, to know and go in, in order. And like you said, you have a lot going on. So, still, sometimes, I didn't, you know, when people start to check multiple things, you still might miss things. Um, I don't think we've ever had an experience. And I understand your point, Council Member Fadgen. You never know who's going to be sitting here. Mm-hmm. But I think that we have been extremely open and flexible and welcoming in the sense that anybody who wants to speak, even as you stated, if they get a thought or an ideal, because they hurt someone else or something that moved them, I think we've been very accommodating. And I really believe that anybody who sits here would be. But it does help just to have that organization in order. I think it was one of the best things we could have implemented. Thank you, Madam Rosa. In terms of, and also the e-comment. Right. I'm not arguing any of that. I agree with everybody. You just don't want it to be required. I think most people will fill it out knowing that this is how we're going to do it orderly. And I think, like, for us to continue to do a last call for someone who didn't fill out the card because something struck them that they want to speak to. Um, that's been small and in between, you know, my recollection. It's not like we have, like, a whole mass of people coming to speak after we call everybody that's filled out the speaker card. Well, I think it's interesting because, you know, preceding this, we were running into, and we discussed this, that we're running into a situation where people were calling out from the, from the, um, seats. Well, that's a different matter. No, but to my, my point is, it was becoming a little bit disruptive. What I've seen with the comments cards, and whether it's a result of that or not, it has been more orderly. And I think that, rather, I don't, I haven't heard from anyone that they feel that it's prohibited them from speaking. But I think that in many cases, some individuals maybe are more thoughtful that, you know what, Vicki Gelfin just said that, do I need to get up and repeat exactly what Vicki, um, has said. So, I, I feel that it's been much more orderly. So, I know you're not, you, you're not in disagreement that, um, we, we need to have it. Well, it's not a matter of order. Right. It's not a matter of order. It's just a matter of, um, there could be just someone who's so resolute that doesn't want to fill out that card. That could be a reason. I don't think that's been the case. I haven't had anybody complain. But I'm just saying, like, I don't think it's an issue to, just to make sure that we're 100% accommodating. Mm-hm. And, and that's, that's really my, really my, my, my overall comment is, is that, um, a perception of a barrier. Mm-hm. You know, they might see that card and say, I'm not going to comment. I don't feel like filling out the card. And then they get the last call to see if there's anybody else who'd like to speak to whatever, you know, public comment or to an agenda item. And then they have an opportunity to get to speak. And then we could request them to fill out the card. And then they may do it or may not do it. But, um, but this, we're already ahead of the game. Okay. I've got a few more comments. Yeah. I'll make it, I'll make it quick. No, that's okay. Point well taken. I still like the requirement on that. Um, one more thing. I hate to disagree with you, but I, I like the three minute. I, no, I don't. Um, I like the three minute time limit. Because I think that the presiding officer, uh, has some discretion. And oftentimes I don't think since I've been sitting up here since 2018, that that, um, discretion has been abused. And I think that the council also, um, it's in the resolution that we could also request, please give, uh, this resident a little more time. So I think that the five minutes, um, if we have, we don't have a lot of people here tonight, but I think that we could quickly really build up a lot of time and not get to the business of it. I'm going to fight you for the three. Um, and then my last comment is, uh, I'd like to ask the city attorney. It's one of the additions. And I know that I've had this conversation with Mr. Ezra, but when we're looking at, I believe it's two line, 226, 227. We've talked about the campaigns, uh, speech conduct. I'm glad that's all in there. So one question that I have is not, 227, not, not withstanding the aforementioned at a city meeting, a member of the public may publicly announce that they're running for public office. I want to know why that was included when we've never done that. And is it a free speech issue? Because I like the fact that we kept the politics away from this podium. So was there a particular thought in including that? 227. It starts at 227. Do you want to go first? Okay. So I think it's a matter of, of free speech and it's not just city council. It's public office. Right. So if they're running for governor and they want to come in and announce that, that's kind of what that's alluding to. Um, it is your policy so you can remove it if you want. It's not, but it's still not going to prevent somebody who is. Sure. I guess from my point of view, I don't like having it in the policy. Because I think that it's, it's more or less an invitation. And I think we've been successful in the past in keeping that out of here. So that's, that's my opinion on that. That's right. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. You're welcome. I think I needed a little more clarification, Council Member Hoerling, because it says refrain from doing that. So you want that removed? No. No. 227 to 28, 229. 227 to 28, 229. Toward the end of the line, notwithstanding the aforementioned, at a city meeting, a member of the public may publicly announce that they're running for public office. Oh, okay. Okay. So we've refrained from having that and I didn't necessarily understand why that was inserted. Okay. So I would, I would prefer to have that line stricken. On, from 227, notwithstanding that last sentence. That last sentence. Okay. Thank you. I would be in agreement with that. Can I ask, can I ask the, our city attorney a question regarding that? That lot, the, the line that Council Member Hoerling is speaking about, it seemed to me that that line is inconsistent anyway with the sentence before it. Is that announcing you're running for office would seem to be campaign speech. So I'm not sure that if we're, if we're keep, if we were to keep both that we wouldn't have two inconsistent sentences there. Um, I, I can see how it can be read that way. I, I don't necessarily read it in the way of it being for campaigning. If they say I'm running for office, um, versus I'm running for office, please vote for me. Um, but those two sentences may go hand in hand. You know, it's, it's, it's likely. Um, but it, it was really intended to give you all the opportunity to review the language and see if this is acceptable. Number one, um, you know, it's, it's difficult to prevent people at a public comment from making a public comment. Cause you don't know what anyone's going to say. Um, it could be admonished at that point by the chair, but it's already, you know, it's already said. But it, I, I don't, I, I can see how you can see inconsistency, but I think it's a little bit, the, the intent for the last sentence was just to provide some level of opportunity versus having a full blown speech of, you know, I've been living in the city for 20 years. And I'm the best person for exposition type statement versus, hi, my name is, and I'm running for office. So I think it was trying to balance the, those two factors. So you can't use your three minutes to give your dissertation on why you're the best candidate, but you can use it to say you're running for office. So it was meant to try to balance that. Um, if it's not doing that, you have the ability to strike it or change it however you choose. So it's understood. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I know that staff might need to discuss something. If you can take it outside of the chamber, I think to not having a full house where we're hearing it here. So, uh, please, if you can take your conversation outside, we would greatly appreciate it. Uh, council member Horland, I'm in agreement with you. If we could strike that last sentence, starting with not withstanding as well, I think it keeps it cleaner. Uh, any further, any further comments? Starting. I believe she says end of 227. Starting with not withstanding. Not withstanding. Correct. Council member Horland, were you finished? Oh, I'm, I'm done. I think I'm done. Okay. Um, mayor, council member Anderson has been waiting and then I'll come to you. I chimed in a while ago. Usually you, when you do this, you, they need consensus. Cause one person say in isolation and we've got kind of moved on and I kind of wanted to chime in on each of these. And now I'm forgetting each one of the ones. I was going to suggest when y'all are done discussing all the different topics, we'll run down and just kind of see where the consensus is and then we'll revise. Then I'll just wait. Cause I got, I'd rather wait till you go to each thing. So I'm kind of like for the three minutes. I'd like to strike 227, but I'll wait till you go through them. Okay. Mayor Sartle. Yeah. I don't have an exceedingly strong opinion either way on all this. It's all good. And everybody decorum is great. Um, in the past though, Ron Jacobs always announced from here that he was running. And he made the announcement and other people have announced. Um, the other one is what if somebody else announces that you're running? In other words, somebody gets up and says, I want to let you know, Nick Sartle has filed again. Is there a way to, to police that and control that? Or do we care? And the other one is what if you announce that you're not running rather than running? Uh, Mayor Veltri in 1990 did that. 99. Thank you. Not running is not campaign speeches. So, so that one would be, nobody would have a problem with that, right? That's just free speech. I would think not. I see it all as reporting news. You got filed to run and that's it. Well, if you said I filed to run, I believe I'm the best candidate. Donate to me. That's no good. If you said I filed to run, that's different. But like I said, I don't feel that strongly on my team. Thank you. I, uh, tend to agree with Council Member Horland. I think this is not the appropriate time or place for any of that. Um, that's my opinion. I don't think that, I think it should be city plantation city business and stick to the agenda. Um, and there's no room for that, but that's my opinion on, on the political speech. Um, going back to the item itself. Um, I believe it's on line 64. Mr. Noonemaker and I, uh, discussed this as well in our conversation, I think yesterday. Yes. So again, as we've been stating, it's not new language, but I know that we have had a few issues in the past, nothing major. But this is really, it's about the placement for those of you who obviously don't have it in front of you. It's about placement of items on the agenda. And so, not all items that I think Council Members propose are necessarily appropriate for the comment section. So, we bring resolutions, we bring ordinances, we bring proclamations. So to make it sound like any item that a Council Member proffers needs to wait until the comments at the end of the meeting. I don't think that is the appropriate language for that, in that section. So I have a problem with item line 64. And then moving on to still in the same vein. Um, I can totally understand. That's usually a comment that's taken offline when the Council Member submits whatever it is they're submitting to the CAO or the City Clerk. Usually, at that time, it's discussed about, well, we might need more time to study this issue. So I'm okay with that. But that final statement, um, on starting on line 66, that the CAO, and I told Mr. Noonemaker, this is nothing. I'm glad it, you know, obviously it doesn't state names because the Clerk and Mr. Noonemaker have been wonderful. But in the same way we always say you don't know who could possibly be in the position later down the road. So to have the CAO or the Clerk have the discretion to not place an item that a Council Member is requesting to be on the agenda, I take issue with that. And I told Mr. Noonemaker, it sounds like censorship to me. And I know I have brought controversial items before this Council before. I would not appreciate having that censored. And for Ms. Beggarrow to tell me that's not appropriate. And I'm not putting your item on the agenda. I would have, I would take issue with that. So, um, again, it's open to discussion. But, uh, this is the Council's meeting. Um, it stated earlier that the Mayor and staff, uh, prepare the agenda. But I think the ownership of the meeting is the Council and to represent, obviously, the residents and the people that put us here. So, it just, it felt very much like censorship in those areas. And then, um, again, we can discuss some of the things as you go through and summarize and gain consensus on some of the other issues. Uh, I think Council Member Fadgen is next. I, I think I just buzzed in, um, what Jason was suggesting that if we can go through the points and then we can just state our consensus on each one of these items. Do we just want to, like, go down the line and, and just quick summarizing to get a thumbs up or thumbs down? Or did you take really good notes? I think Mr. Noonamaker was going to go through, right? Yeah, when y'all are done, I'll run through them. If not, I'll fluff something out. We can revisit and make sure we get the list. Well, I'm done. So, I'm ready to the... Council Member Reinstein, you had chimed in. Did you have anything additional? No, that was, that was previous. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, Mr. Noonamaker, if you want to go through and, and see what there is consensus about changing, or leaving? Sure. The items I have so far, last call for comments, request versus require for comment card, zoom access, generally, and when I say generally, I mean, uh, not restricted. Do we want to go through them point by point and just get... I was just going to make sure I have all of them first. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. That way if I left something, I'll add it to it. Zoom access, generally, zoom access for quasi-judicial, uh, time limits as it applies to individuals and time limits as it might apply to a group, uh, announcements for candidacy, and council-sponsored items. And there were a couple issues there, one being the location, and then generally how that might flow through administration. I think you captured everything. Mm-hmm. So, starting again, last call for comments. Two. And that was a request by Council Member Fadgen, so... Are you just going in the order that you have it there, or order of the resolution? Uh, just the way he has it. The way you have it, okay. So, um, I will say that if we could maybe compromise, so I definitely would like to still use the speaker card, and if we can change it to the speaker card. Oh, this is a second. Sorry? I mean, I look at it as... The last call. I look at it as two separate issues. I mean, given the last call, we want to encourage someone to... I mean, requiring them to do it, that's a... I think that's a second question for consensus. Yeah. And I have them separated. Okay. So, me personally, obviously, I think we need to do a last call. We've been doing that. I think it's been working. I think people know what the procedure is, so... I just want to clarify it. So, Council Member Fadgen, just so I understand, would you like an inclusion of verbiage that states, the presiding officer will make a last call for comments? Something to that effect. Yeah. Okay. I'm fine with that. Before closing. Before closing. Yeah, public comment. Public comment. Yes. I pretty much think every one of us has done that, and I think it's fine to codify it. I think it's what we're doing, and we might as well just, like you said, get in and write it. Just a point of clarification. Where do you want that last call, actually? So, at the end of the public request of the council, there should be a last call for that? No. Yes. He's answering the question correctly. Yeah. No. No, no, no. No, Council Member Fadgen, you're answering the question that I asked. Is that, you want it after the public request of the council regarding municipal affairs, that once that, all the people who have submitted the cards, let's say we continue with the cards, all the people submitted it, and then after that, before we get to the consent agenda, is there anybody else who has not yet? Yeah. Yeah. Before we close public comment, just one last call out to the chamber. The only reason why I'm specific, because you keep calling it public comment, but it's specifically the public request of council, and I want to make sure that we're referring to the right thing. When I'm saying public comment, I'm talking about the public request of the comment, and then any opportunity that the public is able to speak to something that we have on the agenda. So, if a consent agenda gets pulled. Okay. And I think that's a distinction, Council Member Leinstein. So, it applies to each item in which public is making comments to that last call. Anywhere the public has an opportunity to speak. So, that's where I'd want us to make sure that we're clear, is that, you know, I wouldn't, I think it would, it would cause some disruption if we were allowing, you know, we finished consent agenda item two, and we had comments on it, and then, let's say we have five more items that we're talking about, and then you ask for a last call that goes back to two. No, no, no. I just want to make sure. Okay, well, I'll try to explain. So, we pulled item two here. There's, maybe there's someone signed up to speak to it. I don't know. Once they're done speaking, and then if there's nobody that's online that registered by the deadline at this point in time, then there's a last call to speak on that item. On that item. Which is what we did. Makes perfect sense. I'm in agreement. I just want to make sure. No, I understand. Any opportunity that the public has a chance to speak, we encourage them to fill out the card. That's a second, well, that's a separate topic. So, I'm just trying to get through. I'm in agreement with the last call. I just want to make sure that we're clearly specifying where it, the words that are necessary to, where it fits in the agenda. If I'm hearing y'all correctly, that would apply to each item where the public is weighing in. Yes. Okay. I consent, I agree to that. Alright. Alright, check. Alright, good. The second item, Mr. Nenemacher, is about... The comment cards. The comment cards. Request versus require. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, what was it? Request versus... The comment cards, requests, or speaker cards. Are we... Can I call it speaker? Speaker card, yes. Sorry. Required, or may, shall. But right now it says must, and we just want to make that... Are requested to, and then the other, where it says required, I think I wrote it on here. Hold on. 5178. Are requested, as opposed to required. So, I'm just, I don't like the required, because the whole point, the whole reason that the city clerk requested us to do the speaker cards is so that they can do a better job of getting the record straight. Because sometimes it's bungled on the record. If I may, that was a big reason, but it also... Because I was the transition. It was my final few meetings. I know. And it let us... When you get the cards, you can sit here and you can group like ones together so it flows. Otherwise, you just keep on... It's random for people. So, if there's three people from the acres to comment on something, I'm going to put those together. And so, I see you doing that too. You group them together, so it flows. It flows. So, your thoughts flow? Your items flow? I understand what you're saying. It's not just for the... It's not just for the... So, the clerk gets the information correct. Well, that's a big element. She's the one who suggested it. That was a byproduct, a benefit of it. I'm not arguing that. But I think our experience in this is that there isn't a ton of people that take up the last call. It's not like we've had 10 or 15 people speak that already didn't register before the item. This is just one last opportunity for someone to speak without having to fill out the card in time. I stand by original comment. I think that if we change the verbiage, then we're just making it optional. And I'm more comfortable staying with it as a requirement. I would like to stay with it too. I think it gives the presiding officer maybe some flexibility when you're doing that last call to still have people. But I think not having it required does kind of take a step back from the progress we've made. And I think, again, we don't have to follow other municipalities and other agencies. But most people do have some formal sign up. Especially when you do, like today, yes, it's a light meeting. There's not a lot of people participating or in attendance. We do have other times when we do have a lot of people in attendance. And a lot of people wishing to speak up for different issues and concerns. So I think we should keep it as a requirement. And, of course, always be flexible. And doing that last call still gives us that open communication, I think, that you're looking for. I'm just saying, you know, if someone takes an opportunity for that last call, when they come up, I think Ms. Begaro stated that the comment cards are at the podium somewhere. That we request that they fill it out. I'm just saying making a request. Well, she knew it was going to be a light meeting. If I may add in, because I see where you're going. I agree. So the requests of counts at the beginning, you kind of go and know you have a request and you come. It's when an item pops up and you've heard the public discourse that you might want to add in now. And you might not have to fill out a card. That's 100% what I'm getting at. I think you need to be able to be spontaneous. But you should come up and that's part of the last call. Or just raise your hand and you fill out the card and hand it to her on the way when you finish. And I have a suggestion regarding this last call. But I still want to be, it's still required. They've got to fill out the card. We can have, we can require it. What I'm saying is that our experience has, there hasn't been a lot of people doing the last call. But if they do the last call, the presiding officer can make an extra effort to make sure that they're clearly speaking into the microphone, stating their name and their address. And then we can still make the request, please fill out the card so our city clerk doesn't lose her mind when she's trying to transpose this thing the next day. So, I stated my piece. How about if we leave the requirement and perhaps make it a little easier for people and have some of the comment cards here on the tables? I think that's what we've been doing. So I think that perhaps if people do feel that urge, it's right there. They don't have to look at the back of the room and then they can hand it to them. I think we're on the end. Finish the mic over there. I'm just saying not require them. Request them. All right. I want to require them. We have to finish the consensus. So I'm hearing a consensus on require. Councilmember Horland chimed in. I didn't know if she had something else. I want to be required. I want them required. Can we just do it by the sound of our voice? I already stated required as well. Councilmember Reinstein. Yeah, I do believe they should be required. I'm going to just point out something for consistency here is that lines 152 to 153 is the part that is requesting that they state their name and address in an audible tone. 154 through 156 is the must provide the common cards and must be received by the city clerk. If we're actually saying that they must provide their name and address in an audible tone, I think the parallel structure should be must and not request. It just, if we're actually requiring. Well, I'm just reading this because you've made such a point about the distinction between request and must. So if we're actually, because I know that every time I hear a presiding officer say to somebody there, you'll stop people and say, please, can you identify yourself? So you're actually requiring it. Again, it's not a major point. It's not a major point. But, you know, Councilmember Fasci made such a point of the word. So I was looking at it again. And there is a distinction between requesting it. Requiring them to speak clearly. It is a point, though, I think, and one that I would want the attorney to chime in on. Because we did have someone who they do not, absolutely do not want to give their address publicly. And that has happened before. So I think that leaving that as, because I noticed that and I didn't see it as an inconsistency. Because if you don't, for various reasons, want to share publicly your address, then that's okay. I'm fine with you not saying it, but still completing the card so that the clerk has the information. I'm actually okay with that. I just think then we need to change our verbiage from the presiding officer. Because it seems to me that we're, we stop people sometimes when they're in the middle of speaking to request their name. Which we should do, but it's just not a must. We are requesting that they do it. Okay. I'm not going to, it's not, you know, to me it's inconsistent language. But if, if everybody's fine with it, to me it, it's worked as it, as it's, as we've proceeded. I require to speak. Some people can't though. It's just, you know, it's, it's, I've heard the discussion and I, I think it's a good policy. But it's, it's a policy. So if someone refuses to sign the card, they're probably going to still be able to speak. They should still be able to speak. Um, for other reasons than the policy. So I understand, that's why I'm, I'm not really jumping in on that part. But it's, it's a policy. So you want to create a, a, a structure for the meetings. And that's kind of what it is. Sometimes you have to veer outside. I guess Assistant City Attorney Morgan brought up something like, so if they don't fill out the card, we're not going to let them speak? That's why I made the comment earlier. I don't think anyone here, sitting here, would deny someone from the public an opportunity to speak. So. But I don't think anyone would do that. We're all here. What I'm trying to, I'm sorry. I guess what I'm trying to say is that what we're writing down is not going to be consistent with how we're going to actually administer and handle it. So that, that's why I'm saying, let's get rid of the required. I think it should be required to, um, ask them to speak clearly, um, and identify themselves, all the pertinent information. If they have a reason, maybe, maybe it's because they're law enforcement. They don't want to announce their address. And that's fine. I've, I've witnessed some public meetings with that, that instance. Um, but I, I think, I, I don't, I think if we say this is our policy and we request you to do this, I think people will comply because they want a good record. I don't think people are looking not to do this. I'm just, it's us telling them they have to do something as opposed to requesting them to help us get, um, complete information. All right. Well, I think that we, I think so. And so I think that we should move on to the next item. Yes, ma'am. So zoom access for general non quasi judicial items, keep it as is or expand it, um, as council member Ryan seen it requested to be more global. And accessible, um, council member fashion. Um, when we got, when we went to our current system, I, I did talk to the city clerk about it, um, about my concerns about it. And a lot of things that council member Ryan seen said I was in agreement with, um, I think our technology is kind of lacking a little bit at this point in time. I think it's something, I think, I think, uh, Mr. Nunemaker said that it's something that in the future that we're going to keep trying to make us more accessible. Uh, my understanding is there's a lot of city councils and, uh, commissions around the city, around the county that, um, don't, don't provide this access. Is that correct? That's correct. Both zoom and e-com and, um, and the, the issue with both, whether the general access, uh, would require more in the way of staffing just because it's too, it divides the city clerk's attention. I don't think people realize, I, I feel bad for our city clerk when, when members of the public come up and start talking to her while we're in the meeting. One, it's distracting to us and then two, she's doing a lot of things over there. Right. Um, I think right now it's really just, uh, our capacity, it's a cost issue because I think it would require more staff. I think our technology, you know, the, the, I'm just sort of thinking the complaints that I get about, about the videos is like, you know, when there's a presentation up there, people want to, us to go back to the camera so they can see you speaking. Right. But that's not necessarily an easy transition with the current technology we have right now. So I kind of feel it's something that I think will be better to, um, justify in the future. But for now, I think the cost of being able to administer a live acknowledgement of someone online to speak, I, I just don't think it's justified the cost. I think we're trying to do everything we can to accommodate. And then in addition with, uh, Granicus, the ability to actually post an e-comment and then we get an email blast about that, that happened for the round table. And I think maybe we need to publicize the e-comments, um, so people are realized that's another avenue for them to, uh, participate and be on the record. Um, but at this point in time, I, I, I, I felt, I felt your way, Council Member Reinstein, when, when we first switched to this. Um, but I came to the realization that the, um, the cost of it is, is too costly right now. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Council Member Reinstein. Um, you know, the, the point of the cost is the one that makes perfect sense to me. Um, there's no question in my mind is that if we were to allow, allow, um, the additional access, which I think we should allow. Um, I think we would need, uh, an assistant city clerk, uh, deputy city clerk to be up here or down there or somewhere to assist with this. However, um, to me, um, I haven't, you know, I, I don't mind seeing that included as a request in somebody's budget. Um, I, I think that the ability to allow more accessibility, easier, um, access to our meetings and to participation is worth the cost. Um, from my experience that, uh, I can only offer from the legal world. Um, when we do depositions or court hearings on zoom, um, we are able to share the screen, see all the people at the same time that they're talking and look at the screen, look at the exhibits at the same time. Um, so with a little mastery of zoom, which may take a little time, um, I think it's, um, it, it's easy and it's available. Um, so other than the fact that we don't have an additional deputy clerk up here to assist, which I think is, is, is possible. Um, it's just the cost. Um, I wonder tonight, for example, all the people who are not here because it was torrential downpour at the start time of the meeting. Um, if they decided they were on their way here to, you know, they were thinking of leaving their house, decided not to. If all of a sudden at the last minute they could hop on zoom, would they have done it? I, I don't know. Um, but providing that opportunity to me is worth the cost. That's, that's why I'm sharing it. Thank you. Council member Horland. Thank you, madam president. I won't belabor the point because I think you make excellent points and I think all of us wanted to increase access. Um, one of the, my largest concerns is reliability. So what I'm concerned about if someone really wants to speak on a quasi judicial item and we've had it and I think it might've happened to Mr. Conklin once I know it happened to Mr. Bueller and they really want to comment. And then either we have a problem with, um, our technology or they have a problem on their end. I don't, I feel that could be a barrier and I don't want someone to rely on zoom, uh, technology to make their comment and that not be available for whatever reason. Can, can I, one response to that, um, Madam President, is that, uh, the, uh, I have no problem with the lines in here that say the city is not responsible for tech, technical difficulties that may periodically arise. Um, you know, there could be language that could easily advise the public that, um, that anytime technology is at issue that, uh, there could be faults, there could be concerns, um, and that nobody is prevented from participating. Um, so, I mean, we could, we could, we could, we could deal with that warning. We could deal with that, um, advice to the public, um, and still provide it. Any other comments regarding zoom? We're not using zoom right now. We're using a different mechanism. So that, I mean, that's, and that, what was one of the reasons why we went away from zoom? Was there ADA problems? We still have zoom. We have it by request. Right. Because the issue became monitoring the hands up. Right. It was drawing attention away. Whereas if it's requested, we know who's going to be up. We queue it up. And then as the clerk calls comments, they go to that individual. We can certainly have it as an aspiration. But I will tell you the, the, the process is going to involve more than, um, just the clerk. We need to redo this dais. And that's something we do have in the planning stages. Uh, we need to redo our technology. So there, there's a lot involved in what we need to do to facilitate more access. And, and we can graduate into it. It's going to be a, a, a multi-year process just to renovate this room as it should be for ADA access and other purposes. I would like to see that as a aspirational goal so that we get there. Right now, I don't know if we're there and I don't want to create an additional burden for staff. I think it's a lot to manage. Again, if we have, um, several people, right, when it's one or two, it's doable. But if you start getting into double digits of people who want to and to try to toggle them in and out of the meeting and you're managing. It's a dynamic nature of it. It's very dynamic. And I think that does create a hardship on staff. I concur. I concur. I concur. I, I do believe. Again, Councilmember Reinstein, you make a lot of great points. And I think it should be an aspirational goal. It does. And so based on those comments, the general access will remain as it is by request and registration. Quasi-judicial access will not be afforded via Zoom. And then that takes us to time limits for individuals presently at three minutes. I'll start by just saying I think three is fine. And the president, yeah, the presiding officer, whatever way you want to phrase it, can yield more. It's fine. Agreed. Yeah, I'm fine with the way it's written. I am as well. I think five is necessary for democracy. Would it be retroactive? When you're president, you can yield five. But we can ever roll him. I'm going to let him really roll. Was that all you had on your list? Oh, no, we're still going. Okay. The next one was time limits as they apply to a group, which is presently five minutes. And my point to that is I think that should just be solely at the discretion of the presiding officer. You know, because they, they might be speaking for their spouse or they might be speaking for the acres, you know. So that's why I sort of think, I don't think we should define the time. I think the presiding officer wants to get the meeting moving and stuff like that. And I think that we can rely on their judgment to decide how much time should be given to, for groups, in my opinion. I'm comfortable with the baseline. And I think, again, it's at the discretion of the presiding officer. And I think we've been pretty good about that. Agreed. And I know we think about the future council. But right now it says five minutes. You just said you're okay with. I'm fine with the baseline of five minutes. And then it's up to the discretion of the presiding officer. But that's not what's in there right now. It stops at five minutes. No, no. That's not correct. If you look at the sentence after that. Well, I think Councilmember Fagin is looking at 181 through 183. If you look at 183 to 184, additional time may be added by the city council upon request. Hold on a second. Because you said I was wrong. I don't mind if you disagree. Right. The presiding officer may consider a request by an individual to speak on behalf of an organization, group, or faction for a time period not to exceed five minutes. And then the following sentence. Additional time may be added by the city council upon request. I think we should add in. See, I think we just, if that's what we're going to do, why have the five minutes? Just leave it up to the discussion of the presiding officer. If I may, there may be multiple groups. So that's kind of why the baseline is there. So if there's, you know, red shirts and green shirts in the audience and pink shirts. We're not allowing that. It's political. Well, they don't have to say anything. They're just colors. Yeah. So that's kind of why that's written that way. And it also obviously gives you all the discretion to add any additional time. But just a point of clarification. So the line 83 to 84 allows for the additional time by the council upon request. So that previously the presiding officer cannot to exceed five minutes. But if people want additional time and let's say the presiding officer is not permitting more than five minutes, does that mean additional time may be added by the city council upon request that the city council can agree? I just want to point out that the lines after that, lines 184, 185, 186, you know, we often hear people, you know, when they have time left over, right, what's the comment? I yield. Right. I yield my time, right? So, in fact, our rules say members of the public shall not delegate or give their time or any portion thereof. Well, that was a joke. Well, it may be, but since we're talking seriously here about how these are written and read, right, so that because the comments regarding the organization that if we were to change that in any way, we'd probably have to change those lines too. I guess what I'm trying to say is that what we've been doing is not necessarily what is reflective here. I think we are accommodating. And at times we do allow people to continue speaking that probably goes beyond any two-minute or five-minute definition. I'm just saying give the discretion to the presiding officer and then perhaps on the flip side, if the council doesn't think we need to, then maybe do a point of order and then we can have a vote with a three vote to end, you know, to override the discretion of the presiding officer. So, I don't know. I feel like we're starting to beat it up now. I think, well, I like this being in here as a formality again because, too, you want to have consistency. So, to Mr. Morgan's point, I know the red shirt people and I like them. I give them ten minutes. I don't necessarily like the green shirt people, so I cut them off at three. So, you want to avoid all of that and just have that consistency. Everybody gets cut off. I've been to other municipalities, other meetings where the microphone is silenced. The technology is that advanced when, you know, it's green, yellow, red, like a stop sign, and when it hits red, you can't go on anymore. So, I think that that just gives, again, you know, a little bit sense of equality to speakers and you're not showing any favoritism. So, I like that it's in there, again, as baseline. And, again, we've always been cordial. We might tell people to wrap up, but we don't necessarily cut anyone off and not allow them to share their thoughts and opinions. So, I think we should add, though, that at 183, 184, additional time may be added. I think it should say by the presiding officer or council president, whichever wording is consistent. And then, because we, again, don't know who's sitting in these seats and what group's there, or a consensus of the council. So, what if the presiding officer doesn't want to yield time and four people up here want them to yield time? I think you're getting closer to what I was suggesting. I think we need to have a baseline of five. It's there. That way we have something consistent. The president, just in the flow, can yield a tiny bit more time. I think that's what we've always been doing, so I'm fine with that. But it says, instead of the president deciding, it says council's deciding. To me, it should be the presiding officer deciding. And then, if we happen to, if enough of us disagree, probably three, that we could yield the extra time. Do you want to say the presiding officer with the concurrence of council? That way they can initiate, and as long as council's on board, it can move forward? Yeah, I think that's a lot less complicated. Are you asking for that at the end of 181? Is that where it goes? No, 183. Three, additional time may be added by the city council upon request. That's regarding group. That's when speaking on behalf of a group. Yes, that's where we were. Okay, so I thought you were also saying it regarding individual members of the public. I think he was on group. I was still on group. Okay. But we should be consistent. I didn't get to look back to that yet again. The group one says five, but the end of 183 says additional time may be added by the city council upon request. To me, additional time. The one running the meeting is the one that's going to add the time. That's what we said before, isn't it? I think Mr. Nunamaker's language was. I think Mr. Nunamaker's getting it. All right. So, presiding officer may extend with concurrence of council. I think that works. You're going to ask a good question. What is concurrence? I mean, if we don't disagree, they go. A consensus. So, no one objects? Agreement. Do you want to continue or do we need to take a vote on it? And then if we have to vote on it? Three. Beware. Member Jacobs always say three. Beware of short agendas. We need an attorney to words for the last little bit. One of you two on the end. I don't got it. I think Mr. Nunamaker. He's writing, but I'm not sure what you all have agreed to. And there's still some public comment on this item, by the way. But in case the council wants to not yield more time, or if the presiding officer does not want to yield more time, and the council does, how do you phrase that? With concurrence or consensus or agreement of council? I think we've got the gist of what you all want to do. So, Assistant Attorney, I'll put our heads together. I don't. I don't. So, what they're saying is if the presiding officer wants to extend time, whether on an individual group basis, they may offer it with the consensus of council. Now, if council objects, and I don't want to hear any more of this, then they wouldn't get to extend the comments. So, what's the difference between what it says right now? Right now, it would require the council to act, whereas this, the presiding officer will lead it, since they're kind of in charge of the meeting. So, it just has somebody at the steering wheel, if you will. But, naturally, she's at the steering wheel. That's why I don't see a difference. I don't. I don't, but it's not my policy. Right now, it sounds like the person that wants more time would have to ask council, instead of through the chair. It seems. But, the chair is. Well, it's kind of representing the council. Yeah. So, exactly. Right. So, she. So, the presiding officer is the council. So, we're good with language as it is? Well, I got to be honest with you. I don't really say the presiding officer right now. My whole, my whole comment was, sit it with the presiding officer. If you guys think that the five minutes is a benchmark, I think that's a consensus. I think that's fine. I was just saying, let's get rid of the five minutes, and just leave it up to the discretion of the presiding officer. If we don't agree with that, then I think we should just leave it as is, because it, it, it become, it's becoming too cumbersome. I mean, um. I agree with that. So. I agree. I think then we're going to leave it as is. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Noonemaker. What do you have next? I have, what I believe there was a consensus to strike the announcement of candidacy. Yes. Line 227. Starting in that. Correct. Everybody's good with that. Okay. I think you're on your last one. Yes, ma'am. The last one was council sponsored items. Um, so the, there was concern, but there wasn't clear. Um, there wasn't a clear request as to how y'all would like that maybe to flow. I just probably, I, let me go back. I think it was line 64, you know, and I don't want to bring up past issues. Um, but. You're on the spot where I agree with them. Go ahead. But, uh, we're not going to do that tonight. But, um, I just feel strongly that if a council member would like something added to the agenda, it should be added. And then we can have that discussion as a group with input from the public. And if it's an item that's just a discussion item or an item that's an action item that's actually being voted on, then we vote it up or down. But, um, I think it's the part about shall have the discretion to determine if items are placed on the agenda. I would like that removed. Council President, so are you looking to strike that, that sentence 66 through 68? Correct. Yeah, I would agree with that. Madam President, may I? You may. Um, I believe we both experienced this early on our, um, careers as council members. And I understand your point and I agree with you. I think that the discretion comes and if we bring something forward and I, I believe we both presented ordinances or resolutions, where staff may need to take a little extra time, uh, and research, that's one thing. But I think we've both been subject, and I'm not talking about recent, um, where we felt that we were being prohibited, um, and perhaps censored. And I think that, again, when we, this is respecting administration and staff's ability to put the agenda together, but it is a city council meeting. And in some cities, the council actually puts together the agenda, and I don't think anyone wants to do that. But I think that if there's something that perhaps is objectionable, or we're not sure how everybody else feels about it, then we have the ability to discuss it on the dais. Uh, and vote it up or down if it's, it's a voting item. So I think that, um, I agree because we've had that happen previously. It feels as, and you've been wonderful to work with, but it depends on who may be sitting in your seat, who may be sitting in the mayor's seat. And I think that, um, to council president's point, either it's something that we want to bring up, um, personally that we feel strongly about, or perhaps something that is reflective of what the residents want. So, um, however that needs to be worded, I, I agree with you. I think we could incorporate. What I would suggest is that we make sure we're distinguishing between proclamations and, and council requested additions. And for those additions that might be in the form of an ordinance, like take the smoking ordinance, for example, uh, smoking ban, that that would be with the agenda deadlines. Um, and recognizing that you might present an ordinance that hasn't been reviewed by legal, but we place it on for consideration. It is their action that's requested by the board and then it goes, it flows through the legal review. Can I add a comment? Well, I, I, you brought up something and that's why, you know, if it's an ordinance and it needs to go through legal review and vetting or whatever is going on with something that we're suggesting, maybe at that point, it doesn't necessarily get into the legislative section to vote on the ordinance, but it gets into the, uh, what do we call it? Administrative items for a discussion. That's something where we don't take public comment for. You kind of give us an update about where we're going. And then we can get a consensus of the council from a proposed ordinance in this case. Because I do think that there's different layers of what we're requesting to be put on the agenda. It could be proclamations, resolutions, whatever, and then the ordinances, et cetera. So maybe, is that what we're looking for some sort of wording to say if the administration decides that we need more time, then the, then this requested item moves into the administration item for discussion as opposed to, because what I'm interpreting is, is that we're drafting an ordinance that doesn't go through the city attorney, doesn't go through staff. And then we're voting on that thing. And I don't think that's an efficient way to do it if we're dropping something on, on, for the agenda at the deadline. Because I think if we're going to do something, I don't want to waste time. I want to make sure that it went through all the vetting, got all the, um, um, you know, advisement that we need, whether it's from our city attorney or is it from staff. And I don't disagree with that at all. I think that, um, and it's understanding that discretion is there and the conversation takes place whether or not staff needs more time. And I don't think anybody expects an ordinance to be submitted before deadline and then it's on the agenda. But I think that we do need to look at the fact that that discretion can be and has been in the past abused. So then you feel that you're being stymied and, and being prohibited from being, bringing forth items. So, um, I mean, if it's administrative, I'm absolutely fine with that. That way we know that something's happening before it gets into the public work and there's a discussion that happens with it. I'm absolutely fine with that. So I don't know how Mr. Neutemaker and city attorney would want to, or if you feel you need to word that, but. And I know Mayor Sordell wanted to chime in as well. Thank you very much, Council President Andrea. Um, I have multiple thoughts, of course, and of course they conflict a little bit. Um, first of all, I think it's very clear. Any ideas and initiative from Council are welcomed. It's going to take all of us. A lot of bright people here, a lot of bright people out there. Let's get everything together, talk it out, and nobody's above being vetted. So if we have someone to throw out there, there's nothing wrong with vetting it as well. I used to say, um, it is a city council meeting. It's not a next sort of meeting, and I've said that, and I try to lay back. But now, as time has gone on, we're rolling around with business-like things, and we need you all to get our money approval, especially. We're trying to do this, this, and this. You're part of the process. So, and that's, that's really the important thing. And then policy, obviously we need you all because that's where, that's a vital point, you know. And plus, like I said, initiative and, um, and, uh, ideas. Um, I differentiate between proclamations and agenda. I agree totally. If you have something that you think should be a law, an agenda, whatever you want to call it, an ordinance, that should be out there and be vetted. Now, whether we want to talk about it informally first or just put it on, that's up to you all. Um, the problem I have with proclamations, I have two problems. Number one is proclamation collectors. You all know, and I can't really control it, but we got one for diapers yesterday. It's National Diaper Month. We would like a proclamation. So how are they any different from anybody else? Yes, sir. Not to interrupt you. I think that requires a little bit of, um, self-control on our part. Not every proclamation has to be presented at the council. Some should. So here's my guideline. Let me tell you. My guideline has always been if more than one person favors it, then we're good. Let's go. Um, I'm trying to stop the idea of one person could have proclamation on and it goes and nobody looks at it. And, um, there was a proclamation a couple of years ago at the mayor's breakfast. It had the word Hamas in it and a reference to Hamas and they pushed it through it because one person did it. And Rabbi Andrew spoke up as he should have and said, yo, we got a problem with this. So in my mind, a proclamation, because it's already approved, there's no voting on it or anything. In my mind, a proclamation should have two people on it. You can discuss that part of it, but at least I'm telling you what I'm thinking. Thoughts? Uh, I'm sorry. Let me go in order. So Council Member Reinstein first. Thank you. Um, I just want to, um, I think Council Member Fagin's points are correct in terms of the distinguishing between the, um, the administrative and the, um, sponsorships and some of those things. However, I, um, I, I think it accomplishes it, you know, the, the part that I was looking at that, um, Council President Andrea was asking be removed line 66 through 68. I read the sentence before it where the CEO or city clerk may request the additional time to study any sponsored items presented for action by a city council member as affording the opportunity for them to say whatever, whatever the item is, whether it's, uh, a sponsorship and administrative, administrative item, it's a code change, whatever it may be that we want to bring up, they can say, hey, I need some more time for it. That's different than, um, saying I'm not placing it on the agenda. Um, so I think that general language seemed to me to cover some of the concerns that you were raising, um, and it, uh, it leaves some, it leaves the language, it leaves one sentence that's in and only takes out one sentence. Thank you. Council Member. Um, I, I don't think we need to belabor the proclamation. I think if that wants, if we want to talk about a policy, I don't think it needs to be in here. But as far as proclamations, when you said two people have, should support it, um, you know, oftentimes we are contacted, um, I, not necessarily a month in advance. So we would have to discuss it here and then bring it back. If we want to start to create a policy, whereas perhaps as we've stated, not every proclamation needs to be presented publicly, but I was felt very strongly several years ago. And that was why I requested on the agenda. It says sponsored by, because then I think it's important if it's something that's important to me and somebody else has a problem with it, then anybody can call me and say, we didn't like that proclamation that you asked. Um, I also think that it's appropriate if the mayor does not feel comfortable signing a proclamation, that the presiding officer signs it, which is what we had done. And so I don't want to really get too detailed with the proclamations, but I think definitely with resolutions ordinances, we want to bring something up. I'm perfectly fine with that becoming an administrative item. And, you know, again, I, I don't think, right. I don't think anybody disagrees that there needs to be some discretion because there may be some extra time, but we have experience where that has been abused depending on who's sitting on this in the seat. Right. So, okay. Perfect. Thank you. The proclamation. The proclamations. Um, I don't think we make it too cumbersome. I think we should use some self control. You know, I put a lot of effort into the proclamations that I write. Um, if I send something to administration for processing and the mayor, you sign it and you have a question or you don't feel comfortable with something in there, I'd be very open to a phone call to discuss what's in there. Everybody should be open to, because you are ultimately signing it. And if you don't feel comfortable signing something, because you're not just signing it with your name, you're signing it on behalf of the residents, the plantation, and this council. So I think you're kind of the gatekeeper for that. So it does, I don't know if you just. We have to be careful with those phone calls, by the way. Well, I know, but proclamations are not voted on. They're ceremonial. A resolution is a little bit of a different matter. You know, but I, listen, I'm on top of that. But my point is, is that I hope you're reading them. Maybe you're not reading them, but maybe you should change and read them, or have someone read them to bring up things that are possibly could be concerning that requires discussion with one of us who are sponsoring it. But try not to put anything offensive in there. And I'm sure no one purposefully put something that would have been offensive in a proclamation. But this is a world of people being offended. So it's probably going to happen again. Mayor Sartle. Very good comments by Council Member Horland and Council Member Fadgen. And the one thing I do want to add is we're 500 days out from an election, and I have a fear of hints and appearances of over-politization, red-blue stuff. So I'm hypersensitive to that anyway. So a good talk about proclamations, how to do them, how you guys want to do them, that kind of thing, I think might be a good idea. I think that, I'm sorry, I didn't want to jump, did I jump anybody? Oh, I can wait. Go ahead. You know, that's a good point, because I think we got into some points where we're trying to show our appreciation of, like, some of our state representatives, and they do a lot of things for us, and they bring home the bacon sometimes more than other times. I think that we should be cognizant of that, and if they are qualified and going to be on a ballot, we should hold off our appreciation until after the election, just so that nobody feels like we're endorsing anybody, because I think that falls under the self-control mechanism. And I'm fine with people saying, Nick, you're being too sensitive about this stuff. It's good. So, usually. Okay. So, just to recap on the sponsored items. Just to recap, Mr. Nunamaker, bring it home, and then we'll go to the public. Yeah, are you all requesting, and is there a consensus to have council requested items placed under council comments, just automatically assuming it's been made in accordance with the time frames of the agenda? That's what I'm hearing. Okay. You want it under council comments? I thought you did not. I thought that was your motion. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you also said administrative items. It could be either way. But it seemed like the big issue was the potential for myself, for the city clerk, to say, no, we're not going to place that on. I think if there's something proposed that requires vetting or legal counsel, and I know just so the sponsor knows that there's some sort of process, that if it gets onto the agenda, even though it's not ready to be voted on, administration can give us an update as to... So we can put it under... It doesn't matter to me whether it's under comments by council, administrative update, if it's... I'll use the smoking... I think administrative update makes most sense because it's only sponsored by. Do we have to specify in the resolution? Well, we can here. We'll specify here. That's where I want to see where y'all are most comfortable. Like a resolution or an ordinance, if it's... If administration feels there needs to be some discussion of the council, then it should go to administrative update for a consensus. I think if you just eliminate the sentence, it gives you the flexibility that you might need to put it in the correct place. If y'all are good with that, we can make that change. That's my opinion. I think that... I don't want to tie your hands... I concur. Okay. Because I think we're making it too wordy. Exactly. Okay. Mr. Nunemaker, that is it, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. This council member Fadgen has one more. There was... I just want to make sure that we had the consensus. I think we did. So the one... The presiding officer may suspend the meeting. We just decided that keep it as is, right? Yes. Okay. And then the other one was, it had to do with lines 215 to 217. It says, members of the public and city council members to disturb, interrupt, otherwise, impede the conduct of the meeting. Maybe request to leave the meeting by the mayor or presiding officer in accordance with section 7. I'm just thinking that that doesn't need to be added. It's covered in section 7. I don't know. Did we talk about that? So I'm for getting rid of it. I don't know if we have to discuss it. Just yay or nay. I'm fine with that, too. I think it's a little repetitive. I'm fine with getting rid of it. It's repetitive. I'm fine with getting rid of it. All right. Thank you. City Attorney Morgan, are you... That's the question. Yeah. That was my question. I'm fine with it, but I want to hear from City Attorney Morgan if he feels it's needed there. Or is it redundant? Well, it was added to ensure that it's clear that under the public comment that folks could be removed. So it is somewhat repetitive to be consistent with the foregoing section, but it's placed there to ensure that there's no question that you have the... Even though there is no question, because you have the ability to do it, but based on the rule that there's no... Or the policy set forth in this resolution that there is no question that that's within the authority. But it's not plainly stated in Section 7? I thought I read it, and I felt like it was... I just think, like, you know, it's you, attorneys, and... Well, it talks about, you know, disrupting the meeting, et cetera. 134. Yes. Starting there, page 6, 134. I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll take the advice of the attorney. It is clear. I think this is just providing some additional clarity to that specific piece of the business that takes place here. So if you don't think it's necessary, then it's not necessary. We can always reevaluate it if it becomes an issue. So it's just forecasting an issue that may occur that probably won't, like most of the concerns that are in the ordinance. I can't recall a time where, you know, many people were removed from the chamber under order of law. So, you know, it's just a policy that, you know, wanted to make sure that it was clear. I appreciate your comments. I still feel the same way, but if that comment changed anyone's opinion, I respect that. You know, I would defer to the city attorney if he thinks that it's necessary. I mean, a little extra language doesn't, it doesn't harm, there's no harm there. If, you know, if he reads it that it's helpful to us in the future to have it in that location, I don't have a problem with that. I'm fine with it, Sting. As well. Okay. Does that exhaust it? All right. Yes, it does. Can I have Mr. Corman, please, signed up for item number two and has been waiting so patiently? Seriously, we didn't cover it, Rob? Point of order per the document that you have in front of you, can I have an extra two minutes, please? Please, your name and address, Mr. Corman. Rob Corman. Per what we were discussing, I prefer not to have my address on record, including in the written record. Okay. So, point of order, can I have the extra two minutes that I'm entitled to? Thank you. So, that was an hour and 45-minute discussion about what amounts to policy, how to run these meetings. Policy on two sides, how you all deal with it, how we all deal with it. So, to that end, I think anything that takes two hours almost to get discussed like this is probably not fully baked and perhaps the questions and objections that everybody had could have gone through the attorney and possibly the administration prior to this point to not necessarily waste our time, but rather to clarify the issues here. Because, from my standpoint, sitting on this side of the dais, it is a First Amendment issue, as was discussed about the speaker cards. No problem, really, in my mind, filling out the speaker cards. But if you're going to mandate it as opposed to request it, I would argue that they have to be located in several different places and people have to be given the option to fill it out at their leisure. The idea of a last call on every item is something that I approve of because I might not have chosen to speak on this item until I sat there for an hour and 45 minutes and got really, really frustrated and wanted to fill it out. So, the idea of mandating certain things when it comes to issues of freedom of speech, in particular political speech here, you all know me. I have slight feelings some of the wording in this was related to my comments that I've made in front of you all before. The reason why is that when we are talking about what is said out here, whether it be announcing candidacy for office or whether it be criticizing or commenting about actions of individuals on the dais, by claiming that it is an election season, therefore something could be construed as political in nature, that somewhat upsets me because I might not have political motivations to that end, but it might be something that is worthy of consideration. So, that's one of the points. Going back to the idea of Zoom access, I completely agree with you that we should have Zoom access. If, in fact, it takes an extra individual to do so, I have no problem with that, but why stop there? For example, there should be an ASL interpreter in this room. I don't know why there hasn't been because, frankly, the orientation of this room relative to ASL interpretation is not an issue, and we are limiting folks who are hard of hearing from participating in this particular endeavor that we're there right now. So, there's that. When it comes to the speaking of three minutes, yes, there is three minutes provided, and at the discretion of the presiding officer, as I just demonstrated, you can request an additional two minutes for a total of five. I don't personally see the harm in allowing for a total of five minutes, especially, as Council Member Fadden said, if there are hard stops at the end. One of the most annoying things is to get to the end of a statement and have that clock beep at you and then the, okay, Mr. Corman, wrap it up. If I know I have five minutes and it's a hard five minutes and it is made clear at the beginning of it, including on that card, in bold letters, it's nice and that is your backstop for it. That's how you all should be running the meeting. The restrictions for behavior on the dais, as far as making comments that could be construed as political, neither here nor there, but the idea of the speaker cards being used to organize the meeting and kind of clump into topics, speaking on a matter of time. If someone from the Acres, for example, is representing the entirety of that group and they're going to speak about something that is important to everybody, you could either have three minutes a piece for a grand total of 15 minutes or you can grant one individual 10 minutes. I personally see that as a time-saving device. Council Member Horland, you were saying that you prefer three minutes as opposed to five minutes. If there are only five people speaking in the room, that's an additional 10 minutes. And as we demonstrated here, you could have an hour and 45 minutes that was just, in essence, misused. And that's time that was abused for everybody in the room. So when you're looking at issues of policy here and how you are going to run your side of the room, this side of the room, I request that something as simple as this possibly go through further consideration and those questions go to the attorney prior to it so that we can actually have efficiently run meetings. Frankly, I don't care what other cities do. This is plantation. We get to decide how we want to run our meetings here. We get to decide how we want the decorum in the room to be. We get to decide everything. It is entirely in your hands. But I would request that next time something this simple comes up, that perhaps we run the potential objections by the city attorney prior to taking up that hour and 45. Thank you for the extension. Thank you, Mr. Corman. Ms. Gelfand. I'm short. Jason is much taller. I can't hear him. Oh, I'm sorry. Vicki Gelfand. G-E-L-F-U-N-D. 9381 Northwest 18th Place. You want to come to my house, you're going to have to work for me. So, I love you all. You know it. I've supported you all. However, when you are talking to each other, we can't hear you. When you are talking to Commissioner, to Councilwoman Horland, sometimes you turn your head. Sometimes Commissioner Horland wants to say something to Mr. Anderson, and she's talking about something, and also we can't hear her. That's the first thing. The second thing is, the proclamation, was it adult diapers or baby diapers? They mention you by name, and it is adult. It is adult. Thank you for mentioning me by name. That's nice. Okay. I kind of agree with Mr. Corman. Yes, over an hour and a half was a little bit long. I asked the city clerk why we have to fill out the forms. She says, you wouldn't have to if people would come up here and give their name and give their address and spell it. I'm on the phone all day long, and I tell them this is Vicki, B-I-C-K-I, and I'm with so-and-so. This is my company with blah, blah, blah, blah. I can spell it out here. She would hear it. She wouldn't have to say that. The forms are fine, three minutes. Sometimes it needs to be going over. The presiding officer may suspend the meeting for good cause. Power failure. Nobody's here. People are just, they just had, they got very sick on the dais. That's a good reason. I'm sure that they would suspend the meeting for good reason. This is open government. Please remember that we are the people that put you on the dais. So, share your thoughts with us, not just with each other. And, I mean, it's just amazing. Speaking loud enough might not require ASL for people that just have a mild hearing problem. However, ASL is something. And I also have spoken to a city clerk from a larger city than ours. And he kind of does the same thing in his city council meetings. I'm not yielding my times. I'm just asking you to please realize that you're talking to all of us. And we're here. And we're the ones that brought you up on that dais and gave you that humongous salary that you're getting. And all those great benefits. And we care about it. And we care about our city. Otherwise, we would not be here every two weeks. And that's it. Thank you. And for Mr. Noonemaker. Thank you, Ms. Gelfand. That concludes all of the speakers I have. Unless anybody else would like to speak to item number two. Please. And if you can complete the card afterwards and hand it to Ms. Begaro. Are you, I'm not sure if the green light is on. Center bottom. At the bottom of the microphone. Claudia Gill. I live at 10050 Northwest 3rd Street. I'm your neighbor. I'd like to know, and this is my only comment, why are you not on camera? When they have the dais on, you are off camera completely. We just get to see your hand. And I think it'd be nice to see your face too. I'm glad to bring a ladder and control that camera because he should be on camera. He's an elected official. That's it. Thank you for everything. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. We'll try to rectify that. Thank you. Okay. Are we at this time going to make a motion to, are we going to motion to table this item? No. Oh, okay. Go ahead. Council Member Horland has a motion. To approve item two with the changes set forth by the council to administration. Is there a second for the motion? Okay. There's no second. Second. Okay. Council Member Fadgen has made a second. Any further discussion? I will tell you, Council Member Horland, I wouldn't mind seeing this again with the amendments first. It's not right, and I don't think it's time sensitive, so I kind of wanted it to come back so that we can have just another, I guess, cursory look at everything that was discussed. But it was properly moved and seconded. Just a point of view, are you asking to table it, which I think would take precedent over? Are you asking me? Well, I'm asking Council President Fadgen, Council President Andreo, is that what you're asking, to table it? Well, the motion was already made, so I want to absolutely follow Robert's rules, if you will. So it was already, a motion was made and it did have a second, but my preference was to table it, yes. Is there a consensus for that? I'm not the parliamentarian, but you could ask the city attorney. I believe that takes precedent over a motion. Can I make a suggestion? The city clerk had some of the mid-war. Go ahead, Ms. Beggaroff. May I make a suggestion that perhaps we go ahead and move forward with this one, because it looks like we need to do a big overwrite. I mean, you've got a lot of questions, concerns. We need to maybe do a deeper dive in this thing. I didn't hear that from them. You didn't? I did not. Oh, okay. Well, it just seems, because the original presentation were our underlines and those sort of things, but then we went into bigger sections and that sort of thing. I think most of it remains the same. So I guess my question is, Council President, if we asked Mr. Noonmaker to make the changes that we requested, why do we want to bring it back? I just felt like it was a lot of requests. Because, you know, when we have just some small, but I think we had at least maybe six different portions. Did you feel that it was a lot of changes? I don't, but I understand the desire to want to see it before it's, because I think the, and I'm going to use a word that is not true. The fear is that this gets approved and gets signed and you won't see it again. And so I think that's the concern. But that, I mean, that's not going to be the case, but I think that's the concern. And it's not, you know, time sensitive. So I don't think it's a big issue for that to come back on another consent agenda with less than. And so I think the motion to table would substitute in the original motion. Do you want me to withdraw my motion? You can, just. I'll withdraw the motion to put. And the seconder withdraws his second, I assume, because he did it out of courtesy, I think. I changed my mind. I don't think we need to look at it again. I think everything's been, I think we're very clear. I think we had a very deep conversation into what we felt on a consensus basis for each of the items we spoke about. I think we're very systematic about it. And I think it will be implemented appropriately. So I'm ready to vote on it. I don't want to remove my second. I agree with you. But if the council president is comfortable with that, I think we have a consensus that we're going to take a look at it. And just for the public's point of view, it's not so much you're talking about. And I think everybody up here talks to administration and talks to the city attorney. But it's important, part of, big part of what we do is have the conversation amongst each other because we cannot do that outside of sunshine. So I don't think anybody's happy that this has taken almost two hours, but it's an important conversation. So I already withdrew my motion, council member. But we did not. There's a substitute motion for tabling, I think, on the table. So I think that would take precedent on the Roberts rules. So it's not necessary to expose of the original in a more formulaic way. But you can, if there's a second for the motion to table, you can continue that. I second the motion to table. I did. So, Ms. Baderow, can you call the roll? We have to set a date. No time. You don't have to set a date. This isn't advertised. The motion is to table item number two. Council member Fadgen? No. Council member Horland? Yes. Council member Reinstein? Yes. Council member Anderson? Yes. Council member Andreu? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Item number four is the purchase of 65 personal computers and monitors. Council member Fadgen? Thank you. I think I just have questions for clarity and process. I totally understand the standardization necessary for IT, you know, working with one type of computer, getting it implemented into our systems. And this might be more questions for Mr. Montefusco. So, I guess the first question I have is, do we have a strategic plan for the replacement of our technology, our computers? Like, what was the determination behind purchasing, to make this purchase of 65 computers and monitors? Good evening, Council. Good evening. John Montefusco, IT Director. Yes, we do. There is a, we service over about 800 PCs. I'm sorry? We service over about 800 PCs, so we have to replace a certain amount per year. We used to lease them, which handcuffed us, so we changed to this purchasing model, which extended the life of what we... Okay, and that's my second question. So, how long does one of our computers generally last? In the five to seven year range, we buy them with improved specifications up front and door, sometimes budget constraints. If there's an issue with budget and you don't have the money to replace all of them, we're able to extend the life of them. But, yes, there is a strategic plan per... And we do have a very detailed, we know where these eight, you said 800 computers? Yes. We know where they are. Absolutely. We know which, we know what's these 65 computers, which ones they're going to actually replace. Yes, sir. And there's been an assessment of the replacement, the computers are being replaced, that they actually do need to be replaced. We can't get your seven out of them. I mean, we all have computers, so we know, like, they start showing their age after four or five years. We absolutely know where every PC is. We know who operates it. We know what applications are on there. Some of this replacement is because some of the PCs we have that are older cannot be upgraded to Windows 11, so we have to address that issue. So there's software that we possibly need to implement, but the older computer can't handle it. Correct. And then just, like you said, the age of it. It sometimes doesn't perform optimal for the end user. The screens. Do we generally replace the computer screens with the computers themselves, or do the screens come online separately? Because it's like. Absolutely. We, that's a case-by-case basis. If, at the time we're replacing the PC, if the screen is usable and still functional, we leave it there. So these 65 screens aren't necessarily specifically being replaced with the computers that are being replaced with it. There's an assessment as to. In this particular case, they are because the ones who are replacing need replacing, but if they were still optimal in using, by all means, we'll extend it another three, four years, whatever life we can get out of that device. And then they do enjoy a second life. We've implemented a donation to the public school system. So it's nice to be able to pass that on to them. They've thanked us tremendously. They use them for students to learn, different various areas about hardware and applications. So they do see a second life. And then above and beyond that, we properly dispose of them. Okay. I guess my last question regarding this is the, you know, the standardization. We're spending $127,000 on these computers. Are we constantly monitoring the performance of these computers to make sure that these computers that we're buying understandings, standardization, that we're not going under the normal procurement process for good reason. But I want to make sure that we're constantly monitoring that the computers that we're buying to replace a similar type of computer is still performing at the same quality level that we would hope to get out of it. Because, you know, sometimes companies go through bad times. What are we buying? Dell? Dell, yes. Dell. Maybe they're not putting out a good computer anymore or they're having a problem and those computers aren't. I just want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence to make sure that we are buying quality computers since we're going outside of the procurement and we're monitoring the price, that they're not jacking up the price and there's other alternatives because that still needs to be an assessment even though we have a standardization. We're assuming that a light computer is going to have within a range of a price range, if that makes sense. Are we doing that? Absolutely. We buy a five-year warranty with the computer in case there is. We've had issues where we had not quite lemons but problems with power supplies. The Dell has stood by and replaced them. I do get demo units of Dells, the Lenovo, his HPs when I can to assess their abilities and how they perform and compare them against what we have. They're very competitive in their pricing so it's sometimes, even though we have the standardization, they generally beat the street price. But we do look, I do look at Panasonic, I do look at other manufacturers to make sure everything we're getting is in line. That's what I want to make sure that what we're buying is competitively priced, you know, because by the standardization, we're just giving up our procurement opportunity, you know, the process opportunity. And I just want to make sure that we're just not blindly buying off the standardization policy, that we are doing an independent assessment of it and saying, like, all right, maybe this standardization policy, we need to assess and change direction to deal with a different manufacturer or whatever. Absolutely. We do do our due diligence. And just because we have that standardization doesn't mean we can't go out and look for other manufacturers. One thing of a benefit for my staff is the familiarity. I have techs that are certified with Dell repair. We can self-dispatch parts. We don't have to wait on calling and tech support. So there's a lot of pluses. But we do, to your point, yes, absolutely. No, we are very cost-conscious of what's out there. Like I said, I request demos to companies that are willing to give us demos. Sometimes we may even buy a PC if we can't get a demo just to run it through the gamut and see if it's outperforming the Dell. We even do that with processors sometimes, AMD versus Intel. We do look at all the specs and make sure the city is getting the best machine for not only for the money, but for the end users so they can work efficiently. Do what we need to do. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to always make sure that we're being aware of it. I think you satisfied my questions. I don't know if anybody has any other questions. If not, I'll make a motion. But if not, does anybody have any questions? Motion to approve. Second. We do have a public speaker, Mr. Corman. My question was answered. Thank you. Any further questions, comments? Ms. Begaro, please call the roll. Council Member Fajan. Yes. Council Member Horland. Yes. Council Member Reinstein. Yes. Council Member Anderson. Yes. Council Member Andrew. Yes. Thank you. Item number eight was the next item up for discussion by Boulevard Watermaid replacement. And that was Council Member Fajan. Oh, I'm sorry. Council Member Reinstein first. Sure. Thank you. So my question goes to this change order and modification. It appears that this is a second change order. Is that correct? Yes. And so really the first question is, it's before us. So I'm hoping that means that you're comfortable with the first, that it's the second change order and with the reasons for it. And I'm hoping you can maybe elaborate on the reasons given for these change orders because the second one, I read that one, it's an error and effort calculation and excessive daily effort. And I don't see a lot of this type of language. And I'm just like if you can expand on whether or not this is standard in terms of a 122% increase due to the budget amount based on this incorrect calculation. And then the reference to the daily effort and it says due to complications, but I'm not sure what those complications were. So first, Charles Spencer, Procurement Director, I will answer what I can. I can't answer to the actual project and how it went. But the change order one and two submitted before you are in accordance with the agreement. They have been reviewed by procurement to be in accordance with the agreement. As to the details of each one of those change orders, I will have to leave that to the department. Okay. Hi. Good evening. Danny Polio, Utilities Director. The history of this project is unique. The Utilities Department was brought. Mr. Polio, can you just speak into the mic? Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Feels like it's right there. So this was a unique project that we had. We had a very short time frame when this was brought to us. The Utilities Department was brought into this after the fact. The FDOT project was planned for almost two years before we were brought into it. We had to meet FDOT's guidelines and their schedule. The schedule that they gave us put us at a four-month design. We had to procure the equipment and the material to do it, which was during COVID. So we pre-purchased the material. This normally would have been a year-long process. So the project, the overall project, it took about one point, it was a little over a mile worth of water main. The cost was projected at 1.6 million. It was about 1.2 miles of water main. It went from the Turnpike. You're familiar with it. You were driving it every day. From the Turnpike to Holloway Canal on the westbound. So phase one was to get the water main out of Broward and meet the milling and overlay schedule of FDOT. And the second phase was to go down Holley and then west on Cypress, crossing the canal and tying into a 30-inch main. The challenges were, again, this was an unplanned project and was brought to us pretty late. The acquisition of the material was really interesting. The city pre-purchased this pipe. And we were lucky to get the pipe. We ended up using ductile iron pipe, which is the requirement. But I believe it came out of the west coast. We couldn't find the pipe anywhere. The deadline to be out of Broward Boulevard was August of 22. Between expediting the design, permitting, and installation process, that alone, the time frame, meeting that, was one of our largest challenges. There were a number of unknown conflicts that were discovered and not identified in the plans. Remember, we had to put this project together and design it in very short order to get it through the permit process to meet the paving schedule of FDOT. A majority of the delays were due to unknowns that were within the roadway. Broward Boulevard started out as a two-lane road. You're referring to the complications that is just not described. That's what the complications were? Yeah, there were many unknowns. There was drainage lines that weren't identified that were on nobody's plans. There were additional means there were nine connections to side streets that had to occur throughout the project zone. And there was another identified drainage line that each of those nine conflicts had to go under. That's what I was looking for for the public is to explain what these unknown complications were. I just didn't see it in the backup. Yeah, and even though, I mean, looking at the, with the unknown conflicts between the staff, the deadline, and our consultants, we were able to work through FDOT, even though we exceeded their timeline by a couple of months. Because of our relationship and keeping them in, you know, the communication lines open, we were able to work with them and adjust our schedules, and FDOT was able to adjust their schedules. The requirements, there was a lot of nighttime inspection in addition, too, because the permit requirements for this project only allowed nighttime lane closures. The main deviated in between one lane to another, some nights requiring a single lane, and some sections requiring a double lane closure. That created additional delays and additional cost in nighttime inspections, where we could have closed the lane during the day, because once we went to a two lane closure, it became a nighttime, a nighttime connections. I actually, I commend both staff and our consultants, not so much the contractor on this job, but for pulling this project off with the cost that we did it in, and with the timeframe that we did it in, that it was completed. You know, we look at the, while there were two change orders that were associated with this, our original cost was 113. When you're looking at a project of this type, it's well under what the industry standard is. And that was my other question, so thank you. I appreciate it. I don't want to, I don't need to spend more time. You answered for me, at least. I was questioning the complications and wanted to make sure that, based on these change orders, that it's before us, because you're comfortable with them. Very comfortable with these numbers. Thank you, Mr. Puglio. Council Member Faction. I think you addressed most of my questions. So, the change orders reflect, though, of their actual time that they ended up putting in. We start off with an estimate, and then this extra time, which was like $51,000. Correct. Because of these, none of these unforeseen things were on any plans, is basically what you said. Yes, that is one of the major issues. One of the most, the largest delays were the unknowns that were within the project. Correct. Okay. So, they looked at their time, they said, oh, we underestimated, but we had these unforeseen things. This is what it was. Here's our change order. Correct. Okay. I don't have any other questions. Any questions, or I'll entertain. Motion to approve. Thank you. Second. Any questions, comments from the public? I don't have anyone else signed up to speak. Ms. Beggerell, please call the roll. Council Member Fajan. Yes. Council Member Horland. Yes. Council Member Reinstein. Yes. Council Member Anderson. Yes. Council Member Andre. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Item number nine is regarding the restroom at Pop Travers facility. Council Member Fajan. Thank you. How many bathrooms are at Pop Travers? Phil? I don't know. Charles, you need to come prepared. Good evening. Phil Goodrich, Parks and Recreation. Exactly how many stalls? I'm going to say four or five in each one, but that's at Pop Travers. This actually is going to be a structure located next to the Seminole Middle School property that we lease from the school board. In that, let's think about this. Just in a circle. The west corner? Right when you come in a circle, it would be immediately to your left, right near the playground area, to be accessible to that other property. Right in the bar off entrance area? Correct. Okay. So how many stalls are we adding? This is a two-stall structure. It's a prefab structure being dropped in place, so it's very similar to the ADA restrooms that we added years ago, both at PAO Park, Pine Island Park, and at Pop Travers. There's actually one as well. And they're fully ADA? Correct, yes. All the ramps up? Because, you know. Yes. The design incorporates all of that factors. The ADA came in existence in 1992, and we've built buildings since then, and they're not fully ADA compliant, and that's kind of frustrating with the amount of these renovations that are before us that we're going to look for every avenue to get funded so we can get the city up to date on that. So this will not be on our hit list after we're done. Absolutely not. Is the lift, I read in the, is the lift station in place? Is it ready to be hooked up, or is that something that's going to have to be added? I'm just going to see how many people I can get to speak on one item. Danny, is the lift station in place for Pop Travers? Can you, can you come to the microphone, Mr. Polio? You're not a wookie, Danny. So is the lift station in place for the temp, the new bathrooms that are being placed? No, that's going to be part of the project. We did put the force main and the water in place for that. Is it included in this price, or is that going to be a separate, or have I already approved it? I don't know. I believe everything is included in it. You know, we did, this project is going back some time now. When we first looked at this doing the bathroom, was it called for a small, and we're talking about a lift station, it's going to be a very small grinder station that is set basically right next to the restrooms. I guess it just wasn't clear to me whether that lift station was part of this cost. I believe it was. Wow. But you're saying that it's going to be connected to the dog park's lift? Yeah, there's an existing small lift station which services the bathrooms now. That force main leaves the restrooms, runs over the pedestrian bridge, and over to the restrooms by the dog park. We're connecting from where this new restroom and small little grinder station to that same common force main where the sleeves were put in. We did the water main project you all approved about a year and a half ago, I believe, where we ran water main all the way down back to that pump station, and that is in anticipation of putting a future loop into Isle del Sol to where we can have a looped water system. That was all done under that, the preliminary work. So I'm unable to tell you if the lift station is included, but I can't have the project manager give you more detail relating to the project. It is in the plans. I'm sure it's there, but it's micro-small, so I can't read it. I understand. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Anderson? Mr. Goodrich, will this bathroom only be open during the time that Pop Travers is open? What I'm getting at is Seminole are going to be able to use it during the school day, which I actually don't really want them to do? No, because it would be off their property. They'd have to leave the school property to come to that restroom. That restroom is to support. Pass through non- I understand, yeah, but they would be leaving their property, which I don't believe the school would allow, and we don't typically unlock that gate. That gate stays locked during the school. But actually it's a closing gate. I thought it used to be just a space in the fence. It's actually a gate now? It's a gate. It's been a gate. It was always probably left open, but yes. Yes, okay. That's all right, thanks. Any additional questions or comments? Hearing none. Motion or approve? Second. Any questions, comments from the public? Ms. Beggarro, please call the roll. Councilmember Fajan? Yes. Councilmember Horland? Yes. Councilmember Reinstein? Yes. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andreu? Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Corman, did you sign up for this? No, you were good. You were good. Oh, thank you. Okay. That does exhaust the consent agenda. Well, we will move to administrative items. The first one is item number 15, the legislative item. Mr. Alpert, this is the first reading of our ordinance of the city of plantation pertaining to zoning and land development with landscaping requirements and synthetic turf requirements. Let me get this for the numbers. I'll read the title while he gets prepared. Thank you. This is a public hearing, first reading of an ordinance of the city of plantation Florida pertaining to the subject of zoning and land development, specifically landscaping requirements and synthetic turf requirements amending chapter 27 of the city code ordinances, specifically amending section 27-254 entitled implementation standards, amending section 27-251 entitled landscape definition, amending section 27-261 entitled improper maintenance and tree abuse, all properties creating section 27-298 entitled synthetic turf, amending the physical and digital versions of the land development regulations, providing for codification, providing for servability, providing for savings costs, providing for conflicts, and providing for ineffective date. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Mr. Alpert. Good evening, Madam President, council members, mayor, city attorney, city clerk, Michael Alpert, assistant director. So background. Many residents and some commercial property owners are installing artificial turf on their properties. Some are requesting permits from the city to do so and others may not be aware that a permit is needed or that the city has any restrictions. In many cases, it is being installed over extensive areas of their properties. Currently, artificial turf is only mentioned in the code within one provision, which is section 27-2543, where it says, in total, if you are using other, any type of non-living material including gravel, stone, concrete, asphalt, artificial turf, or similar material. Accepting necessary walks and vehicular use areas, you are not allowed to have more than 10 percent of the property using any and all of those materials. Artificial turf is seen as one way to avoid having large areas of natural vegetation such as sod and grass, which requires regular lawn maintenance. Staff notes that artificial turf also requires maintenance and that has some negative effects on the environment and, in some cases, site drainage. The city is requesting amendments to the following sections of Chapter 27 to update certain landscape design standards and in order to provide standards for the installation of artificial turf, also known as synthetic turf, on residential properties. These are the sections of the codes as part of your exhibits that are being amended. This ordinance creates a new section to codify design standards for artificial turf material, which is the new section 27-298, entitled synthetic turf. This provides for standards in order to minimize the application of this synthetic material and also updates other landscaping requirements. This ordinance restricts the use to residential properties, city and county parks, and public and private golf courses. It also requires that an engineering permit be obtained. I want to note that, oftentimes, this shows up as a part of a pool permit or patio permit, so that would be a building permit, but sometimes it's an isolated application, so that, in that case, it would be an engineering permit. Here are some examples of what could be done with a typical rectangular residential lot. Here's an example of an irregularly shaped lot, and it shows both in the rear yard as well as part of a concrete driveway pattern. So, artificial turf shall not be considered open space, so we see that dotted X, something that we're not encouraging. Areas on the left of the slide, if it can be part of an integral design, it can actually look pretty nice, but it's not considered part of your open space. Artificial turf is allowed within the rear yard and avoiding the side yard locations except but directly behind the home, and shall not be visible from the street, and shall serve as a component of the overall landscape design. So, again, photos on the left, I'm showing examples of an integrated design. Photo on the right, something we do not want to encourage. Artificial turf area, along with other non-living ground cover material, cannot exceed 10% of the total area of the site. That's not covered by the building or designated parking loading and driveways and drive aisles. So, a good example shown there on the left, not a great example shown on the right, and so forth. The turf area should not be closer than 5 feet to any property line to allow room for drainage, nor located over any easements. It shall be allowed within the paving joints of driveways, but not within the swale part of the driveway or within public rights of way. Or terraces in any location shall provide a buffer to separate this from other natural landscaping. It shall not be in conflict with existing trees, furthermore, existing landscaping should not be removed or relocated due to the use of this material. And it can be fully permeable, subgrates shall be equipped to provide for proper drainage. Here's an example of its use in photo, and let me see if this works, an example where it doesn't work so well as far as drainage goes. I've been waiting all night for that. So on June 12th, the Sustainability and Resiliency Advisory Board recommended approval of this draft ordinance. On July 18th, the Planning and Zoning Board made a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval of the new synthetic turf and landscaping standards. The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, known as IFAS, has published a document that describes some of the environmental concerns of this material with respect to Florida-friendly landscaping, and it was part of your backup. Some issues to consider. Artificial grass can contribute to climate change by absorbing significantly more radiation than living grass. I won't read everything here, but I wanted to put them on the slide. Most worms and soil insects that usually live underneath real lawns will be unable to survive under artificial grass laid on the earth, creating unknown effects on soil ecology. Artificial lawns don't provide valuable food for birds and other garden wildlife, including pollinators that feed from flowers in grass lawns such as daisies and clovers. Any potential loose fibers might be hazardous to certain wildlife and could add to the growing problem of microplastic pollution. They don't convert carbon dioxide into oxygen as grass does, potentially having a negative effect on carbon levels in the atmosphere. They're made of plastic, and when they need to be removed, they can't be recycled and instead have to go into landfill or be incinerated. So issues with disposal. Staff recommends approval. Thank you, Mr. Alpert. Councilmember Reinstein. Yes, thank you, Mr. Alpert, for the presentation. You always do a great job with these PowerPoints, so thank you. My question is in terms of the, is there any amount, and I read through this, and my biggest question was requiring the engineering permit. Is that, is there any part, any amount that would not require an engineering permit? If somebody had, you know, a very small area in their backyard that doesn't interfere with any of the things that you're concerned about, that, you know, somebody can throw down a piece of turf, maybe they want to make it a putting green in the back, and it's just, it's just for one, I don't know, 10 feet. I'm thinking of something very small that we don't want to burden a resident with. So is there any amount that doesn't require an engineering permit? Not at this time, no. So can you go, actually, you just took it off, but if, can you go back for a sec, sorry. Yeah, well, but I can't move it, so if you could, the second or third picture, I think from the beginning, it showed just some small slivers of, of how the turf was used. And maybe while we're looking for it, so is there, if it is just a tiny portion, well, you can stop on that, go to that other one with the circles there, right? So if it's just one circle, right, the rest was already paved, will that still cause the harm that we're trying to avoid? I'm just concerned that we're not overburdening residents who want to have a little piece of artificial turf. Something like that? Not likely, no. Okay. So then there, then there may be some reasonable exceptions that an engineering permit is not required for a very small section of turf? I would say yes, potentially. Okay. I'll just throw that out there. I'm just, I read through this and I'm thinking, gosh, what, if somebody just wants a tiny little piece in the back, I'd hate to burden them with, you know, having to take all these steps. I agree with everything else that's been presented, I understand the concerns for ecology, but thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Reinstein. Councilmember Horland? Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. Alport. I've expressed to you, Mr. Horland, I'm not a fan, but I know that we need some guidelines in place for all the environmental reasons that you listed here. My question to you, Mr. Holmes, is not to further burden staff or residents coming in, but my concern was about the quality of the turf that people are putting down and can we set standards. My concern would be if someone is putting in a low-quality turf that could potentially leach chemicals. So have we talked at all about standards and is that feasible? There are some standards that may not necessarily speak to quite the quality. I mean, we do look for warranties from the company when they come in for the permit, but that's only as good as the company that's providing that warranty. And it's not just the turf, it's also the vacuum material, which is of concern. Right. So that would be my comment. I think it might be a little difficult to legislate that. I'm not really sure, but we could sit down with the attorney and see if we can come up with something. I appreciate it. Yep. Thank you, Councilmember Horland. Councilmember Anderson? Hi. Thanks for the presentation. I agree with Councilmember Reinstein with the engineering requirement is kind of a high hurdle if it's a small area because it's an extra step and an extra cost in addition to already a permitting fee. So obviously, if it's a big area, it needs to be engineered. But if you're just putting it down, a small thing, I just, again, I don't think the engineering is necessary. I think it's a little overboard. That line right there is actually where I want to be in the parentheses. There's nothing side yard locations except behind the home. Okay. The fences can start right at the corner of the front and side of the house. So you can start your fence there and put a boat right behind it or whatever else. If it's behind a fence, why does it have to be in the back of the house then? Because the ways to build houses are worried if they're actually entered in on the side. Right. So in the provisions, we've asked for a five-foot setback from the side and rear property lines for this material to begin. Most setbacks for residential lots, they're a minimum of seven and a half. I would say most residential lots in the city are between seven and a half and ten. There's obviously some that have greater yards. With a five-foot minimum setback, then it doesn't leave a whole lot of room between the side of the house and the side property line in which to use that. So I know it's a little – the way it's worded there might be a little confusing. What we're saying is we'd like to see it in the rear yard, not go beyond the rear face of the home, but it could extend in the side yards up to about five feet and to the rear yard up to about five feet. But I hear what you're saying as far as fences being allowed from the corner – side corner going back of the property. So I think it might be hard to balance between what we're proposing as a setback requirement to allow that. But it's not – in that case, it's not necessarily just an issue of whether it's visible. It's also – we're concerned about drainage and interference with trees and things like that. I can't perceive everything out there, but I would think, you know, sometimes the way houses are oriented, it's maybe the north side and it's muddy all the time. They just want the drip line to make the walkway to the back from the side door in just a little bit. And it says it can't be on the side. And it still would be within the setback. So I just don't know if it should be restricted to the back as long as it's out of sight of the – so if it's behind a fence and it meets all the other rules, I'm kind of okay with it. Okay. But it's not only me. So that's kind of – I don't think it should be visible from the front. I agree. Right. And just to build off of your question and Councilman Reinstein's question, I think we could look at that, certainly. You know, keeping in mind that we don't really want it visible and in the front yard, we could probably work that language out. And then with regard to very small piece, I think if it's somewhere in the middle of the backyard and it's not near trees, those types of things, perhaps that could be an exception for getting an engineering permit. So I think providing – I'm sorry, providing the regulations that we want to see in place, unless the Council wants to change some of them, maybe we could work those items in before second reading. I would be in agreement with that. Yes. Any additional comments? Seeing none. Any comments from the public? Please. Oh. Is there a motion for approval? Second. Again, Claudia Gill, 10050 Northwest 3rd Street. I'd like to disclose I am married to him. I wanted to address the issue, Eric, Councilman Anderson. I have rocks on my side yard. They provide beautiful drainage. It is clean. But if you put astroturf there, it can fill up with sand and it can impede drainage and it could become a mess. You saw some pictures of where it moves and so there are better alternatives than astroturf to be putting on your side yards. So I think they studied it carefully and that's why they went against it. I agree, but they – but we can't perceive everything out there and that's why I thought there needs to be some flexibility. As long as it's out of sight and it meets the other setback requirements, I think it should be considered. That was my only issue. I absolutely love the presentation and I had never really understood – I had never really seen all the negative side effects of it. I have actually seen some backyards in Davie where the entire backyard was done this way and I did not realize the damage to the environment. I love the birds. I love the bees. I don't want to do anything to damage it. Thank you very much. Thank you. And the heat that – when I was in Arizona, let me just say, I thought I could have gotten a third degree burn – the heat that it attracts. So that's another concern. Did you want to make a public comment? Yeah. Actually, I just want to make sure that I understand that – did I understand that it can only be used in residential parks and golf courses? Is that right? It can't be in commercial – You can speak into the mic. I'm sorry. Well, my – I guess my issue is that we have the Marines – State your name and address. I'm sorry. Can you please state your name and address as well? Oh, my name. I'm Owen Duke. I'm sorry. My address is 10301 Northwest 11th Street Plantation. We have the Marines in our park and they have to have – they exercise outside. And for the past 15 years, they've had pull-up bars and the ground is just mud below the pull-up bars. We're trying to put something there. We also have to furnish a cover to get them out of the sun. And it's about, I guess, 600 feet. And in that, they do push-ups and pull-ups and planking and things that I quit doing years ago. And we thought that that's – because grass won't grow under that, you know, under the thing. And I don't know another solution. Would that just be out of – would that not fall in the category of something that we could use? So, currently, yes, we are saying – currently, yes, we are saying not in commercial properties. Do what? Currently, we are saying not to apply this in commercial properties. So, you would not be able to use it, Mr. Duke. Right. That is the recommendation that you would not be able to. But maybe you can speak with the landscaping division and find out if they have any alternatives. Okay. Maybe there's something new on the market or something they can suggest. I don't know. We'll see. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Duke. Mr. Corman. Rob Corman. I'm 11095 White Hawk Street. I'm actually here in capacity as the Chair of Planning and Zoning because in your background material, you got the minutes from the meeting where we discussed this. And when it was passed on to you as approval, part of it was conditional upon Council Member Horland's comment, basically, which is that we requested that there be a minimum standard for the material. That minimum standard could be dictated by current technology today. Whether that be, and I'm making this up, you know, tightness of the weave, the amount of permeability, the amount of substrate necessary as well as the kind of substrate, what kind of prep work you have to do to the underground of that before the substrate goes on and before the pad itself goes on and how many times that thing is stapled and attached to it. Because we've all watched football. There are professional stadiums where it could rain like a son of a gun and that field actually does drain because it is crowned appropriately, because it is drained appropriately. And what we're talking about are engineering fixes to this. Personally, I don't really see a need to put artificial turf in in South Florida, but we did have somebody who came before us for a practical difficulty waiver who had already installed it and actually exceeded the 10% in their backyard because their children were allergic. Totally understand in that case. I agree. It can be very hot. It can be very uncomfortable. But as long as the barriers are put in place with regards to allowing drainage to not impinging upon the root balls of any existing trees or trees that might go in there, allowing for a substrate that does allow for permeability, I think we can set minimum standards as far as what those minimum standards are at the top of the market today. Because as technology improves, presumably it will go up. We saw an example in the video there of what would arguably be one of those top tier materials that didn't meet expectations. And so if we are going to allow it for personal use, let's face facts, this is going to be in a resident's backyard. If it's in a resident's backyard, really what's the impact going to be to their neighbor if in fact they cause lack of permeability and drainage on that property, which is why we were talking about it on planning and zoning and requesting that there be these minimum engineering standards for what's going in there. To your point, Councilmember Reinstein, if somebody were to put down a small piece like that, I doubt we would ever even know about it unless there was another inspection that came along and you're like, hey, by the way, you're not supposed to have that, in which case they'd have to apply for the waiver. Odds are, if it was something like that, I can't imagine it not being passed. But somebody who does that is probably going to put down one of the poorer pieces and not necessarily do it. So part of putting engineering specs in there, in my opinion only, is that it also might discourage folks who want to do it and aren't serious about putting in top tier material because that cost might be the thing that puts it in the way of them actually going forward with it. So that was the planning and zoning's take. Thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. Korman. Councilmember Fadgen? I just have a question regarding the motion that was made. Councilmember Reinstein and Councilmember Anderson had some. The motion didn't include what they wanted to exclude or include in the ordinance. Would you like to offer a friendly amendment? I'm just not sure what the motion is. And I guess a comment for these small things, I mean there has to be some sort of measurable thing to say. What is a small thing? Is it cumulatively over a certain square footage? You don't need the engineering drawings. What's the criteria, I guess, is what I question about what you brought up and what Councilmember Anderson brought up. So who made the original motion? Ms. Beggarow, who made the original motion, please? Councilmember Anderson? Okay, I didn't second it. I will. I didn't second it. Councilmember Horland would like to speak first, but I will withdraw my second so that you might want to amend the original motion. And if you can make it even friendlier, and I would like to see minimum standards in there. Yeah, so I'm just going to withdraw my motion because I don't know. I don't know what all – that's a lot to put in, isn't it? What about minimum – like what minimum standards? Well, staff would have to come up with the minimum standards. So we'd like to see some – Okay, here's our engineer. Ms. Shallan, would you like to address some of these minimum standards, please? Yes. Good evening. Samira Shallan, city engineer. I have two answers to two questions, or potential answers. The minimum requirement for engineering permit, we will adhere to the exemption of permits to the Florida Building Code, which is regulated by the threshold of $1,500. So any improvement less than $1,500 will not require a permit. So that's regulated by the Florida Building Code. So that's the answer to that. Number two, the minimum standards, we can create an engineering standard, and we can post it on the city website. And that's a better venue than this ordinance because as the technology evolves, we can revise that standard, similar to a driveway, similar to the pervious pavers. As these standards evolve, and let's say, for example, a driveway, there is concrete, there is asphalt. Just recently, in the last 10 years, we started using the pervious pavers. So the standard evolved, so we can revise that standard, not necessarily come and revise the ordinance with two hearings and legislative item and so forth. So maybe we can reference, in the second reading, we can reference the engineering standards, and the engineering department will work on that particular cross-section. And as the ordinance gets adapted, we will work on that exhibit, and we post it on the engineering department website. As long as there's a reference to the standards, and we have the standards posted, I'm fine with that. And we'll have cool graphics. Posted by the planning department. So can I try to... I hope that answers both questions. Go for it. So will this... A motion to approve with the incorporation of the engineering standards and thresholds not to exceed $1,500? Yes. Just a point. It sounds like we actually don't need it, because it's already... So under the engineering standards? So can I just stop at the engineering standards? Because everything will comply with the building code, and I think what we just heard is that that exception is already part of the building code. So motion to approve with the inclusion of the engineering standards. Must meet minimum standards, however you want to. Yeah. Is that okay? Yes. You said it's not necessary. It's not. The standards aren't, if I may. Yes. The standards aren't included. It's citing that they must meet it, and they will be referenced somewhere else. They must meet the minimum engineering standards? Is that okay? I don't think we need the minimum... We do for the point that Council Member Horland raised, not for the point that I wrote. Okay. Or the size. Okay. That's right. Mr. Alpert, with the minimum standards, you do or do not... Should I not include the word engineering? I think we can, even though it's in the Florida building code, I think we can still add that language in there, just to make it clear. But then we should also reference, you know, not just the threshold from the Florida building code versus vis-a-vis the cost, but also, you know, if it's directly behind the house, so it's not, you know, those types of things. So still consummate with the other regulations that we've put in there. But then we'll also, we can also add language for the second reading that references what Samira said with the engineering standards and cross-section procedures manual, that type of thing. Okay. So motion to approve with the minimum engineering standards. Yes. Included. Is there a second? I'll second. Any further discussion or comment? Ms. Bigaro, please call the room. Council Member Pagin. Yes. Council Member Horland. Yes. Council Member Reinstein. Yes. Council Member Anderson. Yes. Council Member Andrew. Yes. That takes us to. One moment. I just would like to actually thank Samira Shallan, city engineer, and Indalee Brown, who's got the long title, environmental arborist. We all, the three of us work together on this. We research other ordinances from cities, and so it was a collaborative effort. Thank you for the collaboration. I appreciate their work on it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Alpert, Mrs. Shallan, and Mr. Brown, thank you all. That takes us to our administrative update. Nurse Ordo. Thank you very much. I have four items. First off, many of you may or may not know, August 23rd, Garden Club Lunch. The city will pay for your ticket if you choose to go. You already paid. We can reimburse you, I think. It's $20. So we want to be involved in that. Civics Week is coming up. As, you know, do you have stuff going? Why don't you talk for us? Why don't you talk about Florida Government Week in October? Well, I have Civics Week here, too, but I think Florida Government Week, too. It's typically in October. Right. And as I said to Laura before the EAB, I typically go into the schools. I do a project. I teach them about local government. So unless there's anything else going on that you want a broader involvement in, but I'll continue to do that as I do every year. And I appreciate it. I talked to the EAB, too. One idea I had, and I didn't know how to execute it, is so many people do not know their legislators. I've spoken at Lauderdale West. I'm going, here's a chart. Name your legislator. One point for your state rep. Two if you can name your county commissioner. Two if you can name your school board. Most people score, like, three points. So if there was a way to create a quiz, the problem is with all the boundary lines crossing over each other, it might be hard to do. Thoughts? Anybody? I guess you could do it for a specific school, but you could not do it citywide. Lewis, you look like you want to push a button. Civics is a problem throughout our country. We need to do everything we can for civics purposes. So anything we can do to encourage that, and, you know, if Council Member Hortland needs assistance, I know I'm happy to assist with any projects you're working on in the schools. Well, and I think that, listen, it's a whole week. What I would love to see, and I think that the public would enjoy, is more hands-on. And our department's fire, police, and Parks and Rec do a great job, but, you know, get our city vehicles out there, whether it's to the schools or to neighborhoods. We've got the great new vehicle from the park that has the games on it. I think, you know, make it more of a week and that everybody's involved. So that's just one thing that I do, but I think there's something that everybody can do, and the city can be more. Invite people in here, you know. Okay. I'm staring at this guy because my brain's working. No, but it's all about learning about local government. Yes, yes, absolutely, and we're looking for the whole thing, yeah. So, Mayor Sordle, if I may, it's funny you brought this up right now because one of my comments was to ask you about your initiative, which I believe you were calling Plantation University. I had a resident who reached out to me and asked me where we were with that she wanted to attend. So it fits right in because it's not just the students. I think some of our students, because they have to. Civics is a mandatory course. Some of our students probably would do better on that quiz than some of the adults, I would venture to say. Right, right, right. So it would be great to do something for, or if you wanted to launch that or whatever we could do, I think that would be an excellent opportunity. Good to know, I'll add that to it. A couple of things. First off, Laura is spectacular in terms of getting other connecting people and connecting schools with everything, and now we have social media meeting every two weeks, and we get a heck of a lot of attendance. Now, public works comes, parks and rec, a couple others, police, thank you, and fire. And so we have a lot more people now getting the story out of Plantation overall, and with this coming on, they could tell that story through their lens that they're with. And so if we could maybe, could you, yeah, could you maybe, you and Laura, maybe talk and give her all your ideas, and then that way we have them, and then that way we bring them to social media committee, and we could deploy them. And if we start on this now, we have a shot, you know, to do something more with it. Sure, and there's actually some information from Florida League of Cities that I'll make sure Laura has because there's some great ideas in there as well. Yeah, yeah, so I think we can do that. But back to Plantation University. So my thinking is 2024, I want to add the employee bus tour. If you're a new employee, we want to show you the city. I want to add a Black History Day where we actually teach history, not just celebrate it and everything, and I want to have it here. And I want to do the same during Hispanic Heritage Month because I'm looking to get more black and brown people in City Hall and involved, and also it helps our entire community. And I feel like I'm underserving a little bit there so we can bring in restaurants. So I have that all go in too, so I don't know if we can add Plantation University or not, but the idea that you're encouraged by that and want to do that, that carries some weight. More to that? Yeah. I mean, we would copy either Tamarack University or Weston University. They both do it. So, yeah, I'm not inventing something new here. Okay. Well, that's good to know. The Hispanic vote, like you all mentioned, is Thursday. The 24th, it is Las Vegas cuisine, and the speaker is Dr. Peter Licata. So it is a nonpartisan event. Anybody can come, and we'll probably push it out pretty well because I know there's an appetite for people to meet Dr. Licata. So, and then they can also go to, they can go to Just Spoons if they don't like the food, right? Because they're right there. It's got that. Last thing is, I swear, well, help me with this. Doggone it. We, a lot of algae on a lot of lakes, and we've had to up our game on it. She can define it better than I can. So the mic, and I'm done after this. I wish, if I can, give you a good answer. But all what I can say, the state of Florida is challenged with an algae bloom throughout due to the excessive heat and humidity. So the climate, the environment, the current environment is the ideal environment for the algae growth. So what's happening is not unique to our canals and waterways. It is all over, and it is a problem. And it's like, if I want to compare and contrast it, I had the AC malfunction last night, and, you know, it's similar to that. But, you know, we can't keep up. The AC is running all the time, and it's going to go down. The same with the algae. We're treating. Talk about how we've ratcheted up the coverage. Yeah, we're treating the canals, but the algae is growing beyond what we're doing. But at the same time, we're aware of the problem, and we're upping our game. We have a current contract, and actually we evaluated the scope of services, and we have a bid on the street. The bid had been open. I cannot disclose much information because, you know, we're under the cone of silence. The award is going to come in front of you very shortly. When that happens, the new contractor is going to have higher expectations. The level of service is going to be higher. We're going to be inspecting more. We're going to be in the community. It's just we need everybody's patience. This is an environmental problem due to the heat wave, the global heat wave that we're facing. So we understand it's in our backyard, and we're inspecting. We're communicating with the public. We just need your help to send the message. Just be patient with us, and we're on it. Have we considered putting anything on the social media? Actually, we just did. We just did. I didn't see it. Yeah, we just did. It was in my newsletter, too, not that that's high readership, but we can bust it out individually and do that. And as we award the new contract, I will have a better idea of the schedule, and we will have better information to the public when we're treating their canals. Perfect. You know, but, again, we're in between two contracts, so I cannot disclose much of the schedule at this point. Okay? Any question on that? Can I ask a question? Just to, it may not be related to the algae, but you reminded me of some of us, I believe, have received some questions or comments regarding some fish that have died in a lake. So that particular lake is a private lake owned by a homeowner's association. I don't have much information about what happened over there. I saw a report from EPA that they announced it as a pollution notice due to excessive use of herbicides within the lake. That's the only information I have. But it is a private lake. It's not owned and maintained by the city. The use of the herbicides or pesticides, is that have any, do we have any control over that in terms of code violation? Code violation? Or any other control? I mean, I understand the lake may be a private lake, but in terms of what's being put into the lake? Not in a private, maybe code enforcement. I need to research it more. Okay. I need to research it more. Thank you. Sorry to put you on the spot, but it just reminded me when you talked about the algae in the lake. No problem. Actually, it is. That's a good idea. We should check and make sure that the stuff going in the water, what we can control, what we can't. You know, all these, just if I can add, it is regulated by the Florida agricultures and fish and wildlife. So all the applicators need to be licensed. The contractor need to be licensed. They can lose their license if they applied the wrong one or excessive material. Sure. It just reminded me that while, you know, I hate for us to have to wait on the state government to act, if there's something that we can do right here and now. Thank you. Thank you. That takes us to our board and committee appointments. Do any council members have any board or committee appointments? Council Member Fadgen? I identified someone to appoint to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. His name is Michael Dutko, Jr. He's a land use attorney and has some experience working with affordable housing issues. He also is a former assistant city attorney with this city of Delray. So I think he will bring a pretty good perspective to that board. And I'd like to make a motion to approve him. I will second your motion. Miss, any further comments? I just have a question. Michael Dutko, the criminal defense attorney? Same. Yeah, the one who defended Bill O'Reilly. It's his son. It's the son. It's Jr. Okay, thank you. He's with Buchanan. Yeah. Thank you. All right, Ms. Begaro. Council Member Fadgen? Yes. Council Member Horland? Yes. Council Member Reinstein? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Andreu? Yes. Thank you. Mayor Soto. I'm sorry, I have an appointment. Okay, Mayor Soto was first. I'm sorry. Mayor Soto. Back to Michael Dutko. When I was a reporter, somebody punched the umpire and it went to court and he defended the person that's a puncher and the umpire started crying during the trial because he loved the game and Dutko's line was, there's no crying in baseball. There you go. My appointee, Paul Cavalrici, assistant, alternate to PNC. He's finishing up some studies and I think we can get him back. So, he is my alternate for a spot. Thank you. Motion. Approve. Second. Ms. Begaro, please call the roll. Who is the mover? Who is the mover? Paul Cavalrici. Who is the mover? Council Member Fadgen. Thank you. Sorry. All right. Thank you. Council Member Fadgen? Yes. Council Member Horland? Yes. Council Member Reinstein? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Andreu? Yes. Thank you. Council Member Horland. I am very excited about this appointment. I am replacing Mr. Hackman on AHAC and will be appointing Mr. Mitchell Rosenstein, who spoke before our roundtable last week, and he is with Green Mills Group, which is their building affordable housing, and I think it's going to be a great appointment, so I'm very excited about that. All right. Motion to approve? Second. Ms. Begaro, please call the roll. Council Member Fadgen? Yes. Council Member Horland? Yes. Council Member Reinstein? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Andreu? Yes. Thank you. It takes us to comments by Council Members. Council Member Horland? Madam President, I'll be quick. I just want to give some kudos to staff, police department, national night out. I got out there a little bit late in the evening. It was phenomenal. I was walking behind a couple, and the wife turned to the husband and said, this was great. We need to come back next year. So, really another great job by everybody, and I know Parks Department is involved in that. But Maccabi Games, great. The Mayor, Council Members, Anderson, myself, Council President, and Council Member Reinstein were there. It was really wonderful to see all the kids from not only around the United States, but from other countries, and the fact that they really did a great job of highlighting the cities who were supporting the games, and Plantation was up there a couple of times. I know they're utilizing Pine Island Park, and they felt very welcome there, so that's been great. Florida League City's conference tomorrow. I'll be heading up. I'll bring back some information. Not too much to report there right now. We'll be starting to talk about our legislative priorities for the year. And I just want to tell everyone to enjoy the last week's summer. Wishing students, teachers, parents, staff a great start to the school year. We'll be starting before we are back, so thank you. Thank you. Council Member Anderson. Same ones, but the Maccabi Games opening was outstanding. I'll let Council Member Reinstein cover more of that. The National Night Out, great. I was curious how it would be at Pine Island Park, and it ended up being great there. It worked out well, and it was a little bit of weather right before. I got there right after it stopped or slowed down raining, and it was very nice. So great job to our police officers for putting that on. And yes, back to school right around the corner. That's it. Thank you, Council Member Anderson. Council Member Fajon. National Night Out. Great event. I think it's going to be a special event. I think it was great that we showcased the Pine Island fields, and it was a great second effort, and I think it's going to be one of the mainstays in the future. Mega Million News, I won $4. So I came to work today. That's it. Have a good evening. Thank you. Council Member Reinstein. Thank you. I'll echo National Night Out. I'll add, as far as the Maccabi Games, thank you again to the people. The City for supporting it. Not only was the opening ceremonies amazing, but I really hope that our businesses have seen the benefit as well, because we've had athletes at our parks, the families, the athletes from all around the world have been talking about how amazing our parks are here in Plantation. They've been playing at the Veltree Tennis Center, and they've been playing at Pine Island Park. I was out at Pine Island Park a couple times this week to watch the games, and the Plantation Police Department out there has been amazing. The parks and rec, the maintenance utility, everybody's been out there. I do want to give a special recognition to Brad Hoyt. He's one of the people that's been out at Pine Island Park, and every time I've been there and I get there early, he's out there with a smile, and he's taken great care of our park. I want to also add, Council Member Hoyt started off by mentioning about the Aiden Perry life rings, and I want to thank the administration, Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works, Parks and Rec for all that they did to get those out there. Not only do we hope it never is needed, but it's there if it is needed. I also want to tell everyone that Sarah Perry, Aiden's mom, is really committed to making a difference, and not only does she show her gratitude and thanks for the life rings being brought to Central Park, but on Sunday, Sarah, through the Aiden Perry Good Samaritan and Scholarship Fund, did a backpack distribution at Kumon and Plantation, and it was packed there. Plantation Police Department were out there as well, and everybody felt really welcome. There is something I want to bring up. I hate to bring it up at the end, but it's really important that we make it public and put it on the record, and that is a follow-up to what's going on at Peters Elementary. We've talked about this months ago about the soil contamination issue. We were assured that the soil contamination would be taken care of over the summer, remediation would take place, mitigation, and that the kids, the staff, the public would be able to return to school very soon without a problem. Instead, what we learned was that the removal effort that took place, the sand fill that was put in to replace the contaminated sand was contaminated itself. There were testing done, and arsenic was found in the sand that was the filler sand. I want to thank Dr. Jeff Holness, our school board member, one of the school board members, who has really been trying to stay on top of this and has put some pressure on the Environmental Health and Safety Department of the Broward County Schools. And it's something that when we speak to Dr. Licata, we really need to put further pressure on, because what we're finding is that while the newly contaminated soil was removed, just like happened before, they're only doing spot testing. And so, you know, they clean up the soil. They have said that the soil they removed was white soil, so it was distinguishable between the dark brown soil, but we're not having any independent testing. So the same Environmental Health and Safety Department that I believe has done an inadequate job is also testing itself as opposed to a third party coming out. So I really believe that our council, who has shown the concern and has decided that we're not going to sit on the sidelines, needs to be doubly on top of this right in our backyard before school starts. And I wanted to also congratulate one of our residents, plantation resident Jessica Mara. She was just appointed as a judge to the 17th Judicial Circuit. So I want to publicly wish her congratulations. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Reinstein. I think many of my comments have already been stated, but I, again, too, have to congratulate everybody for an amazing national night out. So thank you, Chief Harrison, and to all the departments that had to do with the success of that. Also, if you did not go in the back yet, I encourage you to do so before you walk out because Sunday, August 6th, we celebrated the 61st anniversary of Jamaica's independence. So I wanted to also support one of our black-owned businesses because August is Black Business Month, so Delicious Creations, which is right at the gateway. They supply patties and drinks to all of us, so they're in the back. So please, if there's some left, I'm sure there is, take some home. A little spicy, so you might need some water. But we did want to just acknowledge the 61st anniversary, and it's celebrated all month because that's what Jamaicans do, Mr. Korman. So there's a big gala this weekend. It'll be the whole month of August. And, again, too, as many have stated, I'd like to wish all of the students, parents, teachers, and support staff administrators a wonderful 23-24 school year, a safe and successful school year. I know I'll be visiting Mirror Lake on the 21st, the first day, and I'm sure all of my colleagues are going out, so we'll all be out on the 21st visiting schools and wishing them well. And, as Mayor Swirdle said, come. I encourage everybody who's listening to attend the 24th at Las Vegas. There will be food. They are provided by Las Vegas and Hispanic Vote, and we'll be able to have some Q&A with Dr. Licata, the superintendent for Broward County Public Schools and Board Member Wholeness. So we look forward to that event as well. That concludes all of my announcements. This meeting is now adjourned at 923. Thank you all.