Music Thank you. I'm going to go back to the car. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. you you you Good evening and welcome to a regular meeting of the Boca Raton City Council. It is Tuesday, September 24th, 2024, the time is 6 p.m. Our first item of business is the invocation and I will ask Deputy Mayor Drucker to deliver it please. Good evening everyone. We are blessed to be together tonight as we come together again to do the good work of the people. Those of us sitting up here are always challenged on how to attain positive outcomes that are for the greater good of our community and that our purpose is driven by our common goals in the end. We are protrusity issues with open minds, compassion and hearts, and mindful of all those who call Boca Home. Even when we disagree, may we continue to do so with respect so that together we can seek solutions to strengthen our community for today and for future generations to come. Thank you. Thank you. We'll have for now please rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Miss Hiddens, will you please call the roll? Mayor Singer? Here. Deputy Mayor Drucker? Here. Council Member Nakhlas? Here. Council Member Thompson? Great for you to be here. Council Member Wigtcher? Here. All present. Thank you. Do we have any amendments to the agenda? No amendments to saving thanks. Thank you. Seeing none, we'll move on to the review of the minutes. We have the minutes of the special meeting of September 9th, the workshop meeting of September 9th, the city council tentative budget meeting of September 9th, and the regular meeting of September 10th, 2024. Any corrections to any of the minutes? Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion to adopt all four sets of minutes as presented. So moved. Second. Thank you, motion by Naglec, second by Wader, any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. The minutes are approved. We have no proclamations or presentations today, nor do we have any board appointments, and I believe we have no responses to workshop information requests. That's correct, Mayor. Very well. move to the consent agenda? Would any council member wish to remove any item from the consent agenda? Seeing none, would any member of the public wish to comment on the consent agenda alone? Mr. Anjian, you have three minutes. Jonathan Anjian, 65-01, Congress Avenue. And Mr. Mayor, that was impressive. You pronounce my last name better than me. Now nobody really gets it right. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to see 501 Congress Avenue. Mr. Mayor, that was impressive. You pronounce my last name better than me. Nobody really gets it right. But so I'm here for the special magistrate portion of it where you're certifying the specifically the July 11th hearing, which was Dan Burke. That was the second extension of which the first one should have never even been granted in good faith as this individual has done nothing to get a building permit which was for a final order. A final order that, again, there was a hearing, there was an agree there was a hearing there was an appeal. That appeal was dropped. It's then a final order. For some reason which I listened to the meeting, nobody told this city and Brandon Shad, the special magistrate asked what's the reason for this extension? I need 90 days to get a building permit. I can do it maybe 120. These are just the facts of the meeting. That has not happened. We are now six months past the March hearing, let alone the July 11th hearing. And now, and you all received an email from me earlier today, the same questions I've been asking, George, which is, now you've taken back this stipulated order. You've asked them not to exercise or execute this order. Where does it now stand? What was the reason for why you asked to not execute this order? And again, I know how strongly four of you up there feel about this order, this agreement. And I think if Mr. Thompson understood the whole thing and did look at all the facts of it, I think he would agree as well. However, like I said, there were weeks before that I brought this forward. The concerns were voiced. This hearing, the charade that followed this July 11th hearing, which then was supposed to be a month later, it turned into two months, the September 11th special magistrate hearing. You know, like I said, I just, I, I ask for advocacy, I ask for transparency and fairness in this city. And the code enforcement that the majority of this city gets is not fair. When you consider the enforcement that has been done on this property. Right next door to us, Danburg PMD, which needed that retail component in order to build that to begin with. Thank you. that retail component in order to build that to begin with. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment on the consent agenda? Last call? We'll close the public hearing on the consent agenda. We'll entertain a motion to adopt the consent agenda as presented. Do I hear motion? Thank you. Second, thank you. Any further discussion? Then, Ms. Siddins, please? Director. Yes. Nakhous? Yes. Thompson? Yes. Wicked her? Yes. Singer. Yes. Motion passes five votes to zero. Very well. We have no quasi-judicial or related public hearings1. This is the first of two public hearings on this matter. No vote will be taken tonight. Missedans, please. Ordinance number 5701. An ordinance of the city of Boca Raton, amending chapter 28, zoning, code of ordinances, pertaining to car washes to one, create article 15, supplementary district regulations, division one, section 28-1319, Carwash's, to reorganize existing carwash regulations and add new regulations for carwash operations. 2, amend Article 11, Business and Commercial Districts Division 3, RB1 Motel Business District, Section 28-743 Conditional Uses, to allow carwash as a conditional use in the RB1 Motel Business District, section 28-743 conditional uses, to allow car wash as a conditional use in the RB1 Motel Business District, subject to certain requirements and limitations. Three, amend the B4, LIRP, and M1 zoning districts to update terminology, replacing car laundry and auto laundry with car washes and for amend Article 16, Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 28-1655 required off-Street Parking to add parking requirements for car washes, providing for separability, providing for repealer, providing for codification, providing an effective date. Thank you, Mr. Ron. Thank you, Mayor Senior Planner Heather Hanson, we'll make the presentation on ordinance number 5701. Thank you. Good evening for the record. My name is Heather Hanson will make the presentation on ordinance number 5701. Thank you. Good evening for the record, my name is Heather Hanson. The proposed ordinance was sponsored by Councilmember Thompson in response to a request by Focus and Apply LLC, was the applicant. Specifically, the applicant has requested that the City Council consider a text amendment to City Code Chapter 28 zoning to allow car washes as a conditional use in the RB1 zoning district on properties with at least 100 feet of frontage on North Federal Highway, subject to certain requirements and limitations. The applicant is planning to develop their property at 7,900 North Federal Highway which is Zoned RB1 and R1B with a car wash and restaurant. There are approximately 111 parcel zone RB1 with 100 feet of frontage on North Federal Highway of those 111, only five are vacant. One is the applicant's property and two have approved development plans for Paradise Bank and the Cana Roma bath and tile. The remaining empty lots that could apply for a car wash use under this text amendment are shown in this slide. There is also the possibility that properties could be redeveloped that meet this criteria. There are two existing standalone car washes, which are not associated with a gas station, fronting North Federal Highway in the B4 general business zoning district, Miracle Car Wash and 495 Book of Car Wash. The application would create supplemental regulations for car washes including instances where the car wash is adjacent to residential zones. It adds car washes as a conditionally used in the RB1 district on properties to Fronting North Federal Highway. It replaces outdated terminology as you heard auto-laundries and car laundry with car washes and adds off-street parking requirements for car washes. The applicant has contemporaneously filed applications for a future land use map amendment from RL to C, rezone from R1B to RB-1, the conditional use and site plan approvals, all of which are needed to authorize construction of a 15,875 square foot two-story building that includes a restaurant with 4,000 square feet of carwash on the ground floor and 625 square feet of outdoor dining and 3,,140 square feet of storage in mechanical area on the second floor. A car washed with 3,906 square feet on the ground floor, and 4,821 square feet of storage in mechanical area on the second floor, and 70 parking spaces, 20 of which are offsite, which includes 10 installed level three charging stations and other tight improvements. Approval of those applications is contingent upon approval of this text amendment. It's some additional regulations I mentioned when the car wash a butz residential zone. It limits the hours of operation from 7.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. restricts the location of the car wash building, blow, blowers and dryers and the vacuum stations. It prohibits outside loudspeakers or radios. Requires a sound study demonstrating that the car wash operations will meet all noise regulations. It requires that the architectural type of the car wash building is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Just to get into the noise levels a bit, it needs to meet all of the city's noise regulations which is basically this. At no point on the boundary of or within a residential zoning district, made a following sound pressure levels be exceeded as a result of the car wash operations. 50 decibels from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55 decibels from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 50 decibels is described as being comparable to a quiet conversation, a quiet home office, or a quiet refrigerator. 55 decibels is described as being comparable to a normal conversation, a residential street, or background music. Nor analysis we felt that allowing car washes as a conditional use in the RB1 district on properties fronting North Federal Highway is reasonable given that any development sites adjacent to residential zoning have additional requirements and limitations that address potential noise from the car wash operations. Requiring that a restaurant or retail use comprises at least 50% of the total square footage of the development that includes a car wash provides uses within walking distance from the residential neighborhoods and uses that were intended in the RB1 district. Consolidating a new and existing car wash regulations provides clarity and improved organization. Adding parking regulations for all car washers provides more certainty. The replacement of outdated terms provides more clarity and staff found no inconsistencies between the proposed text amendments and the city comprehensive plan. The planning and zoning board recommends approval of the text amendments and the development service department recommends approval of the text amendments and the development service department recommends approval of the text amendments That concludes my presentation any questions you may have thank you council members any questions Then we'll open up the public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this matter. Please come forward now Jonathan on G and6501, Congress Avenue. So quieter than a leaf blower for a car wash, I just find that to be interesting when you dealing with the blowers and stuff like that. I can't imagine that restriction should be necessary. And I'm all for outdated regulations such as this government telling businesses that they can operate that they should be allowed. But my question and the reason why I wanted to speak was I see that you're updating the terminology for LERP. Is this an accepted use? Would LERP be allowed a car wash, for instance? I know there is one on the corner of Congress in your model. I'm not sure if they consider that LERP. If there's a conditional use or whatever. But obviously, car washes, I think, benefit of community. They're usually in a gas station or whatever, and aren't abutting to a single family or even necessarily multifamily residential. So again, I support this and just ask if this also it would apply to Lurp and know you're updating this outdated terminology. But as a property owner and Lurp, I think it would benefit the community. I would never see it on my property, but again, I think it's a good service for the people. Thank you. Ellie's at Corridus, 14 Southeast Forest Street. I do have a presentation. I Heather did an excellent job, and we will be before you in two weeks with the full blown application. So I will spare you my presentation this evening, but if you do have any questions, we are here to answer them. Thank you. Thank you. And when you say before us, you're anticipating another ordinance that would go along if this change is made to be concurrent, that might relate to a particular use. So this is first reading. It is my understanding we'll be back at the next council hearing in four weeks. Okay, in four weeks, unfortunately four weeks, with the final read of the text amendment as well as the additional site plan conditionally use and rezoning package. Thank you. Yes, and thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Last call. All right, we will close the public hearing and the second public hearing on this ordinance will be on October 22nd, 24th. Mr. Brown could just explain the timing because why it's not the next meeting because for a very good reason. In order to provide proper notice and because of what we have, what we are expecting on the next agenda. And to in response to Mr. Unjuz and Quarry regarding the LRP district. Car washes are prohibited in the LRP district pursuant to section 28, 9, 79. We're changing the word auto laundry to car washes. Very well. All right. Now we'll proceed to ordinance 5702 and this is a transmittal hearing and the first of two required public hearings, a second of which will be scheduled at a later date. The revotes are required to transmit. We'll please read the total of ordinance 5702. Ordinance number 5702. An ordinance of the city of Boca Raton, considering an amendment to the thoroughfare, right of way protection map of the comprehensive plan, by re-designating a certain segment of Northwest Fifth Avenue, right of way, requiring protection. Consisting of approximately 1,301 feet in length, generally located west of 2500 and 2,600, Northwest Fifth Avenue, from 100 feet to 90 feet in length, generally located west of 2500 and 2600 Northwest 5th Avenue, from 100 feet to 90 feet in width, providing for a peeler, providing an effective date. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mayor Peter Begovitch, senior planner and development services will make the presentation on ordinance number 5702. Thank you. Good evening for the record Peter Begavitch for the city. Tonight I will be presenting a city initiated application to amend the city's adopted thoroughfare right of away protection map in the comprehensive plan. Specifically to reduce the width of an approximately 1,301 foot long segment of the right of away protection area for Northwest Fifth Avenue. Generally located north of Northwest 22nd Street and south of Northwest 35th Street from 100 feet to 90 feet, a reduction of 10 feet. The city's adopted thoroughfare right of way protection map designates the continuous roadway known as Northwest Fifth Avenue, which is also called Northwest Fourth Avenue and Northwest Six Way, from Spanish River Boulevard to just south of West Camino Real to Spanish River Boulevard as a roadway that requires a right-of-way protection of 100 feet in width. The road right-of-way for the segment of Northwest Fifth Avenue, specifically north of JC Mitchell, elementary school and south of the Wynwood community, is shown as a 50 feet in width on the plat of Boca Raton Hills, and directly about the El Rio Canal right away. In 1950, the time the road was platted, the 50 foot wide road's way right away section consisted of the eastern 25 feet of the existing El Rio Canal right away and 25 feet of new road right away. The current location of Northwest Fifth Avenue and its improvements currently encroaches into the right of way, specific into the right of way for the El Rio Canal, specifically portions of the Northwest Fifth Avenue. Beyond the 25 foot portion that was dedicated in the plot of Booker at Stone Hell Section 3, by another approximately 26 feet, for a total of 51 feet of encroachment. As part of the analysis for this map of amendment, municipal services created and exhibit entitled, right of way exhibit depicting Northwest Fifth Avenue and El Rio Canal from very sources to graphically depict the recorded dedication areas for the El Rio Canal in Northwest Fifth Avenue and how they relate, part of which is shown on the screen. Two projects are directly impacted by this proposed amendment. The first is an application for a minor site plan amendment that's been submitted by the existing French American school at the connected life Christian Church located at 2500 Northwest Fifth Avenue to increase student enrollment from 22 students to 160 students and to make minor site plan improvements. The second project is a new 120 unit multifamily residential development known as the Villas on Fifth Avenue at 2600 North West Fifth Avenue. The planning and zoning board recommended approval of the Villas on Fifth by a vote of five to one. Should the City Council vote to transmit the map amendment to the State Department of Economic Opportunity for review? The adoption hearings for the Fifth Avenue future landing amendmentoning, and the public hearings for the site plan will be scheduled at the same meeting as this application. By reducing the right away with from 100 feet to 90 feet on the thoroughfare right away protection map, the right away dedication required from both the French American school and the Vilson Fifth will be reduced from 50 feet to 14 feet. Therefore, minimizing parking and other site plan implications for the French American School and allowing the villa's project to construct additional dwelling units and provide associated site improvements on their property. To accomplish a four-lane roadway in the segment of Northwest Fathas Avenue budding, the projects, municipal services determined that a 14-foot right away easement dedication is needed. Both the French-American School and Northwest Fifth Avenue are contingent on the proposed amendment to the map and would require a significant redesign if this amendment is not approved. While the design of Northwest Fifth Avenue widening project has not been finalized, municipal services provide an illustration of how a complete four-lane street with multi-modal features can be accomplished within a 90-foot right-of-way. This right-of-way would consist of the 50-foot plated right-of-way, the existing 26-foot encroachment into the El Rio Canal right away and a 14 foot wide dedication from the owners to the east. Staff has reviewed the criteria to amend the Comprehensive Plan and found that the proposed amendment to the city's adopted thoroughfare right away protection map meets these criteria and that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment will allow the dedication of thoroughfare rights of way appropriate for the construction of the transportation network, including the planned expansion of Fifth Avenue in the segment. At their September 5th meeting, the planning and zoning board recommended approval with a vote of 5 to 1 and and the Development Services Department recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the thoroughfare right away protection map. With that, I thank you. Thank you very much, council members, any questions? All right, we'll open up the public hearing, anyone wishing to speak on this matter? Last call for public comment on ordinance 5702. All right, we'll close the public hearing and will entertain a motion to transmit ordinance 5702 to the appropriate agencies. Three votes are required for transmittal to hear motion. So moved. Thank you. We'll give it a Mr. Wigter and seconded Mr. Thompson any further discussion? Then Missedans please. Wigter. Yes. Thompson. Yes. Singer. Yes. Naclas. Yes. Drucker. Yes. Motion passes five votes to zero. Thank you. This matter will be transmitted. And after we get a response back from the relevant agencies, a second public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. Miss Siddins, would you please read the title of Ornance 5705? Ornance number 5705. An ordinance of the City of Boca Raton, emitting chapter two administration, Article three, boards, committees, commissions, and special magistrates, Division three, special magistrates, code of ordinances. To delegate authority to the special magistrate to consider and act upon applications for co-compliance, mean reductions, and to establish procedures for lean reduction requests, providing for appeal or providing for codification, providing an effective date. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mayor Aaron Sito, who's the Deputy Director and Development Services Department, will make the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. The item before you as stated is the special Magistrate lean reduction process. We are going to take a little brief segue and we're going to talk briefly about the code compliance process overview. And we just wanted to run through this just so everybody understands the full process that goes into code violation and Alene. So the first step obviously is a verbal or written warning by the code officer and then some time period is given to comply. Second step, there is a re-inspection to determine compliance. Third step, there is a notice of violation, which is issued at consistent per the floor to statutes, and this notice is sent via certified mail to the property owner, at which there is additional time allotted for the owner to receive this notice, and sign it and send it via the certified mail process. There is a second re-inspection that is then conducted after that time frame is provided for the written notice. And then finally, if the property is still not in compliance, a notice to appear is issued for the next available special magistrate hearing. Alternatively, a stipulated order can be negotiated with the property owner in lieu of the special magistrate hearing. A third re-inspection is conducted prior to the special magistrate hearing. Then the special magistrate hearing is held during which the property owner may request and be granted additional time at the hearing through the order of enforcement before fines start accruing. Once the order of enforcement's time period has ended, a fourth re-inspection is conducted. Then a notice to appear for certifications of fines, a fine hearing issue is issued. If the property is still not in compliance, then a fifth reinspection is conducted just before the certification of fine process to determine to to determine compliance. Then the certification of fine hearing is held and that's where then the leans are assessed to the property. At that point then once the property is in compliance and there are no fees owed to the city, including any taxes, a property owner may apply for a lean reduction application. Then that lean reduction application is currently scheduled before this body. It's scheduled and noticed and agenda item and backup materials are prepared and routed. So moving forward to the proposed text amendment and how that will change that process, the text amendment will delegate the authority to the special magistrate for lean reductions and will amend and clarify our lean reduction procedures. Now this process will streamline the city's current process and is a process that is consistent with local governments in the South Florida region and is consistent with the major cities in Palm Beach County. Essentially, it's a very simple process. The application is submitted. It's reviewed for eligibility. If the application is not determined to be eligible, 50% of the application fees are refunded. If it is, then a hearing is scheduled and noticed. Before the special magistrate, staff provides a recommendation of the application fees are refunded. If it is, then a hearing is scheduled and noticed before the special magistrate. Staff provides a recommendation of the special magistrate hearing regarding the lien reduction. And then if the special magistrate approves the lien reduction, then a release of lien is processed administratively by staff. Just highlighting real briefly, some of the details in the text amendment, first is the application requirements. The property has to be in compliance with all city codes. The property has to be free of outstanding debts to the city. And then a complete lien reduction application must be received by the code compliance division. This would include the fee that the correct person has applied standard typical completeness requirements. Now, code will work with the property owner to schedule to make sure that they're available for the lean reduction hearing, but the property owner is entitled to, as part of this process, may request one continuance to a later agenda date after its schedule. At the lean reduction hearing, the special magistrate may consider all information that is relevant to the particulars of the case including the nature, the gravity and the duration of the violation. The specific violation or codes in violations such as if it's a health and safety issue. The current lean amount, the actions, the property owner has taken towards compliance, any change in ownership of the subject property So was did the violation did the violations occur under a previous property owner? The history of violations on the property and by that particular property owner and then any other pertinent information related to the case And so that concludes our presentation staff is recommending approval of this particular text amendment. If you have any questions. Thank you, Council members, any questions? Mr. Wigter. Thank you. How many lean reduction appeals have come before this body this year? I think two. Things two. Two, and how many last year? And then you're before that. It's a rhetorical question. Thank you. Go ahead. I guess it's before this for the lean reduction hearing. There's a set of things that happen at the lean reduction hearing. I think it's the page before this. Thank you. The special magistrate is the party that initiated the lean to begin with. Is that correct? Princh at Development Services Director. So I'm not sure what you mean by initiated the lien but the special magistrate issues the order that certifies the fine that becomes the lien. Yes, it's not it's city staff that initiates the case initially. Thank you. The staff is initiating a case. The magistrate is certifying the lien based on what. So the magistrate, which just certified the lien, is then hearing the case in which he just certified or she just certified the lien, the same magistrate. Or is it, have to be a different magistrate? Could be either. Whoever's, it could be whoever's on the, I guess whoever's up for the get the case. Correct. I think we currently have three different magistrates, so it just depends on whose schedule. Right. I mean, I see a significant challenge with having the person who initiated the first lean hearing the same case. Why would they overrule themselves? Number one, number two, all of the evidence presented in the lean reduction hearing should certainly be heard in the initial reduction, in the initial hearing. So again, it seems like a redundancy here and due to the fact that this has not occurred so many times, it seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. But I'll reserve my further comments. Thank you. For the questions. All right, all of them up with the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak? Please come forward. Jonathan Nungee and 65-01 Congress Avenue. Could you go back to the second slide? Previous one. Sorry. Previous. Okay. Previous. Right there. All right. So, let's go back to Danburg. There's no denying that the city under the code that the party, negligent party, and the city attorney can, number six, alternatively, a stipulated order can be negotiated with the property order in owner, in lieu of the special magistrate hearing. I couldn't agree more with Council Member Wigner, Wigner, and everything he said. There needs to be an independent body instead of a special magistrate whose literally there's not a single special magistrate that is a resident of the city of Boca Raton is a business owner in the game to be candid with you in regards to impact in the community and care of the residents and of this code. And that's what I find to be concerning. That there's no special magistrate that is a member of this community. And so getting back to Dan Burke, there was a final order. There was a special magistrate hearing. It was done. They gave a deadline of 90 days in essence from when they allowed their 180 to get a text amendment to then get a permit. 90 days, this city manager and Brandon Shad went backwards in their stipulated order to allow for 21 months to get a building So I find it seeing this process, I don't think this is accurate because I think you're missing a stage and step here that after a final order, you guys, and they don't comply, that this city and the negligent party can go back and renegotiate on a final order. It is so troubling what you've allowed to have happen with Mr. Dan Burke with Jamie. Throwing his money around because he does that a lot. Comes in with multiple attorneys because he does that. And the reality is the common lay person who has to go in front of code enforcement doesn't get afforded any of those things. And this entire process needs to change because it's wrong and it's a disservice to the city. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Mr. De Silva, this is not public request, you know. That's fine, you can speak on this matter, on the ordinance. I might be a little off with the code enforcement thing, but I just want to see if I'm right about something. I'm thinking about, I don't know. And it's Christopher to sell, Christopher to sell that you have an address you can state or not. I'm currently moving right now. Shout out to Bonnie and Suns. I don't know if code enforcement includes businesses, but what about publics plus whole foods, how they have bugs in their food plus 7-11 as well plus how a pipe burst at publics when I was working there, it was like a waterfall on produce from the roof. And they always got bugs in their bulk every time and I told them about it. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. I'll go to the office. So moved. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Discussion. I'll start off just by saying I raised this at the end of our last lean reduction request that came to us and I brought up the idea of making our system the same as what seems to be the most of the jurisdictions in the area which allow for the same person who's familiar with the case, the magistrate, to be able to reassess once all of the issues, once all of the violations have been cured. Because remember, the point of the fine is not actually to collect money. It is to compel and spur compliance. And if compliance has been achieved, the person who has the best knowledge of whether that fine really should be enforced or not is the person who imposed it, the special magistrate. And once again, this is not some new procedure that we are breaking ground on. This is how a lot of other cities do it near us and I suggest that we bring it our system into compliance with the way that they do it. That seems like to me, anyway, to make a lot of sense. You all weigh in here. I think I said it last time too. We've had a lot of changes to our code over our 99 year history and looking back at our 1929 charter and even one of the charters before then. There was a mayor's court and the function was to process the mayor appointed basically the code hearing officers and they could prosecute various offenses. We entered our municipal court, we've gone to this magistrate system, but I don't think in 2024 it's befitting for City Council who given all that we have to charge all that's within our charge to be focused on Individual appeals I feel more comfortable having it reviewed by the magistrates. I understand Mr. Richter's point that it's the same person reviewing it, but I think the magistrates we have pointed we can appoint additional ones or different ones. I think this is something that belongs more at that level. And we haven't had many of these come up, but when we come up, they're always, I don't know if it's the most effective level of government to be having these discussions. And I think it is good that we have magistrates who are impartial. Point of correct the record, we have magistrates who do work in the city, have interests in business interests in the city, so if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander too. But the bigger point is, they are the ones familiar with the cases, Mr. Thompson said. I just think this is one of those things that it doesn't reflect where we were in 1930 or even 1960. I don't think it's something that needs to come before us each time. And there are other remedies available to litigants in the court system as well. So I feel comfortable making this change. I think it would make things more efficient and we're talking about streamlining. I think this is a good measure. Mr. Briger, respectfully may I say a word to disagree. I think there has to be a system of checks and balances and going back to the same party and then my understanding from either Mr. Brown or Mr. Kailer, I forget is that the appeal of the special magistrates, re-hearing would then, the only remedy would then be circuit court, is that correct? Could you restate the question? Yeah. In the event of a rehearing in such an instance, the next remedy for a pellet review would be for the applicants, I guess, to go to circuit court. I understand Mr. Wrigd by rehearing, you mean an appeal on the lean reduction? Yes. Generally, under the Florida law, an applicant can challenge and court the original finding of violation. Generally, they can challenge the imposition of the fine. Not in the case where applicants have been permitted to challenge a decision not to reduce a fine, but to answer your question generally there are equitable remedies available to court, you know generally the court system is available for parties who are displeased with the result of the government. And I'm not talking about specific instances I I won't comment, and as I've told Mr. Ongin separately, I will not comment on specific cases. However, the cases that have come before us in the last couple of months showed in uncharacteristic inconsistency of application that I felt needed to be reviewed. Separately, I've asked the city attorney to also review the process. Not just the process of what happens as you guys just showed us, but the process of fines and what not and how much they are and what comes in. And so again, I think this amendment is being rushed. I think this was offered up. I think it was, was it four weeks ago or six? It's been very quick. This text amendment magically got here very, very quickly. And I think it was, I think it's too fast. I think this needs to be evaluated in terms of the types of cases. I'd like to see some statistics on how many fines are being issued. What types of issues are some of Mr. Brown and Mr. Kailer showed me some of the other fines that are going on in that day. Like I said, there's life safety issues, it's health issues, and what not. This is a specific issue. So I do think the process needs to be looked at. And I think if we're only seeing one or two of these things, one of these appeals a year, it's not too much to ask. Number one, number two, again, there is no urgency in passing something like this. One of the alternate types of issues that I've seen in resolving such things when I was doing my research is that there might be a board of appeals. There might be a new appointed board of appeals separate from the magistrate. That could be an interim step so as to avoid a re-hearing by the same exact officer. And that could be something that we considered. So I do think there are options, Mr. Singer, Mr. Mayor. And I think it doesn't need to be rushed. And I think there's some outstanding issues that some of the recent cases have shown that we might need to look a. And I think there's some outstanding issues that some of the recent cases have shown that we might need to look a little bit closer holistically, just as we are looking at updating our LDRs, maybe updating our process here as well. So I just don't think I'm in favor of moving forward at this time. Thank you. Mr. Rager. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. So, I'm a little bit like torn. So, I agree with Mayor Sinker about that we're charged with enough things on the council that we have to review. But I also give Mr. Wigder the process is flawed. So, this is a band-aid that we're trying to put because we're being reactive. You know, I've sat on this council for quite some time now and I don't like amendments or laws or just kind of like, let's just do this to fix it for now because we had this issue. That's not effective policy making for me at least. So I think the process was, we don't believe in the process, at least I don't because of what just happened. And you're right, we shouldn't be mentioning certain things. But we've had two cases in a very short period of time I think in eight weeks, six weeks. And they're all or handle so differently. So we kind of, in my opinion, I've lost a little bit of trust in what the process is like. So for me, either it has to be revamped. And because we're not having that many, It's just hard for me here to sit and approve this based on what has just happened the last few weeks with Just everything that's gone on and it's just ugly. It's just not Good policy making that we're rushing to give all this stuff back to the magistrate the magistrate that hasn't done so I agree with Mr. Wigdar. I feel like We need to look at the process. We need to understand what that body is. People should have the right to appeal if they are, you know, right now the issue that we had with Dan Berg, that could have been, maybe it was the other way around and they wanted to appeal because we agreed to find them a certain amount. What was their recourse? So it works both ways, but right now I feel like A, we're rushing the amendment and I don't think that we feel comfortable with the way things are being handled there. So maybe it's just a matter of us reviewing the policy, the procedures, understanding if we want another body to review. So I'm kind of torn on this one just because of what just happened. If this would have come before us six weeks ago I would have probably voted yes And we wouldn't even have any this discussion, but I feel like it's very reactionary to what just happened So those are my two cents Thank you. This is necklace. I'll be brief. I I also agree with mr. Wigter and WD Drucker on I don't think this needs to be voted on tonight. I have an issue with number six, the stipulated order and I do agree, I went to the special magistrate meeting this on September 11th, I guess it was. I'd never been to one and it was an interesting experience. And I do agree that, especially with the stipulated order, and we did have one recently, a regular citizen isn't going to know how to do that. If they don't have an attorney present with them, guiding them through something, I don't think that that's a step that's necessarily going to be, that a regular citizen is going to recognize as something that they can do. But maybe I'm wrong. But I would just like to have a better understanding about some of these. Do you like me to address that? Would you like me to address that? Yes. Sure. So essentially the stipulated order is to avoid hearing. So those are made available in appropriate circumstances to anybody. You don't need to be special or have a lawyer or anything whatsoever. Typically what happens is before the hearing happens, compliance happens. And at many times on the same day, we figure out, oh great, we don't have to have this hearing. Perfect. Other times there is going to be some steps that have to happen toward compliance. And those are typically situations where we'll offer a stipulated order. And we'll say, hey, if you want to enter into this order, the magistrate typically signs it. I mean, they don't have to, but they typically do. Then we avoid the hearing. It's more efficient for the violators, more efficient for staff, it's more efficient for the magistrate, it's more efficient for everybody. So I would disagree with the characterization that there's something wrong with that process. I think it works the way it's supposed to work. And again, you don't need to be special or have an attorney to get to be offered those things either. So just to be clear on that. Could I ask one more question, Mr. Schaden? So is that something that's used often or is compliance usually comes before that? So most violations are pretty simple. Usually somebody did something without a permit. And so provided that those things are relatively simple, applying for the permit is enough to not hold the hearing. So that's the most typical case. Very simple things that get resolved without a hearing. Really, if it even gets to that point, most things actually get resolved in the notice process before there even is a notice of a hearing. Again, a stipulated order is offered in the situation where there's going to be some steps toward compliance. You can't really do it before the hearing because there's certain steps that we need to make sure are followed. So again, we, I can't really say how often exactly depends on circumstances. It goes up and down, but it's typical. It's not unusual whatsoever. Okay. Could you go to the next page, the second page of the process overview? Oh, I guess I could go to it too. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I didn't know the whole process. I didn't know that there was five reinspections that were offered. And this is keeping in in line with what most other municipalities do. Yes and in fact the number of rein inspections is usually five is about the minimum. A lot of times we we really do try to work with applicants and to try to bring compliance rather than apply leans and the total amount of outstanding leans we have right now in the city is actually relatively very low compared to other cities because of because we work with property owners. So the total amount of outstanding leans is $167,000 for the entire city. Our average lean amount is $2,000 per lean, $2,264 for our outstanding leans. And the mean kind of value or right in the middle of 50% have, leans have higher value, 50% have a lower value as $145 is our mean. So that just a lot of this is very low level administrative. Thank you very much, both of you, for those explanations. Could I add something if I may? Just in the discussion of being reactive and those sorts of things, I completely understand that. And I agree with the idea of not being reactive to particular situations. But this process is the most typical one that most cities follow and it works well. I think that we've had some recent cases that maybe are unusual, maybe not everybody sees it the same way and I respect that, but I don't think that we should react to that unusual situation and sort of throw the baby out with the bath water. That would be my suggestion. Mr. Thompson, I was just going to speak up to say the process is not broken. We have one neighbor regarding one violator who has made a point of pointing out what he views to be his side of things to suggest that, first of all, this idea came up before that all even came to us. It came up in response to a lean reduction hearing that we all had. I had, because I had been contemplating this for a while, staff had been contemplating this for a while. I brought up, hey, maybe we bring this city and can make it consistent with how other cities do it. Three people up here at the time said, that's a good idea. Nobody spoke up against it. This has nothing to do with one property. This has nothing to do with the issue that I think maybe in your, some of your minds right now, it has nothing to do with that one case. It has nothing to do with anyone particular case. It has nothing to do with anyone particular case. It has to do with a process that was seemingly working for many municipalities in the county, in the area. And I trust our staff, let me reiterate to say the process is not broken. Our code enforcement personnel do a fantastic job. My view is that the magistrates do a fantastic job. Our development services department does a fantastic job. My view is that the magistrates do a fantastic job. Our development services department does a fantastic job as it relates to this. I chafe whenever I hear the suggestion that the system is broken, it is not broken. One person yelling at you does not make the system broken. We have hardworking people in this city, in this, I'm sorry? I said, I just go ahead. We have hard working people in the staff of the city who listen to these things. And when they hear comments like this is broken, they take that to heart. We should be very careful saying things like that. This is in my view an improvement to the process that, again, is not charted new charted territory. This makes it consistent with how other municipalities do that. Maybe they're all doing it wrong. Maybe we have, but apparently the process, according to some, is already broken even before this. This is not a reaction to any one particular issue. This is a reaction to us having a very unique way of doing things that ought to be changed, separate and apart from any one issue, which actually doesn't even involve this one change. So I reiterate that this was not something that was done in response to any one particular case. Apart from the fact that lean reduction cases are awkward. When we come to us and they ask us to reduce the fine, it is sometimes uncomfortable and awkward. And I agree with the fact that it's not the best use of this body's time. That was why we offered it. That was why it seemed like most on the days were willing to accept that at the time. This is not some sort of reaction to one particular violator. Let me all come to your next Ms. Dr. Prowler I want to say something first. In terms of the awkwardness of this process, I felt that's in 2014 when I first had a lean reduction hearing and it can be emotional and I think not really reflective of the many steps they go through below. I hear that three of us have discomfort proceeding now, perfectly fine, we can postpone to a date certain, we can postpone indefinitely, which we mean we'll come back and reevaluate whatever the body wants. I suggest this is an alternative though. Mr. Wigger raised the point that there would be, you know, you'd have the hearing go back to the same person. We could, and he also suggested perhaps another board of appeal, I think something that would streamline it is, have it go back to a second magistrate. We only have three now, during my 10 years here, we've had between three and five, we haven't needed that many. I don't think we have to point one is like the chief magistrate because there's probably not to work for three. So if you think this process, you know, you'd want some other set of eyes looking at it, I'd say have another magistrate do it. I still have some discomfort that this is where we should be spending our time. These can take, you know, 30, 40 minutes. There's a lot of preparation for it. And we're not as versed in the facts. And the magistrates heard all these things. were getting the limited record on appeal. I'd rather focus more on the governance and get away from the model. So that's really what drove it for me. And as Mr. Thompson said, this is nothing to do with the recent comments we've heard. And those comments don't really fit. It's kind of the, it's kind of the converse of what we usually dealt with. So again, just food for thought. Don't know if you're already to proceed now if you if you'd rather entertain an amendment now we could try it go back to another magistrate if you want to sit on it we could come back to date certain if you want to just let it table you know table it we can postpone indefinitely and revisit the point has been made that this does not come up too often I think it is a beneficial change but I get all the concerns. Mr. Rucker? Mayor with all due respect Mr. Thompson there's nothing I think I said in terms of co-compliance, they do a phenomenal job every day. I just think the timing of it maybe is just the timing, I always say trust the timing of your life, that's one of my big sayings that I live by. Just the timing of it maybe doesn't look great. Just like when we were going to approve something for the city attorney where we're doing the outside council fees. Like sometimes the timing doesn't look good in terms of the visuals. So maybe the fact is to postpone. So for me, it's just maybe we need more information. Ms. Nakhra said she didn't know with five rein inspections. Maybe we're kind of looking through this in a different way. So but don't put words in our mouths, because I haven't said anything about co-compliance on doing their job, or the special magic tree. I just think in certain things that have happened lately, things weren't done correctly. They were out of character for us. That's what I said. And I stand by that. So, if I were to take the vote now, I would say no, if be able to look it over, have a conversation with legal, review more information, and then you might sway me to change my mind. But as of right now, if we take a vote, I would be voting against it. That's fine. May I pick up where you left off that or where Ms. Rucker left off? Comments are supposed to be the chair. How did the council members feel about postponing to a date certain or letting this go and we can reintroduce it another time? If we postpone to a date certain, it's probably got to be within the next three, four meetings after while it goes to Grosjeel. Rule of thumb, that would be appropriate. Yes. Mr. Wieger. I think we could bring it up in another time. I think that there's no rush for this. I think that it is healthy for a council and the body representing the people, Mr. Thompson, to always look at improving the situation, how we come to those results, and what we vote on, well that's the result. It's not to drive a wedge between the staff and the council. I think that's a mistake. I think we're always trying to improve the situation, just as every ordinance that's passed is in theory a way to improve the situation. So the fact that we want to look at potentially other ways of improving the situation is not a mistake, and it's not a question of our staff that works so hard. So I think that's unfortunate that you put it that way. And it is, yeah, it's unfortunate because I think that's a mischaracterization. We're always trying to improve the situation. Always trying to improve the code. There's been 70 text amendments. There's all these things. There's no code that's perfect. There's no, and we talked about this yesterday as well. And so, like you said, I saw some other cities where they have a board of appeals. It could be volunteers. It could be citizen volunteers who live in the city who do those things. So there could be other ways to do this. Not just saying, hey, this is what the other six cities do or the other 10 cities do. A lot of the time, we talk about the fact that things in Boko that were special and were unique and maybe the fact that the body representing the people hears one or two lean reduction cases a year. Well, that's special and unique. And we talk about being accessible to our constituents and the fact that they can just call me and say, hey, I don't know if I'm getting treated fairly here and that they have the right to appeal and call any one of us on any one of these things, you know, is something that's special. They're not just put back and your only remedy is to file in circuit court. You know, Ms. Nockles brought up very astutely that a lot of these people are not sophisticated potentially and they might not have the resources to go to Circuit Court. And maybe one of the people that we heard. So maybe if you have a $20,000 fine against you and you're not familiar with this process, which is significant here, and you don't even know what circuit court is and to walk into circuit court You're not walking in there for $30 right? You know you're talking about thousands of dollars to high representation And and so again, it just becomes where people throw up their hands and And the and the and the and they throw up their hands Mr. Mayor they're not saying About the process. They're saying don don't do business in Boca. Don't follow permanent in Boca. They're saying something significant when they're saying that the process sometimes, when we look at streamlining, there's a reason why we're looking at streamlining. We're looking at improving the process. So I think we're always looking at improving the process. It's not that we're questioning staff ever. It's that we're always looking at improving the process and evaluating that in terms of reactive. I just don't see an urgency here. In fact, when I hear things like that, it makes me actually want to slow down and do more research and really understand because when you bring up what other cities do, then I want to find out what are the other 10 cities doing. When I hear about these things, I want to find out statistics. What's been going on with every case? How many cases went to each level of recertification? How many went to fines? What's the average, you know, it's $2,000 per fine? We have some outliers. So if the standard deviation is $2,000 or $500, then you have these six sigma hearings. Those are the ones we really hear about, right? The $50,000, $87,000. Those are the ones that come in here, the outliers, from the normal distribution. So those are the things that concern me, saying, hey, can we can always improve this process? And I don't think we need to rush it. So I think we could just table it for now. Let's do some homework and I think the people respect when we do real homework. If it comes back and we find out whether it should go to another magistrate or another board of appeals and that is the best way, you know, after we do our homework, then, you know, then I'd be happy to speak in favor of it too. All right, thank you. So that's one comment for postponing definitely. And by the way, as I was refreshing my cell phone, Robert's Rules of Order is the, Robert's Rules of Order, the right motion would be postponing definitely, but it was a reminder, all comments should be politely directed to the chair or politely I Remind everyone all comments should be directed to the chair. Please be polite to me although that's not in Robert's rules Ms. Nackles Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't say that people were not sophisticated in in their Understanding what I meant was they're not familiar with the process. And in the heat of a moment, when you're in a special magistrate meeting and you're feeling the pressure and you're not fully understanding or familiar with any of this. Because a lot of times it's their first time. I'm sure there are people that are repeat offenders. But many times it's first timers that just didn't realize, didn't know, and they may feel, you know, emotions, they get nervous, they have fight or flight, and they just don't understand. So I am in favor of tabling this to a date certain and coming back in, you know, a month or two and hopefully we have some more information and some more options and some more data but not just, you know, we don't always want to just aspire to what other cities are doing but how we can make it better. How Boca Raton can make it better. Not just keeping up with what other cities are doing. So I'm okay putting that out just only because I don't think it needs to be rushed either. But I think we need to come to a decision so I don't want it indefinitely out there. Mr. Keller, what do you think it will suggest as an outer bound on when we come back? Three meetings, four. Three meetings, four meetings, four meetings, and that's appropriate. Okay, so that would be two months. That would be the second meeting in November if we gave staff enough time. Would by show of hands or otherwise, how do we feel about that? Positive Thompson. May I make just one more suggestion? I hear there is no rush. I don't think there's any pending loan, loan reduction, that's like waiting out there that's gonna come and see us unless we change it. And that obviously wasn't the impetus for the change. But let me throw this out there, because it does sound like some may feel like they want to continue having the chance to hear an appeal short of having to go to Circuit Court. What if we, as it stands now under this proposed ordinance, it removes the city council from the equation entirely, right? There is no appeal directly to the city council from the equation entirely, right? There is no appeal directly to the city council. What if we kept that in, but then had the potential reduction with the magistrate first, and if the violators unsatisfied with that, then they can appeal to us, and we have the overriding ability to appeal that, and that doesn't require a circuit court filing, with a lawyer, and a bunch of attorney fees and all that. Because I'm not saying we should be out of the process entirely. I'm just thinking that a lot of these can be addressed perhaps more efficiently by going back one more time to the registry. So if that's something that folks are on board with, and that may address some of the concerns, then maybe we build that into a revised, or we propose an amendment then that does it that way. If staff is, if I would want to have staff's input on that. But. I'm not opposed to it, but I think that appeal is going to happen in a very high percentage of cases. Yes. May I ask a question, Mr. Shad? What I'm hearing, I think I'm hearing you say is if you still allow the city council to hear the appeal, the people are just going to appeal there anyway. I think so. Yeah. That does make sense. That's part of the, that's part of the kind of the political nature of the process. I'll throw out another idea for us to consider and we can do, we'll have to get back first on the timing. Do you want to just limit jurisdiction at the city council level that if the fine is below a certain level, it doesn't go to us. Now as a practical matter, people are not appealing one in $2,000 fines. They've usually been five figure fines or more. So I don't know where that break point is. I'm also not trying to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Maybe if we do all this stuff, maybe we're better off just hearing the water to appeals every now and then, because we may not be getting there. We have one for postponing, definitely. We've got one to postpone to November. Mr. Thompson was saying yes to November. I'm fine with postponing it to November some certain date. Further thoughts? All right. Are we kind of an accord there? Mr. Wrigdazza, do you feel you have enough time there? I mean, I'm not in favor of it, but if that's the vote, that's the little of the body, it's fine. Fair enough. All right. So then the appropriate motion at this point, which supersede the motion to adopt would be a motion to postpone to the date certain of November. Mr. Manager, I'd ask when our next or not first meeting in November is is that the council's wish? I thought it was the second meeting in November. Second meeting in November? Say it out loud Mary. I can't hear you. 19. 19 to be the second meeting in November. All right so we'll entertain a motion to postpone to the date certain of Tuesday November 19th. Do you hear motion? I'll make that motion. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Fine. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Very good. 4-1. We'll revisit this and please give some thoughts to different alternatives. We didn't land the plane today, but good discussion nonetheless. So I appreciate all of you. We'll now turn to item 12, regular public hearings of settlements. We have none. We'll open a 4-2 public request. I have two cards for Mr. De Silva and Mr. Ongin. Please come forward. Give your name and address, you'll hope to three minutes. Hello, my name is Chris Estelva. I was trying to see if I could get 10 minutes, if possible, if not, it's all good. And I'm in the middle of moving shadows to money and sun. I've told you about the amusement park and miniser. How much cooler does it get than that? Making it better than universal rapids, Disney World, Wonderland, Combine, Constantly Improving, just like miniser should be sometimes going back to tradition like Christmas when it comes to design, entertainment, excitement and evolutionizing ideas. These exotic buildings I saw, I think they have an open mic at Deerfield, send the word that there's a new owner of publics which they already know because I told them. And I want to go through the gates and broward with no arrests, law enforcement serving in civil which they do already while saying they don't is causing confusion, the argument and the argument and the chamber, which on the schools, how they're in front of schools and the church. I hope I don't mess this up saying this. I feel the community plus family should work as a team. And I feel like what you guys were discussing before, you guys kind of forget that every eight years the market crashes and that you guys are using like taxpayer people's money. I feel the community plus family should work as a team to help. I know a lot better than anybody or one person who has ever walked this God's green planet. I have more wisdom than King Solomon himself. You would think I'm a God in law to say there is no law for this and or that it takes away the logical aspect or logic from jubical justice. You know there is no law that says you have to make sense logically. We know that already as well as not allowing mental torture, whether it be the police or the citizen vice versa. Try to, if it just sees it, discipline it, or you know what I mean, the less to worry about, the better. Keep the peace. Also things like this have happened settling outside of court. You just may not have heard because in court, you have a right to keep in private. Mr. Mayor of City Council coming here settling outside of court chamber. I do believe at this time, I feel as though you all are aware of me possibly becoming the new owner of publics, the grant owner of publics because I know a lot of business entrepreneur, entrepreneuring so well, maybe it is fate destiny meant to be luck or a little bit of both, not so much who knows Mr. Mayor and City Council, technically speaking, meaning mathematically, taking the pieces apart or the layers solutions and also by law, whatever else you can think of, by logical understanding, I am the new owner of publics, by order, I feel I know I am correct. And if you were paying attention and participating at these meetings, you may have caught on perhaps. I have a supersonic request beyond special, a favor for a favor. That's okay if you already know the answer. So it's okay if you, you know, whatever. We're paying attention and participating that does it does it does it may have caught on perhaps. I have a supersonic robotic request. Be on a special favor for a favor. That's okay. That'll happen. Could you conclude, please? Yes. Or later on, but I have everything set up, including my entrepreneur ideas, but I am requesting your assistance and helping with up here on AT&T. I'm calling you right now while speaking, you know, I'm saying specifically with the mayor and in return offering the mayor to become an owner in public as well as the president in return with a large signing bonus as I have already stated. Thank you Mr. Dessolva. It's irrefutable. I already have a judge as a witness following that it is self evident. It is an open case that I am mediating. Thank you. No problem. I'll let him go. I'm going to please come up here. I mean, we get off. Jonathan, I'm Jean, 6501 Congress Avenue. So last time talking about Dan Burke tonight, I promise. End code enforcement. And you'll be seeing a lot less of me because my wife is doing about a month. So, yeah, I'll have a little few different priorities going on. However, I would just like to touch on Dan Burke. We talked about proposed text amendments. Again, Mr. Thompson hasn't taken action on that. Mr. Wigders has been approached. Mr. Druckers has been approached. I believe Mr. Singers may have been approached. I've seen the emails. I'm aware of it. Obviously, there's no traction for another gas station. We don't need to turn into a gas station haven in this city. Again, it's all about precedent. And what this city's setting with the president, with Mr. Danberg in code enforcement is terrible. I think council, if there's such a concerning number, they got levied a fine of $160,000 almost. That individual you heard two months ago, that's like life changing. That's even what you put, a $50,000 is life changing. Not pocket change. And the reality is the one thing I heard tonight besides that my comments are my personal feelings, all I've done is present the facts of the case that are all public record. But it shouldn't be uncomfortable for counsel to hear from its constituents, its concerns. Not only from developers who have the years of all of counsel, which are the cases that then get in front of you or get special treatment from staff. Now, I believe her name was Christina Popel, and after I was refused my right to speak at special magistrate hearing, as not only the neighbor but the complainant. Mr. Newman and code enforcement was aware that I was going to speak for Miss Popel, who was a habitual offender. They gave her complete leniency because I was going to represent her. They gave her everything she wanted. Didn't impose a fine even though she's long overdue on her compliance because I was going to get my opportunity to speak that day. And the reality is you're 100% right council members who said it's not that they're not sophisticated. They, Mr. Newman said they don't show up to these hearings because they feel they're already guilty. And they don't aren't aware of the process. And if I can just have 30 seconds I see the clock. But the precedent that is being set, the fact that these people feel there is no voice for them, there is no hope for them, it may be just a fence or something that's not life safety. That maybe was nice and helped for their neighbors. So I just ask again that you do things fair, that the city does things equally to all, and I'm still waiting for the answer on the Danburg questions why they postponed now this execution. Because the reality, like I said, is I can't see any reason why this leniency was given to these people after a final order. Thank you. Thank you. I'll say thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak Miss Eccarotis? Good evening. Ellie's Eccarotis 14 southeast for street. I just wanted to speak briefly about the events that occurred yesterday at CRA, as it relates to the Center for Arts and Innovation. We have regrouped internally and we thought it would be nice to offer an opportunity potentially at City Hall with all of our consultants, maybe in the conference room in the City Manager's office, and meet with each of the council members individually. Obviously, if you still wanna move forward with an independent contractor by all means, but we thought it would be a good opportunity to sit down and really answer all of your questions. Have our team there open up whatever it is you all want to see individually, each of your questions are very different from one another And just really have that open dialogue. We thought that would be helpful Hopefully we'll answer many questions it may create new questions as well And we'll answer those as we go through the process But I did want to proper that as an opportunity as if that's something you are Considering or would like to do that's something you are considering or would like to do. That's it, thank you. Thank you, anyone else wishing to speak? Last call for public requests. We have closed the time for public requests. We'll turn to introduction of ordinances. Miss Siddins, would you please read the title of ordinance 5706. Ordinance number 5706. In ordinance of the city of Bokoritong relating to the regulation and enhancement of community aesthetics and standards, the authority of community appearance board and streamlining of the review process. Amending chapter two administration, Article three, Division four, community appearance board, and various provisions of chapter 19 building regulations, Chapter 23, Building Regulations, Chapter 23, Planning and Development, Chapter 27, Vegetation, and Chapter 28, Zoning Code of Ordances, to amend and restate the powers and duties of the Community Appearance Board, and to delegate certain approval authority previously held by the Community Appearance Board to the City Manager or Designi, subject to appeal. Reformatting and restating various provisions for clarity, amending the supplemental criteria and procedural rules of the Community Appearance Board to revise the lists of recommended and prohibited tree species for meeting landscaping requirements, relocate certain procedural provisions to the code of ordinances, and amend and restate said provisions, providing for severability and providing for appeal or providing for codification, providing an effective date. Thank you. I will introduce this ordinance and I believe that concludes our introduction of ordinances. We have no resolutions or other business. We have no quies, judicial, public hearings, for variances and appeals. So we're turned to city manager reports and recommendations. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Following up on yesterday afternoon, CRA meeting, I'd like to have a discussion with Council to get some clarity on the scope of work for a consultant that we might hire. There was a discussion to hire outside help to assist us. Want to get some clarity on exactly the scope that that consultant would undertake. And just referring back to some of the things that we heard yesterday, we postponed consideration of the landlord plans to October 21st and said that by the next meeting, which is the seventh, that we would provide you with an update of where we were in the consultant hiring process. In order to hire a consultant, we really need to know what that consultant's going to do. So that's a discussion for this evening. Also there were various consulting tasks and scopes discussed yesterday, but I didn't get clear direction on what the scope should be. Happy to have input with you about that. Part of what we heard yesterday from the center was that they plan to have their business plan updated in six weeks and have construction estimates updated by January by the end of the year. If this task or scope when the consultancy includes evaluating those things, we will not be able to provide you with a response by October 21st. And that might put some delay into the process. If the task, particularly if the task includes a review of the business plan or the construction estimates, I don't think we would be prepared to provide you with a consult evaluation of those matters until March or April of next year, which is a significant time delay. We're also, are we asking the consultant to review the concept plans and the landlord plans. In other words, the changes, what are the implications, what are they down the road implications. Those are all questions that if the consultant makes a review, the center would need to have an opportunity to respond to, I think, so that there would be some dialogue between our consultants and our consultant and their consultants. So, and I think there were also, I would point out that I think the distinction between the amphithe, and these are just notes that I made based upon re-listening to the meeting. The distinction between an amphitheater renovation versus reconstruction, which is we're talking about, I don't think that's a consultant issue. That's really a policy issue for this body to say, if you're satisfied with the landlord plan is proposed. Further, I think that if we're talking about design, the parking facilities, I think those are things that a consultant could evaluate. If feasibility of the underground parking, they may not have enough data to give a final answer without having to do significant research as to, you know, location of underground utilities, feasibility of relocation, all of those things that would normally take place in an IDA process. But I would like some more input from you all as to what the scope of this consultancy is supposed to be, so that we're clear when we go out on the street. I did start looking today for firms that have broad expertise that includes performing arts facilities, not just general real estate and development, but there should be some connection to performing arts because that's the particular topic we're looking at. But I'm without knowing exactly what we're gonna ask them to do, it's very difficult to talk to them about coming to work for us. So I'd look for some input. Thanks. Anyone really wants to go? I'm happy to weigh in first, but if anyone wants to go, all right, so I'm trying to think about this. What are we solving for? What brought us here? And it was the fact that we had to do landlord approval, perhaps more when we had all of these things that didn't happen yet. So I'm trying to solve for those things. I'm trying to solve for the fact that, as a landlord, how comfortable would we be with the maybe greater level of review than you would have at the IDA in terms of parking, circulation, traffic, impact on other properties during the use of the center once it's built, and also the impact to our other assets, the public space, and assets we still own the Museum of Art even though it's leased to them, and then we still own actually, you know, Aister Park even though it's under a long term set of leases. So I'm thinking about the impact on that. We don't have all those answers. I know that Ms. Virgin said, you know, they'll take those things in consideration. I would like someone to opine now while we have a chance to do this Alternatively, we could enter into some sort of amendment with the center that recognizes I mean, I think we have pretty broad plenary review anyway under the IDA process But I don't want to get into disagreement that, well, you waved your right on landlord plan stage and now you've got all these traffic and circulation problems during the project and construction and then after. If we can enter in some understanding that that IDA process still keeps everything in, and I'm not even sure what that gap is, that would address one of my concerns. The second bigger concern was that there's some indexing in the agreement for there's indexing if the construction costs rise one of the three and I'm forgetting which you've got the operating fund you've got the maintenance reserve and you've got the endowment. One of those indexes based on costs two of them don't there is now a greater plan potentially for the center that might increase the operating costs and the endowment that would be necessary because they're pegged to certain figures. We don't have an escalator there and I think that's a small issue. If we found out that the cost jumped up dramatically, maybe we'd have an escalation there. And I've not yet talked about this with the Missacaritis. I'm just trying to go on the fly here. That might be another way we can address that through an agreement. If not, then it might be helpful to just get someone to try to with the limited information now. Give us some insights. Are we looking at a big increase? The way you'd have to go back and say, yeah, we'll condition the plans, but if you go over X percent in costs, then we need an X escalator down the line, which I think is a reasonable request. You could consider it in due course. I don't want to delay this inordinately into March because that will cause other deadlines to push back. And I think the deadlines we've already had, at the time I said they were rather generous. I think you know my thoughts about the original project there, but we have the original agreement, I thought we could have done more, but agreements in place. Don't want to revisit all those. I also don't want to require us to wait to analyze what I feel these are two core issues with the whole business plan entirely. I think that's going to get us down a rabbit hole that's not really going to help. And then we're just postponing a discussion on May, we're March or later for something that we're not going to fully know and that may still change. I was seeing this through the lens of where in landlord, are they going to be altering the stuff? How does it impact us? I want to get those two impacts. That's what I have to have them focus on. Maybe it's someone more in the nature of a builder's rep. I think they could probably do more work on the former issue about the circulation traffic based on what they know now and augment what our staff has and maybe they could give us kind of a gut check to be a framework for a dialogue with them between now and October. Those are my thoughts. Mr. Wigdor. Yeah, thank you. I agree that those are very good thoughts. I think one of the things that we can appreciate is that in terms of the last bite of the apple, the way that you were talking about it yesterday and clarifying some of those things, a very brief amendment might allow survival of some of those approvals pending the receipt and review of some of the things that Mr. Brown had indicated and some of the things that misverge indicated yesterday where Where she said well, yeah, obviously if once we get these construction numbers if they're if they're completely changed then well We'll have to come back to you. So, you know, obviously it You know, it appears that there would need to be some sort of survival. If we have the owners rep, you know, alongside with us reviewing these things and we have a survival of those approvals, pending the receipt of the information, we can still proceed on the process without, you know, without moving all the tons lines down. approvals pending the receipt of the information we can still proceed on the process without you know without moving all the the tons lines down and as they get more information on the building on the business plan on the operational plan on the construction plan they could be providing it to us and likewise the Brookfield approval I guess because of the timing of this meeting, like I said, it leapfrogged the Brookfield approval. So obviously, again, I would like to hear what the major, the other major partner in the center is saying too. So I think we can, you know, at least by October 21st, we can hire or get very close to hiring this owner's rep. They'll be alongside us. And then, you know, I'm not so much concerned about the higher or get very close to hiring this owners rep, they'll be alongside us. And then, you know, I'm not so much concerned about the questions that we know. I'm really concerned about the questions that we don't know. And that's the, you know, we, because we don't know what we don't know. And so the idea is someone with expertise might raise different questions that we are yet unaware of. Separate, again, separate from the IDA process, and like I said, I would hate for there to be a disagreement on the wording that the landlord has, you know, that we have, you know, given up our right to review such material changes because they're technically not part of the IDA regulatory process. So, you know, again, I think we have a month to figure that part out of what needs to survive and what kind of small changes might need to be there, a month to just engage a consultant who's going to perhaps have some of those questions and then move alongside with us, I think Mr. Thompson might have recommended yesterday saying, hey, this person needs to be with us anyway. So, you know, they're going to have to be here anyway. They will be the person that we're looking at for that. But certainly we have some time to flesh this out in the next month of actually what we need and the consultant can move alongside us. We can see if we need a small amendment to deal with the survival issue, the Brookfield issue, and some of those other things. The indexing operational issue and downwind, I think there's an endowment thing that they have to have a certain amount. Also, so. Okay, May it's before we go on. May I just, I want to get some clarity for Mr. Reader or allow a question back. I was talking about trying to see if a consultant can sopine this, not necessarily get the consultant on board just in time for that meeting because I want them to be a little pined and hopefully we can still be moving a pace and still, you know, have a, have a substantive vote at that October 21 meeting. Was that where you were envisioning? Again, given what Mr. Brown and Ms. Virgin said yesterday in terms of that, the, you know, that the business plan has to be updated, but again, we might be able to review it as Ms. Sakurai has said, and that the construction and all of those things will not be available until an end of year, I don't see how a consultant is going to be able to do a substantive review before there is any plan. There's any truth. I think it's a chicken in the egg. Samaria. So, yeah, I see those dates just not coinciding. An agreement of this size, a project of this scope, moving some of these dates, not penalizing the center at all. I know your position, Mr. Mayor, from before and other dates and the negotiations and all those things. But in the grand scheme of things, for the benefit of the city, if we have to move some of these dates a few months back in the grand scheme of things for a project that we want to last generations and to be done right and for everyone to be happy with the product, I think moving it back, if we have to, is not a big deal. All right, thank you. Further thoughts on what we'd want from a consultant, Ms. Nackles? Thank you, Mayor Singer. So I had spoken briefly with Mr. Brown earlier today because after last night's meeting, I just wasn't sure where we landed the plane as far as a consultant. So I asked him instead of talking about it two weeks from now if we could talk about it tonight since it was still fresh in my mind. And since I was not on council at that time listening to the presentation last night and reading through staff's comments there was a lot to be determined during the IDA process. And I know that that's normal for for a lot of those things but one of the things that you said last night and you said it again tonight, Mr. Singer, was I don't want the situation to come up where we wave any rights during the IDA process because we approved the landlord's plans. And so I agree with Mr. Wigder and I think staff had offered it at the outset for, outset of this, of this whole agreement that they recommended having a consultant but the, but counseled that time did not agree and did not go forward with the consultant which was fine but there's been a lot of change and with the demolition versus the renovation and it's gotten significantly larger and I think having a consultant not just for the next month or two months but but alongside of us throughout this process would be beneficial to us and would be responsible. Wait a minute. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I may make a part of it. It makes sense for us to split apart a couple of issues. One is the, and it's a very valid point, and I'm with you here, that to what degree, if we don't raise it now, do we wave it later? That's a very important issue. But I think I have good news there. We have a professional with the city already who can opine on that, and that is the city attorney, the city attorney's office. I don't mean to put you on the spot right now, but that is something that we wouldn't need to hire a consultant to have that dis, in the event that we're as an amendment. I was even assuming there's some ambiguity on that, and I'm not sure that there is. But if there was, our council could reach out to them and address a potential amendment as to, right? So that isn't really, I don't see that as part of the scope of the consultant. But I recognize that that is a valuable, very valuable bit of information. To what degree does something need to be raised now or we have to forever hold our peace, right? So maybe what we do is give Mr. Kailer and the city of Terry's office some time to look back at that, opine to each one of us where that stands. And perhaps if we need to, can come up with an amendment if that's necessary. I don't really necessarily think that one is, but in that event we can address that, I think separately. I agree with, I think with a lot of everybody saying that is it's going to be very tough to get any kind of substantive review by a consultant, by October 31st, or 21st, whatever the date is. And so we have to kind of temper our expectations as to what degree they're going to be able to dig in and chew on this and provide some sort of guidance on that. Instead, I think I see this as a, I may mention this yesterday, I see this as like a partner for us along with the center. Somebody who's going to guide us, there's many years left in this agreement. I see a consultant here to be there more a year from now, six months from now, and really not so much within the next month because I don't think that that's realistic. In Mr. Wittner to your credit, you keep suggesting maybe we move back some of the dates. I'll keep an open mind on that. I think my preference though is that once you start moving in maybe a few months you're right, it's probably not the end of the world. But once you start moving it, then we get in the habit of moving it, I'd rather not get into the habit of moving it if we can avoid that. So my preference leads to the moment. Again, I'll keep an open mind on it. But if my preference is the moment I think is to keep the deadlines the way that they are now, because otherwise it opens the door to a whole host of other issues. So I think that's kind of my direction if I can, if that makes sense, Mr. City Manager, and happy to discuss further if that's not enough, Larry. Would you like a pie now or would you like here for Ms. Drucker? That's what I thought. enough clarity. Would you like a pie now or would you like your from Ms. Drucker? Well, I'd like to hear from everybody. That's what I thought. Why didn't you hear from her? And then we'll see where we land already after one go round, Ms. Drucker. So I think we kind of discussed this yesterday, and I understand that there might have been a lot of clarity. But for me, of course, I agree. on in about a month, so that's not going to work. With the way I envision this process, and we said it's going to be for many years, I hear Mr. Thompson, is that you have this consultant as a partner with us and the center, basically to guide us for those issues. I'm not looking to go back to the lease agreement. I'm not looking to go and negotiate timelines, although I'll be open to that. I think we've already done that as a council and as a council in the past we said no to the consultant then now this council that's here today wants a consultant because we're getting more into the nitty gritty of this deal and of this amazing you know possible center so just like I said yesterday we're not looking to recreate all the work that has been put in by staff and by everyone involved in this process the last two plus years it's more from where we're going from now forward. Yes to a consultant, absolutely, because that will protect us if we don't have that expertise. I read Mr. Thompson, we do have a City Attorney's Office that could do research on these amendments. We have three attorneys on this council that I'm sure will review and provide their input. But in terms of pushing things off and starting to make timeline concessions, I think you start getting into a slippery slope unless we really have to. I think we shouldn't even have in that conversation. And again, we shouldn't be giving up our rights either and the IDEA process. I think this is just like any other project, although it's a much bigger project, a much bigger magnitude project for our city, that we kind of keep a pulse on it. So hire this consultant to Mr. Brown. When I was with the Historical Society and we were doing the consultant for the New Museum for the Schmitt Book of Museum, we did have a consultant that would come and explain to us and we had them there kind of side by side on some of these things, whether in this case it would be parking, it would be traffic circulation, it would be impact on closures of roads. Those are things that we're already anticipating in this project. So is this like a project like any other project? It's just a bigger project that happens to be leased from us, but we have many other organizations that have gone through that we own the land and we lease the land from that we've hand held them. I refer to Brightline yesterday. I couldn't remember. We had a consultant then. So again, whatever consultant that we need so that we have that person in place when we're ready to move forward that we'll be able to orient not only staff where there's deficiency in the expertise level but the body here making those decisions. What do you think, Mr. Brown? From what I'm hearing, I think there is consensus for us to look for what I would call an owners representative that has the following in their portfolio. Construction, construction management, circulation, traffic, parking, etc. Any issues that might come up in terms of the agreement itself, in other words giving a advice on interpretation, that will come from the legal department, but they may give advice on that, etc. Any issue that might come up during the process, for example, is the construction costs that we are presented at the time they're supposed to present and pursue into the BCDA, a reasonable construction cost based upon what is proposed? They'll have a budget, someone will look at the budget and say, we think that this particular aspect I'm making something up. The drainage is way too low considering x, y, and z. In other words, and that would be something we would work out mutually with our partner, the center, through the process. I also think that at this point, it's very important for us to say if Miss Virgin indicated yesterday that for example on the parking garage and the circulation that she did not feel that our granting approval to the landlord plans now would for stall us from saying in the future we don't think this works. It needs to be adjusted. Perhaps we need to put some language in the agreement that gives us that we're adopting a resolution approving the landlord plans with certain things that are still subject to review and change later. I think also that there are identified what I mentioned it earlier one when I consider to be a threshold issue right now the amphitheater Whether it's done the way that landlord plans propose or the way the concept plan proposed which was renovating the existing if that is really important to the council that it be the existing renovated Then I think at this point you say we can't approve the plans as they've been presented. I mean, it really boils down to that. I think that decision has to be made now because they have proposed a new approach to the amphitheater. If that is not satisfactory to the council based upon policy for the community, then we need to tell them that. May I pause there for you to pull the members on that one issue? May I be heard just very briefly on that before please? We'll find one way or the other. So I think the staff identified the fact that the reorientation of the amphitheater is a it's different right? So it probably is a material difference. But I think the question we have to answer is, because a difference can be bad, it can be good, or it can be neutral. And I don't necessarily see it as a bad one. If it's bad, and that's that would therefore create or ground for us to say no on the landlord plans. I'm not sure I'm there. It is different, but I don't see different necessarily meaning bad. for us to say no on the landlord plans. I'm not sure I'm there. It is different, but I don't see different necessarily meaning bad. It could be an improvement. And I think a lot of the ways that they showed it as part of their landlord plans, to me at least, show it to be an improvement. So a difference isn't necessarily bad. I guess it's kind of where I take it. And simply because it's different than what it was. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a negative thing. I think maybe we'll do that. But that's how I see it. Yeah, it's a difference, but it's not necessarily one that should hold it up. Anyone else? I'll jump in then since we're already at the mic. And also, Mr. Kailer is available to speak to. The pre-construction development agreement as a Resurrection of rights clause. We'll get to that, but why don't we just finish the polling here. Short answer is, no, it's not a deal breaker for me. I voice some concerns about, are they going to have a moveable stage that could orient from the north looking southwards of people looking north, could still see and get that long access. They said, yes, that'll be determined, but no, I don't think they have to keep that structure. It is not sacrosanct for me Mr. Rucker Again, we knew that when we approved this two years ago that that was just the conceptual Design and I know some of you were not on the council, so I understand that but because of what they've already brought to us It's not a deal breaker for me. I don't necessarily need to keep the amphitheater that way. I think Ms. Virgin brought a couple points yesterday that the structure is old. We've been talking about how dilapidated some parts of Minds or Park are. So I think for me to say, no, I'm not going to do it because we're not going to do it. And I think the way that they have presented the architecture, the way they've brought in this architect, like we already know that. They didn't unveiling, I don't know, a few months ago, that some of us were present. So some of this already has been put out there and like we should have been thinking about this. Like this is what was coming. This is not like, shouldn't be news to us because this was already presented to the majority of us and to the press and to everyone else that's what they were thinking. That's what it looked like. It didn't look like they had adjusted to the old amphitheater and put it as part of the new structure. So for me, I think the conceptual change once they went from center for fine arts and innovation where they wanted to be more innovative and and explain that part. So that's something that I can get behind. And they've kind of given all the different options that you know we talked about the rain because of increments. But right now if it rains I've been there in the amphitheater where we've gotten drenched. I mean that's just a fact. So whether you know that then these didn't cover or didn't not cover like you know we're either going to do innovative change with a vision of the art center or we're going to go back to what we kind of had. So it's not a deal breaker for me. I'm okay with what was presented without giving again. Our rights if we have to make changes along the way. Okay, and so we already have a three-fifth answer, a three-set, not a deal breaker, the other two-one away and we can weigh in. Ms. Eccles? It is not a deal breaker for me. Different doesn't mean bad to me either. I'm open-minded. There are things in that design. And even by their own admission and own recognition, the architectural plans and the designs that we saw may look very different. They're still going to be modern and a certain type of architecture but they could look completely different from what has been presented to us, at least as long as I've been on council. All I'm looking for is to make it tighter and I would like some more answers and that's why I brought up the consultant again but I'm different doesn't mean bad. So I'm open. I think there are some changes. If it rains now, yes, it rains, I've been out there, it's been pouring, but the ground soaks up the water. And people aren't spilling drinks all over the hardscape and slipping and falling on a complete hardscape. People go out now and enjoy the lawn and picnic on the lawn. I'm sure your kids run around on the lawn. My kids 25 years ago ran around on that lawn. It's not going to have that feel anymore. I'm not really sure if they've done, because I haven't had a meeting with them. So I'm not really sure if they've done public outreach much at all, which is something I asked about when I did have a meeting with them. And what the public thinks about this, because it is supposed to be for the community. And I think it was kind of telling that we're asking this question now, are we yeah your name on the amphitheater? Does a deal breaker or not? When we heard, we run so piano, person yesterday, Mr. Antoine say, if you're not gonna do the amphitheater, then you don't need us. And I was like, wow, okay. Hopefully we can work together to figure this out, but I'm glad we're having this discussion. It's not a deal breaker for me. I'm open, let's see some more ideas, but I wanna see something that's more concrete and tighter than pictures that may not mean anything to us. Mr. Rieger, just a question of the deal breaker ampthator or not? It's not a deal breaker. All right, thank you. Mr. Brown, still floor yours. Okay. We understand that, and that's good good because that was a critical point in the discussion yesterday. I would point out that what we've seen in the concept plan to the landlord plans is an evolution of the idea and as they indicated yesterday it will involve further and we will see those plans when we see the IDA. As I mentioned, we might want to consider an amendment that says we, you know, if we need to tighten up what it says with regard to reservation of rights as misveragen indicated yesterday, we would work those things out as we go along. There are many questions. Miss, not, Miss, not, Miss, not, Miss mentioned some change is difficult. Change needs to be understood. It may be that in fact there will be plenty of places for people to picnic just as there were we just need to understand how they will be, etc. So I mean I think I have a good understanding where we want to go with a consultant and then I think we will report back on the 7th of October what kind of progress we're making. I have ideas I think think, based upon what we're looking at, I think it won't be that difficult to find someone. And they may need to bring someone in with performing arts center expertise to their team, if necessary. Someone that's independent from the center and from other places where the center's consultants have worked. Right. So that's, I appreciate the input tonight the center and from other places where the centers consultants have worked So that that I appreciate the input tonight and the discussion so that helps us move forward. Thank you May I put sir just all right. Thank you Council members anyone want to add anything or would anyone like to hear now about the Pre-construction development agreement clause on reservation of rights during the idea process I Like to hear about it. Thank you, Mr. Gailer. Sure. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, just to point out on the reservation of rights issue, as Mr. Wigger asked yesterday about the distinction in the PCDA between the City Council's CRA as an owner of the land, a landlord, and a city council CRA as a regulatory body reviewing the idea. And the council's correct the parties and vision that the concept plan was just that, a concept. And that this process would occur and the landlord plan approval process was the opportunity here for the council CRA to weigh in as a property owner, which is a different hat. I just want to point out though that PCBA did envision that if during the IBA process, after the landlord review plans, landlord plans were approved. If there were material modifications that happened during that process, the party's contemplated that PCA and I would be required to go back to the city and CRA in its capacity as landlord. So there already is built in this component of reservation of rights. That said, the council by communicating these reservations or concerns now is certainly an appropriate time to communicate them so that the parties are on the same page. That was very helpful, Mr. Carole. Thank you. Let me ask a related, let me be the converse question, which is I think what you were saying just now is if there are material modifications after the landlord stage and before the IDA stage, then obviously we wouldn't have waved anything as it had never been brought to us. But my question now is to what degree if any, are we waving our rights in something that is contained in the landlord plans that does not get modified later on. And I recognize I may be putting on the spot, no problem. Why don't we, if you don't know the answer, no problem, if you do great, but if not, maybe just let us all know, because I think that's important. Everybody follow that. If there's something that's there now, and we don't raise it later on? Or will it have been waived if it was part of the landlord plans that were submitted to us and that we're discussing now? Appreciate the question. And certainly would like to look at the agreement more carefully and give the council a thoughtful response. Thank you. And I appreciate the two. I was trying to do that. When I said yesterday, I'm going to need a recess. I was trying to do it when I said yesterday I'm going to need a recess. I was trying to do it on the fly and then it was referencing the wrong section. So that not having to do that at the moment was helpful for me at least and probably saved a lot of time. Further comments in response to Mr. Brown's question? All right, thank you, Mr. Brown, still your report. Thank you very much. That's all I have this evening. Thank you, City of New York, Mr. Kailer. I have no report. Thank you. I'll start on my right this time for Council Member of the Court, Mr. Wigter. Sure. Thank you very much, brief report this evening. Last time we talked about the FDOT Federal Highway Complete Streets Reader Design. know we were very happy about that. I think Mayor Singer and Councilmember Drucker talked about the fact that this has been a long time coming and that this has transcended many, many councils and I do, I do respect and I do feel that there is this part where we are passing the baton where we will not see sometimes the fruits of what we decide and that the next council will have to deal with it as well. So, you know, to get it to that point, of course, I think in the ether, the previous councils, including some of which are here and the staff and the mobility team for getting it there. It looks like a, like I said, a wonderful design and you know, it's certainly an opportunity to improve pedestrian mobility. I think it's important. In other news, as people might know, when they're driving downtown or in certain sections of the city, I sip and repayment of the downtown is moving along nicely. This is fifth street, and Favonier, and you can see again, new pavement clear markers, including, as we know, the second street bike bypass. And like I said, I've biked it already. I've driven it already already and it is nice. There's some things that could be cleared up, but again, it is, so I kind of go back before, after, and I kept going back and forth to see how much brighter it is and a lot of the Jeff Speck and mobility things are just awareness of bikers and just that the painted lanes, it's not a complete buffer as we talk about, but it's certainly helpful. Likewise, my name is Boulevard and I've said this before, it was supposed to be a bypass to the downtown. Over the last 20-X years, 20-plus years, now it's a neighborhood. People are not just driving through. Of course we have a single family zoning north of Palmezzo. We have dense multi-family south of Palmezzo. Yet still we have a four lane highway going through this. The city we've done a lot of steps done an amazing job doing interim improvements. They've been well received. Likewise, the requirements and the site plan improvements from new developments, this is the Alina here, having a buffered sidewalk and even, you know, seating access, a really some positive, positive improvements there. But now that we're getting close, and Mr. Brown and I have talked about this, now that we're getting close to the point where ALTA is going to be giving us some suggested improvements for Palmetto and now that we have a mobility team involved, I would hope that it's now the time for staff to consider looking at myzner Boulevard, especially as a pilot program in line with upcoming Palmetto and FDOT improvements potentially for one lane each way plus a bike lane each way. The other reason I bring this up is because we talked about the center and we talked about traffic and we talked about all those things and Mr. Singer yesterday brought up the fact that, well, the queue in this particular instance because it's on that side it's on the northern side of the street, the queue is going to be on Meisner Boulevard. And necessarily, the queue in order to drop off on a passenger basis is going to be on Meisner Boulevard and the garage is on Meisner Boulevard. So if one of the lanes is eliminated after the drop off, it might actually work that there's only one lane of traffic because that other lane of traffic has disappeared into a new MISNor Center and then can continue as a bike lane after. So there could be some real process improvements in line with what the center's doing on the north side. Likewise on the south side, again, it's because it's so pedestrian and the neighborhood friendly. I was talking with one of the Alina construction workers, the Alina construction worker that controls the traffic when the trucks are pulling in. And he tells me that just people are flying down that path because there's no stop sign. In fact, the Alina construction representative is the one who alerted to me that there is no speed limit sign anywhere on my cerebral abort on that section. So I mean, obviously people know it's residential areas, probably 30 or 35 miles an hour, but there is no sign there. So again, existing conditions relate to more of a thoroughfare, which is perhaps what the original attention was in the downtown plan than a neighborhood. We can do pilot programs, tactical urbanism, obviously with a little more than paint and planters and armadillos and things like that. We can try things that are not expensive. And I'm hoping Mr. Brown that the new mobility team is it's something that they can try and certainly in this respect until a full redesign is ready. Lastly, for the good and welfare of Bokaritone last weekend was National Cleanup Day. And there were many, many initiatives. One of them was on the beach, and there was hundreds of people there as well. So I was able to help there a little bit, which I thought was interesting. And there's a lot of garbage. I'm taking pictures of garbage now. That's great. But one of the things that was surprising and slightly sad was that one of the things that was surprising and slightly sad was that one of the beach people that was cleaning up adjacent to me, every time he found a bottle cap, he announced it publicly. Bottle cap, bottle cap, and unfortunately he was announcing bottle cap every 10 seconds. I know that Ms. Drucker and I separately in Europe this summer, and the bottle caps do not they're not allowed to come off. They're fixed on the bottle. They can only be opened and closed. So it's surprising. It's not a bokeh problem per se. It's a national problem that, you know, how could we not have this technology that the cap cannot be taken off and it's littered? And so, you know, there is a touch of sadness in that because there's so much plastic on the beach that just gets obliterated and obliterated that it starts to blend in. And so you just walk on it and so, you know, it, you know, I'm thankful for these types of programs. And likewise, I'm thankful for Mr. Thompson initiative that I was able to help participate in. His continued initiative on cleanup and we talked about it yesterday. I just cleaned up from wild flour to the beach pavilion and as I told you yesterday, it was kind of scary that I collected like 20 pounds of garbage and just from the bridge to the beach. It was a lot. My only, if there was a policy consideration there, my only consideration would be that it seems or that there's an appearance that, especially because on Palmetto, from Walfall, I were going to the beach, there are a certain number of vacant parcels. And I know in New York City and in other cities where we operate, a lot maintenance is the responsibility up to the curb of the property owner. And it does seem like on vacant parcels, there's significantly more trash than on us. So that might be something that co-enforcement looks into or a whatnot, but to take care of those things. So I do appreciate Mr. Thompson, you bringing up that important initiative as well, and likewise the weekend. So that's all I have right now. I think there's some great things happening downtown and everywhere else. And I think we're all doing things for the better. So I appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Walker. Thank you, Mayor. Just real quick. I just want to give a shout out to staff. I love our new city of Boca Raton, Centennial swag. We also have a bag, et cetera. But I posted something today, which I normally don't do a little video on our swag, because I really like it. I have a bag down there. And people started asking, are we going to be able to buy this merch? So it's more about a question for staff. You could respond later. But I wanted to put it out there because I've been sporting all my new treasures here. And especially with the water bottle bottle I already have some people interested in buying the water bottle so maybe you can answer that Mr. Brown. It will be this is a sneak preview although it's not really sneak anymore it's out there and this way it will be available we're going to have all kinds of merchandise related to the centennial people just need to it will be on the website how to get to it. Well that's everything that I had. I did my report last night or yesterday. Just wanted to give a shout out because I think it's really good swag. And yeah, we're going to show it off. So thank you for that. I really thank you, Ms. Eccles. Thank you. Just something short I wanted to mention. Not only was September 21st National Cleanup Day, but it was also a national day of peace. And during the week, the week before Mayor Singer and Deputy Mayor Drecker and I, we're with the Rotary Club where they unveiled the first Peace Pole in Boka at Sugar Sand Park. And another one is going to be going at Ocean Strand Park and Doug Heiser put kind of a an idea out there of putting them in a lot more parks so we'll see about that but it was a really nice unveiling there were a lot of children there and music and sister really nice reminder of something we should all be striving for. Thank you Mr. Thompson. No report thank you. Thank you and I'll just I've had a little chance to sit here and I'll think more about it going back to our discussion on the Magistrate process These are my two cents but if there's still a If there's still an opinion the council should be the ultimate body of appeal when they don't come up that much. Then maybe the process should just play out as it is. My goal was to try to take us out of it. If we want to stay there, I don't know if it's as useful to have a second, you know, to have a maestric to interpose another magistrate to review. If it's going to come back to us, as Mr. Shad said, it's probably just going to come back to us. So just small, let over, please, council colleagues. And we can think about it when it comes back up. That was really the thrust of it to kind of de- to keep the process down there. If it's going to come to us, then maybe just the status quo. But we'll, as we said, we'll continue to reach for to make good even better and better even Boka, like our glasses say. So if there's nothing further to come before us, we are adjourned at 805. Thank you.