I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You are on. Thank you. You're good. Thank you. Recording in progress. and welcome today is Tuesday March 18th. The time is approximately seven PM. We'll now call the order the meeting of the South Miami City Commission. Welcome again. If you could please silence or turn off your cell phones, we would greatly appreciate it. Madam President Corriee. President. The mission is finished. Here. The mission is done. Here. The mission is done. appreciate it. Madam Clerk can you call the role please? Yes, Mayor Fernandez. Present. Vice Mayor Cory. Present. Commission Vanille. Here. Commission Kaye. Here. Commission Rodriguez. Here. You have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Clerk. If you please rise for a brief prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Rodriguez. Dear Lord in this time in space we acknowledge you as a giver of all good things. You are our great provider. As you have loved us, help us to love others. Help us to see the needs of others as we see the wants in our own lives. Forgive us when we try to argue our way out of lending a hand. Forgive the times we assume we understand others' experiences instead of truly listening and placing ourselves in their shoes. Teach us to understand the weaknesses and others as we recognize the weaknesses in ourselves. Father, help us to be a source of unity as we make ourselves vulnerable to the needs of others. As we soften our hearts, help others see you in us. Remind us how Christ lived in humility so we may serve those in need. May we think of the least, the last, and the last. So we might love in Jesus' name. Amen. 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. Please be seated. again if anyone would to speak this evening, there is a signing sheet for public remarks. It's at the back of the chamber. Please add your name. Staff will bring it up when we open public remarks in a few minutes. Madam Clerk, are there any add-on items to tonight's agenda? Yes, that's one. Could you read the item please? Excuse me. A resolution with Sydney resolution number 024-24-16129, which authorized the city manager to execute certain means to aid agreements and randomness of understandings and other procedural law enforcement agreements with governmental entities including any amendments or renewals there to on an ongoing basis. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, any objections to adding item F1 on? Seeing no objection, we'll consider the item adding on to tonight's agenda. Madam Clerk, are we deferring the approval of the minutes? Yes, please. City Manager, your report, please. As always, the floor report can be found in tonight's agenda but as an overview the parks and wreck and culture department has a lot of things going on the northwest gate at South Miami Park is scheduled for completion by the end of this month South Miami Park restroom and concession building the construction is underway on that project and on the recreation side our aquatic center at Murray Park officially opens on the 24th so that coincides with the spring break. On March 8th we had city staff representing almost all departments compete in the fourth year in a row for C.F. kickball tournament. I'm happy to say that they raised not staff but the foundation raised $82,000 and I'm also proud to say that they brought home the community trophy as well as the overall trophy. So next commission meeting, you'll see a presentation of the trophy, but I just wanted to say thank you to everybody who participated because it's a great cause and a great event. And thank you to you for being there in spirit with that marvelous cutout of your image. Thank you. One last item on the marketing site, I did want to share a video that was recently produced in reference to the Sony Connect app and our website that we will be marketing to residents so that they see all the changes and how accessible the city is if they have any questions. Thank you. Something new just came to the city of South Miami website and the Sony Connect app. We've redesigned these platforms to make it easier, faster, and more convenient for you to connect with your city. Our new website features a modern mobile-friendly design, making it seamless to navigate from any device with our enhanced menu and site-wide search bar. Finding the information you need is just a few clicks away. Need to pay a bill, apply for a permit, or contact a department. The How Do I Tab is your go-to guide for navigating city operations effortlessly. Looking for the best shops, restaurants, entertainment, and South Miami? Shopzomi is an interactive business directory that connects you with all our vibrant local businesses. Residents can now access city services like Submit a request, filling out forms and making online payments through the My Sony portal. Your one-stop shop for online services. Want to learn more about South Miami? Our community profile section gives you insights into local economics and demographics. For residents, the police to citizen portal makes police services and information more accessible than ever. Submitting a service request is also just as easy. Click submit a service request in your mobile app or click the heart with wrench icon and select a request category to report a concern or request. quest and track their progress and even check out job opportunities with the city of South Miami all in one place. Your city, your way, whether online or on the go. Explore the new City of South Miami website and so may connect app. Thank you very nicely done. Thank you to Elena and Anthony from our finance department for being the actors in this video. Elena is also a city resident so thanks to them. Thank you. Colleagues, any questions of the manager? Okay, we'll move on. Mr. City Attorney, your report please. Mayor, we have nothing to report. There is a discussion item that I do want to discuss with you when we get to it. All right. Which is that, sir? That is the one. It's an update on the zoning application, the county zoning application on Miller Drive. OK, thank you, sir. Yep. OK, we will open up the floor for public remarks at this time. John, we have a list coming forward. OK. I will call your name up if you can please add your name and address for the record. You will have provide everyone three minutes to speak. Thank you. Just do it, okay. Okay, the first thing on the list is Oscar Franco, please. Mr. Franco, good evening. All right. I wanna do understand the benefit of the commission. Please come to the microphone, sir. My apologies. And your name and address is the record one time for the record. Thank you. We just pay for our permit. Your name and address before you start. Franco 6410 Southwest 64th Avenue. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. So we just pay for the permits to build our new house and we understand that we have to put solar panels. I don't see the benefit of it. And I would like to see when we discuss about solar panels, we can just give the residence an option to decide if we want to do it or not do it, not a mandate. Like in my case we're getting natural gas. Carbon footprint of natural gas is way lower than solar panels. I mean, the benefit of solar panels, solar panels increase the cost of insurance. More than a quarter of the complaints of solar companies, it's after they installed the panels, they don't come back to do service, warranties never granted, there's a lot of issues. So the benefit of forcing residents to install solar panels is, I think, not valid. OK. Insurance costs can go up to 15%. There's no benefit in there. What else I did research? Warranty of the roof, it's voided because the solar panel, the mounts break the roof. So warranty is gone. There's another thing, sorry, I don't have my notes. Sir, can I ask you, are you building a new home? Or are you modeling and existing? We're not in expansion, we're outing. Okay, so you're chipping the threshold in terms of the expansion size. Okay, just wanted to understand that. So that's basically what it is. I mean, I don't see the benefit. I would like to hear you guys explain us why you guys think there's a benefit for that. Yeah, what we'll do is we'll, if you want to come up and speak again, we bring the item up for discussion. We'll, we'll happily recognize you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Lisa August. Good evening. Hi, I'm Lisa August. I'm at 65 15 Southwest 78th, Terrace and I'm here today just to understand the development that is in question right now on 80th and Manor Lane. So that's why I'm here today and with that and I think we're going to hear that today or no. It's not here today. That's what I was told. Okay, so wrong time. Which, yeah, which, which project are we referring to if I can ask the development services director because I'm not familiar with it right away. The project on Manorland, we heard on the April 1 meeting. It was... If I can ask the development services director, because I'm not familiar with it right away. The project on Manorland, we heard on the April 1st meeting, it was implanting in zoning last week, but it's not on the agenda for today. Oh, it's not. No, April 1st. Well, while you're here, if you'd like to give us your two seconds on it, if I can just come here before you go, what is the nature of the project we're going to hear about? Just very briefly. I don't want to hold. So what's coming before you is the zoning. Okay. To change the zoning from duplex to RTA-18, they're proposing six units where they currently could have two. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Man, if you want to say something, that way don't they come back on. Yeah, yeah. everything about that and with that new development coming in and actually increasing size how we're going to manage the new people coming in the additional traffic when right now I think we're like totally at a breaking point, especially with all the cross streets and everything else going on in the neighborhood. So I'd like to be able to hear how we're going to address that, how we're doing it now and then how we're going to even further be able to comply with what's happening in the area. That was really overall, and then with the property, all the trees and everything that will probably have to be removed. We'll see you on April 1st, and we'll learn more about it along with you. Thank you. Okay. There's no one else on the list. Any else the chamber who would like to address this commission in public remarks? Floors open. Okay. No one in the chamber. Madam Clerk is there anyone online? No one's online. Okay. So we'll go ahead and close public remarks. With that, Madam Clerk, do you want to read very quickly so we can make, do you need to read all the items in terms of board appointments or is there publication sufficient legally? Okay, so if anyone's interested there have been a number of board appointments made by various members of the commission. They are all published on tonight agenda in the board and committees appointments section. Let's move people in the audience do a discussion as well. I think we can do that. I think we can do that. Colleagues, you want to start on the discussion items? Or should we move some of the other business items? It probably will have less conversation first. I think there's people in the audience doing discussion items. Okay. Let's take those off then. And, clerk, if you can read DI, or sorry, M1, please. M1 commissionable needs plastic straws. Commissioner Booneach, you are recognized on the side. Okay. I actually just brought this up because I had had a conversation with somebody and then I spoke with the city attorney. So I wanted him to clarify for all of us and just on the record, there had been a whole conversation and not necessarily with us. I'm just saying a whole public conversation that you couldn't have public straws and the restaurants and you couldn't do public straws, public straws, public straws. So when I asked the city attorney like what is going on? His answer was and I just wanted for the record so that everybody knows it was and I opened her for me. There is no blanket prohibition on plastic straws in South Miami. Oh, thank The plastic straws are prohibited for city contractors, city vendors, and when there's a special event that closes the streets, that's when plastic straws are prohibited. I don't remember the conversation we had on. No, no, no, I'm saying I was sitting in a restaurant and there was this whole thing going on not even with me And then obviously I somehow I got dragged into it and I'm like I don't think we have a public straw problem Just can I start there? Yeah, no fucking just recognize everyone okay, so we're gonna with the vice mayor Welcome back to you. That's my horse. I was just gonna tell joke. Did you want a band plastic? No? Okay, there we go. I'm just a guy I recognize. No, I'm being harmful. Okay, there we go. That was it. Mr. Kaye, I recognize. I hesitate to laugh. For the idea of our city, if we do have it for local vendors and the city use, how are we enforcing that right now as we speak? Are we doing any enforcement? How do we do enforcement? This is good. An answer you're gonna love to hear the answer too. I asked it as well. Maybe I shouldn't. Yeah, yeah. I would say there's not active enforcement happening. So we basically the answer is we're not it's not reflected in any of our contract documents. So it's a rule that's not being applied. I think it's probably a fair way to characterize it. The contracts do have compliance with the laws clauses in them. Yes, their generic compliance with the laws laws, but they do not highlight the specific requirement. Yeah, so that's your answer, Commissioner Guy. Okay. Okay, is there, so just by way of information, Commissioner Booneach, SB 1822, is making its way through the Senate, and it would preempt once again, arguably to do anything in this field regarding plastic styrofoams or all matter of other items? So, what is SB-28? Let's see. SB-1822 would ban or preempt any local restrictions on single use plastics and styrofoams. Really? Yes. So to accept that we have this rule, it's essentially become an entity. If we try to apply it in the future. So that bill is making its way through the legislature. We'll see what happens here over the next 45 days or so. Further discussion on the item? None? OK. Let's move on. Madam Clerk, if you can read them, too, please. is commissionable needs, bear strike glass. Okay. Commissioner, you are recognized again. I just, oop. Okay, let's move on and clerk if you can read them to please. Yes, commissionable needs. Burst right glass. Okay. Commissioner, you are recognized again. I just wanted to remind us that this still exists as we move forward and we're starting to see movement with newer bigger buildings. The only building that we've had come online so far had this exempt. It wasn't exact. So why don't we bring up our development services director? She can clarify what the order was. I think there's a question as to what the compliance is with whatever the restriction was that we placed on them. Can I finish what I was saying? Yes, you may. Okay. And so I'm just saying, I don't have a problem one way or the other and we all know how I feel about birds. Thank you to Mr. Munoz for giving me the bird deterrent today as a gift. But I just think that whatever it is, we're going to decide if we're going to decide to keep it, we keep it for everybody. And if we're not, we don't. I, you know, we kind of talked this one through back and forth. Once already, I brought it back so that it's fresh in our minds. When this starts to roll around, so we come to a consensus and stick to it, that we doesn't become a one and one and one. So, is your suggestion to eliminate it expanded? Because right now, the only that's exempt is single family homes. Yes. And town homes? I'm not saying that we exempt it. I'm saying that right now, the reason I brought it up as a discussion item is to remind us that this exists and to say that when it comes up, because I'm sure that it will, we're going to need, I think, to act subtle voice. What was it? Soto voice. One voice, okay. Okay. And not like you, yes, you know, you, yes, you know, we'll make a decision and that should be the decision. Not on this block here, so no this project yes, that will know. Okay I'm right Yes, you know, we'll make a decision and that should be the decision. Not on this block, yes, on that block. No, this project, yes, that one, no. Okay. Madam Director, can you just remind us what the condition was with respect to I think Avalan Bay is a project that we're? Well, before the air vote. Yes, you may. Yes. That we can actually state what the code states and then what Avalan. Certainly. today and what was required of that particular project sponsor. So it requires birth. and then what I belong. Certainly, can you clarify the rule today and what was required of that particular project sponsor? So it requires bird safe glazing treatment and that is defined as treatment include fridding, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. So, and then it gives like some dimensional requirements for these things. So it's not like just- Does it apply the entirety of a building or? The hundred feet. Of course, the bottom of the hundred feet. To find the aviation zone or where. And so what is the aviation zone? Because I, yeah. Zero to 100 feet. From grade. What's the significance of the aviation zone? I'm presuming that that's where birds fly. Okay. I did ask you the question should we apply it to the balance of the building? Yeah. So it's not. That is a recommendation from the bird aviation society or whatever it is that puts out these recommendations. Okay and again in terms of the rule what uses are exempt today. The single family like you said and I believe townhomes. Okay great. Further questions of the status of what the state of play today? Okay, tell us about the project. So, Avalon Bay wasn't exempted. They have in their development agreement that they comply, that their drawings comply. I look through the drawings, they don't provide like a list of the compliance documents, but they do say that they will comply with this, not necessarily installing glazing that's bird safe, but that they would comply with the ordinance. And the ordinance doesn't really require some ASTM bird safe glazing. I don't even know if that exists in all honesty. It gives different, you know, the nettings, the screens, the patterns, the UV filters, all those things. Okay. Okay. Questions of the director? None? Okay. What's our pleasure? What would you like to see us? What are you recommending we do by way of next steps? Well, we all know if it was up to me. I wouldn't have this. I don't think it's... To me, it doesn't make sense. When we started having this conversation the last time, I think it was two people, not any of us actually two people that were here that said they had ever seen a bird fly into the glass. But the only reason I bring it up is because I think we will start seeing this again and I just want us to have it front of mind for when it does. That was the only reason for that one. And it just happened to go inside with my gift. Okay. Yes, sir. So at the request of one of our employees that sits in this office at the end, right in front of the clerk's office, they get bird strikes a lot. So as a saying, we are a bird sanctuary city. We respect a lot of stuff. So what I would recommend, and by the way, March 5% of me the details of what they follow, it's convoluted, right? It's not clear and dain't. So maybe what we should do as a commission is go back to our staff and really figure out what is the right requirement to follow. I mean, there's the New York City Audubon Bird Safety Guidelines that they follow in New York. There's dark sky initiatives. There's the United States Coast Guard pilot bird coalition threat. There's a lot of calculations and stuff that's out there that I don't think we've done a really good job of putting it together. it together so I agree with you. I think we need to figure out what's the one-stop solution, fix the code and move forward. I would echo that sentiment. I think there's a place for this kind of regulation. I think with the problems, we don't understand its practical impact. And so, and I don't think when it was drafted, it drafted with any understanding of what products were in the market that could actually satisfy these standards. So, if I hadn't, if I would, the direction I would offer is to have our development services director come back and help us understand which products are in the marketplace and that would satisfy our guidelines. And help us understand the cost differential, if there's any between what is typical window treatment, for a single family home, town home, and a high-rise building or mid-rise building. And if you can help us kind of understand the cost differential if you actually used a market product that actually would satisfy this requirement. So we have a sense of what the incremental cost is that we may be passing along by the virtue of this existence of the rule to the community, the building community, by virtue of this mandate. So I think that would be helpful information to have. Maybe we find out that it's no more costly than what is already doing. And frankly, my problem with this ordinance is what I read the literature is that more than 50% of all the bird strikes nationally are against one story structures, like RCD Hall. Really? Yes. So if you actually read the report that's supported the ordinance, it's not the tool buildings. It's birds hitting that live, you know, typically areas of better canopy, right? Hitting single family, probably glass sliding doors, right? Or a front door that's glass and actually has a street visual core to work to another open window, because I think the perception that can actually fly through that space. That's what the literature says that support of this ordinance originally. So I mean, if we're gonna have the mandate, I think we should probably apply it. Again, for me, if there's demand and miscost or really no cost differential, it should apply to everyone. So I just want to understand what the impact is because this ordinance as it was drafted feels a lot like virtue signaling to pass the cost on to, you know, vertical development. It really not helps solve the core of the problem, which is low-rise structures. So those are my thoughts. Further thoughts or comments, direction? No, I agree. OK. We will move on. Madam Clerk, if you could read M4 for the record, please. M3. M3, sorry. Commissionable niche, solar collectors. She's on fire. OK. Well, because these are, you know, what the first one was because when I learned it from the city attorney, I was like, everybody should know This is fabulous. The second one we all know how I feel. For the solar collectors, we all said we were going to come back to this and we never did. In fairness, it was pointed out to me that we never did because we said we at the beginning, way back, we all said, oh, we should have a special meeting, we should talk about this, but then we took off running and we never did. It's just, I think, kiss met for me that this gentleman who I don't know, thank you for coming today, is he saying, why are we doing this? I continue to believe that this is something that should be a homeowner's choice. I think that when you force someone to do something, you are essentially saying, this might not be the best thing. So we're forcing you to do it. If it was the best thing since sliced bread, everybody would do it. And forcing someone to put something on their home because we are the government is just wrong. And what he said is correct. And at that point, we looked at it and it does raise your insurance rates. In many ways and many times, it does cancel your warranty on your roof. We saw with some of those solar companies, they were going out of business, they were not doing the maintenance on the panels. I mean, we went on and on and on about it at that point. I don't think very much has changed except, I don't know about you guys. My homeowner's insurance policy has gotten more expensive. Because of your panels? Because of what? Your panels? No, no, no, it just because my life just works that way. I just worked so hard. So I just think this should be a choice. Homeowners are not stupid. Our residents are educated people. We should not force them to do something they don't want to do. Hi. what, we'll have some conversation about that. What I'm hoping that the director will give us is what's the state of play? So what's the rule to remind us? Because we talked about this. I think that was November 15th of 2022. It was the last time we discussed it. We haven't discussed it since. So if you can write us, what's the state of play? What is it supposed to apply to? And what are we actually doing? So the role applies to all single, new single family homes and to additions, I think it's over a thousand square feet. And you either install solar panels and it gives you how many solar panel area you have to install or you pay into a fund. It was later modified the way you calculate how much you have to pay into this fund. The latest that I've seen is that it's $25 per solar available solar area. And you would have to have the roof and the roof plans to calculate that area. That's pretty much what the solar panel ordinances right now. There was then attempt to put a moratorium that didn't pass. What passed instead was to have a attempt to put a moratorium. That didn't pass. What passed instead was to have a meeting to discuss solar panels. And that's I think what you're referring to that never happened. Okay. You may go ahead. Since then how many houses. So since November of 2021, we've had. So if you can do pre-2020, pre- November of 2022. So in the inception of 2017, it was 44 new homes, 65 gasholder permits. In January of 2022, in 2022 was when it was changed and there was a confusion about the moratorium. And at that point there were 54 new homes. 32 of those permits are still open. eight of the of the homes actually installed solar panels. And 32 of the 54 permits are still open. So we issued 54 permits. 32 are still open, meaning that we can still require that they install solar panels or pay into the fund. So should only one have the solar. So we still could pick up 31 of them. Basically the ones that we've lost are 14 the ones that were sealed 14 new homes. Is everyone following? Okay. Okay. So that's not a 54. 14 that a 54. Okay. So that's the state of let's the state of the republic today. Okay now I I don't think we wouldn't want to add some thoughts, yes sir. We're sorry, you guys. Through the mayors. So in looking at this, obviously, so for a slimming go back, as far as where the solar panels go, there has to be direct sunlight, correct? If there's a tree that puts shade on the roof, they're exempt from putting. Is that correct? Yeah, in the calculation of the solar, available solar area, any shading by structures that are not from the same property are are accepted from that calculation. So it's the responsibility of your department to go in and check that, you know, sunlight is available on certain square footage. So the ordinance actually puts it on the archetype that they need to submit these calculations. But in the research that I've done, it looks like there was a lot of confusion on how to calculate this. The previous city attorney did it for one property and I took a look at it and yeah, I don't think they did it correctly either so But it was supposed to be on the architects, but we have I have not not found only that one case where they try and They were unsuccessful and so then of the 54 none of them have given you this calculation So I guess you would have to go back now and check no none of the 54 sorry of the 32 that are open So so let's correct because one of them already yeah, but there's 32 still open right now Yes, you would have to go back and see which ones qualify and which ones are exempt if they want to pay to the fund So there's because one of them installed the solar panels or they install the solar panels We don't have to do this calculation so 31 open permits. Yes. And you would have to go back, and would they have to do a revision with their architect? And do those calculations? Yes. So, okay, so that being said, you know. Okay, let's just stick to questions for now, and we'll have a conversation. So, for questions, none? Well, just a, sorry. We're, we're also going to talk about solutions a little bit further along, right? Yes. That's the idea. Yeah. Yeah. But questions, no questions, no more questions. I have a question of the eight that were installed. Are you, are you confident that those were installed consistent with the standard? I have no reason not to be. I mean, they're inspected, they're permitted through plans. They got permits, it was inspected and finalized. Yeah, well, we'll have a conversation about my confidence. Yes, you have another question. We're gonna ask questions, we're gonna open it for public comment. Okay, is that a public hearing item? We're open for public comments, can recognize you sir, excuse me a second. So I have a quick one last quote. So we're going to, we're going to, we're going to ask questions. We're going to open it for public comment. Okay. Is that a public hearing item? We're open for public comments. We can recognize you sir. Can we just second? So I have a quick one last question. So if the 31, these are all new construction or remodels? New construction. We have not been able to run a lot of work. on the additions because it's not a report that we could query all a thousand square feet or more. I have to go in one by one to see how many square feet they were in the addition. So, but this wouldn't include a thousand square feet or more. I would have to go in one by one to see how many square feet they were in the addition. So, but this would include a resident on their own one to put solar panels. That wouldn't be included in this. These are tied to a master permit of a new home. Okay. Okay. So, fair to infer from that statement that any addition that would have exceeded the threshold, we have no idea whether they comply with today's rule or not. Correct. Okay. Okay. So we're done with questions. Let's let's let members of the public come on up, sir. You recognize? And so what else like to speak? Just line upber Hyden, please. Good evening again. I want to thank you for allowing me to express my discomfort about this solar panel stuff. There is no standard of installation. Installation comes from whichever installer you pick. And most of them, they just do whatever they want to do. Basically. As I said before, the insurance can go up from 12 to 15%. The money that you invest in this system, you will never recover that money back. So there's no benefit in that part. The components are all made in China. Some of them will work. Some of them will just break. And you won't be able to do anything. warranty won't be't be granted and at the end you're gonna have to buy a new inverter which is like three four thousand dollars So there's no benefit in there There's different systems you can up to get your solar panels to feed your house You can get a battery pack so you load the panel I mean the batteries and then you have energy when the power goes out or you can get the system that you sell sell power back to FPL. But then if you want to sell power back to FPL and you're producing too much energy, FPL is going to charge you to install a new transformer in the corner because they need a new transformer to be able to, you know, put that power back into a grid. So there's no benefit. Now, here it comes. When we have a hurricane there there's debris flying all over stuff. That breaks the panels. The panel is broken and you have to go get a new one. That's it. There's nothing you can do. The voltage coming out of the unit, in order to run the AC unit of the house, you need 240 volts. Most of the units that are on the market today, they can only produce 120 volts. So what are you using those panels for when the power goes out? You cannot cook, you cannot do anything. So if you get natural gas, which is in a lot of places around South Miami, you can cook because you can get a stove that use natural gas. There's many options like I'm doing. I'm getting natural gas for my water heater, pool water heater, stove, dryer. So everything in my house is going to be natural gas. That's a better option than forcing residents to get solar panels. There's trees all over my house. The sun move, depending on the time of the year. So the shade changes. So during the time of the year, some of the solar panels are going to get sun, some more is done, and it's going to change. So I would never get 100% efficiency on my system. Now, my vehicles in my house, I have to watch them once a week because they have a dust on top. If I get solar panels, I have to hire somebody to come over my house like every three months to clean the solar panel. So no benefiting there. I still have to put more money down. What else? I've been, I've seen pickups fighting the solar panels because they see their reflection. I don't know if pickups are legal or not. I don't know if you guys are planning to get rid of them. You can call us and we'll have the remove for your property. You can call, if some of your neighborhood, we have a vendor who removes them from the right away. Oh no, I want them all in my house. I'm really happy with that. OK, just let me know. We get a lot of complaints about them. I thought you were complaining about them. Okay, there's no chrome on your car. Okay. Yes, with me attending overs. That's fine. No, he feels them. I want to ask you why it's expensive. OK, there's no crime on your car. OK. Yeah, so be careful over. That's fine. He feeds them. No, he feeds them. In reality, there's no benefit. And again, there's a lot of companies that they sell you the equipment. They make thousands of dollars. And then they just go bankrupt because they don't want to grant the warranties. They change the name. the same owners but they just going all over and changing that. All you have to do is go into Google Reviews or JELP. back rub because they don't want to grant the warranties. They change the name is the same owner, but they just go all over and changing that. All you have to do is go into Google reviews or gel. Look at the reviews of solar panel companies in South Florida and you see it's basically a scam. OK. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. Thanks. I just wanted to add two things. Just in the microphone, please. your name and address in the record please. My name is Sam Duque. My mother has solar panels and one of the there's two main things that people forget. Insurance that he brought up does go up. But the second most important thing, and I wanted to bring it up, is that most houses are shingles. The lifespan on shingle roof is 12 years. 12 years go by really quick. And guess what, after 12 years, we all have to change the panels. And we're back to round zero. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gill, wow, good evening. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. My name is Gus Kill with address at 68, 48 Southwest 68 Street. I'm here on two roles. I'm here as a resident and I'm one of those that got missed. So lucky for me. Yeah, apparently. Apparently, lucky for me that I got saved, right? I'm here to tell you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. this ordinance that was created two things happen and I know it's there it's in the books we got to deal with it I get it but it was written poorly because the percentages that you had to cover was a 35% of your bill. It was not the full scale. I've installed it in spec homes that I've done here when it was a mandate. I think we threw away our money because there was really no benefit for it. There's no incentive for the homeowner or for a builder. And the other thing is I'm against anything that's a mandate on construction that is not a life safety. This is not a life safety. This is okay, we all want to feel good about the environment. I get it. Is it now the city is trying to get money out of this as a As money to do what with clearly not because clearly not even collecting it No, I know obviously, but but you you have You have collect your supposed to have collected some money which you didn't and by the way We never know because maybe those that were missed maybe they decided to put solar panels. So maybe there was no dollars at the end of the day. Maybe everybody came and complied and put their solar panels because by the way it was cheaper to put the solar panels than bought into this because the numbers that you had to do this formula nobody could figure it out. So it was more expensive to put in less it's been to put in a solar panel than to actually pay into the fun. So if you are going to decide to bring this back or keep it and do whatever, I would consider that you, I would request that you consider that you first of all look at the requirements. Do a workshop, do something where you can talk to different vendors, different people, make sure that we're doing the right thing. I'm all about the right thing. So if we can do that, fine. If you always got to give you an option to buy out, there's houses that, you know, around your neighborhood that you know that even if I wanted to put a solar panel, I couldn't put a solar panel because it's all full of oak trees. And the other thing is you have a house that's facing, you know, it's facing south, you're gonna put in the front of your house, you're gonna put a set of panels. So that person's gonna probably buy out, which is great if you can do that. Make sure that the buy out is, you know, in a way where you're not really hurting, You're not really dig just digging in just to take more dollars out of the construction contractual it continues to increase in price, there's now tariffs coming in, we don't know what's gonna happen. So the last thing we need to do is just add more dollars to a construction. I know these homes are expensive and so on, I get it. But also is land. Land is also expensive. So, you know, where you're seeing the cost of the house going up, in sales, you're seeing the cost of the land to acquire the land going up. So, all I ask is that you really consider this, look at it carefully, restructure if you have to, but you can't keep whatever you had in the books. That has to be corrected. So you go just informational question. Back in the envelope, what is on a percentage basis for one of the new homes, land costs aside, what's the cost of a solar array as a product of the total construction costs? So the last one that I did in 2001, 2001 for a single family of one. 2001? 2001. That's the last one that I did. Okay, thanks. I thought you just said you did, I think you just said you did a spec one here. 2021, sorry. 2021, okay. Okay, I missed the 2021, yeah. I missed the two one. That's a 21 that last one that I did was about $24,000, $25,000 for a single and again for 35% of the consumption. So it was probably 10 pounds. Okay, and so as a percentage of again, we understand as a percentage of the cost cost of the construction in 2021, what would you put in that? Probably of, I don't know, probably 4%? Okay, thank you. We should. Thank you for your time. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, so we can go in and also close public comment on this discussion item. Colleagues, let's have some discussion. What's the start? Commissioner Rodriguez, Commissioner Gaya, who wants to follow? We'll let you close. Okay. So for me being part of the industry like like us, I tend to agree with him putting a mandate with the costs that we have right now going up in construction. I don't think that we should be burdening our residents with mandating them to do so. For example, I myself have an open permit for solar panels, but I decided to do it. So I wasn't mandated to do it. So if an owner wants to do it, I'm okay with that. But to mandate them, I don't think I'm in favor of that. Or we set an actual moratorium and do a workshop and figure out if the homeowner wants to do it, then we do it. If not, or doing incentivize them, or is there a way out that they can buy out or do something in order to not have to put them? But at least give options rather than just a strong mandate of you have to do it. Well, we spoke about last time. One of the things that always concerned me was the insurance cost and the way that if you guys remember, I was always talking about insurance that a lot of insurance covers weren't covering it. So I understand where you're going with that. And I agree with Commissioner Rodriguez that it needs to, we need to have options, right? Like, you might not agree that solar panels are good options. I believe it is, but I'm not going to mandate that on you. I don't think that's the right thing to do. I do want to see the commission would figure out, or maybe we can ask staff to come back with options on how we can, you know, incentivize the opportunities you so. I definitely don't think we need to go retroactive. We missed the last whatever number. By the way, quick question. Just just or no. Did you already get your permit approved or no? Come to microphone sir. It's fine. Come on. Well, let's you sign. I don't mind So you just want to know are you are you actively impermitting? Are you thinking about doing this? What I pick up my my approved plans on Friday, okay? But I'm not 100% sure if the permit is there. When I ask Friday if I still have to do it or not, because this construction has been running since 2012 or something like that for five years, they told me that they just hear from one of you guys that it's mandate. Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. You almost got away with it. You can blame her at the end of the our putting it on the agenda. You would have been fine. We should have options. You would have been fine. No, you're probably going to be open. You'll you'll him you'll have about 50k. But I guess I know something for natural gas. I should have an option of picking up natural gas. I already paid for natural gas. I pay like three thousand dollars. We're good. So I think just to understand, so you want to understand if he's impermanent. Yeah, I just want to understand if he was part of the stats that we just had. No, he's not because he said he's impermanent. Yeah, I just want to understand if he was part of the stats that we just had on him. No, he's not because he said he was a home expansion. And the numbers we got were about. No, there was additions in there. No, there was not. No, there was not. And we just knew construction. Just to be clear, so we're all the same page 54 new home construction units, right? 31 are still in some sort of open permitting 14 have been closed out eight had installations that magically happened of their own volition. So, yes, sir. I think we're good. Thank you for clarifying. So my question, I think we need to add to that data in that timeframe new additions that would qualify. Correct, but to do that, we can't query how many squ- like it's easy for us to query to query new single family homes Cliffs in the description of the project, but in the description It doesn't always give the square footage so we can't query give me everything that is more than a thousand square feet So I have to go to every single edition and look at the plans and see how many square feet the edition was How many editions did we have in that time frame It should be roughly the same amount of them. It's not a lot, is what I'm saying. And in the zoning opportunities on the pages, it tells you what the edition, how much square foot we're adding, versus what's already existing. The numbers not that difficult to calculate. And I don't mean it like that. I'm just saying, we should act, if we're doing this for new editions, I mean, for new construction, we should do the same thing for new addition. I need to have that date. Whatever the direction is today. In fairness, yeah. In fairness to the director. I mean, for new construction, we should do the same thing for new additions. I need to have that date. Whatever the direction is today. Fairness, yeah, and Fairness to the director. I mean, she just became aware, I mean, I asked for a meeting with her to talk about this item before this discussion, so I could come someone informed. And it was, I think Fairness has a result of that request. you started looking into the program and realized, holy cow, we haven't really been enforcing the ordinance. So that's just, it just became, it just came to her attention with them. as a result of that request, you started looking into the program and realized, holy cow, we haven't really been enforcing the ordinance. So that's just, it just became, it just came to her attention within the last week. So in the last week, she's done this analysis. We can certainly ask her to do the analysis on, I just, again, so everyone understands, and we're not beating up on Cerrami, and I know that's not your intention. But the point being, if we want to give it the direction to do the same analysis on any adjudice. attention. But the point being if we want to give her the direction to do the same analysis on any additional 1000 square feet, certainly I think she'd be happy to do it. And I don't think it's 1000 square feet. I think it's 50% of the current. Whatever the current picture. Yeah, 1000 because I think 1000 is the first when you would need the first solar array or something like that. Yeah, whatever. Yeah, and we, and if the direction is to yes move forward with anything that hasn't received the CO, then we would go through every single addition also and make sure that we pick them all up so that we're doing this correctly and we correct this. My point, Mayor, is that if all these people went through this process, not knowing they actually had to pay, they go through the sole process. They're about to start construction or they're in the construction phase. I don't think it's fair that we go retroactive and make sure that they have this new added cost. That's not fair. So that's all I wanted to say. Make sure he's included as well. Understood. Yeah, let me go back. Commissioner Cory. Yeah, I would also agree with that. I just would feel very uncomfortable having people have to come back and pay this. And I know last time we decided that we were going to have our own special meeting on it, I would personally feel a little bit more comfortable if... uncomfortable having people have to come back and pay this. And I know last time we decided that we were going to have our own special meeting on it, I would personally feel a little bit more comfortable if staff did come back to us with some recommendations on how we could potentially update this ordinance to be a little bit more applicable and take into consideration some of the things that have happened between the time that it was first brought on to now just to make it a little bit more relevant to today and avoid some of the things that have happened between the time that it was first brought on to now just to make it a little bit more relevant to today and avoid some of these issues that we've had. I think that we could definitely come back with something that I mean I think perhaps this was a good step in 2017 when it was first brought and it was adopted but today there's so much more that could be done and the mayor actually said in article It was very good and I prepared a little presentation because in reality I think that and what we're trying to get to is Energy efficient homes or more sustainable homes the green living all these things and there are a lot of other things That could be done that are not done today, but used to be done 60 years ago when air conditioning wasn't as prevalent as it is today, and they actually work better. So the solar is good as for the energy you do use, it's a cleaner, it's renewable, but there are things that you could do just to lower your energy consumption, and that should be what we should really incentivize. And I have a presentation on that also that I wanted to show you, obviously, that that's the direction that you all want to go. Give us your address. I just have a quick one. Do you have a presentation today? I'm sorry. Yeah, it's really short. It's just to show you like some examples. And I actually took the images from these are actual homes in date counting. OK. Give us these passive methods. I just have a very quick question. I'll be right to you in the one, go to the president. Very quick question. So this solar fund that we have, right? I know there's nothing in there. Yeah. Where is that money supposed to go to? Supposed to be used on city projects that are to install solar. Pretty much. So basically, we would use that money to put solar in our own buildings. Yes So then what happens after those buildings have solar and then we still keep collecting I'm just saying that's I will let you know if that happens a problem. We don't have and We're going probably never gonna have so Yeah, go ahead So this is exploring passive design strategies, which is, things that architects could do. And by the way, that picture on the left is actually one of these style homes that uses all these passive methods. And basically, you want to maximize the natural light. You want to optimize thermal comfort, enhance the airflow using thermal mass, which is basically the heat gain, like materials that can hold heat and release it slowly so that you don't have these big fluctuations in temperature. And then minimize energy consumption, that's where you would be looking into your solar panels. The, yeah, just go back one second. The natural light is important and the optimizing thermal comfort and the airflow because a lot of houses today put Windows that are not operable and that is completely against like this green type of design You want windows that you can open that have screens so you get airflow You want to have into record yards. You want to have water features You want to site the house on the property so that it's not facing the major windows are not facing in the west direction or in the southern direction. So there's a lot that could be done to minimize your energy consumption. And then whatever energy you do use, you could use solar or whatever it is and we couldn't incentivize solar. So I go down the next slide please. So this is actually a house called the Prairie House. And one of the things that they did is using the green roofs. This helps to keep the house cooler or to keep the temperatures from fluctuating very much. They also have skylights for the natural light. They have water features in in the interior they have a lot of courtyards This is a very expensive home But I have a picture of a home that is not this in Kendall that they actually did something Home that they claim that it uses a six of the power of a regular home So for the the solar panels They do drastically reduce your electricity consumption and as I said it's not fossil fuels. It's renewable, it's clean. So if you are going to use energy, that would be what you want to use. But that shouldn't be your only requirement. If you want to really promote green sustainable homes. Having porches and deep overhangs goes a long way to keeping your walls from getting very hot and heating up the inside of the house. Operable windows, which I already discussed. The shade trees, it's sad to see somebody cut down trees in order to put solar panels. Because if you've ever been out in the sun and then gone under a tree in the shade, you know right away that that is the best thing to cool yourself off is to be in the shade. And of course the water resources, any water features that you have in the house help to cool it down. Next slide. That house there on the left is a house that is also sustainable home uses all the same features. The deep overhangs, they have the wooded lot, they have operable windows. So I mean, these are all things that we want in centralized. So I mean, I put there how you do it. You've got permission from the herald Harold to use all these images, correct? Absolutely. So, the solar panels, we could incentivize user solar panels by maybe not having permit fees for solar panels. Like your permit fee would be waived if you install solar panels. If you have porches and deep overhangs, a lot of times that counts towards your FAR and we could not count it towards the FAR. So we incentivize the use of people putting deep overhangs and especially the the porches. Operable windows we could reduce or even not have ferrified if you switch from these windows like this to operable windows. The shade trees there's a minimum number number of trees that you need to have on the lot, but if a owner decides to put additional ones, additional shade trees, I believe that the city is looking to install more shade trees and we could donate those trees to those homeowners so that they do put more than whatever the minimum requirement is, or if they want to salvage trees, I have people that come in all the time that they have to cut down the tree because the architect had zero consideration towards the trees on the site. And there are ways to design around these trees. I've done it in the gables, so I mean, I know that it's doable. It's been done in the grove, and we can incentivize that by allowing them to have smaller setbacks or whatever it is that they need in order to accommodate building around a specimen tree. I'm not saying any little twig, but if you have a specimen shade tree, then we would be able to incentivize keeping it by working with their setbacks and things of that nature. Then the water sources, I mean, it could be used for irrigation. They could have onsite retainage that could be used for the irrigation but can also be a water feature in the property. Next, that was it. So I would love to see, I have a real passion for this by the way, as you can tell, but I would love to see the city not just do away with the solar panel ordinance, but to really go a step further and really incentiv incentivize find ways of incentivizing this more green construction and design. You may or do you want to have a last word? Oh, am I the last word? I was here at the sponsor so I was going to give you the last word. Okay, I'll take the last word. Anybody else want to say something yes sir? For questions. I think that's great. See, offering incentives to provide it is now we're getting somewhere where I think the homeowner would be more willing to do it at the same time. You can get tax rebates from it. You get 30% for doing so. The 30% along with whatever the city we can come up with, bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a little bit more than a I don't have a heartburn with mandates. We mandate things at governments all the time. Sometimes against the obvious need that people feel that seat belts are a perfect example, right there. Other societal benefits associated with some mandates. That's it. I don't like mandates that have a single option. And this is a single option mandate. And so I think what we, the conversation I've had with the director, the services director is, the heartache I have about this ordinance, which I think was well intentioned is that the southeast and southwest United States exist in their current form because we've developed very sophisticated mechanical systems that have a lot of them to be developed the way they're being developed, right? So our houses are very, very sophisticated in terms of their, you know, their mechanical systems heat, et cetera. And I think we design, our architect design, with that as the backstop. And so I think we've gotten away from a lot of traditional practices like orienting your garage on the west side of your home because when you come home in the evening, and you park your car, that's the hottest part of the house. And you keep your bedrooms on the east side, because the coolest part of the lot, right? So there are things that we've gone away from as a matter of practice because we've become too dependent on mechanical systems to solve our cooling and our heating issues. So I'd like to have an array of options with a goal of reducing energy consumption for the average home and South Miami, right? I think it's fine for us to have us this thing. The ability standard that speaks to that as a goal. And if he wants to solve it one way with natural gas or someone else wants to solve it with solar panels or someone wants to do it with passive design techniques that have architecture that's more suited to the built environment or the environment that we live in, I think those are all equally valid ways to get to the same result. But I think we do need to set a standard as to what we want for our income for our built environment. And so I don't, personally, after living this experience now for two years, we'll say, definitely, that we do not have the capacity as an organization to manage the current program. I don't think we have the capacity as an organization to help us design the solution. I think we all want. At some level, we all want to be good stewards of the environment. And so what I would suggest is if we're serious about doing something in this space that we invest some dollars. And I think the obvious thing is a go to the University of Miami and say, hey, Dean Schau, who is highlighting this article that you mentioned, we'd like to you, your students, your design studio, help us, and they've got plenty of engineers over there as well to help us figure out how we can come up with this sustainability standard for South Miami, for all types of building types that helps us do right by our society in terms of energy consumption and energy consumption reduction in the long term. At this point given what we've given, what's happened in terms of the application or management of the current ordinance, I have no problem with the moratorium because effectively, we've been operating under one for the last two years. I will say this to the manager. I've said to this, him via email, I said to the director, I am tired of discovering that these problems arise. And because of our own inability to take accountability for our jobs. Right. So we do have we have excellent staff here with very few exceptions. We've had issues with not timely applying for transportation grants because people are not taking ownership for their job. In this job, I think this is a perfect example of people not taking accountability and ownership of their job because if there's any confusion about whether a moratorium was passed or not, all one needs to do is raise her hand and ask. And that man could have given her, given that person an answer or the director could have inquired, but I am tired. I will not sit here in this chair and be the digital leader of an organization where people are not accountable for doing their job. And so I do expect, although I have no authority in the charter to require it, I do expect some sort of report about whatever discipline is levied against the people who are responsible for what is a debacle, frankly, because like the rule, not like the rule, the rules in place, and we live and die by the rules in this place. That's the society that we have chosen to live in, right? The society will lose. So I expect some accountability on that point. And with that, I've sent my piece. I think we should, if we want to do something here, thoughtful, we should probably ask for some help. And I would ask the devolved Services Director bring back a proposal to retain a third party consultant to look at a possible standard. And in the interim, I certainly would support the moratorium. Madam Commissioner, you're recognized. Well, Slababby Cracker, you want to give me a chance to say anything people? Geez. Like, you get to close. Yeah, I get to close. Biddy, biddy, biddy, bink. Okay, I think in all fairness, you got the lecture and you weren't here for the party. I believe no matter what we do, it should be an incentive, not a mandate. I think we are all adults in this room as the mayor so clearly pointed out everybody has a job to do and when you have a job to do that means you are an adult. If you are a homeowner that also means you are an adult. As adults, I do not believe we need to be mandated to in our own homes. So I look forward to seeing a proposal or what your ideas are to go to the University of Miami or whoever it is that you feel would be great in helping us figure out real next steps to something that works that doesn't penalize our residents they deserve better. Thank you. city attorney if we wanted to adopt a moratorium. Procedurally what must we do. We need to have it's we'll do it by we'll have to do it by ordinance. Emergency ordinance. Yeah. Okay. We could probably do that. Yeah. I mean, you're directing us to bring it back. I think is there I want to call you Madame vice mayor again commissioner Boni is there a Desire in your part to see a moratorium put in place with respect to the current program So we dispense with a 31 or 32 that are in limbo and we figure out what we do in the interim I think that the moratorium should apply to anything that was permitted from the time that we had that conversation to today, whether it's an addition or a new, or a new, so it would be more than those 50 something. So anything that's been permitted from that point to now should be part of that moratorium. Okay, so I think in- I'm moving forward. Oh yeah. Yeah, no, so I want- I think we're clear moving forward. I just want to ask the city attorney, because I think the sentiment is to essentially exempt those permits from the requirement. So those correct? Correct. Yeah, we'll see how we do it, but- Okay, so we get what you're trying to get. to general direction so you know so I can see bring back an item on April 1st. Okay, to deal with cleaning up the mess that we have today, right? And then adopt the moratorium and how long do we want to give ourselves because that is the next question for what? Telling the ladies for for the moratorium. I think that's a question for right. It's a question for all of us. Yes Do we want to try 180 days to start? I'll be calling you. I'm tomorrow. Okay, so if you can bring it back for 180 days Mr. City Attorney less there's an objection We pretend like 180 days. Can we give it to each other in months so that we're not pretending? Yeah, I know, but like, Well, sorry, months, six months, it's what else? Okay. Three hundred and sixty days to go around. I mean, like, what? Do you think that's a little too far out there? It's like, I think that's what I'm saying. Yeah, why wouldn't, why don't we do this? Why don't we say you're gonna start working on it and you'll give us an update in two months and let us know where you're at and that way we can hear about it every two months so that it stays front of mine for us. Thank you. give us an update in two months and let us know where you're at. And that way we can hear about it every two months so that it stays front of mind for us. I agree with that. OK, if that's the direction, so we'll do it. So we're not putting a time limit on the moratorium. I think that as we learn more, we then can have a better idea. If we, even if we put a moratorium, it would be arbitrary right now, because we're not. It's all arbitrary. So we're just picking a time to give ourselves a deadline to try to hit with a resolution. So we can do it for 60 days, and then extend it for another 60 days, or we can do it all. I would just say, just give us the full amount. And if we take less time, great, if we need more time, we'll deal with that. Through to the main. Yes, let me, I think the city attorney wants to jump in. Of course, just a thought. I have less concern about the timing of this, because this is not, this is not going to result in an inverse condemnation claim because we're not imposing a requirement or limiting development. What we're doing is eliminate, we're basically putting a moratorium on ourselves in terms of enforcing something. So it's like the opposite situation of most moratoriums. Okay. So if you want to make it indefinite, we can make it indefinite. I was going to say six months. Why go every two months and say, okay, we got to extend it. Okay, we got to extend it. Let's just do six months. And if we is shorter, it's shorter. Yeah, yeah, it's longer it's longer let's have you do it by show hands Six months, do you guys your guy? Where are you? Then it's just two six months and we'll show you a update. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. So let's do for a hundred and six months. I'll say a hundred days again. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Seeing none. And thank you for bringing the item because otherwise we would not have discovered the issue we're having. So thank you. You're welcome. Okay, if you can read item M4 please. Yes, county's long application number Z to 0 to 2 to 0 0 1 1 8. Okay. Do we need to refresh here on the item from staff or are we all clear as to what we're discussing? Okay, so we adopted a resolution today is the intention of the sponsor to, who sponsored the item? I'm sorry, did you see your journey? We brought it back because the hearing is on Thursday. Okay, I just wanna know if there was additional direction. Essentially they, their proposal, our resolution originally opposes the application and specifically or particularly the potential for that application to result in a connection between, I believe, at 60th place and 60th court. That connection that would connect to Miller and the discussion last time was that it could encourage cut-through traffic. Their application seeks the rezoning, but it also seeks a non-use variance to avoid that dedication. They don't want it dedicated either. I might have other reasons probably. My understanding is the application also changed that they've now filed for a development alternative under the affordable, the affordable density program at the county. I don't see that. It's not in the public hearing file. Okay. They have now filed as an alternative. Oh, as an administrative application. Yes. So should they not get what they want? Their intention is to build more units under the program. And do an administrative. I'm going to be affordable programs. Correct. Or the workforce housing. The workforce housing density bonus program. Alright program All right county through the county. That's correct Let's see what we can find so I was gonna suggest given that change Right, I think the better posture for us is not to oppose the application because it may in result more density and Simply just object to the condition Which I think is really the source of the most of the concern on the part of the neighborhood, which is the road road reopening. So I think we should modify, we have a resolution to what, 2023? It's a good opportunity to turn it. We oppose, no, our resolution opposed both the 24. The application and the closure, yes. Yeah, it was February. Yes, that's what was in the packet. So I thought we had modified it just to oppose a condition, but I have not looked at the minutes from the meeting. So the way the resolution was transmitted was as an objection to the application and the road opening. So I would simply suggest that we resolve to oppose staff's condition to reopen the right of way, whatever the street is. sir. I would also ask the commission if we can, can we direct the city attorney's office to have someone go to the commission meeting on Thursday and state on the city of South Miami's behalf what we're also re-emphasizing. But that's okay with the commission. I have no objection, yes ma'am. This in that area has become extremely contentious. The, you know, fine. It will contentious with the developer of that. The neighbors are extremely united. This has, it's, to do you agree with I agree with commissioner kayet that they they are our neighbors and whatever happens there affects us there are our it's our neighborhoods that's what I'm saying it's our neighborhood when when you've got that when they decide to take what is now one property and let's say they break it up into acre lots which is what is around them that makes sense. Okay, you're going to make it then you know I'm going to I'm making this up three quarter acre lots. Okay, that makes sense. Then they're saying oh you're you don't want to do what we want to do well, then we're going to make it affordable housing. So it's like they're trying to ram it down their throws. So there's lawyers here, lawyers there. And I don't want us to get stuck in the middle, but I agree with Commissioner Kaye that our residents have to have some kind of voice there as well. And they're the ones that originally, I don't know, if you remember, they originally came here to us. So it's we should have something for the further thoughts. Can I just give you one more piece of one more data point? Please you mentioned the the affordable housing. I just looked it up. I found it based on what you just said. There is a workforce housing administrative application pending and it would provide for that so their public hearing application seeks to put 12 lots. This would provide for eight lots with basically duplexes on each lot. 16 units. Right, right. It would be four more units in the other one. With a unit type that is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Yes. It's what we have on the west side of my neighborhood. So look, I think the better part of discretion here, but better part of valor is discretion. And I don't think that it's wise for us first to go in and comment on everybody else's applications and their jurisdiction because certainly people will take liberties with us in the future. And secondly, I think really the galvanizing point has been the road closure from what I've heard to a person. People are fine with eight or 12 homes, for the most part, with the exception of the fact that they're going to have now the street reopen that's going to bring in their mind more cut through traffic. So I think we're much better off if we just oppose the condition and stay silent on the or withdraw our objection to the application. Because if it's faculty prevail, we may end up helping create a worse condition for the neighborhood. That's my two cents. So, but I'll entertain a motion on the part of anyone who would like to make one. So I'll make a motion to have the city's attorney's office with the caveat that the mayor just said in removing the what is it the worded. Yeah, I would limit our objection our limit our objection to the in position of the condition requiring the reopening of the roadway. So you don't move that. Is there a second? I'll second that. Second by commission of Monique. Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, and I'm clerk if you can call the roll. Yes, commission and quiet. Yes. Commission and Rodriguez. Yes. Commission of Golden Age. Yes. Vice Mayor Cory. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. Yes. I'm through. Thank you. Okay. I. Is anyone here in the audience in a particular item? Please let the clerk know, but I know we have folks here on items three and five. Someone to move to item three. I'm at a clerk if you can read that. Resolution to the record that is a public hearing item. Yes. A resolution of the mayor's city commission. The city is offering for improvement. SFM Genetory Services LLC for Genetory Services for up to a five year term. Authorize the city manager to negotiate and to enter into an agreement for Genetory Services for the city. Thank you. was issuedate City Manager. Do you want to give us a brief overview? Yes. Thank you. So solicitation was issued for Genetorial Services. We had 21 respondents, 20 of which were responsive for tickling all city facilities, community center, civil martin city hall, police department, building a martial within the senior center, all city facilities. There was a committee that was comprised of a member from the police department, public works and parks. They overall ranked 5 highest and they interviewed those 5. Ultimately, the recommendation tonight is to award SFM, the award. There was one main thing that was discussed at length. Currently, we have an issue with turnover and SFM as part of their presentation spoke about the pay for their employees, the benefits, lack of turnover, and obviously the deep bench that they have being a reputable company. So the five were ranked and the recommendation tonight is to move forward with SFM. OK, and man manager on the point, you're trying to turn over with the incumbent provider, not with SFM, correct? Correct, correct. Yeah, correct. I just want to clarify that. OK. Yes, any questions of the manager? Commissioner Rodriguez? No, I have a, not yet. OK. No questions of the manager. then let's open up the public hearing and then we'll discuss the item. This is item three is a public hearing item. I need member of the public who'd like to address this commission on item three is welcome to come forward at this time. Is there anyone in the audience who like to come forward? Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online? No one's online. Okay. So seeing no one online we will close the public hearing. Commissioner Rodriguez. Through the mayor. So thank you. In reviewing this RFP, we have a great company and SFM who was ranked number one to get this contract. In addition, we have a number two company, FLA, who's a woman owned business. And in studying this further, there is an opportunity where we can split this contract and it'll actually save the city money because in certain buildings for example like city hall campus you have SFM who gave better pricing but then you go to the community center and FLA gave better pricing. So the purpose of this is I'm asking the commission would you be open to move forward with a motion to give the city manager the approval to negotiate these contracts between these two companies which will A, you know, give SFM which they deserve. It would also be awarding a woman-owned business to work for the city which I think is good for the city and it's going to save the city money. So just so I understand what you're proposing, you want to just be with the schedule of values by facility. So you want to take the lowest pricing with respect to those two vendors, prospective vendors on each of the facilities. Correct. And award that facility on a lowest price basis to either responsive bidder. Correct. And the motion is to allow the manager to negotiate the contracting and go through with each building. And yes. Perfect. Okay. Just to the city attorney, is there, are we, is that legally permissible just to clarify for the record? Sure. We in the bid documents with the city reserves the right to enter to contracts with more than one contractor. Okay. I believe that is. And if I can ask you do you know how much we would be saving what was the what's the total value of the contract right now. So it's a I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.'s something we'll have to figure out if we bring it to them, right? And we do have the vendor for SFM here. We have the vendor here. Oh, okay. Good evening. Just your name and address the record, please. Good evening, Christian and Fountain with SFM Services 7500 North West 74th Avenue, Medlead, Florida. So the question is, would we honor the rates? Yes, we would honor the rates. Obviously, we would like all of the contract, but we would respect your decision to save funds for the city. However, we would have one ask and that would be if we can change the agreement, currently it is a three year contract and we would respectfully request to make it a one year contract or leave it as a three year with termination clause by either party. Just to clarify on that point, we I'm assuming we have a termination for convenience clause if you're the sitting, that's typically our process. And you're asking for reciprocal termination, right? That is correct. Okay, now to ask you, are there not, are there the escalators in the pricing of concern to you? Because I do believe there are incremental costs, escalators in the- A little bit of a concern from an operational standpoint, the way that it's been suggested. Also, the community center, it might be also beneficial for the number two contractor, because when I looked at some pricing, I noticed that they were about almost 100% lower. So not that my price is dead on, but it is a bit of a red flag. Question, Mr. State, do you have any concerns about, and I would ask you what would be a minimum, I think we would need some sort of a reasonable advanced notice for that termination, just so we could obviously make accommodations with the other vendor if we were to do that. So would 90 days or be acceptable to you? Yes. Okay. Colleagues, any concerns about that? So basically we would be giving them an ability to terminate the contract with 90 days advanced notice to us. So One question about the term that the gentleman raised right now. It is set up as a three-year term I would leave the term the same. I think I think if we address I think his concern was really to have an option to terminate Okay, okay I've got no objections the modification anyone else, okay? Thank you for what sir, I appreciate it and thank for everything you do in the community. I know you're a big sponsor of a lot of charities here. Thank you. Okay, colleagues, further comments? Do we have a motion then? So I guess, city attorney, I guess the motion would be to allow or approve the city manager to negotiate both contracts with both companies. So the one contract between both companies. And I may be helpful over there and say just to, so I think we're, we want to make an award and authorize a manager to negotiate based on do we have a schedule of, I guess, the lowest price schedule of values? Yes. Right. For each of the first two respondents, each getting the respective facilities at which they provided the lowest price. Okay. Okay. So we have the commission the motion by commissioner Rodriguez is there a second. A second. Thank you. Vice mayor has seconded the motion. Any further discussion. Hearing none, Madam Clerk, if you can call the role please. Yes. Commissioning Rodriguez. Yes. Commissioner Bonne. Yes. Commissioner Coyade. Yes. Vice Mayor Corrie. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. Yes. Item passes 5-0 as amended. Thank you. Okay, moving on to item 5 please if you can read that for the record. Item 5. It was from the Mayor and of the City of South Maine for improving the operation and management services for youth and adults whom listening and acquiring fitness programs from I swim Academy of C or a five year term authorized and city manager to negotiate and enter into an agreement for youth and adults who have lessons and acquired fitness program management services and Marie Park of Quartet Center. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager, you're recognized. Thank you. The City received two proposals for youth adult swim lessons and aquatic programming out of Murray Park. The Committee ultimately gave the award to the incumbent ice swim academy that proposed those over a five-year term. Thank you. Can you just summarize the terms the benefit of the public? So it's five years. Five years, $60,000 would be the contribution to the city for the five years. The program they run are youth swim-less and fitness classes, private fitness classes, and then the polls also available for open swim during certain hours in the day. Okay, great. This item is a public hearing item. We'll open up the public hearing to anyone who'd like to address this commission. Item five, which is the award of a contract for youth and adult swim lessons at our and aquatic fitness programs at the Murray Park pool. Any member of the public would like to come forward? Please do so at this time. Anyone on Zoom please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one in the chamber and no one online we will close the public hearing colleagues any questions of the manager. Yes, Commissioner Rodriguez you recognize. To the man through the mayor. The pricing for for the classes and for the lessons. That's all provided by the vendor, right? Or is that something that we helped establish? That pricing wasn't response to the proposal. Okay. I think we established the minimum for the discount, which was 20% for residents, is that correct? Yeah, currently there is no resident discount. This new proposal requires a resident discount versus non-resident. Okay, so the residents are getting a discount on this. Yes. Thank you. Vice mayor. And there's a number of scholarships they provide, too, is that right? They will provide 20 scholarships for open swim annually over the five years. Okay, just wanted to recognize. What's that that 20 groups in classes? That's 20 a year or 20 over the life of the contract. 20 a year. Okay, thank you for the clarification. For the questions. Okay, I've got a couple of questions. Did you have anything? I'm sorry, okay. Well, they're observations. So any discussion on the item debate? No. I just wanted to ask staff if we could, in this contract, I was spoken to the director about this, incorporates, we have routinely set up a conflict between this page 4 program and an organization that in the summer wants to use the pool for like a general swim or classes for folks who are not familiar with the water at all and that organization is branched just to put it very directly and so I just want to make sure that we in the schedule that was published we did I think advertise hours in the RFP where where there would be a lot to do that so I would like to reserve we can one morning a week in the summer, where we allow them an hour and a half of access in that window. Yes, please come forward if you like. And just so we can access our pool again, I think the vendor does a fantastic job. I hear no think of a positive things about the program they have run already. But I do know that there's been that conflict I think of our own creation. So sir, you're recognized. Thank you very much. My name is Nicholas Bevelakwa. I'm the owner of Icewood Academy. I had the privilege of watching your previous meeting a month ago when my thing was on the manager's report, but we didn't get to it. I get it. Kudos to you mayor and the rest of this board. I was, I was a former school board cop. I've been in a lot of school board meetings. Last meeting that you all endured was a challenge to say the least and the professionalism from you five was impressive. So thank you, thank you, for representing. I know that you're not the city that I live in, but you're in the county that I live in. I love this city that I get to work in. So thank you. That was awesome to watch a local government work in that manner. Your response was tremendous. Chief yours as well. Every other Saturday now, this will be my 10th year that we've operated. The first four, we were on a single contract, annual contract, and then we just closed out the first five year, and now we've been awarded this second five year. Thank you very much. We've had a lot of ideas. We've had some come to fruition. We've never, ever, ever not done way more than 20 scholarships. I will teach your kid to swim for free if you can't afford it. No money should not be an issue for stuff like this. And that's a big part of me. I recruit money from all sorts of different people. Your Rotary Club has been a big contributor over the South Miami Rotary Club. I partner with Carla Richey at Miami Kids Magazine. The Corgables Rotary Club has been a big contributor for us. There's a South Miami resident that has been a private contributor for many years. My mother, you know, I'm a fortunate person at this stage of my life. I pay for a lot of stuff. My wife and I do, my mother does, my aunt does. My mom guilds everybody. She's a former school board principal, so she knows the PTA game, so she gets people to donate. So that's a big part. What I want to do this year in direct relation and I apologize for that long tangent. It's fine. But every other Saturday we're going to offer three hours of free training. One will be for new parents. We're not new, yeah, new parents like babies. We used to do a big mommy in me class when I was younger. We did it here a little bit but we've kind of lost it. I want to bring that back. Then the so we'll do like from nine to 10 on a Saturday, we'll do mommy and me free, full free. And I'll, if I have to pay for staff to be there, I will, I don't care. And then like 10 to 11 will be non-swimmers that are afraid or and then maybe 10 to 11, I mean 11 noon will be non-swimmers that are not afraid or will split it up kids and adults. We'll see how the response gets We've we've done plenty of as I'm sure this plenty of people here in the city or where we've done plenty of free offerings and Advertising and all sorts of things getting people to show up and take advantage of that free has been a little bit more complicated than offering it. But I'm committed to sharing in your guys vision as far as what Murray Park, it's our little small slice of our heaven. But I'm committed to helping this community out, whatever it needs. I've continued to do it. We do without making a big deal out of it, if that makes any sense. Nick, I'm sorry to be informal, but I have a hard time pronouncing your last name. So, be a lot more. Be a lot more. Take the water. Be a lot more. But yeah. I think that's helpful. So I drink the water as I teach kids not to, I guess. So Mr. Be a lot more. I think I'm not asking you to do anything more because I think you do a tremendous amount for free. What I do want to do, I mean, and the history of this pool was a hard one. We took us a long time. Actually. do anything more because I think you do a tremendous amount for free. What I do want to do, I mean, and the history of this pool was a hard one. We took us a long time actually build the facility, right? And so I want to make sure that the community was intended to benefit large measure. The one organization that when I was at the State House or running for the State Senate or serving on this community that I know I could call this best example of life for me during the pandemic to put resources in the hands of families living in South Miami because they had direct contact with 80 families was branches and so I was and I wasn't bothered at you or the department I actually bothered with them because I found out that they were having this issue and And they told me that, you know, for me, it was $1,200 to get into the UM school. I said, well, you should just call me, I would have written you to check the $1,200. Not like, wanna do that every day, but it's important enough to me to make sure that people who don't have access to instruction can get it. And I think that's consistent with the history building this facility in this community. And so I just wanna make sure if there's a possibility, I don't know what impact it may have to you. I mean, the revenues we get for this are not that significant. Again, but all revenue is, right? Programatically, if there's one hour, an hour and a half on a weekday in the summer, where we can kind of coordinate to get them in the pool in the mornings. And the reason I think it's been a conflict for them in the afternoon, so we have more open swim, is that the weather's pretty valuable here in the summers. There's probably more. How many kids? I don't think it's more than 20 kids that they're bringing at a time. We can get those details. If we can, I just want to make sure that contractually, It's not a problem with you. We have kind of created this issue. Can we write an addendum or if we have to? If you're open to that, I'd appreciate that. I'd just like to create the programmatic flexibility to do that. Yeah, yeah, we'll figure if not then what... kind of created this issue. Can we write an addendum or if we have to? If you're open to that, I'd appreciate that. I'd just like to create the programmatic flexibility to do that. Yeah, yeah, we'll figure if not then whatever. But I would also suggest to you from noon to 3.30, it's city's pool. I don't. I know you do, yeah. Stuff like that. Friday's, we've adjusted. So traditionally, or previously since I started doing this in 1992, we've done five days, half an hour each day. The world wants things to change so we've adjusted. We now do four days, four days, so Fridays is another day during the week that's a week day that could we could easily accommodate what you're asking. Okay. Great. If it's not in the contract then I have to sign an addendum I will. We'll take in your word and we'll work with it. Okay. Thank you for everything you do, asking. Okay. Great. If it's not in the contract, then I have to sign an addendum. I will. Well, taking your word and we'll work with it. Okay. Thank you for everything you do, sir. Okay. Okay. Colleagues with that is our motion on item five. I'll move it. Is there a second? You got it? I'm sorry. I want to say something. No, I'm just going to move it. The motion by the vice mayor? Yes. Second by Commissioner Bonnich? Second. OK. I'll call for it. Thank you. something. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no on? The total of total income from West Island is 60 second out. Okay. So let's take that item next because I think there's a few folks here for it. So at Madam Clark, I believe that's item six. If you can read that into the record, please. Yes, in ordinance of the Mayor's City Commission, the City of Southland Florida, admitting the future land use map of the future land use element of the City of Southland reclapering as a plan was sworn to small scale amendment procedures set forth in section 163.3187 for the statues to change the future and use designation of certain process on the west side of 62nd Avenue between Southwest 64 street to the north and Southwest 6th Street to the south from their current designation of residential, they went to commercial RLC to mix use commercial residential and UCR. Thank you Madam Clerk. Mark, you're recognized. Good evening, Mayor and Commission. This is Mark Alvarez with the Quaradino Group as planning consultant to city staff. What's up tonight is item R6 and it's a future land use amendment to the city's future land use map. This is a small scale amendment. So tonight is on second reading. So if it passes tonight, it would be adopted. It does not have to be transmitted to the state. It is sponsored by the City Administration. What we're doing is we're remending only the map. We made changes already to the future land use element or the text of the city's comprehensive plan. In making those changes, we crossed through certain districts that we felt that we would no longer need, we wanted to broaden the districts and give them, give a little more room and control it more through the zoning. This was one of those. So what we were doing is we were replacing the RLC category, residential limited commercial to mixed use commercial residential, both were mixed use technically and they just as as a sidebar, because I think it might come up, both categories would be applicable for live local applications, so we're not making any changes of that sort. The change is also something that's consistent that we went through a lot when we did the downtown TSDD zoning. We talked a lot about the edges. We talked about how to transition the edges to the residential neighborhoods. Some of that was done within the TSDD code. Some of it depended on certain transitional elements that we put in later. So what we're doing now is we're cleaning up some of those elements before we go to further processes with zoning and comprehensive plan. So we had some workshops during the middle of the summer and autumn or in Florida, the summer and later part of last year. And we did discuss this and this item was something that we discussed to move to next year's commercial residential as part of the transition from the downtown on the west side of 62nd Avenue, or the TSDD as we would move to the residential area. The affected land, there are 16 parcels totaling about 2.79 acres. They are all along the west side of southwest 62nd Avenue going from Hardy Road to 68th Street. On the east side of that actually I think it's a context slide. Yeah, I think the map works better. On the east side of that we have downtown zoning, we have the TSDD for most of those properties. When we finalize the height limits most of those heights directly across would come in at about six stories. County property notwithstanding because of the county has some flexibility as to what they do. Mark the clarify you're talking about the east side of 62nd Avenue. Not the subdued properties. On the west side we have have a residential, single family residential neighborhood, two-story limit, to the north across the Freedom Wall. We have also a single family. And then to the south, those two blocks to the south of this are also TSDD or the downtown zoning. So this was intended to be a transition. What we have right now, along there, is a very underdeveloped parcels for a downtown area. We would like to see them develop at some point. It's all one story. It's a lot of parking lots, a lot of vacant space. I think Marco Drog is the only thing that's gone in there in the last decade or more. So we would like to include it as our transition areas of the downtown. We would like it to be mixed use. We would like to invite development of a very limited form of residential along with the mixed use or the commercial limited commercial on the ground floor mixed use a little bit above it. Again, we're looking at a transition mostly between six stories to two stories, so we're not thinking anywhere outside of those bounds. What I do have to say is that we don't have the zoning in place for this category. So MUCD will be currently, if we approve changing this to MUCD on the conference of plan, the zoning stays the same. And the zoning is limiting all of these properties to two stories, commercial. When we have further discussions, we have a lot more work to do with the rezoning. We will be discussing the zoning that will fit into the MUCD. Right now, we started doing it last year. We got sidetracked on townhouse and some other things, and we never got to it. But we will get to that, and we will have a very vigorous discussion about what fits for this area, in terms of height, in terms of the transitional elements of the architecture, in terms of the uses, the density. There will be other areas that will be MUUCD, which will vary, we planned on using it for bird road, a little aside from this. But so we will have a very, very strong and vigorous and well thought out discussion with the neighborhood about what we use to control this area as far as the zoning goes. This is just the conference of plan change so that we can effectively take care of the fact that we are crossing through this district on our comprehensive plan. This is the district and allow us to move forward into the zoning. That's the map of everything I just said on the map, it basically changes from the salmon color to the pink color. I explained it, you know, this is what we're doing. We're creating this transition. The purple that you see is the downtown zoning, the TSDD that's already passed through the first reading. We're waiting on the state to respond to us and we'll be having the second reading on that. Again, just looking at the map, we have two on the very north area. We do have single family across the street. That's in the cul de sac, not far from the mango lots where there are single family residential. The light purple is the JRE Lee school. It's a county property. It may get some pointy redeveloped. We don't, again, it's county properties, and they have a little more latitude about what they do. The light, I'm sorry, the purple area is the senior living the facility, and then the green is the park. So again, this is all about transition, but right now all we're doing is comprehensive plan language to or comprehensive plan map changes to try to give us the envelope to work within when we get to the zoning. And here I have a table that shows what we are currently at with the RLC limited residential category for the comprehensive plan on the most left-hand column. And one next to it is MUCR, which is what we're recommending to change it to against still a mixed-use category, but we're letting the zoning control it. The MUCR doesn't have a lot of control, it just has the concept of a mixed-use and we intended to control that with the zoning. So right now, it would stay as NR, which is a neighborhood retail, it's actually still consistent with MUCR. It would limit it to a .25 FIR, which is approximately what's there now. It wouldn't allow for much more development. And it would only allow two stories in 25 feet. And then we will have a discussion about what we intend to do with the zoning on that, which we are not for now calling neighborhood mixed use and we'll determine all the parameters at that point for the actual zoning. All that said, we always apply certain standards to make sure that our comprehensive plan changes are consistent with state requirements and we find it consistent. And if there's any questions, I'm sure there are. I'll be happy to answer. Thank you questions. Okay, Mark again, because a lot was said, sure that folks may have not followed all of it. The zoning today controls, and so we're limited to a two-story envelope with no residential permitted. What, even if we adopt this change, when we adopt this change, we were to do it, right? The overlaying zoning only limits the properties to be developed to two stories. And there's no residential allowed under the current zoning. Correct, on the current. So that's not being affected by us. We're wanting to approve this item. This one, that's not being mentioned. the . . . . . . . . ., your name and address for the record, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Jerry Proctor, Attorney, 7600 Red Road. Please to represent consolidated research and planning who owns several of the lots on the south side of this property going down to 68th Street. This is the first step, as you said, and as Mark said, and I appreciate his summary. This is an important step. This has been a long time in coming and this needs to be done. The current designation allows almost only commercial. Commercial is fine, it's possible, it's more possible, and I think better planning with a mixed use. The only other use that's permitted is townhouses up to five units per acre. That's not adequate for a half-section line road. I appreciate Mark's summary of the area. And I think the description that I just gave is especially inappropriate with what you've already done in the area. The east, on the east side, as Mark mentioned, with the six stories. I would tell you right across the street at 68th Street, the county own property is in theTC district. And it can develop up to eight stories with bonuses, with a floor area ratio that's over 1.0. I'm not suggesting that's compatible on this side of 62nd Avenue, but that's what's there and that's controlled by the county. To the south, as Mark also mentioned, is the TSDD, which was enacted, I think, appropriately by the commission recently, and sent to Tallahassee. This is good planning. And that's all it is. It's not zoning. It's not development, and you've been through that, and we understand that. But this is a good first step. And without it, frankly, the designation that exists is really one of the reasons that you have had almost no development. on this west side, these 16 lots, limited commercial is really just about all you can develop. And that's not really good planning. So I hope you approve the item and I appreciate your attention. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other member of the public would like to address this commission on item six. Good evening, sir. A long time. Good evening, Mayor commissioners. My name is Ho-Himley-Anne. I live on 60-second court. This is kind of a little shocker. I went to the planning board meeting and tried to find out what M.U.C.R. and they didn't know. They didn't know the height. I see now that it's four stories that they're trying to get. The transition from the commercial to residential has always been 60 second avenue. It's been widened. It's been narrowed down. If where is our neighborhood gonna stand? I've had many people over my house that live on my street very concerned, where this is headed. I mean, we certainly don't wanna see four stories right behind the fence of our home. Right now, and our doesn't give you much to build, but they've could have built this property years and years ago. They've chosen not to. Our neighborhood has gotten together and done charets. Over the years, we've been dealing with this for quite a while. All we want to see is something responsible. We all got together and we're talking about if you go west on 80th Street, if you're on 62nd Avenue, those new townhouses or those buildings that are there that used to be where the city, drug rehab, sorry, the South Miami Hospital, drug rehab little area. I mean, that beautiful. Those things sold out quickly, and they're worth a ton of money. So I'm all for designing something great there, but we can't have 18 units per acre. 60-second average is already going to be back, I mean, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, it's already backed up to the newspaper, trying to, you know, just cross-uice one or to get on sunset. Where's this overbuilding going to end? I thought that, you know, the higher density wasn't supposed to go past 70th back and approaching into our neighborhoods. There used to be homes on those lots, though, those were removed and left vacant. That was done by the owners of the property. And I don't think it's up to the commission to grant something for these property owners to triple their money while the residents that live directly behind them are the ones that are going to pay the price. And I sure hope that, you know, when these decisions are being made, the gentleman here said that last year they had, or group got together and talk about this, the residents were involved. I wish they would have been, I would be there. I would be active in anything that has to do with that property back there. We're all for great development. We just need it responsible. Four stories there isn't a transition into a two-story neighborhood when our fence is going to separate it. The transition should be 60-second avenue. From there back, they have two stories. Have them put townhouses there, give whatever code they need for that. But MU4, CR, that's four stories, that's starting off where we don't wanna be. Like I said, I don't think it's up to the city to bend so far to one side to benefit certain people while hurting the people behind there. So I'd like a responsible decision to be made and just keep our neighborhood informed of what's happening. You know, a lot of people didn't get this letter. You know, I'm curious about all this kind of stuff. So I'm constantly, you know, looking at agendas and I know this is coming up. I want we all there, want something built and built nice. Thank you. Thank you for coming, sir. Anyone else? I'm just for a chance. Or, sorry, go ahead. James McCans, 62-10, 76-3rd Terrace. Great concern, and right now, just for the change for conformity for this, I will support. I got concerns just like the gentleman there, but I realized that something has to be done. And when it comes to the zoning aspect of this, I know that the department will put the word out to the neighbors because that's my neighborhood. And we want to be involved in this conversation when the zoning happens. by this concern and we just wanted to be responsible and consider it for the neighbors and for the growth because nothing has happened there for a long time. And it will increase the tax base for us. We just wanted to be responsible. So right now I'm just supporting the change for conformity and anxious to see how we address the zoning aspect of it. Okay. Thank you, sir. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Luigi Vitalini. I am a 6840 South West 60-Second Court. I am an architect, I was a former planning board member and for my ERPB member for many years. So actually my property is right behind the TSDD, which I just recently found out that was enacted. And I have done many studies actually. I was part of when there was a lawsuit between the, I guess, the former owner and the city. I actually tried to mediate a little bit what was gonna be there. What I find a little bit difficult is, like a gentleman before me said, is how you do that transition and what you state in the new flow, I think all those statements are correct. But I think what happens is when you actually put those things into practice, which really breaks down. So, I think in general, I'm in favor of having a better zoning on those lots. But I think you have to be careful of, I think the height is an issue and I think the biggest problem in these lots is the parking. Because what happens is that by having these increased densities, you therefore require parking. I mean, I've studied all those, I've studied development on these lots, which therefore brings about multi-story parking garage, which is basically the only way you can put enough cars to put these new uses. And that's, I think, something that should be very denied and not allowed. In this future zoning that is going to happen, and it should be looked at in the TSDD that was just brought in front of me. I just was preview of the project that is going on in the lots just out of where of this new zoning. And there's four stories of parking garage. It's two stories of building and four stories of parking garage. I think it's not, it's how you handle this transition, which is going to be like between a really bad development and a successful development, which I do think there should be more development on 60 seconds. Sweet, I have a new, but it's just, the transition should be done. And when they did well by the new zoning code. Thank you very much. So, we think it's the questions since you are a categories because we had essentially spot zoning for lots all across the city. So, I know the MUCR designation in the minds of people was scary for that reason because it's got a novel of that seems more liberal and certainly people would want and Mr. Mulanney, know we've walked that neighborhood and talked about issues before that we're impacting neighbors. So I would just ask you, what's the right landing spot for us just to get your feedback while I have it here? Well, I mean, I think because my experience is no one that wants to build structured parking in a three or four-story building because there's not enough Celebo or Lesible square footage to make the economics work Yeah, but but um, I mean as an example just to give you and I don't know this new This new new new various but uh, I just saw the plans of the the one that is going on supposed to be Going in in the lots on between 6.9 and 6.8. I think if you're trying to promote transit oriented district, which is the name of the district, but just any rules of planning, you should under park, right? You should make it almost impossible for people to park there so that the people use the transit. I mean, I do it. I use the transit every day, you know, and I live right there. Nobody else does it because it's, and, but because the cars are what you're promoting, you know, like, so in this new development, if the requirements, I think, is 107 cars, and they're actually providing 330. I think that's where it all breaks down. So I think for these lots, for example, I think you should also promote almost no parking, which I know commercially is not an easy thing to accept. But I think that's what would make like a good development. I mean, I would all be for the development that they're proposing for me. If you take out like two levels of parking, it would be like, you know, four stories, you won't level up. With this particular area, what would be the right balance from your perspective? Well, I just, I mean, I think you should try to, like give a little bit more, I would say like on two stories, but not allow like a structure parking. And try to limit the size of the building. If you put all these lots together, you get like 400 feet, you get these buildings that are just very massive. And I think that's contrary to single family housing, even though maybe you have like three stories or so. So I think those are those are the things that you should look at when you do the zoning and the final. So, so massing, massing and and I and I think under under try to like give less parking, I mean restrict the parking so that we promote this trans-Ir. I mean, from there you can walk to the, you know, people can walk and but if you give more cars, nobody's gonna do it. I mean, if you put more parking. Thank you for your thoughts. Any further comments, Mr. Kelly? Leave my Kelly 6250 South as 6.0 Avenue. I pretty much in the impact area of this discussion and I think that in my opinion I would like to see some mixed use type of development there. And I think, and we're all scheme of things in order to make that happen. It's gonna have to be more than two stories. And I just, that's the way I feel about that. I've been here now listening to this for probably about 20 years, same argument. And I think it's time to move beyond that now. And I think you as a commission need to put your big pants on here and get moving on this thing. Yes, it's not going to make everybody happy. But in totality, I mean, in the community I'm in, where do we have to go in order to do any shopping? There's no place in the, in that walking distance area. So it's something that needs to be looked that hard and clear with a clear eye. And said, okay, you know, we've heard it, we've heard it for 20 years. Now what are we going to? There's a solution out there, let's get it done. Thank you, sir. All right. For the comments. Good evening. Good evening. Hi. Brittany Miggins, 64-1, Southwest, 62nd Court. So just listening out from what you guys were talking about, if you are gonna do it, I understand you're gonna go ahead and move forward, but on certain residents like me, I'm my alley, like the alley is, you know, what I would have to look at, whether I look to the east or to the west, I still have to look at it. And it's crazy just trying to take the kids in the morning. It almost takes me about, used to be five and now it's almost 20 just trying to fight the cars. So if you're going to build something just be mindful of maybe more residents. Because even in my backyard it's more pine trees. So we chose to save the pine, because not only is it good for an environment, but it's overall look, especially when you're in South Miami. How hard are you guys gonna go? Like that is gonna be a big question, but if I had a preference, you see how generally it's more extended and not high? So maybe you can think of that. Like, you know, for the ones that are going to be buildings or shopping center or whatever, maybe they can go long and not high. And I do agree when he said, under make the cars be underpriced, and I provide a lot of parking, but for sure, not four or five story buildings. I mean, it could be for an adult, but I sure don't want to be looking at first out five story buildings in such a beautiful community. Just keep that in mind even across the street for a newspaper place. That lot has been vacant for quite a while. So like I said, maybe long and not high. Just a suggestion. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else who would like to address this commission? Item six, please come forward. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online? Anyone on the zone, please raise your virtual hand. No. Okay, seeing no one else in the chambers and no one online, we'll close the public hearing. Colleagues discussion. Yes, ma'am, you're recognized. I wasn't here last time. So I just want to make sure that I understand before we vote right now. When we vote, it still stays at two stories until we have further conversation on this. Yes, zoning is unchanged. And it's two stories and it does not allow for any residential currently. Okay. Thank you. Yes sir, you recognize. Mark, I think in the first reading I asked this, there's a distance between the alley to where the building can start. I think we said was it 150 feet? I'm trying to recollect that could be wrong. There's a distance from the road, the alley road inside to the property where you could start building or we don't even have it even set that. We haven't set that yet. We haven't set that yet. The depth of the properties are about 100. The alley is about 20. Okay. For the questions, comments? Okay, is there a motion? I'll move the motion. Okay motion by Commissioner Kaya second a second by vice mayor Cory Madam clerk, please call the role. Yes commission Kaya. Yes commission Rodriguez. Yes commission Boniche. Yes vice-milkory. Yes mayor Fernandez. Yes. I don't pass it's Thank you Okay. Let's go to colleagues. Any other items that is anyone's anyone's here for any other item before we move on. Yes, sir, which item? Okay. Not a problem. Let me do this. Let me take item. I think we have one other item for Mr. Alvarez. We can let him go. We'll take item seven. We'll go to four. I'm clear to read item seven for the record. Please. Item seven. In the orders of the mayor's city commission of the city of South America. And so plan for students with small scale amendment procedures set forth in section 163.317.40 statues to change the future land use destination certain parts are located on the north side of 64th Street, between Southwest 59th Avenue from the east and Southwest 59th on the west from the car destination that makes residential modern Disney MRMD to townhouse residential TR. Thank you Madam Clerk. Mr. Alvarez your presentation. Thank you again Mark Alvarez the Quardino group acting as consultant for the city staff. This is again a very it's a very similar item to the item six that we just heard. This is a small scale amendment for changing four properties on 64th Street on the future land use map from the current designation of MRMD which is mixed residential, moderate density to townhouse residential. Again, it's a small scale amendment process. If this passes tonight, it is adopted. It does not have to be transmitted to the state. It is also sponsored by the City Administration. The reasons for the sponsoring by the City Administration are the same as we just heard. We have, as part of our larger process of rezoning and changing future land use map. We have a few, we have actually crossed through this category as well, the MRMD. The MRMD was a category for future land use that was enacted in about 2019. It had a purpose at that time to try to stimulate redevelopment, but only to place on seven properties in the entire city. And when we had our larger discussions, and we talked about the downtown, and as we went to the north of the downtown, we would try to stimulate redevelopment with the townhouse category that we already have. So this is a residential category. On the same note, this cannot have an application for live local under its current category, nor under what we're proposing. So again, that issue remains the same. Also again, this was part of a larger discussion, as I mentioned, back last summer, through September and October, of how we would treat the areas to the north of the downtown as we transition. And we were very aware that we needed some help with developing this area in a way that's still in neighborhood. And so one of the things we talked about was using the townhouse residential category, which is approximately a category that would accommodate his owning for townhouses on 25-foot frontages. It's a townhouse that can go to three stories at the maximum and it can also have an auxiliary dwelling unit on the bottom or a live workspace. So these are the four properties. They are four properties that are 63 by 100. Again, they're sort of an anomaly in the city along with three other properties which are the the mango lots that were changed back in 2019 we just want to eliminate this category. 33 by 100 again, they're sort of an anomaly in the city along with three other properties, which are the mango lots that were changed back in 2019. We just want to eliminate this category and use the larger umbrella of the townhouse residential. And again, just like before, we are not changing the zoning. So these would now either the owners could apply to change the zoning to townhouse or the city may come in later as part of larger zoning changes to change it to townhouse. I should mention that there are three townhouse categories. We have an RT-6, 6 units NAKER. We have an RT-9, which is actually 8.87 or something like that units per acre. And we have an RT-18, which is something that we just enacted last year, which is 18 units an acre. And that's the one that's meant to be able to fit on single properties, single or as entry properties. These are 63 by 100. They can each fit to townhouses. In the area, we have across the street. Of course, we We have Madison Square which is mixed use and is in fact MUCR because of the sensitivity that these, although they run Hardy Road which is a collector street and we think about maybe doing mixed use, we also consider that these back onto single family properties that we want to maintain that compatibility. So that's why that we're going to a townhouse residential category for these properties. And in any properties where we're in the residential areas, we will continue to do the same. We would not want to extend the Madison Square and make use beyond the four corners that it exists on. So again, on the map, you see it there. It's mostly surrounded by single family residential. We're very sensitive to that. So the transition here is a townhouse category. And across the street is Madison Square, the pink area, which is a mixed use category that allows up to four stories. And actually the little corner there, just to the west is owned by is also MUCR. We're going with the idea that we want to be compatible with the residential neighborhoods, the residential properties, excuse me. Just like before, we're not changing the zoning. Currently, these are actually zoned in a category that's incompatible with the category that they're, I'm sorry, let me say that the right way. These are currently zoned RS3, which is actually incompatible with the current zoning of MRMD, because one was a duplex type zoning and we have a single family type zoning, and the lot of the sources don't fit that either. This will actually correct that because when we did the townhouse category, we allowed for single family to exist as a right without being illegally non-compliant use as a right in the townhouse category. So we would cure that, but we really are looking forward to trying to cross some redevelopment in the area. We had a lot of discussions that we wanted to convert duplex to a townhouse type of product. It would give us a little more of an urban feeling. It would always keep the door on the street. And that's what we're doing. Again, we evaluate for consistency with state statutes and we finally have the changes consistent. Thank you. Thank you. Questions of Mr. Alvarez? Mark, last time we had public hearing on the side and we heard concerns about gentrification on a lot. So again, just so we're clear, we think about this in the future. We're going to change the zoning category. Which one would leave it consistent with the current development profile of those laws? I believe you said RT6 the last time. I just wanted to make sure that's still the same. RT6, the question that we had last time was what was the lowest density that would apply under the category in RT6. Okay. For those, RT6, I believe would require some of those lots to assemble though. So what could be applied right now without assembly of lots would actually be RTA team because it was designed to fit into single lots. Okay, but in terms of the density, that's really what will probably drive whether those units are redeveloped or not. I don't know if they're home set in or owned by an investor, just responding to what we heard at the last meeting, right, which was a concern that we are inadvertently encouraging people to displace those existing residents. So if our goal was to not displace anyone, but to create, but to render our plan consistent and eliminate categories, and we're going to retain, we created our T18, but we've've retaining RT6, which is the category that does the least amount of harm in terms of in terms of justification the RT6. Okay. The least steps. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Questions? Um, give us your guy. Um, Mr. Robert. So I have the same question as the mayor. With the RT6 or an RT18, you could still only fit two townhouses on those lots. Or does it get, if we go to RT6, you, because you said you have to assemble. Why would you have to assemble? RR6 and RT9 were existing townhouse categories, and they were focused more on a larger sort of plan development. So we have those along the Lund Road on the east side of it. RT6s and RT9s. It's really designed to be that kind of thing. So it a minimum lot of size that's a little bigger than some of those lots. Okay, so to keep it the way, so right now there's two units on those properties. To keep it two units or two town homes, it would have to be an RT18. The RT18, although it sounds like it's a lot more density, you still only fit two townhouses on each property instead of having it as a duplex, as long as they go vertically. And to answer the displacement question, because those townhouses, that code was written to allow for ADUs, which would be affordable housing, it could also have a unit on the bottom that's very small and would be an affordable housing unit. Okay, so yeah, I just think it gets a little confusing because... I think another part of the analysis I'll ask of all questions are my clarify for the issue. Okay, so because with the RT6, the footprint of the structure is bigger. With the RT18, the footprint is smaller. I think the difference if I can correct, I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. So I think the difference is the minimum lot size in R-T-6 is larger, because it's more suburban in character. In R-T-18, it's more urban in character. So it's a smaller minimum lot size. So I would say to you, if I was advising a client, I would tell them to replete the lots, create more lots, get more units. So the yield to the property owner is larger. So I'm not happy with this characterization of the facts. I think there is another analysis that very clearly leads to redevelopment scenario that could result in displacement. So I want to be clear for the record, right? The thing that changes nothing and creates no incentive for someone to essentially redevelop the site by increasing the density is RT6, not RT18. I don't want anyone to appear to have a doubt in their mind about the effect of imposing RT18 zoning. It does create, I think it does signal to the market that we want more units now. Do they have to go through the additional step of replanting? I'd say the answer to that question is yes. Is that a fair statement to increase the number of units? Yes. Okay. Yes, ma'am. So are you then inferring that we would give these lots and artsy six zoning to make it a some zero game that they would be unable to redo anything on the words without buying more lots. So the they don't have to buy more lots. Well, but if they got a five six designation, they wouldn't be able to do anything. They would so so that the the question I was asking said it's we're clear. We heard a lot of people come out and say yeah I watched. You did okay. I know if you weren't here. That's why I wanted that. So so what I am suggesting is when we think about re re- rezoning the property which we will have to re- on it to render a consistent with this Latin use designation if I'm mistaken so the attorney resolves correct me, right? We'll have to rezone it to render consistent with what we're doing now We'll have a menu of options to choose from okay the menu options ranges from RT6 to RT18 RT if we if our goal is to say the owner, we want to give you no more rights than what you have today, essentially, right? I think the answer to the selection of those three categories is RT6. If the goal, if the, if our goal is to say to the owner, we'd like you to do something else with this property, right, we make it easier by conferring an RT18 zoning designation. That's how I understand our choices. Okay, but my question, and it's, this is simply looking at what the designations are. I understand what you are mentally, like the mental mathematics I understand. but when you are looking at RT-6 and I'm making up a number these lots are 6,300 square feet. RT-6 is 8,300 square feet. So by giving it an RT-6 designation we are essentially handicapping anybody who owns these properties to doing anything. So I would disagree with that. It's so far as they can come before this board and make a request of the property rezoned to any of the other two categories. If I can clarify, they're currently rezoned RS3. Okay, what is that? Single family, three. The structures that are there are actually legally noncompliance structures under RS3 and I understand the history of this was that in 2019 that then remember the board passed on the comprehensive plan designation that were the MUC and UMD that we're trying to delete now, but they never agreed to re-zone it. So it remained RS3. In fact, because when we did the townhouse category for the future land, for the conference of plan, and we had this discussion quite a lot, at least Mr. Riseon, and I had a lot of discussions about causing legally non-compliant lots with single family and we specifically added single family residential as a category that's permitted under this land use category so that we wouldn't cause that. So we would actually bring these, this zoning into compliance. We don't have to rezone it. It would be a matter of choice if we rezone it. So that. That's an important clarification. Okay, yeah, because I can. No, no, I thought we, I thought that's why I asked. And we, I thought we had to adopt any, any one of the RT categories in order. Okay, so. So that we're even in a better position than I thought. Right. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. So essentially this has zero impact on our need to render the current zoning compliant with the compliant designation. Correct. Okay, sorry, apologize for the misunderstanding. Okay, so essentially we don't have to do anything. No, we do not. Okay, so we could do nothing and this conversation will be over. I think the last time I think my confusion is born from the fact that the last time we were recommending we consider RT18 zoning for the site of my recalling the discussion correctly. We had a question about what would be the choices and and those would be the townhouse choices. Okay Okay. Kim Shikai, you had a question? I understand that because we're talking about their single family use, but it also has primary land use of multi-family two to nine units. At 6,300 square foot lot, with the density at RT6, we can only build point eight units per lot. So that wasn't feasible. So I agree with, I'm glad you brought that up because I wanted to clarify that as well. Okay, do we have a motion on the side of them? Or do we want to discuss it further? Public hearing. Oh, public, we didn't do the public hearing on this? I'm sorry, I forgot. So this should be done as well. Further questions? I'm sorry, yes, ma'am. So then we have the option on the table of do nothing and it stays the away it was. With respect to zoning. Yes. All right. I just heard that. Hang on. Yeah. Sorry. The current the current designation, which is MRMD is a designation that we have kind of marked to phase out. So part of the reason we have proposed this was to move to the new category. And if you all approve, I think the statement really is, if you all approve what you do tonight, you don't have to do anything subsequent to that. You don't have to change the zoning. It would be consistent with the new comprehensive plan designation. So if you if you approve this change tonight you don't have to take the next step and rezone it unless you want to but you don't have to. But if we approve this change tonight what are we approving? We haven't approved our six. No you're approving the designation. We're approving the design any of those to occur. Just a name. There's two levels you're approving the base level. Okay, further questions? I'm sorry for remoteing the designation. We're proving the designated any of those to occur. Just a name. There's two levels. You're proving the base level. Okay, further questions? Sorry for motting the waters, my apologies. This is a public hearing item. Anyone who'd like to address this commission item seven, please come forward this time. Anyone else who please raise your approach your hand? Okay, seeing no one in the audience and no one online. The public hearing is closed. Colleagues, any further discussion? No mayor, I move the motion. That's okay with you. Yes, please. Third second. Okay, motion by Commissioner Cuyah. A second by Vice Mayor Cory. And Clark, if you can call the roll, please. Yes, Commissioner Cuyah. Yes. Commissioner Bonneesh. Yes, Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. Vice Mayor Cory. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. Yes. I don't pass it Commissioner Bonnege. Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. Vice Mayor Cory. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. Yes. Item pass is 5-0. Great. If you can read item 4, please. I don't know. 4. Item 4. It was the Mayor's City Commission of the City of South America for the approval and multi-member random of understanding with the underlying management organization in DBA, the underlying service related to investment and the underlying operations program maintenance and management. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager, could you do a quick presentation or I'm happy to address the item. Feel free. Okay. So, um, the underlying has been soliciting, uh, request for support from jurisdictions that are on, uh, this future, in our case, future parkingment, and, um, another been discussions about a capital contribution that's not what's before us. So, uh, I want to be clear that the agreement that was advertised is just about the maintenance piece. And as we know, uh, our phase of the underlying, it's unclear whether it will be delivered at the beginning of the next fiscal year, which starts in September of this year. Sorry, I've told over one of this year, excuse, at October one of this year. So the agreement is drafted. Basically, we would appropriate a full $300,000, but we are not obligated to make a maintenance payment until such time as the facility comes online. So if that happens at any point during the fiscal year, our contribution in terms of maintenance, the full $300,000 would be appropriated. So let's say it happens in the last two months of the fiscal year we would contribute two months, you know, one six of the full amount. Okay, so that's, I believe that's how the agreement is drafted, that's how I read it. So if that's not an accurate representation, please let me know, Mr. City Attorney. That's what it's meant to say. Okay, I wanted to mention this. I've communicated to the underlying, the amount is not in substantial. It's a considerable commitment on our part. I do want to remind my colleagues that we are the one jurisdiction that is on the cement that's contributed no dollars to its capital development. Right? So I think we have a significant amount that we are gaining. I think it's in our best interest to fund this at a level that's well beyond what we're customarily used to funding our own maintenance. Frankly, I think that this commission's long desire to increase our maintenance and effort with respect to our right away maintenance and landscaping. And so, again, I'm not that insensitive to the fact that this is a substantial amount of money, but again, I think for the value we're getting, the fact that we've made no contribution, and we're gonna be a party that is directly benefited by this and we see the value and potential that this M&A brings to not only our city generally, but the future redevelopment of this campus, I think that it's a pretty wise investment for that reason. So happy to take any questions you all have. Yes, Madam Commissioner. I agree with you that an investment in this is needed. I agree that it is in our best interest. It is our backyard. I don't agree that we should be funding a capital investment in public restrooms. City Hall has restrooms, the library has. And again, I will tell you that it's not before us. So I want to keep the discussion on what is before us. But I think if there is, if there is a request, there has been a request made online. Unfortunately, it came after the date that this item was advertised. And this is advertised on March 7th. So we can certainly address that item. I think if I have heard concerns from the manager's office about the request generally. So rather than mixed metaphors today, what I would say is if we can bring a, we can bring that request back at a subsequent date and discuss the merits of whatever that capital contribution is, whether it's for a bathroom or anything else, and whether we should make it at all. Then I would change my statement to say I am comfortable giving an amount. I think we should be able to earmark what we would like that amount to go towards. Since it will be given by us, we should have some input into what that would be, or at least some dialogue, especially because of what I just said. I also think that there should be. Are you referring to maintenance dollars or capital dollars? Capital dollars. Okay, again, I don't disagree with that statement in the, in the absolute least. However, it's not what's in front of us today. Well, but if we're being asked for $300,000. Maintenance. Yes, but from that initial $300,000 is none of that going to capital cost. None of that in the agreement that's in front of us includes a capital contribution. So the advertised agreement that is in the record does not have any, again, correct me if I'm wrong, which is a attorney, Madam Manor does not have any reference to capital dollars. There was a request that came after the item was drafted, after it was advertised. Okay, that we can consider. But I want to be clear that the item that's in front of us that's been advertised has no capital contribution. So we're being asked for $300,000 a year for maintenance. Yes ma'am. And then in the first year because we expect that the facility will not be delivered on October 1. I understood. That contribution would be appropriate to come. I understood that part of the conversation. Is it accurate then to say that it does continue then to have that escalator associated with it? Yes, ma'am. I think if you look at the schedule, there I think in year 2, I think the total number is a 315 and there's an escalator there after. Okay, so are we all comfortable with $300,000? I think that's a real conversation. And I just want to also remind the board that the way the agreement is styled, that it's subject to annual budgeting and appropriation. So this is what, this is the benchmark we are going to try to solve for every year. I certainly think it's something we should do. My concern about this whole framework and I had wanted to make this, if I had my brothers, in the underlying who's not necessarily that I embrace this idea, I wanted to have a binding interlocal agreement between all the other entities, Miami-D County, city Miami, Coral Gables, an umbrella that have skin in the game in terms of disseminating, touching their jurisdictions so that if we budgeted it, they had the budget at the same amount or, you know. Or send it to budget? Yeah, so we, in terms of how we arrive at this number, right, it's based on a linear myofigure and Mr. Cloakley is here and going to address questions as well. And so we have one linear mile. They're allocating a $300,000 cost. Every other jurisdiction is basically being assessed or asked to make a contribution on the same metric. So it's an equitable amount. From that perspective, I just again, we I have been low to quibble about what the request is. I wanted to make sure that there's maintenance standards that they have that are reflected in the document. My choice has been provided to us. Right. And so that isn't better in the agreement, something they've got to adhere to our public works team knows what their obligations and their maintenance are where it starts and where ours, you know, whether whether it's where there's begin and end and where our start and we are kind of operating with that kind of level clarity. And is it accurate? We've never given a penny to anything having to do with the underlying? Yes we have or no we have. We have not. Mr. Cook we want to. Sorry I'm like looking at you and I'm like yes or no. Good evening you look like the the CEO of friends that are underline newly appointed. Congratulations. Congratulations. I can't mind about two months ago as a CEO. So thank you, Mayor and the Commission. So from my understanding, there hasn't been any funding that's contributed to the construction cost and the capital cost for the project. And again, just to put some context to this, we have a variety of different funding sources from the federal government as well as the Florida Department of Transportation and the county. The total investment is close to $150 million. Okay. Mr. Rodriguez. Okay. Congratulations, by the way. Thank you. So, I guess before me, we have the maintenance. So it's basically daily tasks, certain amount of items, biweekly, weekly, monthly, semi-annual, annual ongoing, so forth. Would A, is it possible? And B, are we open to analyze what work and maintenance is going to be done if we did it with our own public works department? And would that be a savings to the city? Because I know we're dealing with, and I think Alex can vouch for this, we're dealing with certain issues with lights and maintenance and we're sitting waiting for someone to react where an offensive or to the organization. But if we have our own public works, guys, if there's graffiti, if there's any vandalism, anything, if we have our own public works team work on it, it's going to be much, again, it's in our backyard. We don't want it sitting there for weeks looking bad or like crap and nothing's being done. So at the end of the day, are you guys open to seeing what would it cost our public works department? Maybe what would it take hiring a couple people to handle this? You know, is that an option? Sure, I think it's like an idea. And I'm sure U.S. has an opinion on it. Let's hear from Commissioner Kaye and then we'll pick that up for discussion. Well, I think the opinion is going to be the same. I think the commitment from all the municipalities of Miami-Dade, UMSA, is that they're committing to this program. So if we pull out and do it ourselves, the value goes up for them, right? It's supposed to be unified and qualified. I do agree, though, with the comment that you stated, that what are the conditions that if graffiti's not cleaned up or garbage is not picked up? Like, what are the methods, or what is the, I didn didn't read it so I apologize. What is the method on the contract that we could either enforce it or get out of it? What are the triggers that happens to that? So look, I think I wanna, I don't wanna speak for you so you can jump in whatever you like. But I think our experience with other government of the East has been spotty. I mean, we had issue with a homeless encampment behind the library when we arrived here early and Chip and public work kind of took care of it. Relay and scaped it and again I don't know what authority we had to do that, but we did it to to resolve the matter right I would think given the level of investment that they're putting in if it were my linear my linear Park I'd be low to have anybody else go on there and perform the service for us. That said, right? That said, because it creates consistency and control issues in terms of the execution of the maintenance. Probably also has an impact into the leveraging economies of scale to service the balance of the humanity. I think our ultimate hammer is, if we don't wanna fund this in year two, because we're dissatisfied with the level of service, we're gonna call him in the conservancy to account, and they're gonna have to explain to us why they're following down on the job, right? This is not, you know, because we cannot budget and buy into future commissions, we always have the right to revisit this agreement and we can walk away from it the way it's drafted. So what? Terminated. We can also terminate it. So, you know, I think I expect the higher levels standard and I expect them to be more nimble because they are not an agent of our sister government at the county. And so I think we're going to get a higher level of responses as a result. You know, but that would be my response, I don't know if you want to add anything. Yeah, and I can attest to that just to get some background. So I used to be the director and CEO of the Transportation Public Works Department from my BD County. That means I ran Metro Rail, Metro Mover, all the buses. And I can tell you the level of service that we had for the property that was previously underneath the Metro Rail before the investment and so to underline would never amass to what is reflected here within this exhibit in the MOU. So the level of service is at a much higher level. And we have an experience of this because we have raised one and face to that have been completed. And so if you've ever been down to Burkle or go towards Veskaya, close to Ward 27th Avenue, you'll see how pristine the quarter is. And that's because the contract that we have has those stipulations in terms of the requirements for the service that's in front of you today. So it will be far beyond anything as we get at the county level. And again, definitely respect and appreciate the collaboration with the city of South Miami. But I would venture to say that we will even have higher greater standards that the city of South Miami's public works department can have for this particular corridor. That's one of the benefits of having this arrangement to have this public private partnership that we can provide, a accelerated and increased responsiveness whether it be graffiti, trash pick, I'm gonna like, and we get the opportunity to hold our contractor to account throughout their entirety 10 miles of corridor. Mayor, sorry. Yes, recognize the Vice-Mino. Come back down the line here. Thank you so much. Congratulations, by the way. From my own edification, because we have dealt with plenty of issues with obviously the Metro right now in terms of cleaning up graffiti, removing items, potentially trespassing individuals, things like that. What is the security programming for the underline now, and is there an expectation for that in our one mile? Yes. Correct. So right now we have 24-7 of the security. We do partner with the private contract of security with the Department of Transportation and Public Works and Again, that's another expectation that we have as a part of our our management agreement with the county that we will provide that 24-hour security throughout the entire year quarter. So the same thing will exist here in South Miami Thank you Commissioner Kai and then Commissioner Rodriguez I just stuff my face, let Rodriguez. Okay. Can we start Rodriguez? You recognize. So I do want to be clear on this. I think the underlying is great. Everything that's being done with it, I'm in favor of. Where the reason I brought up those items about the maintenance issues is when you get off fine, 95 on US one and you look to your right, you see all the graffiti on those fences and you see some of those fences kind of falling apart for something that's brand new. It's not, it's just to be clear that's not within the scope of it right away. That's private property. So they don't, you know, well that's what I was going to ask. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not, yeah. I guess I imagine you guys have something that you're doing to alleviate that or point being is if we have that in any of our areas, is that something that we will be responsible to handle, or is that something that you, the underlying will take care of? Anything that's in the underlying right of way, we will take care of and it will be consistent with the service requirements that are in front of you today. It was on, you know, private property, of course, outside of our right of way, and I'll be a different type of approach to, you know, if it's graffiti or any type of trash pickup. And we're serious about this because, you know, the whole point of the underline is that it's a pristine first class facility and we need to ensure to keep it that way and that's the commitment for myself as a leadership as well as our founding member and the rest of our board that's the expectation we'll set that in rule and make sure to meet it. Secretary Charter yourself on that point I think if they were at graffiti one of the columns for example they'd have to take care of them. Right. Unfortunately those fences have been like that for a long time And it's private property and I unfortunately it's outside. I think they're Ability to address it. So come to guy are you ready? Yeah, thank you so far The service agreement that you guys have in phase one is is that coming I'm assuming you outsource that. Is that accurate or no? The maintenance, the security services, all that's outsourced. Are you planning to move those same companies along Phase 2 and Phase 3? Is that, or are you guys gonna open up for bid? That's a plan. Now again, the Terminat contract, I believe it might expire here in the next 18 months to two years. I have to go back and follow up with you about that. Even if it does, we'll make sure that the scope is comprehensive and we'll get the best price and make sure that we have the economies of scale. But the intent, as we open up, the existing service provider will stay on board. we feel that because of their past performance has been excellent that again as these additional segments come on with phase three will achieve the same level of service and responsiveness. Look I think that I'm always been a big fan of what you guys are doing. I think this city of South Miami is going to benefit. There's a lot of things that we have coming online that are really going to support it back and forth. I, these little caveats are important to us. I mean, obviously we care about quality. Best in class, like you just said, is something that we're really interested in as well. So whatever we can do to help out, obviously under the agreement that we have, we need to make sure that we execute it. So that was my only concern. I appreciate it. Absolutely. You're going to be a public hearing item. Thank you. Just final comment on this. Again, it has nothing to do with the Elena. It's more on the city side, you know, 300,000 is a lot of money. To put it in perspective, that's the cost of our CDs for our streetscape for sunset drive would be paid off with those 300,000. So I just, I don't know, I don't take it lightly for a city like ours. It's 45% of the avalorum revenue increase we had last year. I mean, it's the first thing I said to Meg and to Eulis when they approached me about this, I said, I want you to appreciate the size of the request relative to our size. And so, and the only reason to me this makes a sense is we've gotten, we've not put $1 in to this program and we are gonna get the benefit. And I think, you know, we, I'm a big believer with what we're gonna do here on this campus at City Hall. If we actually get it executed, that we're probably gonna have the best destination location, right, on the underlying of any community on this linear trail. So again, you know, to use Mr. Kelly's comments, it's time for us to put our big boy and big girl pants on, right, and bed big on the city. And I think what's what we're doing? I think we have a good partner. And the truth is if a partner doesn't perform, you know, we can walk away from this agreement. And if we can't meet our obligation because there's budget constraints, I'm sure we're gonna be as challenged as anybody else. We'll have that conversation, we'll figure out how we either supplement what they're doing with our staff or work with them to right size our contribution in years going forward. So those are my thoughts, but happy to talk about it further. Yes, Madam Commissioner. That's cool. Let's go. You want to call the question? Yes, let's open up a bit. I'll move it. Let's go. No, we got to open the public hearing. Oh my goodness, we're never going to. Is there any member of the public who would like to address item four on tonight's agenda? Mr. Smith, Mr. McKenzie. Good evening, John Edward Smith. Congratulations, I haven't had the opportunity to meet you yet. I wanted to speak with Meg yesterday tomorrow morning to arrange a breakfast or lunch for us. Thank you. Certainly we belong here. and as the mayor has indicated so far, South Miami has not contributed to the underlying. The city of Miami has assessed properties along the underlying and is contributing that way as well. So there's a lot of other support from other municipalities that is coming into this. And yes, $300,000 is a big bite, but it's one mile. We're spreading that over a while. So just figure the pennies that way, going out that way. I think it's a year. My half. My association with this goes back way before shoveling in the ground. In 1983, I founded Bike Miami. And we used the path under the metro rail for a number of our trips that we did monthly during Miami's for me month in November. So my familiarity with the challenges of this path and actually Merit Steerheim was referring to it when I was involved as a linear path back then too. So I mean the whole thing about making it real and Meg's vision is remarkable and it's coming together. If you look south of us right now on 80th street, the landscaping is going in. I've shot some pictures the other day of that and the section from 80th down to to Dateland South is probably 90% so I think that is working on the landscaping. So I think, you know, we are the only business community first on the metro rail and certainly now with the underlying. and we have to be able to bring that to us as well, as they're bringing it to us, but we need to bring it to them. I think this is gonna be absolutely fantastic. I can't wait. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Liebman just texted me and said that he wanted me to let everyone know that the city of South Miami contributed to the design and engineering back when this all got started. Okay. So, so that while we did not contribute capital, we did contribute in that form. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Commissioner Heven. James McKenzie, 6210 Southwestern Cathedral Street. When we talked about this last year and I've been talking with the commissioners, both Steve and Danny and you, Mayor, about the possible jobs that could be had with the underlying. And we had a lot of people really hyped up for the opportunity. Now we did get one guy out there who's doing good. But the possibility to get other folks from both South Mamie and Coconut Grove and we were thinking about just trying to work together as a county thing, maybe district seven, our job opportunities for folks. And it works right in line. If you're getting federal funding, you got some federal funding on this. And so if you do that, that means section three falls on the list. So the local hiring will help you comply with the section three initiative so if we can do that just keep that in mind and I love to talk to you okay good job thank you for my knees about that James we should yes sir and mr. McKanford we we tell them we spoke about with NB 2A we've got all the subs in place we just had had really bad success with it. We could put more pressure and more highlight on it. I had a big meeting with the whole group. So we did a lot of, we just didn't get a lot of success with it. Okay, so we'll definitely follow up. Just one important note. Workforce development is something that's a part of the underlying, sometimes people don't recognize that. We do have a grant from Bank of America where we identify residents to go and train them in the art of horticulture. They get certified and they can go on to either stay with the underlotted ones or other places of employment. And we're definitely going to be focused on that more because it's a fantastic opportunity to not only have this great asset but to really make sure it's an economic generator. So I just want to put that note out there that that's a part of the mission and the vision on the line moving forward. Thank you. We'll definitely follow up on the subcontracting piece. Thank you. Okay. Further public comment? Anyone else would like to address item four on tonight's agenda? Anyone on Zoom please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one else in the chamber? No one else online will close the public hearing? Colleagues, final comments? Nope. Is there a motion? I move the motion. Okay, is there a second? Second. The motion by Commissioner Coye. A second by Vice Mayor Cory. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll please. That's Commissioner Bonit. Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your comments. I'm going to ask for your I want to take the first reading ordinances. Why don't we take one, two, eight, nine? One. I think you colleagues what any preference on which items we take next You want to take the first reading ordinances why don't we take one two eight nine one two eight nine men clerk If you can read consent agenda item number one. Thank you for the suggestion I don't want it was which of the mayor's city commission of the city of Southampton Florida Approving and authorizing the purchase of 40 Smith and Western MMP 15 T SB T SBR 556 rifles and related accessories from Pro Forest Law Enforcement and a total amount of $73,589.76 including a trade in credit of $11,0929 from existing equipment and inventory declaring the existing trade and equipment as surplus property. Thank you Madam Clerk. Is there a motion on item one? I'll move it. So we're second. I'll second. Motion by Commissioner Woodie. Just second by Commissioner Coye. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, Commissioner Coye. Yes. Commissioner Bumish? Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez? Yes. I see no quarry. Yes. the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Florida law. Madam Manager, give a resolution. The city receives FDOT funding for our on-demand transit program. We had a tri-annual audit. There are certain requirements that we have to abide by. One of them is that we have a Title VI policy in place with specific language. So this item is drafting the policy so that it complies with what FDOT requires. Thank you for the explanation. Colleagues, any questions on the manager? Seeing none is there a motion? I move the motion there. Is there a second? Second. Again, a motion by Commissioner Kaye, a second by Vice Mayor Cory. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll please. Yes, Commissioner Kaye. Yes. Commissioner Bonit. Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. Vice Mayor Cory. Yes. Referendists. Yes. I don't pass this five to them. If you can read item eight, please. Nikki's killing me going out of eights. In ordinance of the mayor's city commission of the city of South Minnesota, amended section 15A-18 control parking residential zones of chapter 15A parking the city code of ordinances to establish a single residential permit parking zone, permit eligibility and issuance and procedures for implementation of the program. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Riverall, four's yours. You know, he's excited about it. I know he's excited. That's why I asked him to come up before you're asking you. Number one auditor, eight years running. Where are the flowers? Where are the flowers? Where are the ribbons? You know where the ribbons are? Next meeting please. Okay. Good evening. It's a pleasure to be here before you presenting this modification to our residential program which we believe is critical for as development continues in our town center and people want to be here which is is a great thing. This program, we've been working on it with communities in that area, with new developers that are in that area, and we've gained multiple approvals and support by the community thinking that this program that's presented before you will work and help improve the area, especially comes September, October, November, December as they start filling up some of these units in our town center. Okay. Colleagues, any questions about the program for Mr. Riverall? Yes, Commissioner Booneach. I already shared my concerns with you. Should I say them here or do I leave them with you? No, share them, please. Ha-ha-ha. When you allow for overnight parking in the parking garage, that opens the door and not that it is a bad thing for people who only use their car sometimes. When I had this conversation with Alfredo, he made mention to me that you couldn't park your car consistently there for more than 72 hours that it wasn't for park storage. I then said to him, I am a household of two people and two cars. I don't drive my second car all the time, but it is my second car. So if I lived in a building and I had a second parking space, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to be driving my car within 72 hours. We are promoting this whole thing, and as a matter of fact, I had to sit here and listen to somebody say, don't let people have freaking parking spaces, pretend they don't exist, pretend they're wearing their car like a hat, and then we're saying, oh, let them have parking. No, remember, oh no, let's do a two story building with two stories of parking, and not give anybody any freaking parking. Yeah, okay, in a pretend world, people don't have cars, but in Miami, we have cars. And so even if I live in the building of cars, I think you're channeling when all the race right now. Oh my God. It like even if I lived in that building and I go work downtown and I take the train, I may still have a second car. That doesn't necessarily mean I move my car. It may not move in five days. So we have to change the verbiage in that so that it says if you have a second car, it can just be there. And you don't have to move it in 72 hours because if not, I would be moving my car around the parking lot like a moron. From the comments. So I had the opposite perspective, quite honestly, shocker, which is I would say park the car you use less frequently in your home garage, right? That's because it's not a public garage. So my comment to Alfredo was two things. One was I think the rate on overnight parking for the covered portion of the garage is too low. For the rooftop $100 is fine. It's what they charge people on the surface lot down the street, right? But we're providing, I mean, I think there's a value in having your car protected from the elements and from the sun. Can I park my car at some of my garage, you know, how flipping a hot it gets, right? And so I think we should charge probably $125, but that'll come with a rate recommendation. I think we should have a shorter vehicle relocation requirement or vehicle movement requirements because we don't want people leaving cars there. You want the garages are safe. Public garages I think are safest are safest when there's more movement in and out. They feel more threatening when you've got static people or static cars in them. And so I would say, I would say, if I were in your situation and let's say I were to move into the Avalon Bay apartment, so I wanted to have a second car. And it's more advantageous to me to park in the garage. I would say, well, in park the car, I use least frequently in the garage reservoir at the building and park my daily driver across the street. But if you're moving less than every 48 hours, again, I think there's a way around that issue, whether it's 72 or 48 hours, we can have that discussion in the future. But that doesn't make any sense. That doesn't make any sense. Like if I didn't drive that car, why would I want it where I'm living? Well, then you can store it somewhere else. I mean, that's frankly my... There's no point in having that second part. That's, again, since we're about choices, That's a choice. I know what that person can make. There's something about, like, we have to do things that are pragmatic. Like, we have realistically, we have to, like, come, I don't know, you know what, you and I are never gonna agree on this. For me, it's common sense. Like, if I live in this building, and I have a second car that I'm not using all the time, I'm gonna put it where I'm not using it. Like if I live in the building, and I'm driving this car, this car's gonna go into the building with me every day because when it rains, I'm not gonna get wet and mess up my hair. Problem is we don't wanna have cars that are static, they're 24-7, because the garage is also intended to serve the commercial business in the district. So from a pragmatic standpoint, you want people using that car taking it out of the garage, you could you turn the space over to benefit the businesses from 10 to 7, right? And when someone comes home, they can park their car and have it their overnight. That's the purpose of this program and my mistake because otherwise if we're creating a parking reservoir for static cars we're damaging the business district, right, which is by taking up the parking, right. And so then we should say if you want to have a second car in a building, let's make them park it in a building. So I think that's the balance we're trying to start. I understand the pragmatic difficulty of highly asked. You would prefer to go downstairs and you're building your car and drive. But we can't, I think the thing is, the longer we make that window of immobility, the more we're encouraging long-term vehicle storage, the less activity it has in the garage, making it seem less safe, whether it's empty your full of empty cars, right? And then secondly, you're hurting the businesses that rely on the reservoir to turn over spaces to support transient customers, which we desperately need in this part of South Miami. So that's why I think the logic that you're suggesting, I understand intuitively, it doesn't may not make obvious sense, but that's why I think it does. So anyhow, we thought, come here, Mr. Guy, you're recognized. Thank you, Mayor. So I'm assuming you talked to Mr. Schreiber. And what did he communicate that through his knowledge and through historical references that his tenants will get a second parking spot, will look for it? Is it pretty high? Is it pretty low? And then I guess the second part of the question is in that same same building which we've already discussed, there's also gonna be the opportunities to have second parkings for those tenants, right? So. Their program is not set in stone yet. It's being discussed amongst their board members right now. So I can't tell you, or I don't believe he can even tell you what definitively is going to be the parking, but it's definitely gonna be cafeteria style. First parking space is going to be, I'm going to give you a number just to, but don't hold me to it, $75. And if you do, and you don't have to buy any parking space, but if you do need a parking space, $75, the second one for the first one, they will be offering a second space at, let's just say it's going to be about $150. And it's only at the option of the person that's renting the unit. So if you don't have a car, you will not be paying for parking. If you do have one or two cars, you could potentially, or you would seek other options like across the street at the at Surface Lot at the bank, which does allow overnight parking, the one immediately next to it, and at the parking garage should this pass. Give me some water to give you recognize. So as Alfredo just said, yeah, there's also the bank parking lot in the back. So it's not just some kind of in the middle of both. I agree with you as far as we can let them sit that long, but I also agree with you, no one's gonna park and walk there on a daily basis. We also haven't said there's three bedroom units. So yeah, they may buy the second car, but if they have a third car, where are they gonna park that car? So we haven't even thought of or discussed that. I mean, I think I would encourage you to talk to the developer sponsor because we're talking about a building that's literally 50 feet entrance to entrance from the ramp to the exit. So I don't think the parking is that inconvenient, as a second reservoir parking. And I would tell you, last conversation I had with them about the future phase, they're contemplating having the amenity suite for the new building be the main suite of the current building. So they're talking about having people come out of their building to use a gym or some recreational areas in the building next door. That was the last conversation I had about that. So they clearly as a developer sponsor are seeing that bridging that gap across 73rd street is not the kind of the ocean that we're envisioning it is. And my concern is if they're not seeing that as a friction point and we allow to liberal and overnight parking program we're gonna find that cars are gonna sit in that garage all day and it's gonna damage the ability for cars to turn over to support the businesses right and so I think it's a important conversation about the timing how much time we allow maybe 72 hours is fine. I mean, obviously, if you're doing it on a monthly basis and you're going on vacation for the week, right? There's got to be some ability to notify the city, hey, I'm going to be out of town for a week and we're going to make a certain number of exceptions every year. So it's actually practical for people to leave their car there overnight while they're away. but I think we have to be sensitive to the fact that price and that tenure is important as part of the conversation because we could end up with a full garage with cars that are never moving. At the end of the day, I really appreciate that we're being proactive instead of reactive because if we don't do this, we don't want problems with people parking on swales or at other people's houses. So kudos to you for being, you know, proactive on this. I think right now is a perfect no, but I think this is some it's a good starting point. And we'll see where it goes from there. And if we got a tweak it, we'll tweak it. But, you know, as you know, I'm on board with you. Thank you. That's great to hear. Is there a I appreciate it. I always had a head of compliment. Government being proactive. You know? That's great to hear. Is there appreciated? Government. I hate the compliment. Government being proactive. You know? I will take that. So thank you. Government is always being reactive, not proactive. So you know what? I commend that. Is there a motion on item eight? I move motion to move. I'll suspend it. OK, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Rodriguez. And second by Commissioner Boni. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll, please. Yes, Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. Commissioner Kaye. Yes. Commissioner Boni. Yes. Vice Mayor Cory. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. Yes. Item passes. First meeting, please. OK. If you can read out of nine, please. Item nine, in ordinance of the Marin City Commission, the city has a firm in Florida, Mending Chap the 15 offenses and miscellaneous provisions. Article. If you can read item 9 please. Item 9, in ordinance of the Mayor's City Commission of the City of Southampton, Florida, I'm ending chapter 15 of fences and miscellaneous provisions. Article 1 in general section 15, that's 63, mobile vendors to permit special events featuring mobile vendors for religious institutions and establish regulations and permit procedures. Commissioner Rodriguez, you're recognized if you'd like to kick off the item discussion. So no no no different than than when we had it as a discussion item you know this is brought upon to give the opportunity for our communities to meet and gather have a good time and build a sense of community. We you know sitting with the city attorney we went went through it and you know if you go and you read the sorry get into it it's big folder. We issued 11 basic or actually 12 because I think or 10 is doubled but 11 or 12 uh... restrictions which I think are, I think meet the requirements of the world. We were all looking for, it limits the amount of trucks, it limits the time. You know, it recommends that you actually, you have to get an off duty police officer, some sort of security. It does everything that we all spoke about in the discussion item, so I'm good with it. Colleagues, questions or comments on item nine? Mayor, I just have one question. Yes, go ahead, please. The ability of the square footage per lot will dictate how many people can actually attend, right? There's no restrictions on people that are content this, right? Five. No, restriction on people. Oh, people? No. So my only concern and I stated this last time, Commissioner, was you have two big lots that cater to a lot of a vo church for one has a lot of attendees and they can generate a crowd. So my only concern on that corner there is that voo has five and they message it out to their 4,000 members and they all show up. Right. So highly unlikely. But that's my only concern how we address that because if we have two cops in 4,000 members and they all show up. So highly unlikely. But that's my only concern how we address that. Because if we have two cops and 4,000 people and there's food and everybody's outside, it's just a concern. And maybe it's not addressed here. Maybe it is. It was just my only concern. So it's a great point. The only thing is that how do you restrict? This is for religious location. So how do you limit their congregation? That's just almost impossible to do. So I think there's two, maybe one additional safeguard. Two additional safeguards, which you consider one is, I know we have a maximum of five. I would tell you that if I, you know, just using higher praise as an example, right? The feasibility, you might want to get five on a lot, but the feasibility of getting five and the crowd is probably impractical. So I think there needs to be, I think this is a really good, really, really good first draft and my compliments to you. I think the only thing I would suggest is maybe there's got to be some relations with the number of food trucks with the maximum and the size of the lot, right? So it kind of helps make sure that we write size the number with the size of the church facility. And I do think we need to think about and giving the managers some authority to kind of cap the total number of attendees or shut down the event. And I I don't know if it's there or not Yeah, the manager has the right to set boundaries Okay, I just don't know if it I'm just I'm just no, no, I just but it just relates I thought that yeah, that just relates to temporary or permanent bathrooms Right, no, no, I'm sorry, I just read it into my missing a section here. Number 11. Number 11. So it's part, and even that's part of, and I think that's, then I think that probably is, yeah, thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. So I think 11 covers my other, I think may cover your request, Commissioner Coyote. I would just, my only other would be just, you know, five is fine. I don't have an objection to that, but some lots that might be too many. No, no, agree. Yeah. I would think that each location will designate and understand that they can only pay. If the city attorney thinks that 11 covers that concern with respect to the maximum number of food trucks, the manager has a discretion to limit that based on, you know, his own determination. I'm happy to. It won't cover the first one. Okay. 11 won't. Okay. Because it's based on a history of events. So, um, well, I mean, we could tweak that language clearly. Number number six also is a crowd control. One, that's the professional security or off-duty police. That's supposed to be based on the size of the event, because not every event needs two. Some might need five. No, but I think that's making sure that's designed to make sure we are appropriately staffing it from a law enforcement perspective. Correct. I don't think it's basic, as your guy is concerned about. But a cap. Whether the size is, yes. So, I think with those two two caveats I think this is really good first draft and hopefully we'll be something that community would embrace to activate you know different law to cross the city and so I mean I'm happy to move the item and between first and second reading I'm sure we can clean up that language to address both Yes, ma'am. Can I offer a suggestion a second with one modification, which I think will help all of you guys. I would suggest that on number 11, we just remove based upon its history of events because we limit his authority. So I think that then at least takes us a step ahead. So I think the OR is intended to read and I don't know how that's just junkative, right? To separate the first half of necessary for the particular event from the operator. And so I think when it's, if we have a history for the promoter, the operator. You can even notice the order. Yeah, so I think it's not an end. It's an order for that reason. So I think the manager probably has the discretion. I don't know if you read the same way, Tony. Or is the rest of the problem? I just make it clear. Okay, perfect. Okay. And then I'll second that. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll. Yes, commission Rodriguez. Yes, commission Kaya. Yes, commission board. Nice. Yes, advice me a query. Yes, me a Fernandez. Yes, I don't pass it's fine. Two. Think I think that it just leaves us with commission reports and add on correct so let's let's read F1 please F1 air resolution of the mayor's city commission of the city of South America for the rescinding resolution number 024-24-161-9 Which authorizes the city manager to execute certain mutual aid agreements memorandums of understanding M NYU, and other procedural law enforcement agreements with governmental entities, including any of the members or renewals there to on an ongoing basis. Thank you, Madam Clerk. So I brought the item. It's been a lot of scullable about a lot of different things recently. I think suffice it to say that at the time that we adopted the resolution in question, the operating context was a particular way. I mean, probably a little bit less charged politically. And I think the operating context today has changed. And I think that these policy decisions at the end of the day should rest with this council, right? A lot of concerns, and I wanna make sure that in doing this, it's not an anyway a criticism or an indictment of the chief or the manager. The goal here is to make sure that we are placing the burden of this decision where I think it belongs, which is with the city commission. And not leaving our manager and or our chief in jeopardy for choosing not to or choosing to exercise any discourse and we may have delegated them. So I think the, with respect to any and all these agreements. So I think that is the reason for my bringing it here. I think if there's going to be a discussion about any sort of mutual cooperation agreement with any entity, we should have it. We can vote it up and down. To my mind, I don't understand in this current operating context what the urgency is around all these items. Since, as I understand chapter 908, which has been the recent discussion in many jurisdictions in Florida and I've confirmed this with the speaker with our lobbyist, with members in the Florida Senate and Florida House. We are fully in compliance with all our obligations under the statute with respect to related issues and we we certainly give no direction to anyone not to do something that we're required to do. Nor are we required to my knowledge and the city can confirm this to take any other steps to execute any other. Me too. The agreement. So I think the best posture for the city. Which is I think always been my objective to keep us out of any trouble is to pull this authority back so that we can see what's happening. Assess what happens. If there's a mandate that comes down saying that we've got to do something as an officer of the court, as someone sworn to take a note to abide by the law, we will do what we're required to do as we always have. But I think the better part here of this discretion is to pull it back at this particular time and reserve action until such time as it's warranted. So without I'm happy to take any questions. Yes, ma'am. I'm trying to think of the right way. If you want to think about it? We'll let someone else ask a question. I don't think it's going to get any better. Okay. I think there's a lot of different ways that this can be handled. And I feel this was not the way to do it. I think that we've, when we decided March 5th of 2024, which coincident, it's interesting was one year ago essentially that we did the change that we gave this authority to our city manager. It showed our faith and our trust in him. From that moment to now, we've only done more things that show our continued faith in him. everything that he has done has more than shown that he deserves it. I think that he is an extremely intelligent man. I think that our city manager can read a room pretty well. I think that if he feels there is something that should be brought to us, he will. I don't think that rescinding his authority to look at mutual aid agreements, MOUs, whatever it is that we wanna call them them based on political climate because we want to wait in or have an opinion on it or whatever it is I Don't think this is the right way to do it. I think that the conversation is Mr. City Manager if you feel there are things that we should be involved in, or we feel there are things we should be involved in, then let's have a conversation and take those one by one. I don't think that rescinding an authority that I think that he has more than earned is the way to go about it, I think. It's if I were him, I would feel like this was a slap in the face. I want no part of this. I feel he's worked really, really hard and not only us, but our residents by voting to give him more authority by change of charter, have shown that our faith in him is echoed by them. Whether we agree with what's coming down the pike or not, I don't think that this is the way to go about it. So as the sponsor, I just want to address the comment directly. And so as I said from the beginning, it's not a referendum on him or the manager, and I disagree with the characterization of how it should be taken. The intention of this is I want every employee in this organization to understand that I'm never going to leave them on that island. And the conversations I've had with leadership in this organization from our manager to our chief, they feel that they are vulnerable, and they feel that they are exposed. And I would, and I surmise those conversations that that vulnerability and that exposure is higher by virtue of the fact that we have delegated that authority and in the absence of it. So I'm taking it back not because it's a criticism of the manager because I don't think he's earned the respect frankly, we never have brought him to this board to recommend his hiring. If I didn't have absolute confidence in his faith and his judgment, right? Because I brought the name to the table. That judgment has not changed. I think he's only done what I meant is job bringing people of of from the chief to Mr. Munoz to Mr. Cabrera to all the new hires being people of high quality, incredible professionalism. And we continue to build an organization that's improved upon the base that we inherited, which is a good one. So in no way, in no way, is that characterisation that you've made in any way accurate. If people want to read it that way, it's a misreading of the situation. And what it is? The fact that the reason we're doing it is because I'm hearing, for the first time in my adult life in this country, people who are sworn to protect and serve us are concerned about whether or not their inaction, their inaction exposes them to losing their jobs. And I as the mayor of this city, for as long as I have this title in the seat, right, I'm not going to say to my employees that I'm not going to be here to support you. And the best way I can support them is by taking them out of the political arena. Our chief and our manager were not hired to be politicians. They're hired to be administrators. They're hired to follow the law. Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to pick a fight or take a fight because I wanted to pick a fight, I would have pursued my initial course of action, which is to go to court and ask for a declaratory action on the part of a judge to say, are we in compliance? Do we need to do this? Okay. I think the better course here, because again, I'm not trying to elevate my profile or the profile of the city in this debate. It endures to no one's benefit. We've got real projects that we're doing, we've got real projects we want to do. And so I think the best thing here is to say to my team, we're here, if there's gonna be any reckoning on this issue, the reckoning should happen with the people that ran for office, not the people charged to do, just that charged, the people hired to just charge a job, right? So to me, again, the intention of the statement is to say, I have your back. I'm willing to take the responsibility. I'm willing to bear the burden. As I think we all should in this conversation. Don't you think a better way of handling that versus taking away his authority to handle MOUs, MOU's, what is written there is to have a conversation, have an open conversation. We did. I've had multiple conversations. I spent the last two weeks having conversations with our manager and our team. We have an open conversation. We are having an open conversation. No, no, but I'm saying that. That's why the item is on the agenda. How else would you? Again, I'm open to the criticism. I'm not perfect. I think that a better way of handling something like this is to say we're not taking away his power. We would like to handle this one, this one. For whatever reason, you feel you want to take that one on. I think it shows something more to him, something more to our residents, because if you are a resident and you are paying only attention to what is on that paper, you don't have the benefit of the conversation we're having right now. And realistically there is one person watching. And there is there are two people sitting here. So three people have the benefit of the conversation that we're having right now. And but there but they're not the private opportunity to have the conversation with us in the future. They have access to my cell phone number on the city's website if they have a concern about what I'm doing as they do and many other things are free to call me. So I think we've heard our perspectives. Let me hear from Commissioner Rodríguez. Is that a members of the board? Through the mayor. So, in my initial, by the way, you're an eloquent explanation of the reasons that you're doing it. And I understand that better now that we're talking. We've never been to speak about this prior. I also, in first reading of this, my initial thoughts to myself were I have the confidence of the all confidence, the manager and the deputy have my confidence. In the time that I've been here, they've done nothing for me to want to remove that power given to them. They haven't done anything where they deserve that, in my opinion. On the contrary, I think that they've gotten more of my confidence as the longer that I'm here. And I've obviously been here the shortest time from everybody sitting on this day. So I do agree with with commissioner Boniich if this issue that's at hand, you know, and I trust our chief as well, you know, in our conversations and everything. For this issue that's at hand, it's a crappy issue, you know, and we have to deal with it. But I also think it's a little drastic to remove his full power, or their full power, to sign any M.O.s. or, but this one issue, I would be totally fine with saying to the manager and to the deputy on this one issue, we can, what is it, follow motion, do something where direct that the commission will direct you in the way we want you to go forward with that decision that's going to be made on this one issue. But I don't think it needs to be as broad as just removing. I appreciate the comment and I think I think there's also, you know, we're in a moment where whatever we do, and I mean, we're certainly not gonna do what Fort Myers did last night. I don't know if you guys followed that conversation. You know, we're not here to apply on the policy. What I'm trying to focus us on is making sure we stay compliant with our statutory obligations. As whether I like them or not, and there's plenty of things coming out to tell Hasse that I love, right? We've got our sworn duty to live by those rules. And so we do that every day here. If I wanna get into matters now, apparently of policy that we thought was much reserved for the federal level, I can run for the state legislature again, apparently. So I think that's not my job today. My job here is not to be a partisan, my job here is not to apply on things that are promulgated down here. But my job, I think, is to make sure that we're protecting our people. And so the reason I chose to do a blanket rescission, is because I don't want to highlight the issue. I don't want to make this a bigger issue than it needs to be. Because I think people are trying to forge an narrative and trying to make the law, right? If I'm going to pine on something, trying to make the law read the way they want it to read, as opposed to the way it's written. And so I think just doing this puts us in the safest ground as an... trying to make the law, right? If I'm going to pine on something, trying to make the law read the way they want it to read, as opposed to the way it's written. And so I think just doing this puts us in the safest ground as an organization, which is always my intent, right? I read these things first as a lawyer, right? I read these secondly as a mayor, and then I read them lastly as a partisan, right? And so my goal here is not in any way to impune the character or the competence of my city manager. I say my city manager because that's how I feel about him. My goal here is to put us on the safest possible footing and take two people who I respect, right, out of the potential firing line, right? Because they've done nothing wrong. We've done nothing but comply with the law. We're going to continue to do that as we always have. I want to make sure if push comes to shove and someone asks, why haven't you done that? They're not going to ask them. They're going to be able to say, it's in the Commission's province deck. Well, through here. Yes, sir. We just received a little some additional information on this topic regarding Fort Myers and where the, this was an official communication from the governor. Yeah. It may be helpful if you want to take a short recess so you can read it and all of you can read it. Sure. Just so you have the full information. Let's let's Santa recess five minutes. Thank you. I want to send it out to our store. Yeah. you you Okay. we are reconvened. So Mr. City Attorney, I believe we received a communication from the newly minted Attorney General of the City of Florida. That's correct. That's what I wanted you all to read. Could you basically sum up the essence of the correspondence. Essentially he is, he is, this is the first time that someone from the state has actually said that they consider Fort Myers, which took an overt action to not to sign the execution of the agreementize the execution of the agreement. Right. That over action was deemed by the attorney general, which is, which is. And opinion, yeah, necessarily the pronoun, what the law is, but it's, it's their indication or their view of the law is that they consider. Well, this is, this was sanctuary city. This is, this was again, just to be clear, because there are for my colleagues, maybe less familiar, you can request formally an opinion attorney general on any question, and he will give you or she will give you an interpretation of Lord of Law, the matter. This was an unsolicited opinion. Correct. It was in response to last night's vote. I think yes, and an admonition. An admonition. Yeah, to that council in Fort Myers. Telling them that they basically now are in violation of 908. Correct. So look, I always want to put us in a safe harbor. Because that's where we need to be. We're not here. There should not be a platform, a political platform for any of us. We're not partisans. We are elected to citizens of the city to represent it in our best interest. and let with my action was to try to put us in a safe harbor, at least our staff, and let and see what developed so that we could sit back, evaluate what's going on, and if an action need to be taken, we can have the benefit of time. You know, when people ask me to do something for them, that it goes beyond the scope of what I tip of we want to do, when I evaluate the agreement that the Attorney General is saying that we are required by 908 to sign. As a lawyer, my first reading of the agreement, and when I dealt with these in 2019, and that legislative session, was that if I'm going to do, if I'm going to assist in this mission, I should be indemnified. Right? Against any claims that are resolved with that mission. This agreement does not, that agreement does not do that. Right? So I think for our municipal corporation, it does create potential additional exposure. And talking about the issue further with our city attorney, you know, we had concerns about our current insurance coverings and whether our actions were an expansion of our scope. And potential covered claims and with the claims that would result from this additional work that we could undertake potentially would be covered by those policies. That's still an open question. Okay, we're trying to get some clarification on. There's questions related to expansions of scope in our duties that may or may not be covered by our labor agreements. Whether that's a utilateral modification of those agreements that we need to then have ratified by our bargaining units. There's also workman's common issues that come into play with respect to that agreement. So I think, again, I'm not trying to apply on the policy people and for my ears did it to my utter disbelief when I watched the video of the meeting because I thought it was just irresponsible in terms of their duty as council people. I'm not trying to opine on the policy, but I think there are legitimately legal questions that are not been resolved, right? Certainly to my satisfaction, um, that we in our fiduciary capacity as the board of this municipal corporation should understand before we decide to take any action or non-action on one specific aid agreement. My resolution was intended to give us the time to do that and not force our staff to feel like they had to bring this matter forward because if you're aware of what's happening, there's incredible social pressure being brought to bear on administrators and chief law enforcement officers to execute these agreements to show that everyone across the state is coming into compliance, quote-unquote, with this policy trajectory. Okay? My reading of the statute is confirmed by the city attorney is that we're not required, legally to sign this. Okay? It may be good policy to do it, and I am not going to go as far as to foreclose that possibility. But I wanted to give us a space to have the conversation and not necessarily be the first actor. See how other people, what other people were doing. And what I think at this point is with this last message, I think my calculus now has somewhat changed because my instinct having observed the politics of this administration for six years, first hand for two years in telehastic and thereafter now in this chair, is that the only safe harbor left for us is to go to court and ask a court to render an opinion on what the law is and what our obligations are. Not the merits of the policy, not anything else. Are we required to sign the agreement that apparently is now put for Myers in jeopardy. It's an arrow question to ask the court. I think there's ample ambiguity. They can basically declare what the law is. And I'm happy to abide by any outcome, as always, as my pleasure. Because I do not think, as I read the statute, that it's clear, I think it's clear that we have no obligation. But certainly there seems to be plenty of ambiguity and the policy of the, at least the policy articulated by the Attorney General, seems to be of the opinion that we are required to do this. And so I think for those reasons, what I would say is I would rescind my resolution and my recommendations to this board would be to direct the city attorney to file a declar your time. the process and... the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of I'm going to clarify what it is. I would love to hear your opinion. We have talked about this. You and I have spent a lot of time talking about this issue to find the right resolution here that puts us in the best posture. And so I mean, I love to get your perspective obviously the, the ground has shifted yet again in the minutes that we've been hours we've been convened as a body. The, the concern has always been that irrespective of our legal obligation, the statute and statutory framework provides for certain remedies that the governor and the state can employ. And we have seen in the past where those remedies are employed and they may be undone by a court later, but the damage is done at that point. So that's always been, that's been the paramount concern. At the same time, we do not see an overt directive in the statute that says you have to sign this agreement. Indeed, what you just read from the Attorney General comments, it says it's interpreting the failure to sign an agreement. Or in that case, an authoritative, we will not sign this agreement. It interprets that as establishing a sanctuary policy. Again, they're not saying you're violating this overtly, they're saying your actions are tantamount to that. So along those lines, there seems to be some space between the Attorney General's interpretation and our interpretation. I believe what the mayor's proposing is to go to court to seek guidance from the court through a declaratory action to determine whether we have this obligation to to sign this agreement, whether the statute requires it. I would tell you, I do not believe in my heart of hearts that that insulates us from potential action by the state. I agree. I mean, I don't want to get into it. I'm going to refrain my comment. But so we've seen people do other things that, you know, again, not strictly adhere to the existing statutory framework. I think in my mind what it will do and why I would recommend that we do it is that it's going to give us the great amount of comfort that we're going to get an opinion on this issue from a collateral branch of government that should not have apolitical lens when rendering it into a nation. In an ideal world, a court would look at this coldly, would read the statute, and would say, this is what it says, South Miami, if you do this, you're fine. That's my hope, right? Is that 100% feel proof? But I think, at the end of the day, all I want to do is do what is right without fear, without real or perceived coercion, to discharge my obligation as mayor. And I know that having worked with you guys for the last two years in Commissioner Rodriguez for a short amount of time, I think that's always been all of our intent. Whether we like something or not, we've not gotten here and used this as a platform for grant standing, we all have differences of opinions. We limit our differences to the issues that are pertinent to our city. And we're being forced into this conversation, which is one that I don't think anyone, any of us ever would have imagined we'd ever have to contend with. We're big boys and girls. We're going to see our way through it. I'd like to see our way through it with the benefit of a court that's doesn't that you know my city attorney may have an opinion, we may agree on it, but, you know, people may feel that his opinion is born of my influence from our conversations. I wanna go to a third party, the referee and say, ref, what do we do? What do we need to do? Yes, ma'am? Do you feel, I'm trying to look at this from every direction, do you feel that when you're saying, you know, when you look at, you know, the agreement and you look at this and you look at that. If we were to sign the document and try to fit what they are asking of us into our existing framework based on what we know we can provide. Do you feel it would be so much outside of what we are providing right now. So my fundamental discomfort with this is, look, I, this commission can make a deal that I think is a bad deal on these how it wants. Prior commissions have, we've talked about other deals that we've made that aren't, I don't think our good policy, I think our good business sense. I have a business issue. I have a, with respect to one element of the agreement that gives me a lot of discomfort because of what I shared before. That aside, to me, the more fundamental issue is not the agreement. The fundamental issue is the way this is being framed and the way that we are being, you know, essentially sanctioning people for not doing something that, at best it's not clear. I mean, I'm sorry, at worst it's not clear. At best I can tell you I don't think it's required, right? And I say that based on conversations with people that were in the room, when it happened to use the phrase from Hamilton and made the sausage around this deal, which is, you know, as B2C, and who I called the consultant say, what do I do? Because I'm not trying to make myself a figure in this debate. I really don't want to be on Twitter or on the news, right? Well, I don't think I don't know, maybe not, right? But and this proposal with the resolution I put for was intended to kind of be a middle ground and say, look, I want to take my people out of harm's way. And I don't want to, because we don't want to invite, I mean, I want to go to telehouse, you want to get my money, I don't want to get my appropriations vetoed, right? Right? So, we got me to last year. I think we're think the good boys and girls. So I think the bottom line is Yes, it does not indemnify us perfectly But at this point, I'm not sure what a better option is I don't want to live in a world where People force us to do things because it fits an area of right it can bring all the pressure of the world to make us try and act in compliance with their obligations. I get nervous from the stories I've heard from my grandparents who have gone and my parents were still with me right about their experience as adults, when people with badges and guns are doing things because they're feeding compelled to do it, right, because those are the people that are sworn to protect us. They're the bulwark against, you know, they're the bulwark again for our safety. And I just feel that this entire conversation is one that's being driven by a fair amount of coercion, right, putting people on lists, sending out notices, right? If you want the law to read a certain way, right, we have the power within our limits to enact policy and reduce it to writing. a lot of read a certain way, draft the law that way, right? I think now that there's a question about what the law is, let's ask court. Do you think that right now the conversation that we're having is similar to the recycling conversation that we had? You know, do you remember where we were like, it doesn't matter what reality is, we're going to continue recycling because we believe in it. Do you remember that? When I said to you, the numbers aren't there. And you guys said, we're going to recycle because we believe in recycling. And I'm asking, is that where you all are standing on this? Is that the mentality that is going on right now? Because when you just, I was with you for a while. I understood what you were saying for a while, and then you lost me. But you lost me because... What I lose you, maybe, I can try. You lost me because the people that, you know, they supposedly these people with badges and guns are going after. Are people who are in this country legally? They are illegal? No, no, no. So there's, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not making it again. Nothing I have said is intended to be a statement on the broader policy. Yeah, that's what I was like. What I'm referring to, what I'm referring to the coercion, I'm referring to, I'm a soft power guy, if you understand that term, right, which is it's persuasion, it's influence, right? But what's happening now, I mean, I don't remember a time where the GGO has weighed in on solicited on an item like this, right? We're living in times that are in some ways all the norms of the society that I grew up in are being pushed further and further. If further for into areas that I'm just not that are historically, I don't only use the term unprecedented but are very different, right? And so I look, I think the best recourse to us is I prefer to take no action, right? I don't want to leave my people in harm's way, which is why I brought this item. But if the message came today that what Fort Myers did is a violation, then I think, you know, and again, their conversation was about everything that doesn't pertain to us, right? We're keeping the conversation very narrow about what we should be doing. And that's where this conversation should be, right? What are our obligations under Florida law that we need to discharge. I think now the Attorney General has clarified the conflict. From what we understand a lot of being in our obligations and what he perceives it to be. I frankly do not want to be, I mean, I'm a lawyer, so someone can file a bar complaint against me tomorrow for not following the law. I don't need that in my life, frankly. I don't want it in my life, right? So I think, again, I'm talking too much. I think we go to court and we ask, what do we do? Can we clarify two things for one second? One, just so that we're all on the same page. You rescinded what you had put in as F1, correct? Yeah, I think at this point given the statement by the attorney general, I'm going to withdraw the add-on because I think it's, we could do it, but he's now made an affirmative statement about what he thinks the law is and what we have to do. And I think we need to go, unfortunately, to take the next step, which is where I thought we might end up but I was hoping it wouldn't happen for a much longer period of time. Yes sir. So through the mayor. And again, I'm with you 100%. I don't want to put our people under the under, per se. But by taking these actions again, legislatively wise, you've been through things more than myself. So I asked a question. Proceeding in that manner, do we put our chief under the gun? Do we put our city under the gun? Yeah, belts and suspenders, we probably should still rescind the authority. Yeah. Or can we just hold off? There's no pressure to sign right now. Well, I think that I think what I have, what I have garnered from the conversation with our manager is that if I were to ask him today, I'm not sure he's listening or not, but he's not online. He probably concerned about the community. I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the question is, I think the were sitting the rest of the, I think, I think, look, I think there's, there's, I was hopeful that people would be more measured, right, at this point, but clearly that's not going to happen. And I know, and I understand why the chief was nervous and chief, I'm not, you know, you're right, right, in some ways, right? This is, this is being lined up this way. And sometimes in life, you don't have any good options. And I think we're at that point. And the only option here where I think we can, and I, and I, and I, again, started with a, I started with a, let's go to court, conversation, the chief and I talked about it. We talked about it, so you know what? I got to where you were like, they don't let's hold off. Let's do nothing. Let's see what happens. Let's see what happens. But the problem is that this is all being precipitated. And every day that gentleman gets an email from Larry Keefe saying, here's a list of people. And here's the new dashboard of file complaints by jurisdictions that are not being cooperative. And now we have a jurisdiction where, and the attorney general who said those guys did not take an action therefore they're not compliant, right? And so it's gonna happen to us. It's gonna happen to us and I don't want to sit around for another few weeks hoping and praying that it doesn't happen when I can get direction from a court that can tell me without bias or favor, right? Supposedly, what we should do. And then we can act a court and then court comes back and says. We need to sign an agreement on it's all a chief put it on the agenda. If we need to approve it or if the delegation stands, Mr. Manager, go ahead and sign it. But I think we're better off giving the manager whether it's the getting the council of an independent tribunal to tell us what we should do. Commissioner Guy, yes. So in retrospect, Commissioner Boni, to what she said, and I think we all completely understand and agree with the sentiment. Pulling that back makes me sleep a little bit easier, but that's not the important part here. I was always under the impression that we should really wait and get some understanding how legal it is for us to sign. Speaking to other cities and other commissioners and council people, there's no movement in some of these cities at all. So the ability of when it triggers, when it triggers, we don't know when that happens. But we're not by ourselves. We're a small city and there's 34 of us. Most have not done anything. I don't know what the numbers are but in the municipalities that I've spoken to, there's no action. I do agree with the mayor that we should go understand it. There's nothing wrong with putting a question in place with the courts. Does it put a trigger and crosshairs and our cities line line of sight? Maybe. But we're not doing anything wrong by asking the question. We're not saying no, we're not saying yes. If it's dictated by us, I would vote yes to go sign it. But let's go ask that question. Most cities are not. So I'm okay with what the mayor is requesting now. Much more than I was before. So I'm okay with that said I'm a mayor and I'll probably move for that as well. Can we shake worry? I'll say anything before we close the debate. Or close the discussion. I think I would echo that sentiment. I think it's hard for me as, necessarily being a lawyer. Know if that in any way, shape or form is in violation by the interpretation, by the attorney general, whether or not that, in and of itself is, I mean, it seems to be a pretty broad description of what a sanctuary city is, but would even an action like that potentially incur that label for us? Yeah, all I can do is tell you what the law says and he is saying that the law essentially says it defines a sanctuary policy and prohibits it. As any law practice, procedure, or custom adopted or allowed by a state entity or local governmental entity which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from complying with 8 USC 1373, which is the immigration chapter, or which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from communicating or cooperating with a federal immigration agency, so as to limit such law enforcement agency in or prohibit the agency from, and it lists a number of things, complying with an immigration det, complying with their request from a federal immigration agency to notify the agency, providing a federal immigration agency access to an inmate for review. Partisan, there is a reference specific explicit reference to this type of agreement, although it does include a provision that says as required by a different section, that section imposes an overt requirement on sheriff's offices and counties that have corrections facilities. The chief correctional facility. Right. In other words, not us, correct. So there is a broad definition of what a sanctuary policy is. And it seems to be what the Attorney General is relying on to get to the leap that he's saying. He says sanctuary policies are not tolerated or lawful in Florida. Immediate corrective actions required, failure to correct the council's actions will result in the enforcement of all applicable civil and criminal penalties. We need a motion to extend for 15 minutes. Any objection to the motion to extend? Move the motion there. Okay, second. Thank you, Mr. Bunich. See that adopted without opposition. So yeah, I was just reading from what the Attorney General said and how he is applying that broad definition. Yeah, and I think asking the question and being open to the answer that would come does not sound like an impediment at least to me. So I'd be comfortable with asking the question. Yes, Commissioner Boenning. Probably the last one I guess to comment on that. Everything that I've heard does not go outside of what I think we do or can do already? So nothing here makes it sound like anything that is outside of our usual business. So Signing it doesn't make me feel like it would be something outside of what we would naturally do then again my perspective Not perspective, not as part affiliation, but as human being, is very likely, very, very different from the four of you. Because my life experience is very different from the four of you. I will leave it at that. I understand wanting clarification. I do. I just don't see reading what you did, where that would be anything outside of our regular business. So I don't see where signing it would be detrimental to us as a city versus putting us in crosshairs. Being a lawyer, I get you would want everybody to give you every clarification. So I don't know what's not. I want to be clear. I'm clear. My personal opinion is that we're not obligated to sign it. And that's a personal opinion validated by a conversation with people who were in the room when it happened. That all said, right? My personal opinion carries about as much weight as this empty bottle of gatorade in that conversation. So I would rather go to court and say, am I right? Or what puts us, what puts us in the best position to act in accordance with the law at this point? Are we going to vote to see what we're doing? I think we should. So I would move that we direct the city attorney to file a declaratory action on this issue with regard to whether or not we are required by chapter 908 to enter into a 287 G agreement with ICE. For the purpose of understanding whether are signing it or not signing it puts us into an in violation of that chapter. So that's the the direction I would give. There's a second. No, I have a couple seconds. Yeah, go ahead, please. Is it complicated? Yeah. not signing it puts us into an violation of that chapter. So that's the direction I would give. There's a second. No, I have to go. I'm going to go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Please. Is it complicated? Yeah, it is. The city attorney to the city attorney, because I don't understand the legal process and all. When we ask her legal clarification of the court, is what is that process look at? It's just a simple question form submitted and we get an answer. we have to file suit. No, we have to file suit. It's technically a lawsuit. It's a lawsuit that says there's confusion over this provision. It can be in the law or it can be in a contract. Here's the provision. There's confusion over this. One way to look at is this. One other way to look at is this. Court, please decide for us. So saying that Mayor I'm assuming that Fort Myers is probably going to do the same thing right I mean that's their next legal recourse well we can just hold off and see what happens there. Just ask him. Because I think I mean I would tell you that I've spent two weeks trying to figure out what the right answer is to this question. Me too. And you know I know that our administration and chief keep operating under the cloud of uncertainty. And so. He's not the only one. I understand but so and as of two hours ago I would have agreed with you that we shouldn't have no need to act first. I thought we should pull back the decision and just wait, but I think that now we have an attorney general who has issued an admonition and an opinion and you know waiting is waiting in my opinions for you to tell. I rather frame the question. So I get an answer that's, you know, is one that's not influenced necessarily by politics. It's one that's very straightforward. So we know what our obligation is. Because if I wait for Fort Myers, my concern is, it's going to get framed in a way that's not going to provide any clarity. Because that conversation they had last night, I wouldn't invite you to watch the tape. It was about everything but with a law required. Okay, it was about everything of the effect of the policy. We've had no conversation about that. they had last night, I wouldn't invite you to watch the tape. It was about everything but with a law required. Okay, it was about everything of the effect of the policy. We've had no conversation about it, and I thank you all for focusing on what the issue is, which is what is our obligation. And so if I wait for Fort Myers or any other jurisdiction act that has more of a political hand cream to get a result on the issue, I may not get good advice, because I'm, you know, garbage in, garbage out. But the advice we come from the court system, will it? to get a result on the issue, I mean, I get good advice because I'm, you know, garbage in, garbage out. But the advice we come from the court system, will it not? It will, but there, but, but, you know, it's not my lawyer arguing it in a way that's intended to actually listen to information as opposed to make a political point. Okay. And I don't want to, I mean, I get we have to be, we have to be attuned to the fact that We're offering an environment where people want to score political points first. Right? They want to run up the scoreboard for their team or the other team and you know what? I don't care. What I want is to live in a society where we operate by the rule law. And my concern about this whole conversation is that that's the last thing everybody's talking about. Through the mayor. So I'm conflicted because in On one side, I'm all for holding off seen how this plays out again We're under no obligation to sign this right now to move forward I understand that the chief is is getting the emails on a daily basis and there's pressure being put but all the pressure could be put at the end of the day. There's no obligation for us to move forward like Commissioner Gaia said we're not the only one. There's other other cities that haven't moved forward as signing. Now that's one side. So taking your action kind of takes us in that direction where now we wait for an opinion, it gives us time to hold off because just by doing that doesn't necessarily mean we're not gonna sign it. Because at the end of the day, if they say you got a sign, you got a sign. So we move forward with it. Whatever the opinion is. Now the other side for me is is once this lawsuit goes in, it's going to open up Pandora's box, and are we putting our city, our chief, under fire, under intense stress, you know, from the League of Chiefs or whatever it may be. Like, so I'm tormented because I really don't want to do anything right now. I'm the type of person that I like to sit back, listen, understand what's going on, see how things play out, and then make a decision. I think I want to bring this to a close. I'm going to say this. I think we should decide one way or the other. We can't have our cake and eat it to here. So I mean, I think the only trouble I have with your comment, Commissioner Rodriguez, is we don't want to put the chief in the fire in line, then let's rescind the delegation. We can't have our cake and eat it to here. So I mean, I think the only trouble I have with your comment, Commissioner Rodriguez, is we don't want to put the chief in the firing line that lets rescind the delegation, right? The manager, right, the chief then can point to the fact that this commission is the body, the policy-making body that has decided to retain that authority, right? And the book stops with us, right? with us right so or or I don't think there's anything wrong and people who take offense to it frankly they should take no offense, because we can stand up here and make a bunch of political statements about what's going on, and we haven't done that. We're doing, we can, or we can ask the court to tell us what our obligation is legally. And if people are offended by that, by apologies, but, you know, they have precipitated the issue with the recent communication. So that's how I feel about it. I think we either act one way or the other, but to do nothing continues to put that gentleman and my manager in a position where they feel vulnerable and we're not doing anything to protect them. And that's what I fundamentally cannot stomach. I know, and I think we're sending, we'll still. What's the third option? Happy to hear another. The third option is sign the paper. Okay. The third option, one option is do nothing. Okay, so let's do this. So I can go to court. The third is sign the paper. There are three options. Okay, so you want to move to directive manager to sign the 27- agreement? I want to put that question on the table. OK. I think saying that there are two options is erroneous. We don't have an option because right now the person with a authority to sign it is the manager. So we have no option. The option, if we want to have a third option, the option starts with rescinding his authority. Or we can pull this one item. Can we not? For us to make a decision on this one. That's fine. I mean, that's fine. We can rest. I'm happy to accept an amendment to revise the motion to limit his the rescission to just the 287G agreement. Is that what, that's what you were requesting? That's what she's requesting in part. That was your general intent. Correct. My reason intent was to basically on all these matters as it's by ten was as it was drafted, which is to take all these issues off of the manners plate. Right to give them the maximum protection and to protect right any exposure on the part of this corporation but since we want to put the issues so indefinitely on the table then let's just just narrow the question on the resolution and we can call out the agreement so we invite more scrutiny. I move that motion there. Which one? The one you just stated. To just this one case. I seconded. So a motion to rescind resolution 2424 16129 only with respect to the execution of a 287G agreement. Any further discussion? So again, I'm going to ask you to reconsider the motion because you're putting the issue squarely at issue. I mean, this is this is tantamount to gross negligence on the part of this commission. Okay. How so? Because again, there is legal nuance to all these things and the statute is so broadly worded that even this by this attorney general Could be construed as an active defiance, okay? I am trying really hard Trying I mean you don't understand how much it pisses me off. That's even how this conversation in this chair, personally. I have to nothing but try to keep this to the letter of the law, because I have very, very strong feelings about all these issues, as I'm sure all of us do. I'm trying to check that out the door to do our jobs. I'm inviting you, I'm asking you at this point in time, either we do the whole thing or nothing. Okay, and at this point, frankly, I think the conversation's gone in a direction that I'm completely uncomfortable with. And I would say, let's just ask the question of a court so that we can at least say, to whoever might call us and say, you know what, your ass is out of the chair, right? because you dared to ask the, you dared to raise the issue and that's deemed to be a customer practice or policy or whatever other vague languages in the statute, right? That could put us in jeopardy. Let's just ask the question so that we get a final answer and we move on with our lives. Because frankly, I have to take no joy in talking about these issues or being in an oppositional dynamic with anyone in telehassy or on this commission. It's not the way I read it. That's the one you want to ask. That's the question one. Yeah, let's just ask what are, let's just ask, let's ask the court to tell us what are we supposed to do. Okay. Okay. Okay. Fine. Let me recent how recent. Okay. So probably. Go ahead, quote, okay. Put your motion in place mayor I would ask that we direct the city attorney the file of declaratory action in accord a competent jurisdiction to ask the court whether Section 908 requires us to sign a 287 g agreement To be not deemed a sanctuary city. That is that? That's fair. I'll second that then. Let's just be called. I'll motion in a second by Commissioner Cahier. Any further discussion? I'm clerk, call the roll. Yes. Commissioner Cahier. Yes. Commissioner Bonniche. No. Commissioner Rodriguez. Can you come back to me? Vice Mayor Cording. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. Pass. Emotion passes for one. We stand adjourned. Thank you.