Good evening, everyone. It is August 13, 2025, 5 p.m., and we have a legislative workshop. Yes? Is your mic on? It says it's on. All right. Green light's on. It's fine. Maybe I just need it closer. Closer. You might have to just be closer to it. Okay. Well, not as sensitive as usual. Okay. Legislative workshop. Ms. Beggarow, please call the roll. Councilmember Anderson? Here. Councilmember Andrew? Here. Councilmember Fadgen? Here. Councilmember Horland? Here. Councilmember Reinstein? Here. Mayor Sortel? Here. City Attorney Ezra? Here. Thank you. Mayor? The mic system was broken Tuesday and Thursday, and the guy came and tried to fix it recently, so we might be having problems. Yeah, I think it's just the sensitivity. Maybe that's the problem. Ms. Morris? From experience, Monday night with the mics, you guys are going to have to get really close, because I know Nerissa had a hard time picking up our sustainability board members. Tonight, we are doing a legislative workshop. Our lobbyists, Candace Erickson and Lauren Jackson, are present, and they're going to walk you through sort of a recap of last year's session, which just ended, a look ahead for the session that is about to begin, and then we'll wrap it up with a quick conversation on appropriation requests. So, ladies? Anyone want to kick off? Good evening, everybody. We are Candace Erickson with Erickson Sultans and Lauren Jackson, and we are really excited to be home. We spent a lot of time in Tallahassee this year, as you all know. We did get a little bit of a break to come home, but it was a month and a half longer than normal, and so those of you who have spent time with us, and thank you very much when you do spend the time with us up in Tallahassee, adding another month and a half was really challenging, but I will tell you, we're turning around and going right back up. We normally start session in September, not session, but committee weeks, September, October, November, December. We have an early session this year, which many of you know, every other year is an early session, so we don't go up until we have committee weeks in October. We've got two weeks in October, two weeks in November, two weeks in December, and then we head right in immediately in January and February, and hopefully it will end on time. But we're going to go over, as we normally, thank you so much. We love, you know, obviously working with Plantation, and we're excited to have this report and this discussion, and we like to obviously always keep it as a dialogue like we do. So I'm going to turn it over to Lauren to kind of do the recap, but if there's any questions in between, please just let us know, and we'll address them as we go. And I think everyone is aware that this was a very unique session. We've seen infighting before between the governor's office and the speaker and the Senate president and all the different chambers and agencies, but really this year was quite unique in how intense it was and how long it was. There were very tense negotiations throughout the session on a number of issues, starting with the immigration special session, kind of set the tone almost for the rest of session. It didn't really get better at all throughout the entire session, just to be frank, in terms of the disagreements and the intensity of those disagreements, which mostly, as I believe you're all aware, centered around the tax package towards the end of the session. But that's what led to the long, drawn-out session. I think it went like 100 days or something as opposed to 60 days, so it was a lot longer of a session. So just to start off with the budget, we entered with, despite the disagreements, everyone was on the same page of wanting an austere budget this year, so they did pass a budget that was over $2 billion less than what the previous year was. I would say current year, normally when we're doing this update, but the FY24-25 budget is about over $2 billion less than that, and that does not include the around just under a billion that the governor vetoed, right in and vetoed after the budget was passed. But with that, fortunately, we were able to work with your delegation members, and they were able to secure around $450,000 for the Brower Drainage Improvements Project and $181,000 for the Lauder Hill Water Main Connect, and that was 100% of the request. The Brower Drainage was 50% of the request. We did get two other projects into the budget that was passed, but the legislature, unfortunately, they were included in that veto, which did include over $660 million of member projects. It was quite a large veto. But we were very grateful for the efforts of our delegation members. They did work really hard, and they do do a great job fighting for the city, so we always want to extend our gratitude for them for working with us so well on getting those appropriations across the finish line. The tax package ended up being, as I said, very challenging. There was a lot of debate between mainly the House and the Governor. The Governor was calling for aggressive property tax reform. The House really wanted to do a permanent sales tax reduction. Originally, they proposed, I think, a $5 billion permanent sales tax reduction. By the end of the regular 60-day session, they had a framework of an agreement that would have included $1.6 billion permanent sales tax reduction. The tax package that actually passed did not really have anything along those lines. They did do permanent sales tax elimination for certain specific items related to disaster preparedness. There was a recurrence of sales tax holidays, the back-to-school sales tax holiday, which is now the full month of August and will be every single year. NASCAR tickets, things of that nature. There were a little bit of ad valorem. There wasn't a whole lot of property tax relief either in the tax cut package that passed. There was a gold seal child care certification exemption that was in there. But then there was also a million dollars that was put towards a study that was meant to do an OPGA study that would look at the elimination or significant reduction of property taxes. And that was going to form the basis of what the legislature is going to be passing in 2026. We do expect them to pass something related to property tax reform, and we'll get into that in just a little bit and what we're looking for in the 2026 session. But that $1 million study was actually then vetoed, also included in the governor's line item veto. The governor felt like it was unnecessary to do a study because they were already aware of the direction that they wanted to go in. And so that was in the tax package, but not ultimately, you know, I do believe that they're going to move forward with analysis because they have to, but it won't have that fully funded study that was included in the tax cut package. Other than that, there was just some clarification language when it came to ad valorem taxation. So ultimately, that's what passed. It was overall a $1.3 billion tax cut. That largely was due to the business rent tax elimination, and that was a complete repeal of the business rent tax, which is something I know a lot of businesses around the state are very happy with. It did, though, however, affect the local transportation surtax here in Broward County. So just so you're aware, the county is estimating about a $40 million hit to the local transportation surtax. So just something to be aware of there. It also included a rate increase moratorium or extended the rate increase moratorium for CST, and it included language that you had to prioritize your communication services tax revenue for certain projects, permitting and things of that nature for providers along your right-of-way. But that was mainly what passed finally in HB 7031 after all that lengthy negotiation. It came out late on a Friday night after we were even able to make changes. The language didn't even come out until Saturday, but no changes were able to be made. It was just an up-or-down vote after that, and we might be revisiting some of the language that was passed may have been unintended, and that might be revisited later in this upcoming session. Also in the implementing bill, I believe everyone is aware, there was also authority given to OPB to audit local governments, DOGE, if you will, that everyone's calling. So that was in the implementing bill, and we're already seeing those efforts beginning to take shape. As you might be aware, the county is already undergoing this audit, but that authority was given in the implementing bill for this, that passed this year. And then just to get into a couple of bills that passed this session, first was SB 1080. This bill dealt with impact fees, but also we were able to get language into this. We worked with City of Plantation, but also City of Oakland Park and other cities around on specific language that just addressed extra mitigation fees that were being charged by the school board as it related to affordable housing projects. Well, the real impact is on affordable housing projects. That was kind of preventing us from delivering on those. But we were able to get language in there that essentially put the burden of proof onto the school board, saying that you kind of had to prove that this impact fee was still relevant. And so that passed in SB 1080. There was a live local expansion that passed, and that was – it was a significant expansion. It was not as egregious as what the House originally proposed, but it wasn't as benign as what the Senate originally proposed either. But that expansion did pass, and there's a lot to go into that. I'm happy to go into any details or any questions that you might have, but in the interest of time, I'm just going to keep going just through the issues. But please feel free to ask me any question that you have on the live local expansion. I also want to talk about certified recovery residences, and I want to thank Council Member Horland for her coming up and helping us advocate on this issue. Originally, this bill would have completely preempted your local recovery residents' ordinances, and it was much broader when it originally was proposed. What we were able to work out with the League of Cities was a compromise that was not perfect, but the good part about that not being perfect is we're kind of bringing everyone back to the table again for 2026, and we'll get into that issue again when we're talking about the upcoming session. But just to be aware of that issue, we were able to at least codify a process where it doesn't just completely undo your ordinance. You don't have to just administratively approve these certain developments that come in, but there was still that codified asking for a variance, if you will, for those certain projects. I'm blanking on what the reasonable accommodation. That's what I'm thinking of. So that's what we ultimately got to in the compromise, but that will be coming back again this upcoming session. There was also SB 180, and this is a massive bill that has to do with post-storm recovery and response. There's a lot of issues in that bill. We were very involved with negotiations. We had the Senate in a pretty good spot. Unfortunately, they ended up going with a little bit more of the House sandwich in the end, which maybe has some broader implications. We're hopeful that some of that might be addressed again in the upcoming legislative session, and we're kind of ready to take that on. Some of the language basically would put a moratorium on any impact fee increases or building code standards, different things for basically 180 days after an emergency declaration for your area goes into effect. And as we know and as the city has dealt with in the past, emergency declarations are actually nowadays for all 67 counties, and it doesn't matter if your area was actually damaged by a storm. You're still under that emergency declaration. So it's really, really broad, and we're actually already seeing some developers trying to – I don't want to say exploit or take advantage, but they're using it potentially in areas that really weren't damaged by the storms. We completely understand where the bill was getting at and support that, but there might be an opportunity to help revisit that and narrow that down in the future as well. So we're looking for any opportunities for that in 2026 as well. There was also the utility relocation bill. This was a really large bill as well when it was first proposed. It would have actually put local governments on the hook for paying for relocation of all CST providers in your right-of-way for any project that you initiated if you own the right-of-way. And it basically would have completely depleted your CST revenues, probably would have stopped all transportation projects going forward, and even for the state. It was a massive fiscal impact on the state as well. Fortunately, we were able to work out a compromise where instead it explicitly said in the bill that you are not on the hook, you are not responsible for the relocation of communication services providers. But what we did instead was we took the local distribution of CST revenues prior to it being distributed to local governments, and $50 million of that essentially goes into a pot, and then those CST providers can apply for a grant for the relocation costs. After that pot is depleted, there is no more funding that goes into that pot, but they would have that pot of money available to them to apply for those relocation costs. FDOT worked out their own compromise separate and apart from that with the CST providers. So ultimately, again, not perfect, but we got it to a much better place than it was going to be originally. I also wanted just to quickly point out just the FDOTS package that passed, just because there were a lot of preemptions in that. Part of that was certain water additives to the water systems, which would be fluoride. It was also codifying the EV preemptions that were really past the session before, and some other language in there that had to do with agricultural educational facilities and things of that nature. So then on to things that failed that we expect to return. There was a really big community redevelopment agency bill, and again, I also want to thank Council Member Horland for her effort supporting us and getting us all the information that we needed and helping us advocate to our delegation members. Originally, the House wanted to make it to where CRAs could not take on any new projects, any new debt, you could not create any new CRAs after a certain time, and it would also take away the ability to extend a CRA by majority vote past its sunset date. The real issue was that some CRAs around the state were spending on things that really weren't appropriate. I think that we could all agree that we're really outside of the mission of what the CRA was. Fortunately, the Senate recognized that. They agreed that CRAs do a really good job. Some CRAs can do a really good job and can make a difference, and they really should be able to continue to operate if it's necessary and if that area is still under blight, and we should be able to have the ability to form new CRAs, et cetera. But they put added restrictions on expenditures and added limitations and more accountability when it came to what you're allowed to spend money on and what you're not allowed to spend money on. Plantation didn't have that issue at all. So the Senate bill really – we were very supportive of what the Senate bill was trying to do. Unfortunately, the House doubled down on the CRA bill that they had, and so we do expect that issue to return in the 2026 legislative session. Another bill that failed was the sovereign immunity caps. As you are aware, the last workshop that we had, we said that we expected this issue to be a very big issue this year. We had heard from the House that they were intent on raising the caps very drastically. They did put out a proposal that would have raised the caps very drastically. I think it was like $1 million from $200,000, $300,000 to $1 million, $3 million. They whittled that down. I think by the end of it, it was $600,000, $1.3 million, but it would have been a significant increase. Fortunately, we had really strong allies in the Senate and in the governor's office that even though they were okay with an increase, they wanted it to be moderate, and they were not okay with a big, massive, drastic increase. And so that issue may return, but we do feel pretty good about our allies, again, in the Senate and the governor's office, that we're in a really good place with them, that if that issue does return, we think that we have the coalitions on our side to really make sure that that's a moderate increase. So if it does, hopefully that won't be as massive as a fight as what we had originally feared it would be. Also, accessory dwelling units, this was a bill that would have forced instead of encouraged local governments to allow accessory dwelling units in certain zones. The real issue came down to whether or not you could have a short-term rental in those accessory dwelling units. The Senate had it to where local governments could ban short-term rentals for those accessory dwelling units. The House did not. They removed that from the bill and doubled down on that stance again. And so that ultimately led to the bill's failure at the end of the day, but that was a major concern for a lot of municipalities around. We expect that issue to also return as well. And then E-9-1-1 consolidation. And we're going to get into all of these returning issues. You know, this is what's upcoming for the 2026 legislative session. And we were actually just up meeting with your police chief and your fire and the mayor and Jason and everyone just going over kind of where we are with those negotiations. We expect this bill to return. Originally, what it was going to do was force consolidation under the county. Every county would have to be under one consolidated system. There were certain committee structures that he had in place in that bill, but that was ultimately removed from the bill, and it was only kind of feel-good public safety issues that ended up passing. But we do expect that issue to return, and we have been in meetings with all the stakeholders ensuring that Plantation has a seat at the table when it comes to those negotiations. And so we expect that to be a major issue. If it doesn't pass this upcoming session, we expect it to be of some nature. And, you know, we do expect a lot of those to come back as well, as the state is just looking to how can they cut back government spending in any type of way that they possibly can. You know, they're kind of looking at it as they're projecting shortfalls in the future, and they're trying to right-size the ship so that they avoid those shortfalls, and that's the way that they're looking at these things. But in any case, those are all on the table coming up for this next session. Also, just very recently, the House did form a select committee on redistricting, and so we do expect congressional redistricting to also come up. Whether or not that's in a special session in September or October or whether that takes place during the regular session, I believe that's still being discussed. But that is a push, and we do believe that this area is going to be looked at in terms of congressional redistricting. And then with that, I'm happy to take any questions. I don't know if there's anything I – there's a lot that I didn't cover. There's a lot more. But I know you all have a lot of the information already, so if there's anything that you want to ask us about, please feel free. Colleagues? Anybody? Yes, Council Member Horland. No question, but I'm going to make a comment. Oh, this really is not working well. Okay, I don't have to swallow the microphone. As I say every year, to be up there in Tallahassee and watch the two of you work those hallways and those offices is really something to behold, and we're so fortunate that we have you advocating for us. And I know this was a really difficult session. I mean, we're the last days on that short-term – I mean, today's short – I'm going back to short-term rentals because we didn't have a bill this year, but the recovery residences. I mean, things were changing by the moment. So I just want to thank both of you again. And I think it's important for the public to understand why we're so concerned about that E911 bill. And I know that you've been meeting with everyone, but that would essentially eliminate our volunteer fire department because we would not be able to dispatch from the city of Plantation. So I know that Lauren and Candace understand how important that is to the city of Plantation and to our residents and because they would end up paying much more for their fire service. So thank you again for everything that you've done. I see that we have on our screen the suggested 2026 appropriation request. Do you want to get right into that? Yep, absolutely. And I believe Carol is ready to present on those projects. Thank you. A couple of things, and I may have missed it, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out we were successful with two of our appropriation requests this year, the first one being 447,000 on the Broward Flooding, the other one being 181,000 on the Lauder Hill Interconnect. So thanks very much. In a year that we really were wondering if we were going to get two nickels to rub together, we really had a very successful year. Looking ahead towards next year, we pretty much applied the same guidelines that we had in the past. We looked for projects in the range of $1 million to $2 million, looked at something that we could provide a 50% match for, and we got a list of projects from city staff, city directors. We're going to share with you the six that we liked the best. This is by no means an inclusive list. We can certainly add to it if you have suggestions. We do want to hear your priorities based on the ones that we're going to suggest because in early September, or no later than early September, we'll be drafting the requests to give to Candace and LJ so that they can reach out to our legislators and find sponsors for us, get them into the drafting process, and have an adequate amount of time to work on the bills to hopefully get us additional appropriations. So we do have a total of six that we're bringing forward. The first one is a real-time crime center with phased implementation, and the police department is looking for funds for additional LPRs in targeted areas to sort of beef up our LPR system. They're also looking to start to integrate that into a real-time crime center. That information would be overlaid, be paired, if you will, with our body cams as we start to implement that project. The real-time crime center really allows PD to leverage technology to enhance effectiveness and efficiencies. The cost would be about $200,000. Well, the request of the legislature would be $200,000. The city would be matching that with $200,000. The next project is Northwest. Ms. Morris, maybe before you move on, can we take some questions on each one at a time? Council Member Andrea. Thank you, President Reinstein. Would this be going out west now? Because I know we were working east to west. So if this... Yes, they would be going into targeted areas, and yes, that would start to move us further west. And just also there's a little typo there. Sorry. Sorry. So I'll just follow up on that questioning. Is that... So in this request, it will further the reach for both the LPRs and the body cameras, because I know we've been talking about a phased implementation for both of those, and there's been some delays in regards to the body camera implementation and the LPRs. So is this funding sufficient to, I'm going to say, blanket what we want for the city, for the LPRs, and for the entire department that would, the body cams would be appropriate? This is a first phase. This would be part of a larger implementation. Ideally, they want to get to a full-fledged real-time crime center where they have all of this electronic data and information at their fingertips so that they can more fully and more effectively respond to situations as they occur. So this is a phase, not ultimate. Maybe then the follow-up is that I... The paragraph is mostly talking about the crime center, but that's why I wanted to specify that in terms of the actual LPRs as well as the body cams, that that is... That's part of the request. They're merged. This is the... I see the chief walking up. Yeah, I'm trying to find a way to say it. This is the piece that ties it all together. Yeah, the ultimate goal is to have a real-time crime center. But until we get all the electronics, for lack of terminology, stable and funded and out operational, it would take some time before we would actually go to the real crime. But I guess when I'm looking at it, it's two different parts, right? One is that you want the crime center so that everything can be implemented with it, can work with it. But at the same time, we had been talking about before that the LPRs were not... We weren't blanketing the entirety of the city just yet with it as well as the body cameras we were phasing in. So, recognizing the purpose of the real-time crime center, but does this include a sufficient request to add the LPRs throughout the city and to fully facilitate the body cameras for all of your officers that should be wearing them or that you would want to be wearing them? Is that... Do you understand? Yes. Okay. And I think what the goal here, it's ultimately, we're asking for the $200,000. Under the guise of the real-time crime center, we can pull from those funds to not only do the LPRs, but if we needed some additional monies for the body-worn cameras, for an additional X amount of them, that we could pull from this funding. So, it's all part of the consideration and the request. Correct. City Attorney, Mr. Esselstil, did you want to jump in? I hit the button because this is right now my device to beep you in. So, you are eight. Go ahead, Matt. I ain't wired, so I... No problem. Anybody got any ideas? I don't... Maybe it's a message. Yeah, that's what I took it as. Mayor, did you want to speak? Yes, I did. Go ahead. Yes, I did. A couple things. Number one, for the LPRs, we have spent CRA money for Gateway and CRA money for Midtown. Acres is next. Absolutely, and that's the plan when we get the funding. Right now, we've spent no funding of our own, theoretically, for LPRs. So, when we do... Midtown money for Midtown, CRA money for Gateway? CRA money, and we're well aware of Acres being an issue. He will tell you that most of the crime that happens with cars and everything in the Acres is non-plantation residents. It's people zipping in here from Miami and elsewhere, so the LPRs... Would be a great addition. Yeah. Very good. As far as body cams go, we're close. We're waiting on somebody to train the trainers. September 9th. And the trainer... A trainer from elsewhere is coming in to teach our people so we can teach body cams to everybody. Then we can start deploying them. We're that close. Thank you, Mayor. What do you want me to do in the future? Get his? That's fine. Councilmember Joe, did you have another... Okay. Councilmember Anderson. Hi. Hi. Two parts. Is the... When you have the funding, it's 50-50. Are we funding more than that? Is that just the minimum amount that we're doing, 50-50? That's like the total cost would be the two added together is basically it? Correct. Okay. Wow. I'm number 32. This is really not... Mine's not working well either. Chief, I never thought of this. Chief, does the body-worn cameras and any police cameras on cars, do those act as LPRs, like mobile LPRs? They're not. They don't have the software on the car when it's behind a car that it can be reading its license plate? No. Do they have that ability anywhere? Do we just not purchase that yet? I mean, you would think the technology's there. If it could be on a pole, it could be on a car. I'm unaware of it. Wow. I should start a company. That's a 2027 appropriation request. There you go. All right. That's it for now. Thank you, Chief. Okay. Moving right along. The next project is Northwest 46th Avenue and Northwest 5th Street. This is a project that originally arose as a part of the Multimodal Master Transportation Plan. As you know, this area is impacted by pass-through traffic from State Road 7. Some of you may also be aware that State Road 7 is the subject of one of the Broward Safety Action Plan projects. That would significantly lower the speed limit on State Road 7 and, by extension, quite likely increase the pass-through traffic on Northwest 5th and Northwest 46th. So, we're asking for funding. The project is presently in design. This is funding that would be for construction. If you recall, the projects on 5th and 46th involved chicanes and roundabouts to slow the traffic. So, that's what this request is. Okay. I got one down. Clary Boulevard drainage. I think everybody's aware. I think everybody remembers. If not, if you drove Clary last week, you got... If you drove it tonight on the way here. Did it rain? Yeah. Yes. Oh, I missed it. Okay. Bottom line is we do have some flooding issues there, and this would start to address those issues in the area from Northwest 82nd to Pine Island Road. They would install drainage infrastructure, address some utility conflicts, as well as put in a couple of ADA ramps, and, again, $640,000 is the request. $640,000 would be the match. The next project is the Volunteer Park Pedestrian Bridges. I think everybody's aware of these. These bridges were closed for a period of time. Last year, we did actually apply for a grant to refurbish one of them, but this would fund repairs and replacements to the island and the Y Bridges. Oops. Sorry. I forgot to change the slide. So, this would fund repairs to the island and the Y Bridges. $340,000 funding requests. $340,000 match. The next one is Central Park Place Culvert and Pedestrian Bridge. This project would address safety items related to the Fort Culvert Bridges along Central Park Drive. It would also address the poor condition of the wooden bridges and provide guardrails. The project is presently in design. $750,000 ask. $750,000 match. And the last project is West Country Club Phase A. Again, this is an area that was affected during the Broward flooding. So, this project would construct a 2.9-acre dry retention area, a stormwater pump station, swale regrading, exfiltration trenches, drainage pipes and structures. The ask is $1,000,000, $4,000, the match would be $1,000,000, $4,000. What we would like is to be able to come out of tonight with your blessing as to which projects you like, which you don't prefer. If you have another suggestion, we'd love to hear that. Additionally, I guess the last thing you need to know is, obviously, we have three representatives, all of whom are very eager to help and support the city. So, we would probably like to bring forward three appropriations. I hear my colleagues trying to click in and nothing's working. My ear heard that Council Member Fadgen was clicking the hardest. We'll find a way. Don't worry. It's going to be a night. My preference would be the, I don't know if this is working. We hear you. My preference are the two drainage projects and then the culverts, since we're having experience with the culvert bridge right now. But the Cleary Bridge drainage, followed by the West Country Club, and then followed by the pedestrian bridges, culvert and pedestrian bridges in Central Park. Council Member Andreu. Thank you, President Reinstein. I remember last year we had a conversation about kind of having a ceiling, right, and there was a dollar figure that was thrown out at the time that, you know, it probably would not be funded if we exceeded this amount. So, although I, too, would like to see the Cleary drainage improvement, I'm concerned about that dollar figure. So, do you think that's still applicable? Oh, sorry. Do we need to consider the price tag, the funding request, when we're making this decision? I think you do. The Cleary project is a $640,000 ask, $640,000 match. I'll let you address. Yeah. Just like last year, we're recommending $800,000 or below is probably the best. We can still shoot for, you know, $1.4 million or, you know, whatever we want to try to go for and try to make the most compelling narrative that we possibly can. It's always possible. But $800,000 or below is probably going to be the most successful. Thank you. I could not remember the dollar figure, but I knew that we did have a cap. And that's why I'm concerned, even though the West Country Club is also critical, just I think, you know, that figure, it's a red flag. So I would want to stick with the Cleary Boulevard drainage and the real-time crime center. And if I could add, I was just telling Carol, you know, what we'd like to do, too, and keep this in mind, we don't want competing projects in a silo. So if we can, you know, if we want to put in four, you know, or something like that, I know you want three, but give us the advantage as where we're not competing with ourselves for our members to be able to do that. Understood. And also, actually, that's just the first page, the 46th and 5th Street as well. So those would be my top three. Yeah, interestingly enough, bringing up the limit, we had two requests that we submitted last year that were above the $800,000 mark. One was not funded, and the other one was funded basically at the 50% level. Councilmember Horland. Thank you, Mr. President. Chief, we sat down like five, six years ago in your office and talked about the real crime center. This is how far it's taken us to get there. And while I find that is important, I want to lean on Lauren and Candace a little bit. You know, I tend to look at this as, and I know you don't have a crystal ball, what do we think we can get funded? What do we think that we can get approved? You know, last year we didn't think we'd get water projects, and we did. So do you have a feeling about the real-time crime center? I think that, you know, just to Candace's point, it's a different silo. And so similar to last year, we didn't actually have a whole lot of guidance on what was going on. And to your point, they were saying don't submit water projects, and yet everyone was like, well, you kind of have to anyway just to see. And they were funded ultimately. So we can't really – there's not really clear guidance on exactly what would be funded and what it wouldn't be. What we really know is that we do expect more austerity, you know, very competitive budget process. So I think if we couch it in a certain way, you know, maybe we don't quite say real-time crime center necessarily, but we couch it as the LPRs and body cameras. I think that that – I wouldn't say that the chances are non-zero, especially such an affordable price tag of what we're asking for. Well, that's what I'm thinking. It's one of the lower ones. Okay. So then thank you for answering that. They're all important. My priorities would be drainage, but I think I would go with Cleary Boulevard. I would go with – again, to keep it in a different silo – I would go with Northwest 46th and 5th and the Real-Time Crime Center. I hear you, Council Member Anderson. Can we throw in a fourth or not? Yes. If we can throw in a fourth, then I would do the Central Park culvert. Okay. Go ahead. And we'll – obviously, once we get your priorities in a certain way, we'll discuss with the representatives and kind of see what their thoughts are, too, and then we'll bring it back to Carol. Council Member Anderson. Based on all the parameters you all have discussed, I think the page one – do you need an order of page one? I think all of page one is strong. Page two, they're all worthy, but, like, the country club is very important, but it's a huge price tag. I just don't think it's going to get funded. So I would probably go with the culvert after that and just your pick after that. So, Lauren, you actually hit on exactly what my note was, is that everything that is discussed in the Real-Time Crime Center request, I think if we maybe are focusing on what's inside of it and not the center itself, it may be more attractive. But no idea what will actually be looked at and how it will be looked at, but I do think that that is my number one. And then, you know, in looking at it, I really – you know, the question in terms of which one of these is more a priority for the safety and health and well-being, really, of the community, and, you know, the – you know, in looking at the – the question for me is whether the culvert bridges are – are they – you know, those are – those are ones that are being regularly traveled on as opposed to the volunteer park pedestrian bridges. So as much as I've spoken about from here about the volunteer park pedestrian bridges and would love those, I'd have to look at the culvert ones as being a little more necessary. And just tonight driving on Cleary, it's very dangerous, the flooding on Cleary, and Cleary is so well-trafficked that I have to look at those three. Thank you. Okay. So it sounds like I'm hearing page one, and then maybe we also try and look at the culverts. And, yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. Anything else to conclude on your part? Candice, Lauren? Just – we appreciate it. You know, obviously, we know, you know, we're heading up to the, you know, Florida League of Cities as we get, you know, into more September, October, and we have more information on how it's forming up moving into January. We're in – you know, we'll be in constant communication like we always do. But if anybody has any questions, please know that we're always available, and we appreciate your comments. Thank you. And we really appreciate when you take your time and come and help us up in Tallahassee, because every communication, every additional meeting, every touchpoint really does matter. So we appreciate it, and thank you so much for the relationship. Thank you. Thank you both. Thank you very much. So because our meeting is scheduled for 6, and we don't have the ability to move right into our CRA and Council meeting, we will adjourn the legislative workshop, and we will reconvene at 6 p.m.