you you Good evening and welcome to a regular meeting of the Bokeh River Town City Council. It is Tuesday, August 27th, 2024. It also happens to be Council Member Fran Nackles' birthday. Happy birthday, Council Member. The time is 6 p.m. Our first item of business is the invocation and I will ask Council Member Thompson to deliver it please. Thank you Mayor. Heavenly Father, we come before you once again. So thankful for the chance that we have to conduct the people's business. And as we do that, as we make decisions that govern the future of the city, we pray for wisdom, we pray for humility, and we pray that we act with the servants' heart, recognizing that we are in this position not to be served, but to serve. We pray also that in so doing we act justly, we love mercy, and that we walk humbly with you. We give you all the praise and glory. Amen. Now, will everyone please rise and join in the Pledge of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God Indivisible with liberty and justice for all Missed and sweet, please call the roll Mayor singer here deputy mayor drucker here council member Naclas here council member Thompson thankful to be here council member Wichter here all present thank you mr. Brown. We have at least one amendment to the agenda Thank you for the opportunity to continue to work on the calendar. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have 14A, which is ordnance 56.99, a franchise for construction demolition, debris. There is a new owner of the company, so the application needs to be refiled. Very well. We'll take up a motion to amend the agenda to remove those two items. Do I hear one? So moved. Thank you. Motion by Fucker, second by Thompson, any further discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Those items are removed. I'll also note that we will take up item 10A and 10B, the quasi-ducial matters, but I'd mind understanding as Mr. Brown, we plan to open up that hearing and possibly continue it based on new information. We'll open the hearing and base upon a request from the applicant, continue it to the September 10th meeting. All right, very well. We'll take that up. It went 10 a comes along. That concludes the amendments to the agenda. We'll now turn to item five. The minutes. We have the minutes of the workshop meeting of July 22nd and the regular meeting of July 23rd, 2024. There are any corrections or additions. Mayor, I move that we adopt the minutes as presented. Thank you very much. Second. Second. Thank you for the discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Hi. Terrific. Now we're very excited to welcome the team Boca under 16 girls national soccer champions for a proclamation. So I'll invite coach Patrick Baker to join me at the lectern while the proclamation is read and any other members of the team who we want. And then we'll all get a photo up here with the council members and our national champs. So coach, if you'll leave yet the lectern. Whereas it is with great pride and joy that we, the City of Boca Raton, celebrate the remarkable achievements of the Team Boca under 16 Girl Soccer Team. And whereas Team Boca under 16, girl soccer team has once again showcased their extraordinary talent, determination and sportsmanship by clinching their second US youth under 16 national championship. And whereas under the exceptional leadership of Coach Patrick Baker, the team has exemplified dedication, teamwork, perseverance, inspiring admiration and respect both on and off the field. And whereas a season of hard work and dedication led the team Boka under 16 girl soccer team to rewarding victories in a sport they all love. Now therefore, I, Scott Singer, mayor of the city of Boka, Riton, Florida. Do hereby recognize and congratulate the team Boka under 16 girl soccer team for their championship season, national recognition, outstanding achievements and contributions to our community. Well, thank you very much for turning over to Coach because you'll probably say more. We're very pleased to have an outstanding national team representatives again for the second time in five years. We all remember 2019. So this is a great highlight for our community. We're so proud of you and Coach, please take it away. Well, first of all, thank you very much for having us this evening and giving us a little bit of your time. I think our girls know how I feel about them, but they're just wonderful ambassadors for our sport. They're tremendous student athletes. So many of them do great things in the classroom and in the community. We're very proud to represent Boko Riton. Our finalist was Fort Wayne out of Indiana and our semi-finalist were out of Utah. So to represent Florida, to represent the great city of Boko Riton was fantastic. And for many of these young ladies, it's their second national championship, as you mentioned. And our third in five years. So we're doing something right and we hope that continues so thank you. I'm not your brother. I do have a half one. Half one. Yeah, so go up and talk. Just wait a minute. It's coming on. We can have a quick talk. Yeah. We can have a quick talk. Yeah. We can have a quick talk. Yeah. We can have a quick talk. Yeah. We can have a quick talk. Yeah. We can have a quick talk. Yeah. We won't be in the next phase of the game. Yeah, a little. A little bit. Yeah. What? What? Come on. Come on. I'm going to get some over it to make it for you. I'm going to get more over it. I'm going to watch you in the end. I know. I'm going to go up the mountain. You should walk through it. Can you push me? Yes. I'm going to go up the mountain. I'm going to go up the mountain. I'm going to go up the mountain. I'm going to go up the mountain. You should walk through it. Can you push me? Yes. You're going to go up the mountain. You should walk through it. Can you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being great ambassadors of the sport and more importantly for our community. Of course, you're all welcome to stay, but nothing else will probably generate as much as the laws as you just got now. So go out on the high note while the chamber clears we'll just wait a moment. We're our home viewers. All right great. Now we're going to turn to item seven board appointments and we have five boards for which we are potentially seeking applicants tonight. The first is the citizens, pedestrian and bikeway advisory board. Are there any applicants present tonight? Yes, all right. Gentlemen, please, when I call your, just come on up, first row, first row, please first. Please give your name and address. You'll have up to three minutes to tell us why you want to serve on this board. Okay, my name is Keith Walton. I live at 831 Northeast 69th Street in the Boko Harbor area. I'm a resident, longtime resident of Boko Riton, a graduate of Florida Atlantic University. I graduated with a degree in accounting and became a CPA in the community right after that and have been here ever since. For exercise in the last half dozen years I've taken up cycling and find myself now cycling with a small group of people between 25 and 30 miles, three times a week, very interested in biking and have started to follow some of the things 30 miles three times a week. Very interested in biking and I've started to follow some of the things that the city is doing in the committee very interested in the development and the safety for bikers and pedestrians and I think I would have Much to offer the committee so I'd be happy to serve if I so appointed appointed. Thank you very much, Council members, any questions? Mr. Rager. Thank you, Mr. Walden. Very briefly, can you explain what you feel are the biggest challenges in terms of bicycle and pedestrian safety that you see in all of the rides that you do every week? Okay, well, some of it is actually outside of Bocca to the north and the Gulf Stream area. There's a complete lack of bike lanes and most of us are familiar with the accident that took place last year bringing down five or six bikers, you know, very devastating to a biker to hear that type of thing. But my focus would be on expanded bike lanes, clearly marked and just general safety, anything that we can do to make biking safe. It's a great activity for exercise, and I'm sure more and more people would be interested. Sometimes when I tell friends that I bike, they say, what are you crazy? And I bike on a1a. I generally feel safe there, but to feel more safe would be even better. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Any further questions? All right, thank you, Mr. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any further questions? All right, thank you, Mr. Walden for applying. And would you be Mr. Pratt? Please come forward. Hello, all. And in his Matthew Pratt, I have an address of 1,000 Northwest Fist Street, Booker-Ton Florida 33486. Give you two backbone reasons why, I think I would be great for this committee. One, a principle reason, civic engagement's extremely important to me. It's running my family for generations, no matter what level it's been on. And I think you should go where you can have the most impact. The great reason why is you're looking at someone who uses these bike trails and someone who uses these pedestrian paths or ways. Been training for Iron Man's been going for runs this city for years now. This is where I think I can have the most impact and where I can help the most. I'm also around these people on a daily basis. I spend time with them and we see what goes on. I would say truly I've lived in a few different communities. Bokeh's got one of the best ones. It's outstanding. It's clean. It's safe. I'm excited to get out there in the mornings. I'm excited to get out there in the evenings. But I think I would, what I would bring would be outstanding. And an actual sense of the community that's out there. Great thank you. Council members, any questions? Mr. Riggor? Yes. Mr. Pratt, I lost the same question to you in addition to what Mr. Walton said, what do you feel are the biggest challenges and opportunities for our bike and pedestrian system here in the city? You bet. So being around it for a while and being involved in running biking for a while now, bulk is actually outstanding. It really is. There's some narrowness to it. There's some pieces and bits. It's also very, very clean. You know, I know this isn't probably the best answer I should give to be on this committee. I don't know because it is outstanding. There's a lot of positive. That'd be what I would say. As you get north, closer to Del Rey, there is a lack of some stuff there. I have noticed that as well. But that would be what I would say. Are there good any further questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other applicants for this board here? I don't know if Ms. Balkans with us. All right, good. Before we appoint make any motions on any of these boards, I will invite Mr. Yaka Van and anyone else who wishes to speak on board appointments generally. He'll have up to three minutes to comment on all of the board appointments before us today. Please give your name and address. Thank you, my name's Yaka, but as you said, I've had a house in bulk with the 21 years. And I'm sorry Mr. Man, we do need your address please. 7186 San Salvador Drive. Thank you. Okay, and I don't own a car so I use bicycle for transportation all the time. Two deadly issues are motorists never look right. So the looking left in the direction that traffic's coming at them, they're not looking for pedestrians or cyclists. That's extremely dangerous. That's not an issue limited to Boko. That's nationwide. If you could put up signs on intersections, advising people to look for bicycles will be very helpful. Also, I know it's on a Boko design. It's probably a state design. But going, if you're on Palmetto traveling and then you're passing the 95 or any freeway, you have to go all the way, you have to go right and then left, which is extremely dangerous. I don't know why that is set up that way, but when you're cycling, you want your momentum, you don't want to have to stop and then start again because that just puts you out in the street longer for cars to hit you. So you want your momentum to go, but you have to kind of stop before you could cross the entrance into the freeway. It's a problem all over and I don't understand the state design and I get it. It's not both of us. That's not even your road probably, but it's got to be changed. You have to be able to go straight. If you're turning all the way right while you're trying to look left for a car that has no intention of stopping for you, it's just way too dangerous. And I'd be happy to serve on the board also. Again, I cycle all the time, it's my transportation. That's why I'm not here in a suit, I'm here in my bicycle clothing. That's fine, thank you. We did not receive an application though for you, did we? No, you didn't. All right, Thank you Well, I think better to bear that in mind for our next vacancy. There'll be some upcoming soon Okay, because we got two applicants who've already gone through the stuff Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment on board appointments only? All right, we'll move on from that will entertain emotion to a point to the citizens pedestrian and bikeway advisory board We have two vacancies two applicants who have appeared before us. I will note council members, we've got one term expiring in 27, 1 in 2025, with the mover of someone wants to make a motion, perhaps designated seat for each person. Mr. Wigter, I'd like to move that Mr. Pratt be nominated for the long 27 position and Mr. Walton be nominated for the 25th position. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? By the way, take no on bridge, Mr. Walton, because a board, you know, board members typically get reappointed so it's not a lack of your confidence. We just have two terms because we don't want to have the whole board come up all at once So if there's no further discussion all those in favor please say aye aye And they are appointed thank you both for your interest in serving. We'll now turn to the community appearance board If we have any applicants present It's welcome Good afternoon my name is Norbert Loyano. I live in 2230 Southwest, 22nd Avenue in Delri Beach. I'm not longer a citizen of, present my community appearance for, you know, Gandhi they see. Thank you. We do want to tell us more about your interest in serving? Well, I am, you know, being involved in the architecture field for 20 years. And I would like to, you know, serving the board to, you know, share my expertise and with the community. All right, thank you. All right, council members, any questions? All right, thank you,. Lohi on it That concludes our Applicants now I know we have two vacancies, but they're both for the one related background spot I'll also note that this term the expiration of the term is September 2024 but we would normally appoint right around this time So I'm going to suggest we deem that an appointment through the next for the one meeting if any and then into 2026. So council members what's your pleasure? Ms. Mayor Malik, I'll make a motion to appoint Tonya Loia. Very good, is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, any further discussion? All right, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Hi. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Loyano. We only had the one spot. And typically, by the way, we tend to prefer residents over non-residents. But please, there are many boards in which you can get involved. And I'm glad you came down here and wanted to serve the city, even if you don't live here. So thank you. All right. We'll turn to the General Employees Pension Board. Any applicants present tonight? We had our one app, nope, hold on. We had our one applicant speak yesterday, so council members, what's your pleasure? Mr. Mayor, please, I move to a point, Mr. Lallie. Second. Very good, second, any further discussion? All those in favour, please say aye. Aye. And he is appointed. We'll turn to the Marine Advisory Board. We got an application today, Mr. Oliver, President, welcome, Mr. Oliver. Please come forward, give your name and address and no vote to three minutes. I think I can do it in less than three minutes. Stuart Oliver, 885 Naffa Drive. It's the Walker's K neighborhood. I've been around boats most of my life. My parents, my father had a boat growing up as a teenager as my initial exposure. And through now to my adult life, I'm a boat owner. I belong to the local Coast Guard auxiliary, but that position for the board is already filled. So I think I'm looking at the position for a license boat captain, which I have a, what we call a six pack license. I've had that for three years now. What else you want to know? What questions? What is a six pack? Six pack. It is basically, it's the lowest level of captain's license you can have. It allows you to take six passengers on a vessel for hire. It's straightforward naming. All right. Tell the members any other questions? All right. Well, thank you for willingness to serve. One vacancy, one applicant, it's looking pretty good for you, Mr. Oliver. Council members, what's your pleasure? Mr. Mayor, I move that we nominate Stewart Oliver to the Marine Advisory Board. Thank you. Will you turn that into a motion to a point? A motion to a point. Very good. Is there a second? Second. Second. Very good. Thank you. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you, Mr. Oliver. You're appointed. We'll now turn to the Parks and Recreation Board. Any applicants present tonight? We had one applicant, Mr. Nelson, who I interviewed yesterday. Do I hear a motion to appoint Mr. Nelson? Mr. Mayor. Oh, sorry. I'll second. Very good. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And he is appointed. And we are still looking for a few good people to serve on the permitting and construction review board. We are looking for an architect or an electrical engineer. We see a lot of people in the audience, or others watching at home. Please call your architect, friends, your electrical engineer, friends, family, whoever, or yourself if you're one of them. We're looking for someone for this board. It is an important board. We'll have to hold that over until next time. That concludes our board appointments. We will now turn to item 8, responses to workshop information requests, Mr. Brown. I have no reports this evening in response to the afternoon. Very well. Thank you. Well now turned to the consent agenda and Mr. Wigger had indicated last night that he wanted to remove an item from the consent agenda. You are recognized. Yes, thank you. 9-D. Okay. We'll take 9-D off the consent agenda and take it up at the end of this meeting at the end of the consent agenda. Excuse me. Any other changes to the consent agenda other than nine J's and Juliet, which has already been removed? Seeing none, we'll open up the floor if any member of the public wishes to comment on the consent agenda as presented. Seeing no one come forward, we'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda without items nine, V is in Delta and nine J is in Juliet. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Miss Siddons, we please call the roll. Trucker? Yes. Nacquist? Yes. Thompson? Yes. Waker? Yes. Singer? Yes. Motion passes five votes to zero. Thank you. We'll now take up item 9D Resolution 64-2024. Miss Siddins, would you please read the title. Resolution number 64-2024. A resolution of the City of Boca Raton authorizing the City Manager to execute the seventh amendment to the agreement for legal services with Wyser-Rota, Healthman Cole, and Beermann P.L. Providing for separability, providing for repeal or providing an effective date. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mayor. The resolution for 64 2024 is in a proposed amendment to our agreement for legal services with WICES to help them in coal and beer min. And it provides for an increase of rates for personal injury claims and litigation matters from $245 an hour and $295 an hour for shareholders. And from $220 an hour to $295 an hour for shareholders, and from $220 an hour to $265 an hour for associates, and for other matters, including the more complex litigation from $275 an hour and $325 an hour for shareholders, and $245 an hour to $295 an hour for associates. I believe that the agreement, that the proposed rate increases are acceptable to the city. And I would remark that the firm has provided an additional memorandum dated August 6th, which explains how their rates are for certain other clients and explains the several clients that they have in Florida. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Councilor Holmes. Any questions, Mr. Riger? Yes, thank you. Mr. Brown have been discussing this item with the City Attorney's Office. Do you recall the last time that this particular outside council has asked for an increase prior to this time? I do not. I believe it was a few years ago. I don't have a day. I think Mr. Kailer might have some knowledge on that. Yes, the last rate increase was in September of 2022. Less than two years. Four. Thank you. And also I believe that the avenger is here. I'd like to hear from them. That's OK, Mayor Singer. Of course, yes, well, of course. Any other questions for us before we open up the public hearing on this matter? Right. We'll open up the public hearing. Anyone who wishes to speak on this matter, please come forward. Give your name and address. You know, it's three minutes. I'm sorry, who did you say was here, Mr. Wierd? Mr. Abbott representing the firm. Oh, very good. I didn't see him. Mr. Abbott, please come forward. Mr. Mayor, Council Member's good evening. My name is Dan Abbott. I'm a member of the law firm of White Sarota and Healthman. We're here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Reager. Yes, thank you. Mr. Abbott, thank you so much. Obviously, it is clear upon us that your firm handles a significant amount of legal matters for the citizens and we're thankful. We're thankful for all the things. But of course, when it's a significant amount of money now in the millions of dollars, or over a million dollars per year, you could imagine that we are looking at all the ways that we can save money. So it's a concern of mine for the people that an increase is being asked for at this time and given that fact that it was less than two years ago. So if you could just express what's going on with your firm in terms of what you do to manage the expectations and the budgets, especially since there's so many matters that are being handled by this firm specifically, I just want to make sure that the tax payers are feeling that they're being protected from a legal standpoint and also financially that they're being considered. So if you could just talk a little bit about that. Of course, Council Member, and thank you for that. The legal expenses, primarily the cost of hiring attorneys has really exploded in the South Florida community over the last couple of years. This is certainly not the only client that my firm is approaching about rating increases. In fact, there's not a single client that we haven't approached for rate increases. And we're not the only firm doing that. I think you saw another firm on your other consent agenda. So it's really, that's the way the market has been going and that's why we're here. To answer the rest of your questions, sir, what do we do to try to keep your costs down? You'll note that this agreement calls for blended rates based upon the seriousness of the matter and based upon the level of attorneys within the firm that's handling the matter. And we take that seriously. We assign matters to younger and more affordable attorneys to the extent that they're able to handle those matters. The more senior attorneys at the higher rate while they have supervisory responsibility, we try not to have them do the kind of work that can be done for the more affordable attorneys. So everything you say, of course, we agree with, we understand, we are paid with taxpayer money, we take that obligation seriously and we do everything we can to keep those costs as low as we can. Appreciate it. Also as you're aware, we're in a transitionary moment here with the City Attorney's Office in-house. And I'm sure you could appreciate that your firm will be very critical in terms of their kind of cohesiveness working with the new city attorney whoever that may be in the future. So obviously we're certainly hopeful that you're going to be appreciative and working with the new city attorney when they get here. Thank you for saying so sir. We have an excellent relationship with your city attorney and the entire city attorney's office. They are good attorneys. They are a pleasure to work with and we are here to do whatever we can to make that transition go as smoothly as possible. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from Mr. Abbott? Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? All right seeing no one come forward. We will close in public hearing will entertain a motion to adopt resolution 64 2024 to a hear motion Some move Thank you motion by Thompson second by darker any further discussion. I do Mr. Mayor Please I'm satisfied that this is an appropriate rate increase twice the road is a very very good law firm has excellent lawyers And if you notice they are charging the city substantially below it, they're charging new government clients and other parts of the state, that's a good thing. And B, to subset, section two, these are well below, not only government clients, but like your standard market rate for an outside law firm. They are often multiples of this hourly rate. So I'm satisfied that this is in the city's best interest, particularly given their expertise in representing the city and the excellent work that they've been doing for us over the years. So I'm satisfied that this is appropriate, and I'll be voting yes. Thank you, any further discussion? Mr. Waker. Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment. I don't disagree, but the idea is during a transitionary phase, I think it is important to look at, you know, to take a close look and audit at all the vendors, and especially under the city's attorney's office, at all the vendors that provide us services and evaluate them. And I think it just comes a time that, you time that perhaps over the past many, many years, we haven't had these opportunities to evaluate our vendors and to reiterate how comfortable we are with them. So certainly there's many, many matters here which are thousands and tens of thousands and unfortunately hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. And I think it moves us and the City of Attorney's Office to occasionally evaluate these things just to do a kind of gut check. How are we doing? How are vendors doing? And an analysis of them and during a transitionary phase, I think it's one of those times. But I am satisfied with the answers and all the research that's been done by the City of Attorney's Office. Mr. Kailer, and I thank you for that. And I'll be happy to support this resolution. Thank you. Mr. Brown, a question please. Can you confirm that this agreement just sets the rates hourly? It does not require us to bill any certain amount per month or any amount at all. That is correct. All right, great, thank you. All right, well then the chance to evaluate is always there. So, all right, no further discussion? Seeing none, Missedance, please. Waiter. Yes. Thompson. Yes. Singer. Yes. NACLIS. Yes, Dr. Hacker. Yes, motion passes, five votes to zero. Thank you. That concludes the items from the consent agenda. We'll now turn to item 10, quasi-judicial and related public hearings. And we have public hearings on items A and B resolutions 80-2024 and 81-2024. They will be conducted contemporaneously because the petitions are related. And they will be conducted in accordance with quasi-judicial procedures. A separate vote will be taken on each resolution and should item A not be adopted, we will not consider item B. With that, Missons, we do please read the titles of both resolutions 80, 2020, 24 and 81, 2024. Resolution 80, 2024. A resolution of the city of Bokoriton considering for the approximately two acre property generally located at 6403 West Roger Circle. A conditional use pursuant to section 28-1124b. To authorize the storage, service, repair, and cleaning of motor vehicles in an existing building, in the manufacturing industrial M3 zoning district, providing for a peeler, providing an effective date. Resolution 81-2024. the city of Boca Raton, considering for the approximately two acre property generally located at 6403 West Roger Circle, an amendment to the approved site plan, Resolution Number 87-32, to authorize modifications to the existing building facade and interior floor plan, and additional site modifications, including parking lot and landscaping improvements, to accommodate a motor vehicle showroom and the store that is available to the city existing building facade and interior floor plan, and additional site modifications, including parking lot and landscaping improvements, to accommodate a motor vehicle showroom and the storage, service, repair, and cleaning of motor vehicles, together with three technical deviations from one section 23-19D code of ordinances, to eliminate an additional required 12 foot wide egress lane, 2, section 23-192D, code of ordinances, to eliminate a required four foot driveway median, and 3, section 28-16551, code of ordinances, to reduce the required number of vehicle parking spaces from 77 spaces to 56 spaces, providing for a peeler, providing an effective date. Thank you very much, I ask Mr. Kailer to review the quasi-judicial procedures that will govern tonight's public hearing. Maybe Mayor, members of the council, each applicant requesting approval or relief for other action from the council shall disclose disclose at the commencement of continuance of the public hearing. Any consideration? Provider or committed directly? We're on its behalf for an agreement to support it with hold objection to the request of relief or action. Summary of the quasi-judicial procedures governing this proceeding is attached to the agenda, and a copy can be obtained from the city clerk. Thank you. At this point, I'll ask council members to disclose any exparte communications they may have had. Mr. Thompson. I do not have a single exparte communication to disclose. Thank you, Ms. Nackles. I had a brief Zoom call with Bonnie, Ms. Cullen, the 22nd. I'll just clarify. Thank you very much, Ms. Drucker. I have no exparte on this matter. Mr. Brigadier. I also have no exparte on this matter. Thank you. to our state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of Do you swear in a firm that any testimony you may give before this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mayor. As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, this public hearing has been opened. The applicant has requested that the matter be continued to the September 10th meeting in order to adjust the actual floor plans and layout of the building and the narrative associated with the project. It will enable the state. This continuance will enable the staff to review the revised plans and make a full presentation at that time. We are prepared to present the project in summary at this point, but it would be recommended that we hold off on the full staff presentation until the actual meeting on September 10th. That's fine. He hear from any member of the public wishes to speak this evening in the public hearing. Very well. And could you just summarize more of what's transpired? We understand the applicant has given new information which is causing the staff to potentially look at its evaluation again. That is correct. The original staff recommendation was denial of the proposed request and there have been changes made to the plans that have changed staff's view of the project. We want to be sure that that's thoroughly reviewed before we bring it before the council for its consideration. Very good. And just to confirm, the new information from the applicant came in recently after the agenda was printed. Yes. All right. Thank you. Well, this point we can open up the public hearing because I did receive three cards from Michelle Cohenalco and Levy, Ruben, Ginton and Norman Oppa. We're not going to, I think given this, I will make a motion if no one else does to continue this to September 10th. But if you want to speak now, you're free to do so. Normally, we'd have comments that the next meeting would be continued, but people are free to speak now. If they'd like to, please rise. Seeing no one come forward, then we'll entertain a motion to continue this meeting to the date certain of September 10th. So moved. Thank you. We'll give that motion to Mr. Wiggier, a second by Mr. Thompson, any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. The matter is continued and will be back before us, be anticipated September 10th. And for the record, man, that's both resolutions number 80 and 81, 2024. That is correct. Thank you very much for clarifying. That concludes the quasi-dued judicial matters under item 10. We'll now turn to regular public hearings under item 11. And Ms. Siddins, would you please read the title of ordinance 5698. Ordnance number 5698. And ordinance of the city of Booker Atone amending Chapter 28 zoning code of ordinances by one amending article 16 off street parking and loading section 28-1655 required off street parking to reduce the minimum parking requirement for medical and dental offices and clinics from one space per 175 square feet to one space per 200 square feet for the first 4,000 square feet and one space per 300 square feet thereafter matching the existing parking rate for general office and established a minimum parking requirement for outpatient surgery centers of one space per 175 square feet, and two, a mending article one, section 28-2 definitions, to define the term outpatient surgery center, providing for severability, providing for repealer, providing for codification, providing an effective date. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mayor Tory Boone. Our zoning manager will present the Medical Parking Race Ordinance, which is number 5698. Thank you, Ms. Boone. Welcome. present the medical parking rates ordinance, which is number 5698. Thank you Ms. Moon, welcome. Good evening, Mayor, council members. For the record, Tori Boone's owning manager, and I'll be presenting the medical parking rates. As directed in October 2023, staff has reviewed the required minimum parking rates for medical office to determine if these parking requirements should be adjusted after the adoption of ordinance number 5660, which allowed both general office and medical office uses in the light industrial research park zoning district. The concern that prompted the council's direction was that medical office should not easily be established in this zoning district, as the existing office buildings were largely developed utilizing the lower general office minimum parking rate. At the May 29th workshop meeting, I presented our findings in which we received your support to move forward with a text amendment. Tonight, I'll be presenting the text amendment proposal. As a refresher, the following are the current minimum parking requirements for general office and medical office pursuant to section 28 16 55 code of ordinances. General office is one space for 200 square feet up to 4,000 square feet and one space for 300 square feet thereafter. Medical office is currently one space per 175 square feet. Here is our proposed text amendment for Section 281655, required off-street parking. We propose to keep the outpatient surgery centers at one per one motor vehicle parking space for 175 square feet. And we're proposing to move the medical or dental clinics and offices down with the business and professional governmental and research development offices to be included with the one motor vehicle parking space for 200 square feet. We're also proposing the outpatient surgery definition. Outpatient surgery center shall mean a healthcare facility where same day surgical procedures not requiring an overnight hospital stay are performed. In conclusion, staff recommends approving by amending the minimum parking rate for medical offices other than outpatient surgery centers so that it is the same as the required rates for general office and creating a definition for outpatient surgery center. This parking rate will allow leasing to medical office tenants and buildings that were originally developed for general office uses. With respect to outpatient surgery centers, staff recommends maintaining the existing requirement of one space per 175 square feet at this time, but also recommends conducting further study on such uses and their parking requirements in the local context. If further data and study justifies it, the requirement for such facilities could be adjusted in the future. It should be noted that although outpatient surgery centers are allowed as medical office in those zoning districts, medical offices are allowable as a permitted or conditional use, and outpatient surgery centers also expressly listed permitted use in the medical center district. Although the proposed amendment would add outpatient surgery center as a separate use for purposes of required parking, the intent is that the minimum parking requirement would apply to any facility that is an outpatient surgery center, including where allowed under the category of medical office pursuant to the applicable zoning district regulations. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Council members. Any questions, Mr. Wiggler? Yes, Mr. Brown, I don't know if they can pull up my slides, but and Mr. Shad, I did have some comments as to the definition in reading the way that this texement was formulated. I just did have concern in terms of the definition of outpatient surgery centers. Certainly, I support moving this forward. Absolutely, it's been some time. But in terms of the definition of outpatient surgery centers, and I believe it's not going to talk about it as well, I do believe that the intent is not that there be urgent care clinics or stand-alone emergency rooms as part of this definition and it just seems that it's not included there. So I wanted to make a motion to include this amendment to include that those would also be considered in the same scheme as outpatient surgery centers. I think the idea here is certainly we could respect that regular medical offices should be able to be going into regular office buildings without any increased parking, but that would not be a sort of standalone emergency room or urgent care clinic or something like that, where there is, you know, generally a much greater density similar to an out page in surgery center, so I think that definition should be slightly expanded. All right, thank you. Comments or questions? Ms. Nacolas? All right, thank you. Could staff or Mr. Wigter elaborate please the difference between a medical clinic and a medical office under these definitions please? I do have a response. Yes. So actually staff is regarding the free standing emergency room. Staff has not researched or studied the free standing emergency rooms. We don't have any in the city. So we'd be happy to include that as like a further study down the road. As far as medical clinics go, medical clinics are medical offices. So we did study urgent cares and we studied medical offices. So our definition, just like it says dental offices and clinics, we categorize those the same. All right. But do we use, I'm just trying to think someone down the line is our drafting clear enough that there's no ambiguity that a clinic is something different from an office, you know. Correct. It's included in the business professional, including medical and dental offices and clinics. So it would include those. Okay. Thank you. So I do have a comment on that because including medical offices and medical clinics, in clinics there are procedures done. There's often more staff. I can tell you in my husband's office, which is they do do surgery and as well they have 17 employees. So and five different providers. So that's in a 4,500 square foot. They're always juggling for parking. So whereas maybe in a psychiatrist's office, you have one doctor, one front office staff, and one patient coming every hour. So it is different because in one waiting room you may have 9, 10 patients waiting, and another waiting room you may have 9-10 patients waiting and another waiting room you may have one waiting. So I think a clinic in an office like Mr. Wigtcher is saying the clinics would be more in line with the outpatient surgery centers and the urgent care clinics, such as the Baptist Health clinics we see or MD now or something like that, are different than just some, you know, an office where one or two patients is seen an hour. We did just for the record, we did do a study on MD now, urgent care, so they were included in our research, and they did not show to be any more intense than a regular office building. But if I may notwithstanding that I believe Mr. Wigter the intent is if we're being a little more liberal with offices and treating it as general you're still taking the more cautious route the more parking intensive requirement for medical clinics or in care and stand-alone. Is that right? That was my intent, was my appreciation that a stand-alone emergency room or an urgent care clinic might be more intensive, as Ms. Nakalisal also said, and that there's things that can go into a regular office. Absolutely, we should be allowed, but things that might be more parking intensive or standalone emergency rooms or things like that where there could be a just a convolution of people at the same time that are not on a pointed basis would be treated separately and that there would be at least the appreciation that there may be more parking intensive uses there. And like I said, if the staff is not studied yet, I would prefer that we exercise on the side of caution. You know, let's start first with regular offices, regular medical offices, and then, you know, if we can study the other issue on those things, then we can come back and add more, but I think it's harder to come back and add more than do it the other way, right? Thank you, Mr. Shad. Looks like you have something to add please. Yeah, a brain and chat development services director. So two separate things. First medical office versus medical clinic. No question in my mind that in the world there's a difference, there's a distinction. In the code there is no distinction, where one is mentioned, the other is mentioned, or if it's not mentioned, it's just medical office. So making a distinction in the code would be something new we would need to do, we would need to come up with a way to define it, something we have not thought of at this point. And I believe there were both types included when we reviewed, you know, we did field observations on the parking rates. So, personally, I don't have any issue with including clinics in the reduced rate. However, if the council like, we can certainly look at making a distinction, that would be, it would just be a bigger project to distinguish between those two things. Second, with respect to those few, the medical clinics, Urgent Care Clinic, Standalone Emergency Rooms versus, you know, including them as an outpatient surgery center. To echo what Ms. Boone was saying, essentially, we did include urgent care in those were among the observations. And they, from what we observed and what the ITE data tells us, they're okay under the same rate that we're proposing. We did not specifically observe any standalone emergency rooms because to our knowledge, there aren't none in the city and, you know, I wasn't even aware I was a thing until very recently, so. There's not too many to observe, but we can certainly, if the council likes, exclude that and then perhaps study that separately or not study it separately and just exclude it and keep it at the current rate. That's something that we can do. All right, so going back to your first point, please, Mr. Shad, right now you're saying our code does not define medical clinic or medical office to be different from each other. Right so whatever the term medical office appears it either by itself or it's with the word clinic so that they're they're essentially the same thing as far as our code is concerned. So again to distinguish them we would need to figure out what exactly that distinction should be and define it and allow it in some areas or not others, I suppose, or whatever the direction might be. Right. So to distinguish, we not only need new wordsmithing, which we'd have to do. We'd have to, at a minimum, we need new words, and probably beyond that, you'd probably want some rationale for the difference. Right. And we would want to understand what we have currently in the city, what their characteristics are, all those kind of things. It would be a significant amount of effort to do it. I think the way it would need to be done. Very good. Any further questions? Well, I'm sorry. Yeah, well, please, Mr. Thompson. It seemed then that we would need to postpone that to allow staff to undertake that additional study and assess the standard emergency. Which I do understand there is one being built in Westboka in the bi-only fitness where I play basketball. So it's probably something that can be studied somewhere locally. I'm sure it's built yet, but soon. I'm happy postponing it to give staff that opportunity. I just did want to offer one compliment and that is to the arrow drawn by what I had to be Microsoft Paint in Mr. Wigdor's slide here. I know MS paint when I see it. I said done. The old Stuart Potter. That goes to bless your hard category. Thank you. All right, very good. All right. Well, instead of that, would council members what your attitude toward Not moving taking the blue text here that mr. Wigtters suggests taking back out clinics since we don't distinguish before it Putting urgent care clinics and stand-alone emergency rooms at the 175 so it's the same and then doing or and then doing everything else that was proposed I'm okay with that change. I think that's a compromise and we could still look at the other two things and in the future I don't see a rush of clinic versus office applications flying through the door. I think they will be offices and then the others more serious concerns we can look at. We can have staff look separately so I think that's a good compromise. I'm okay with that. I don't think we should postpone. I think we've been, this has been in the works for a long time. We could have had discussion prior. So I think taking that, what we just agreed on is fine. Okay, very good. I'm okay with moving forward also, but we should know that there are a lot of medical offices in our city where the procedures are being done. Whether, you know, we know it or not or there's a lot of weight loss clinics going on, there's a lot of natural therapy stuff going on where the procedures are actually being done in these things and waiting rooms are building up. And I know you did the study during peak season and I would just say continue to do that. Whatever we study has to be during peak season. So, but I'm okay moving forward as you proposed. Just to clarify, I think your point was that because those procedures are happening, they may fall into the more intensive parking use. Okay, well then maybe we allow for further study. We pass it the way that it is with an understanding that if staff comes up with a different different understanding from studying it and additional information that comes in, we may clarify that later on and move office slash clinic into perhaps the more intensive category if it's warranted. Well, I'm not I first want to that Mr. Thompson. I think you're saying move if we figure out a distinction between clinic move it in back to 175 because Office is moving to 200 now Correct leave it now in the more relaxed regime Yeah, but if further information comes to light that Demonstrates as Miss Nockless has said that this is maybe perhaps more intensive we can reconsider and put it back into the more restrictive and more Intensive category very good. On further questions around this, Mr. Shad? If we could get the definition of outpatient surgery center back on the screen for a second, if we don't mind, that was from Ms. Boone's presentation. So our thought is that considering that this discusses, you know, the definition of this is that there's same day surgical procedures not requiring overnight stay, does that cover the clinic? That's my thought. I'll turn to our most medical expert, Dr. McClendon. I mean, I worked in an outpatient surgery center for almost 30 years, but it was a free standing outpatient surgery center. There's a lot of procedures being done in clinics that are within, you know, buildings that have multiple tenants in them. So I understand that to try to study, try to get a study of all the medical clinics that are actually doing procedures in this city, that would take a lot of, it literally would mean you have to go to every single office and see who's doing procedures. I would say let's move forward with what you proposed. And I think it'll be fine. So I'll have a question for staff because I think maybe this bridges the gap. The way I read this definition, if there's a building where there's multiple medical offices, medical clinics, but they're performing same day surgical procedures. It doesn't matter whether they inhabit the entire whole building or part of the building. There's still qualifies in outpatient surgery centers or fair reading. Yeah, so it's calculated, pretend it and add it together. Okay. All right. Well, that makes me feel comfortable to move forward with that. So, any further questions? Then we'll open up the public hearing. I'll invite Jonathan Anjou Nussimini to card first to speak, and then anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter. He's giving your name into us. She'll open up to three minutes. Jonathan Anjou Nussimini and 6501 Congress Avenue. So what we're talking here is office buildings, existing office buildings for the most part, why this is happening. Something that I think a lot of you probably are unaware of when it comes to office buildings is a thing called loss factor, common area, and that doesn't calculate and gets lost. So when you're talking about these numbers and these parking ratios, it's not just just I have a 60,000 square foot building of which maybe 40,000 of it are actual physical tenants in it. The other are bathrooms, stairwells, hallways, corridors. So while these numbers and that's the other point I wanted Miss Boone to point out out she did answer my question in a private call that I hope that she addresses here today when we're talking about these breakdown in numbers in under 2,000 square feet or 4,000 whatever the number is it's the actual building structure that we're talking about because that's a big differentiation and if we're and especially post COVID the day of 4,000 square foot tenants are fewer and fewer and that's becoming 4,000 square foot tenants. So if we're going off of those calculations this entire city is out of whack when it comes to parking. But the other point that you did touch on and Councilmember Nackelis thank you for being a nurse for as long as you have been. My wife is an operating room nurse as well. And I think that definition, and if you want to put that back up, we're talking dermatologists. I didn't hear that mention, but those are surgeries that are being performed biopsies, things like that. The slippery slope of what that is and that definition is bad and unenforceable to be frank when it comes to medical offices. And the thing I heard over and over again was, was urgent cares had been studied. They looked at that throughout the city. So you're asking for more study on something that's been studied. And if there becomes an issue and we're seeing parking issues, then back in them be addressed at that time. You know, but like I said, I hate to think that we're getting narrower and narrower on this because like I said, you may have, you know, in your husband's office and Council Member Nackelis had 15 people, but in a 4,500 square foot space, and maybe there's four visitors or something like that, when you're talking loss factor and things like that, you're adequately parked. So I think that's what the reality is, I live this all day, and like I said, I'm very thankful for staff and council member Wigger and all those council members who brought this up and I hope it gets adopted as written but like I said the outpatient surgery center I think is a very slippery slope because is in terms of same day procedures because that's dermatologist that's as councilman where NACLIS knows that's in almost every office you're getting a biopsy or an injection or something that could be considered surgery. Thank you. Thank you, anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? It's seeing no one come forward. We will close the public hearing. We'll entertain a motion. If someone's moving, would you please indicate what, if any, amendments you want as part of the motion? Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move to adopt the resolution 5698 with the amendment that you proffered in terms of leaving medical clinics out of the outpatient definition, but including urgent care clinics and standalone emergency rooms in that definition. I agree with Mr. Rungin, and this is obviously a long time coming. Like you said, the difference between usable and rentable is important, but it's an important first step. Second. Well, all right, before I was going to ask for a second, I was going to ask staff if the arrow where Mr. Wigter pointed it is in the best location, or we should be putting it under the definition of lines 20, 21 on page 3. I think you are. I think you are. I think if I may, I think I did have some language on the second page of the, oh there it is, I'm sorry. But that I tried to put in the proper place. Of course with staffs. Okay, so just before we go down the path, just wanna, because we have it, may I ask for clarification on that additional language? We're supposed to, it's where same day emergency room procedures, medical clinic procedures, or urgent care procedures. Is that supposed to come before or after the word surgical? Where? Yeah. Same day surgical procedures, comma, emergency room procedures, medical procedures, I didn't do the Microsoft paint there, I apologize, please forgive me. So just to be clear, the sentence would read, outpatient surgery center, shall mean a healthcare facility where same-based surgical procedures, comma emergency room procedures without the capital E, comma medical clinic procedures, comma or urgent care procedures not requiring an overnight hospital stare performed. As you,ored Mr. Mayor, I believe we're taking out the medical clinic procedure which is just the tool. Right. Right. Okay. So it's where same day surgical procedures, comma emergency route, how about this? Where same day surgical, comma emergency room, comma, or urgent care procedures not requiring an overnight hospital stare performed. So moved. All right. So efficient. Second. Second. All right. Very good. Any further discussion? Staff want to weigh in? Mr. Kailer, is that or are we clear on both provisions? Mayor, I think you've stated the amendment clearly. And we got it on 1655 sections as well. All right. Very good. Then if those know for the discussion, Ms. Sins, please. Singer. Yes. Quigter. Yes. Dr. Ckerr. Yes. Nacklas. Yes. Thompson. Yes. Motion passes five votes to zero. Very well. We'll now turn to item 12 regular public hearings of settlements. And Ms. Sins, would you please read the title of ordinance? Excuse me, resolutionolution 84 2024. Resolution 84 2024. A resolution of the City of Boca Raton considering a proposed agreement to settle litigation styled one as your development LLC, the City of Boca Raton and two, 2600 North Ocean LLC, the City of Boca Raton. Authorizing, if approved, the City Manager to execute the settlement agreement, providing for a peeler, providing an effective date. Thank you, Mr. Brown. I'm going to turn to Mr. Keller to give a brief synopsis of what a resolution 84, 2024 goes. Thank you, he's prepared by the legal department. Yes, Mr. Keller. Yes, Mayor, councilmembers. The settlement agreement before the council tonight proposes a structure for hearing quasi-judicial variants at a later date. The approval of the settlement tonight is to allow that structure to go forward. It does not constitute an approval or denial of the variance itself. And nothing about the settlement waves the council's regulatory or review authority. And the council would retain all discretion going forward if the settlement was to be approved. And ultimately at a later date the CCL variance what construction control line variance was considered by the council and where to be approved and take effect then under the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to a wave all claims and execute full release for the city. So that's the settlement before the council tonight again is really to present that framework before the council going forward. All right. Very good. And to clarify, this does not obligate any vote one way or another on the public hearing if one is scheduled. Correct. There is no obligation. This is simply the framework to consider those matters. You're welcome. Councilor, are there any other questions? Then we'll open up the public hearing. I did receive a card from Michael Lazlo. Mr. Lazlo, please come forward. Give your name and address and mail up to three minutes. Then anyone else who wishes to speak and do so. Michael Lazlo 2697 North Ocean Boulevard. I just ask you to pretend that the resolution's not before you now and that this is actually the hearing to decide the variance whether approved or denied. Imagine that the petitioner's attorney gets up and makes his proposal. Tell you what, if you approve this variance, the city will save a lot of money. We'll waive all our claims against the city. I don't think that would happen. I don't think that proposal would be made during the hearing. I don't think we would be accepted. Why not? Well, because it would suggest that variances can be bought and sold. The difference between that scenario and the current resolution is when it's being offered. This resolution's being offered before the hearing, for the variants, rather than during the hearing for the variants. So I would just want you to consider the question, why is this offer being made now prior to that hearing, rather than in the hearing itself? If you approve this resolution, it's because you believe that you would be able to decide whether to approve the variance impartially on the basis of the constructions impact on the quality of life and on the environment. Because these are the considerations, the factors that you're supposed to consider. But would you honestly be able to disregard and ignore the huge financial incentive, the financial leverage that this resolution represents. Or rather, by approving this resolution, would you simply be exchanging the prior bias against the petitioner, 2600, for a new bias in favor of that petitioner. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? All right, we will close the public hearing and do have a question for Mr. Kailer. Could you talk about the procedural hyp- I know I don't often like to deal with hypotheticals, but procedurally could what what Mr. Laslos say come to pass, could someone during a hearing make that proffer, I suppose? I'm not sure I understand. A financial proffer? Yes. Certainly as part of any development approval and a coastal construction control line variance is a development approval, whether it's the council or another body, there are conditions that are imposed. So properties are made from time to time, for example, the city's beautification fund, things of that nature. But this settlement is, there's no dollar amount associated with it, there is ongoing litigation, and there is a potential for prolonged litigation, and so this settlement is being presented to the council as a means to potentially resolve that litigation going forward. Also, this is being proffered now because if we don't, otherwise the matter will be scheduled in due course, and litigation will continue, and costs will continue to crew on both sides, potentially both sides for the city. So by scheduling this now, or by entering to the settlement now essentially we're tolling a certain amount of legal costs in the time being even if the proposed application does not go forward. That's correct. The parties have agreed to put the litigation on hold to allow the council an opportunity to consider this agreement tonight and if the council is inclined to approve the agreement then the litigation would be further told until such time as the application could be heard by the council. Okay, all right thank you. Any further Mr. Thompson? Let me ask this to the city of W. City Attorney. And let's take the Mr. Laslow's hypothetical and flip around. It would be a unique, I suppose, for that kind of offer to be made at a public hearing. But isn't it true that we are routinely threatened with a lawsuit in the event that we do not approve something? So the opposite, in that case, meaning that the city's at risk of losing a lot of money if you don't. Does that happen from time to time in your experience? Certainly, the city is routinely indicated by parties that are dissatisfied with the city's decisions that is not an unusual outcome. Yes, it happens in this room. Any further discussion? All right. We'll entertain a motion to adopt the resolution. I hear a motion. Some moved. Thank you. Second. Second, any further discussion? I would just like to say, please be very brief. This resolution, I think, has been made clear. It does not, in any way, indicate that I I by voting for it or not support a variance for this underlying piece of property. I have not formed an opinion on that application nor can I until we hear evidence at a public hearing. However, if the council as a group ultimately does choose to approve that application, I think it probably makes sense for us to that such an approval to operate as a cessation of the lawsuit and of the claims and resolve those things that have been pending now for a while. And I don't think, speaking for myself, it would not operate as a bias in favor of or against the application or this applicant if we were to approve this today. That's my view. I concur. Any further discussion? Ms. Walker? I concur. It'll be the first time that I would be hearing this application. So I agree. Mr. Wreder. Yeah, I think this is an interesting situation where the subject, the matter is not the actual you know, the development. It's a sort of procedural. So what this does is just, it allows the process to begin. And remember, it's not with only us, with counsel, but is the number, the significant number of subsidiary boards that also will be hearing this before it gets to us. So it allows the process to simply commence, and I agree. I'm in favor of that proceeding. I think you're in any further discussion. I also agree with what Mr. Thompson just said. Thank you. Then, Ms. Simmons, please call the roll. Trucker? Yes. Nackless? Yes. Thompson? Yes. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Singer. Yes. Motion passes. Five votes to zero. We'll now turn to item 13 public requests. I have one card. I think from Adam Gold which doesn't indicate a matter all the other people who've indicated Oh, then Yaka van and then Chris to Silva. And then I believe Thomas Laird because I wasn't sure which matter you're referring to. Those they've submitted cards, then Mr. Anjane will get you fifth then. I saw, all right, well we'll get you there. You got, we saw you under 11 a, that's why. So, oh, gotcha. Very gotcha very good submitted the card so why don't we start with Adam gold Mr. Gold are you present? Please just do you no longer want to speak? He no longer wants to speak. Yaka van Mr. Van you want to speak? I'm sure Andy and Phil will give a lot of false information but I've made requests now for four years. Police chief won't call back. Four years I'm waiting for information. I should have had it four years ago that's absolutely no excuse to not, this is public record. Your officers decided to point AR-15s at my head for absolutely no reason. The police report says it came out for disturbance. The FBI just defines disturbance as things like prostitution, loud noise, or something like that. Nothing that requires guns to be drawn let AR-15 with scopes on them. And multiple guns pointed at my head for disturbance call. And I should be having this video. Why can't I get information that I'm entitled to from the city of Volga Ritone? We take, we respond to questions at the end of public request. So if you want to conclude your comments at the end of public request, we'll have any appropriate response. I'm sorry. See that again. We what what are we in right now? We're in public request when everyone is done speaking. Any items that require follow up will discuss with the manager. So you hang out a few more minutes. And I also sent you an email with a picture of the intersection that I was referring to about it being just too deadly. Again, I know it's not a city road, but the city should still be able to get me safely from point A to point B within the city. And if you look at that picture, so if you're proceeding, let's say you're proceeding east on Palm Metal Park Road to cross the 95 entrance. And again, I'm talking about riding on the sidewalk. I know you could ride in the street and hope not to not be hit by a car's, but if you want to safer route and you ride on the sidewalk, you have to turn right and then this is just a very narrow space that you can make that left and get off. You can make a left to get off and then the cars are not going to stop you. They are building up speed to go on the 95. They are not going to stop and you have the right of way as a cyclist, as a pedestrian, but you can't take your right of way because if you do, you're going to get hit and killed. And the other thing I said of course is that motorists do not look right when they're making a right turn. I guarantee you, all of you on the board probably also do the same thing. I'm on a bicycle all the time and motorcycle, a motor, I'm sorry, drivers do not look right. Be below stop signs if you could be putting up, if you could be putting up signs to look for cyclists, it would be extremely helpful. Thank you. All right, thank you. Christa Silva, Mr. Disilda. Leaving off from yesterday. Um, and same addresses yesterday, Mr. De Silva, could you just say it again, please? Yes, um, because of what I'm going on, I would like to not give out my address. I will use the one you gave yesterday, then. All right. Thank you. Um, so leaving off from yesterday. Here's another trick. This is not the land of the law, but the land of the free. Sometimes you have to fight for what you want or believe in. And what you deserve. I feel as though the law enforcement and doctors should not be able to make a crack. And many people should be set home because church on Sunday can perform better relief in psychological help or assistance than the BS people who just work a job and don't care about their career or a job class. What have you all and what are you all or we turning into? I want to, I want revival walk-in centers and I don't want local law enforcement or any government officials operating or dealing with mental health. I want 24 seven walk-in centers, plus drug rehab facilities. Nobody can be held against their will, not in a mental hospital, in art, ER emergency, because I know human beings and human nature is not worthy of judging or thinking they can be in charge of another's destiny and human mind. If police can't look at pieces of paper, which they have already. Or plug things in, how I have on permanent record, there's no need to be allowing someone to be wrongfully Baker acted. It should never, it should never have been created by law. I can challenge any law right, right place at the right time. I'm ready to walk into this patch tonight tomorrow night, or they can all come on specific individuals. They can come here purposely trying to mess up me becoming the new owner of publics. If you don't do civil or banking, why are you knocking on my door, purposely causing chaos? If you don't do civil or workers or banking, why are you knocking on my door, purposely causing chaos if you don't do civil or workers or banking, you should not be allowed to operate and mental, but drop them near the revival center where my social worker should be working having a good time. Just like the time, just like the time of public speaking from 5 to 3 and how it's changed. How it's no longer there. They have no license plates on the postal mail service or the postal service cars, whatever. They don't have license plates on there anymore. Service, things can change in this country and they are. It is a reason I'm up here today finalizing what should have already been finished already. Would you please conclude Mr. Distributor? Yeah. Anything is possible on this planet if you're lucky enough and truly believe I want to bring in or bring in the laws of Attraction the power positive thinking Someone bought me that book South out to God and my mom And my brother Thomas. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Tom. All air are you present? This has been I think this might have been from stuck in. It's in prefers a PNZ matter. So, in any case, if you show up, Mr. Laird, you're welcome to speak. Jonathan Ungen. Jonathan Ungen, 65-01, Congress Avenue. So, from continuing what I had to say yesterday regarding Dan Burke, it's good to see the officer of the court Michael Marshall here who's here for me. And I just like to play some of his comments, so I'm glad he's here from his special magistrate hearing. To clear up what Mr. Brown said yesterday regarding the intentions of the city, what the special magistrate stated, what the negligent party stated. So here. The property aren't having the ability to request an extension, but also specifically provides that making such a request doesn't stop the fine from running. That the fine continues to run unless there's another signed order from the magistrate who's running the hearing. So final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. The final. four months. And you know maybe it ended three months it has been issue but we can show you that we've been through three of your cycles are two outstanding comments so as you could see the progress. Which specific deadline is it that you want to extend that's a special matter. The deadline to issue a building permit for the two retail buildings that were approved on the current plan. And so that's the, that's the, that's the one we asked for. So I think I understand fundamentally the conflict. So what I, what I haven't heard from you yet is you're asking me for an extension or a change or a new deadline, but you haven't told me what it is that you're particularly that you're asking for. Correct. I'm glad you asked that. What we're asking for is, you know, we could try to come up with a time certain, but what I think is the most reasonable course of action here is for you to ask us to come back to you in three months, to extend the deadline for three months, right, for whenever you're back here. Extend that deadline for that building permit issue. And hopefully we get it. And we can go on and on. He made that comment about six, seven times during the hearing that he only needed an extension for them to get a building permit. How long does it take to get a building permit? There was no good faith done by this party that they should have even had an extension in the first place. And the reality is the community continues to miss out on this development that was approved by the council at the time, that was promised to the community. It would have never been approved the project if it didn't have that retail component because it never would have met the matrix. And it's about time I hope and ask that you do send this thing back to Mr. Brown who was the chief negotiator. Mr. Shad is here. I had a conversation with him on Friday. I don't think he supports it. So then who does? It would be your chief manager, your city manager. So I think the onus falls there. I think their questions need to be answered from there in that office because this city deserves better. Developers shouldn't get their beck and call when they are negligent and adjudicated and need to comply. It's about fairness. Thank you. I have a question. Yes. The audio recordings you were playing was that the recent What meeting was where they are from that was the March 13th 2024 Code enforcement special magistrate where they are asking for an extension and Mr. Brown made the comments yesterday that The reason why that they are asked that that then this the special magistrate sent them back to negotiate. The reality is they promised that they were submitting a building permit within three to four months, the next time that they would be meeting. None of that happened. They submitted one building permit actually about three days before that meeting. And you know how many iterations you heard Mr. Marshall say there? Maybe we're two, three iterations passed by the next time we meet. Do you know how many iterations they're passed? Zero for the record. They have done nothing to get this building and you can call up Mr. Shad. They've done nothing to get this building permit finalized. And now for some reason the city's going to allow until April of 2026 potentially with reduced fines and give them code compliance up until that date. So they are code compliant according to that agreement. After signing that agreement paying a $9,000 fine, they are no longer in violation until April 2026. And again, it's not to build it. It's only to get a building permit. As Mr. Marshall said, that takes maybe 90, 120 days. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Michael Marshall. Good evening, Michael Marshall. Nelson Mullins, 1905, Northwest Corporate Boulevard. First off, I thank John for the introduction. It was fabulous. First off, I'm not here to talk about the code enforcement matter. I will tell you that what he's just giving you is not... And we're both serious. I think he's not saying the facts. He's not saying the facts. Point is, all the facts have been laid out before the magistrate. One thing you did here in that recording was a magistrate saying in response that he understands the conflict. I'm not going to getting to the facts around the code enforcement proceeding. I think that this is highly irregular. A code enforcement proceeding is one that's supposed to be before a fair and impartial magistrate. And to set here in a public form with a collected counsel to hold a, I don't know why you call this, this is like a side stage code enforcement proceeding. I feel like is we very much run the risk of impairing code enforcement matters, do not fall, a civil procedure or evidence strictly, but one thing that does apply is fundamental due process and engaging in this behavior tonight I feel like we're running a big risk. That's all I want to say. Well, Mr. Marshall, I can't agree with you there. I present the implication that we're not, no, please sit down. I present the implication that whatever we do, I'm not up here as a fair and impartial. You're free to have your opinion, sir. I don't mean you all. I mean, you allow the conversation to happen. I'm not saying that you guys are. No, that's not what you said. That's not what youo. Mr. Marshall, please sit down. That's how it's included. Mr. Munchen, please be silent. Look, this is exactly the issue. And I, no, Mr. Marshall, I'm going to conduct this fairly impartially. Your time has expired. Everyone else's time has expired. Please sit down. I would like nothing more than to not talk about this. Thank you. All right, anyone else wishing to speak? Then we will close the time for public requests. We'll now turn to introduction of ordinances under item 14. Please, Mr. Rucker. Mr. Mayor, I thought you were going to be a secretary. Oh, yes, I'm so sorry, yes. Sure. Thank you. Let's go back, please, Mr. Brown, to Mr. Vans inquiry. Mr. Vans inquiry about the public records request. My understanding is that Mr. Vans contacted the City Clerk's office today with regard to a records request and the clerk's office advised what was necessary in order for us to fulfill that request, which involves paying for service to redact the particular files that are being requested, and once those fees are paid, the record will be produced. All right, thank you. And then, can we, I was not aware of this. All right. Just to make sure, please. General, why don't we take a recess for five minutes. I was not aware of this. All right. Just to make sure we, please. We have some to call on. Gentlemen, why don't we take a recess for five minutes? You guys can talk. No, please, Mr. Marshall come back. Mr. Marshall? All right, maybe not. All right, why don't we take a five minute recess? And before we do, I wanted to say to Mr. Marshall, we'll come back in the room. I got a little heated there. I will accept the fact that you did not intend to call us fair and impartial. It didn't sound that way, but this is an unusual circumstance. So I beg your forgiveness there. We'll take a five minute recess. It's 7.29. you I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to be a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going to do it. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Thank you. you you you We are now resuming our regularly scheduled city council meeting and returning to item 14 introduction of ordinance as we had already removed ordinance 5699 from the agenda. So I'll ask Ms. Siddins to read the title of ordinance 57. 100. Ordinance number 5700, an ordinance of the city of Boca Raton amending the procurement code of the city of Boca Raton to establish a cone of silence for the city, restricting communications during certain city initiated procurement activities. Amending section 1-201 definitions and creating section 12-109 cone of silence, providing for severability, providing for appeal, providing an effective date. Thank you. I will introduce this ordinance. And that concludes our introduction of ordinances. We have no items under 15 resolutions in other business. So we'll turn to item 16, quasi-judicial public hearings for variances and appeals. And Ms. Siddins, would you please read the total of resolution 75, 2024? Resolution number 75, 2024. A resolution of the city of, excuse me, may I start over. A resolution of the city council of the city of Boca Raton considering the appeal of the decision of the historic preservation board denying the City of Boca Raton's certificate of appropriateness application to relocate the historically designated singing pines Children's Museum building from 498 Crawford Boulevard to Meadows Park at 1300 Northwest 8th Street and to reduce the required waiting period from six months to three months providing for a peeler providing an effective date. Thank you. I'll now turn to Mr. Kailer to again review the quasi-dead judicial procedure that will govern the public hearing. Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council. In accordance with the city council's rules, each applicant requesting approval relief or other action from the council tonight. I'll disclose at the commencement what continuance are they hearing? Any consideration provided or committed directly around its behalf for an agreement to support with hold objection to the requested relief or action? As mentioned earlier, a summary of the quasi-judicial procedures governing this proceeding is attached to the agenda and a copy can be obtained from the city clerk. Thank you. And in this case, this is the applicant is the city itself. The appellant and applicant is the city of Oak, Rotone. Very good, thank you. This point will ask council members to identify any, to disclose any expartee communications. I'll start again on my left with Mr. Thompson. There was a time, few years ago, we had a discussion at City Council about potentially moving the children's museum, but if we're the applicant slash appellant, then I suppose I was talking to us, so that probably isn't the next part of communication. Nevertheless, I disclose it. Very well. Thank you. Is that close? No, it's part. Thank you, Ms. Parker. So I have a little bit of disclosure. So I'm a past president of the Book, I've returned to Storca Society Museum. As a president of the museum, I set on the historic preservation board on behalf of the city as vice chair for about five years. I also was the vice president treasure of the children's museum when the children's museum was open. So I just wanted to say that because that's part of the disclosure. Also with Mr. Thompson said, we had some communications in the past with a lot of the Pearl City residents who were trying to move singing pines to Hughes Park so that was discussed and even at this meeting I've had conversations with Sue Gillis who's a curator at the Bogey-Rotone Museum. I had a conversation when Mary's are before multiple conversations. I had another conversation with her yesterday in the chambers. And then there has been a lot of chatter on social media that I have not engaged with, but I've seen on Facebook, on Instagram. I even think on Twitter and on threads and all the different social media platforms on people discussing the children's museum and the movement of the house. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Riggler. Yes, many, many months ago, I had a conversation with Mr. Debra Carman. I believe she was on the board of the Children's Museum generally about the museum, not specifically moving. And other than that, I cannot recall any other exparte that has not been discussed in a formal meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rucker. I also received text yesterday from the former president of the Children's Museum, Marie Sagan-Dollas, that's part of my file, but I would want to disclose that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Please. Good. I also said that many, many months ago, could be a year ago ago I had a discussion with Eleanor Grant who said she would have liked to be moved to Hughes Park but that didn't go anywhere. Oh yes and obviously just to recap we all had public conversations in these chambers during public meetings about possible locations including Meadows, including Hughes Park. I'll add for my ex-part A communications. I saw social media posed by Michelle Olsen Rodgers yesterday expressing concern about the moving in the museum. I left her a voice mill yesterday. I followed up with an email explaining the procedural setting that this was concerning the moving of the potential facility and that the board below did not grant the certificate. So it was before the City Council, a copy that email has been included in the record with the City Clerk. That concludes my exparte disclosures. So at this point, we will ask anyone who wishes to speak on this matter to please rise to the Clerk and administer the oath. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear I affirm that any testimony you may give before this public hearing will be truthful or accurate? Thank you. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Bear, our municipal services director and Mr. Shatter Development Services director will make presentation regarding the petition. Mainly it will be Brandon who reviews the certificate of appropriateness and the action of the board. Thank you, Mr. Schott. Good evening again, Mayor and Council of the RAND and the Shed Development Services Director. As mentioned, this is an appeal of a denial by the historic preservation board of a certificate of appropriateness for moving the structure known as singing pines. Specifically, it's an appeal of that decision to relocate the historically designated singing pines children's museum building from 498 Crawford Boulevard its current location to Meadows Park and to reduce the waiting time for moving such a structure from six months to three months. The HPB meeting was on July 10th of this year. City staff requested a certificate of appropriateness from the board to relocate. As mentioned, this is in order to support the city's initial phase of constructing a new building, administration and code enforcement building on the site of 498 Crawford Boulevard. A little bit of background. On August 2, 1988, the HPB reviewed the potential designation, at that time, potential designation of singing pines. The board found singing pines to be an exceptional property to its architectural design, its association with the pioneer era, and Boker Returns passed. The Board of Unanimously Recommended is designated as a historic site. On August 18, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended Section approval and on October 11, 1988, the City Council so designated the singing Pines Children Museum through ordinance number 3728. The Board of Unanimously Recommended is designated as a historic site. to section approval and in October 11, 1988, the City Council so designated the Singing Pines Children Museum through ordinance number 3728. This is the existing location. Here this is Crawford Boulevard, fourth diagonal, I'm sure everyone is very familiar. The proposed location is here in Metos Park that's outlined in red down here. So sections 2823713 of the code require a certificate of appropriateness to relocate a building on historic site and section 22371 sets forth the standards for issuance of these certificate of appropriateness. The board's reasons for denial based on review of the tape from the meeting and the meeting minutes. There was a concern that the new location would have less visibility than the current location. There was a desire for the city to incorporate the building into its plans for the city hall campus. There was a statement that replacing the children's museum with the government office building would greatly change the entire road. There was a desire to see the building used again as a children's museum. There was a concern with the loss of green space and I concerned with the loss of community space that exists at the current site. concern with the loss of green space and I concern with the loss of community space that exists at the current site. So there are two standards for granting a COA. One is that it complies with the secretary of the interiors standards for rehabilitation and the other is that there must be a finding that there's no audible visible or atmospheric element that is out of character with the site. Those are the two standards for issuing a COA. So essentially the secretary of the interior standards has no standards that apply to the relocation of a historic building, so that doesn't apply. There is nothing in the comments from the board or in the record of the proceeding that suggests that the site at Meadows Park has audible visible or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the proposed relocation. As such, because the board's decision was not based on the criteria in the code and there's no evidence in the record to suggest that it doesn't comply with those standards and staff finds that it does Staff recommends that the council Reverse the decision of the board and approve the requested certificate of appropriateness for the relocation and I will be happy to answer any questions and I Believe Mr. Beer has some additional comments Thank you. Would you prefer Mr. Beer. Why don't you proceed first, please? I was just going to note if there were any questions through the process staff presented to this historic preservation board and then we're here to provide any details about the memo or identify our Follow-up from the comments that were made by the historic preservation board. All right. Thank you Councilman's questions. Mrs. Drucker Thank you, Mr. Chant. Thank you, Mr. Chant. Can you please put up the presentation where you have the actual location of where we're gonna potentially move the house to? So what I wanted to bring to the attention of the viewers or anybody in the audience is if you look towards, for my left, at the other like red little square box that's there, that's a community garden, right? Is that the community garden of the junior league? Yes, I know it's that. Just for the viewers. So when we moved, when we got the Bright Line Station, we had to move the junior league community garden over. And basically, it's going to be right there. So for me, it's more than just, that was a question I wanted to show the audience because we have a lot of people that, when we have events at the community garden, we have read alouds in October. There's planning days. I know Miss Nockless goes out there, she gardens, and there's a lot of things that go on in that area. The pool is right there. I think the visibility is going to be kind of a move issue. I think more people frequent that between the pool and the surrounding school that's there. So that's kind of more of a common. I wanted to bring that to the attention of, I just wanted to point that out there. And then Mr. Singer, are we, or may your singer, are we giving our commentary now? Or do you just want questions? Just questions, please. Okay, so I just wanted to show that that's where the location is. Thank you for the questions. I have some for Mr. Shad, Mr. Beer, whoever would like to field first. The 1988 order designated the, this a historic site as opposed to an historic building. Is there, is that a distinction with a meaningful difference? Not the way the code is drafted today. Basically, there, it has only historic site as the term it uses. But if you look at the record of why the ordinance was adopted designated as a historic, all the reasons had to do with the building itself. And it's historical significance, not with the grounds that it's located on. And in fact, as I may not have noted in the presentation, it's not in its original location today. Right, quite a distance. Could you go back to the slide you had I think three forward with about the different yes thank you that one. So how did it come to pass that the board members were offering opinions about something that's entirely not within their purview or not I should say maybe that's a little slanted. They were opining on matters and basing their decision on matters other than the established criteria which they were supposed to be reviewing things. I guess what I can tell you is that there was material in front of the board that had been prepared by staff that pointed out what the criteria are and made our recommendation as to why they made the comments that they made. I really can't answer that question. I'm just curious and maybe this is something we ought to look at more broadly. Do we give training to historical preservation board members or other members of specialized boards on their responsibilities and what their duties are under the law and where they have purview and where they don't? I know that there is some training provided at the upon appointment. I'm not that familiar with what it is. I think there's other staff members that could probably better answer that question. Probably. Oh, just we can. Thanks. Ms. Barker. There is training that's provided. But I think the bigger thing is when you sit on that board, I think a lot of people think that certain areas are historic. And they kind of follow like we want to keep the history. So when you're opining on things in Othloresta or whether it's other areas of our community that have historic, you know, preservation or historic areas, they kind of cite on that. Like there, and that was a lot of the commentary that I saw on Facebook was you're moving this, you know, like this particular singing pines, off a historic site, which we know singing pines was already moved to this site. It was in the original home of singing pines. So I think there's just a little bit of that confusion. So. I'd say there's a good deal of confusion. Maybe perhaps the council can take up an idea of giving more specific training, because I was concerned by some of the comments specifically made during this hearing by our pointees and some of these justifications don't seem to match the criteria that they should be looking at. That concludes my questions and others of staff. All right, if that, thank you Mr. Greer, thank you gentlemen. Why don't we open up the public hearing? I have the card from Ms. Vega. Please come forward, give your name and address. You can go up to three minutes. Thank you. Can we have a gap? Can you move the microphone closer to you, little please? Is it on? The light on? Okay. So, in the microphone, you can go right this way. I come in here representing the mothers and then you, the demographics of the city in a way, with a three-year-old. So I just want to point out something in terms of your historical value regarding the building. Because children's museum doesn't represent just the place. It is a cornerstone of the city, historical and cultural identity. So that being the current location, we believe is pivotal for two things. One, sustainability. If the museum is going to continue its course and it's going to continue to run, it needs to be sustainable. And I'm quite aware of the efforts of the foundation that run it before and why it didn't happen at the time. And the demographics have completely changed, and especially the infrastructure of our city. The museum is located in a central position where it can have access to promote the tourism that comes through Brightline, both local and state-wide tourism. And occupies one of the few intact historical blocks in our city. We're not talking about just three houses. We're talking about blocks of historical history, history that has built our social construct and history that is the essence of our community identity. So the concerns that we're allocating these could lead to the essence of our community identity. So the concerns that relocating these could lead to the destruction of our intellectual and cultural history. And despite the assurances that the building can be moved without damage and all of that and allocated to a complex, we believe that those monies should be reinvested into the enhancement of the current side. So the government proposed all really to relocate the museum seems to undermine the historical and cultural value of these buildings. And that's a question that we ask as a civil society. This idea is unique for its kind of town. The preservation is essential for maintaining the local heritage and removing it with kind of a race, a critical part of our social fabric that has served for education, heritage, and removing it with kind of a race, a critical part of our social fabric that has served for education, inclusion, and cultural connection for over there to 40 years. When we were reading everything that's going on and happening in social media, a lot of people would comment. This has been so sad to see. It's been three generations. My mom used to take me there. Now I used to take my children now, you know, and so forth. So it goes beyond the date of these buildings. So we understand, you know, the need of economic development and economic growth, but this should not come to the expense of our heritage. And many cities have successful, integrated, old buildings with, you know, the preservation with modern development. And we cannot have successful integrated all buildings with the preservation with modern development. And we cannot have similar strategies. This happening in the old right beach, and it has happening in New York, it has happening in many cities nationwide. So why not utilize in these new technologies, progressive design, and revitalize the museum, weeding their location. And again, the removal of these buildings would not only affect our city architecture, but erase it. Memories and experiences of more than three generations who have grown up with the museum. So recognizing that these buildings should be more than reconnecting historical artifacts. They're integral to our community for sense of identity and belonging. And that I believe it is something that we need in the city, especially right now with the new demographics. Will you please conclude Ms. Vega? Yes, sure. So to close in, we would ask you to reflect on whatever the economics benefits of relocating this building is truly at way. They have a capitalistic cultural and historical value. So we face a challenge in balancing growth with preservation. We understand that, but this is not only the collection of buildings, this community identity. And I ask you to please consider this appeal. And I just wanna read a quote that I just found. Thank you. To clarify, the buildings are not accepting as registers because they are pretty or old, but because they have strong state and local national significance. Thank you very much. Thank you. I do have a question, Ms. Vega. I only saw the one social media post I mentioned. Is there a group in what platforms? Yes, we have a group and we have a group, many different groups going on in Facebook. Everyone. going on in Facebook. Is there a name or one of them? So I might follow because after this meeting, I would vote. Oh, it's both. You have commands. Not modern book, a mom's. At different point. Not modern book, a mom. Modern book, a mom's. Yes. Oh, OK. Michelle's and replied to the comment. And like I said, I was involved when was the director of the museum. I had the opportunity to go and see this paid the potential of these buildings. Right, thank you. My question was just on that. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? All right, seeing none, I presume staff does not want to cross examine. No, thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there anything else staff would like to add? As the applicant, you get to go last. No, thank you. We get to go last. All right, thank you. Then we'll close the public hearing. We'll entertain a motion concerning resolution 75, 2024. Do I hear a motion to adopt or otherwise? So moved. To adopt. Oh, you want to adopt. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion I'll tell you bit miss Vega. I appreciate your concerns. I appreciate your advocacy I respectfully disagree with you first we've had discussions about this The building is not an insta-store excite and yes, there is a somewhat of a value to I Get that some people place a value of going back to the children's museum on you know in that exact location that they might have gone to a generation before, I personally had my son's third birthday party there, so it has memories for me too. Now with standing that, I think what staff has proposed after some different alternatives that Meadows Park isn't actually a great site for it. In terms of geographic center of the city, it is much more central. We have considerably more parking, which is always a challenge at the Children's Museum, and it ties into our Susan Welsho community garden. So we have a lot of amenities there that would be appropriate for children all in one place. So I think, you know, I'm also given its proximity to a school. There's other opportunities for educational tours there as well. I think we all want to see that facility thrive, and, you know, unfortunately it hasn't. It wasn't just the current leadership. It was another prior board in 2014 that led the Florence Follower Center to create a new board to control it. So we've had some challenges with it. But I think we're, I'm committed and I believe we're all committed to trying to see that move in the new location. So for all the reasons, I don't, the historic value, this enhances the historic value. And I get that you have other specific concerns, but I'm going to vote in favor of the motion. Mr. Rucker and Mr. Brown. Yes, I appreciate your comments. I sat on the board of the chosen museum before I was elected, and I sat on, I was the president of the historical society. I love history. It's one of the ways I got involved in the community. And it's extremely costly to run the museum. The museum was closed prior to COVID. Prior to the pandemic, we tried to bring programming in there. I was a treasurer on Children's Museum. We tried to get donations from, we had publics that came in as one of our sponsors. We had other community leaders and we had like our parade for heroes. We would have events there. It was very hard to maintain not only the buildings, but the cost to operate the function. So one of the things that we didn't say earlier is that we're continue to receive grants to upkeep the building and the big goal for us. Here is a city, and I hope for me personally, is to be able to open up the museum and have people use the museum. It's been sitting there for five years. It closed in 2018 because Florence Fuller, the umbrella over the Children's Museum, we could no longer afford it, so we decided to give it back to the city. And you and I can have an offline conversation. I was very involved in both of those organizations and in the actual historical society. So I agree with the mayor. I'm going to vote in favor to move these homes because the history is rich. Singing Pines was rehabilitated by the junior league of Boka. I'm also a member of that league. And the community garden, I think I heard you mention, it's empty. It's summertime. The plots are empty during the summer. We will replant, come the fall, because it's too hot to have any planting there. So anyways, we can engage in commentary, I just wanted to let you know that I think it's gonna be better where it's gonna be placed and I look forward to reopening the museum at some point. Thank you for the discussion. And before we vote, I do wanna clarify, and I'll get to ask the movement in the second or two, say so when I said motion to adopt, it's actually a motion to reverse the decision by the historical preservation board and grant the certificate of appropriateness. Is that the understanding? Yes, Mayor. That's the second. Very good. Any further discussion? Then on the motion to reverse the decision below and grant the certificate, Ms. Siddins, please call the roll. Wicked her. Yes. Thompson. Yes. Singer. Yes. N, singer. Yes, necklace. Yes, trucker. Yes, motion passes five votes to zero. Well, thank you That concludes the quasi-judicial matters will turn to city manager reports and recommendations I have no additional reports to see. Thank you, mr. Brown will turn to city attorney reports, mr. Kailer No report. Thank you. We'll turn to Councilmember reports. I'll start off by left with, again, a happy birthday to Councilmember Nackles who gets to kick us off. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So there's a couple things I just want to say. I don't have any slides or anything. But the City of Boca Raton, we talked a lot about biking in Booka today, I started off my day by going for a bike ride on some of our trails here in Boka, which I really enjoyed. I understand some of the concerns that were mentioned earlier. I'm glad we have two new members on our board. But there is on the City of Boka, Towns Facebook site, there is a bicycle, the 2024 bicycle friendly community public survey, which will be open through mid-October. So I hope everyone, it's in depth. There's a lot of questions. It gets in the weeds, but it will give a lot of good information. So hopefully people who are, who love to bike and want to bike more in Boko will go on and take that survey. This week there's been a lot of chatter on social media about and a lot of misinformation put out there. And we introduced an ordinance tonight, not going to say specifically talk about that ordinance because I understand Mr. Kailer said that we don't really have a way to talk about ordinances when they're introduced but on the can I say something about the cone of silence or no. Mr. Kailer my understanding is we're free to comment we just typically don't have a full hearing. That's correct. That that's what I, okay. It's a, yeah. There's a rule on public comment on introduction. It's a council. The council is absolutely free to discuss as it themes appropriate. So there's just one, there's just one comment that I wanna say and clarify and have on the record that a cone of silence does not block the public in any way from interacting with any of us. Is that correct, Mr. Kailer? That's correct. A cone of silence that's been in effect for the last 13, 14 years is between a party that responds to a competitive solicitation and certain city decision makers. So it does not apply to general members of the public. Thank you. It's the only thing I wanted to say about that. Next thing I wanted to just ask you about, and if I can just direct this to you, mayor, singer, as well. Yesterday I proposed an idea for an ordinance. He said you wanted to think about it a little more. Did we want to talk about that anymore tonight or still need some time to think about it and it specifically was about noncompliance when a development order at IDA was approved with conditions by City Council or the CRA and that we don't have a vehicle for it to come back to City Council. I'll confess I to answer your question I haven't given it as much thought. If we want to go this way, I would suggest we do the hybrid approach which is codenforce and matters are Don't get appealed with the city council unless they're over a certain threshold Or you know, and maybe even the same or different threshold for if there's a fine of a certain amount that goes to us for, I'd say the appeal, not the fine. And again, I think the phrase I missed it yesterday, hard facts make bad law. I would be less inclined to generally hear these code enforcement, lean appeals, because I think there are remedies that are available otherwise. But again, if there's strong feeling that certain things should come before a certain amounts, that might be a bridge between where we are now. Mr. Mayor. If you yield to questions from other members, that. I absolutely would yield to questions. Thank you. I saw Mr. Thompson first, because I was looking in that way. Mr. Wigder, then around the horn. I have some comments on the general discussion that we had yesterday. I regrettably didn't. I had an appointment with the city's next championship team last night. So I wasn't able to be as robust in my comments on this issue. I have some, I'd like to give. But in regards to the new ordinance that you are proposing. I've thought about some. The devil's going to be the details I think on that, so it's going to be subject to how extrafted. But I guess the question I had was, was it intended to address this very fine situation? Or is it intended to be, in the future, a different kind of, but similar fine situation because it does seem I think the point you made yesterday was it's probably not that likely to recur, right? So could you? Sure. It is not intended for this particular situation though I wish we had had it in place prior to this particular situation. Mr. Kailer and I have discussed it. It is not something that comes up very often, but if it does come up, and I think there's precedent being set here with this particular situation and how it gets handled. So if what I'm concerned about, and again, I'll go back to discussions on brick and discussions with the 10% ordinance, we talked so much about not letting something like this happen again, but we just don't have a way for it to come back to us. And I think we need to put that tool in our toolbox. I suppose that's fair. Oh, you have other questions that I can give. Please. Mr. Riggard. Mr. Rucker. Yeah, I have been thinking about this. And in connection with this, I did draft correspondence to the city attorney's office to research the code enforcement process a little bit and the understanding of what things pass to the magic street, how they pass to the magic street. Again, this email went out today, so arguably, you know, I think there's going to be a little research on this issue of what is the current process, right? Because I think there was an understanding or misunderstanding of what is even the process of how something like this could happen and And again and then disparity so again, I've asked the city attorney to several several questions related to the process of this how does it work? I think once that Memorandum is issued by the city attorney's office I am sure we will collectively have a lot more questions or further questions that could help clarify and initiate a proposal that you're talking about, Miss Nockless. So I hope that will be helpful. But I think there's a little research that the city's attorney's office has to do So we kind of get there and work it up a little bit Thank you, miss Rucker I mean I agree I think I think the elephant in the room is like why was this particular petitioner handled differently if they were because again, Mr. Wager, thank you for sending that off and hopefully we'll see you know some of that in the next couple of coming weeks because what I felt was that they were being treated differently because of the reduction in fines and had we not had the prior meeting the issue the other applicants that came here on appeal maybe we wouldn't even be having this conversation because it would have been a complete one off. But since it happened, now it's our duty to make sure that we're treating everyone fair in this process. And again, I stand by what I said yesterday and I hope that the city manager has taken note of this that they should be fine with, they should be. The original fine, I know Ms. not this call for 87, I said 50, but $9100, I think it's really insensitive. I think it's not in good practice for us. And I think we just literally put a business out of a group of people out of business last meeting. And I think everyone should be treated the same way. And this process it wasn't how you got there I don't know I don't agree with the extension and I don't agree with the fine and maybe I should reverse it It should be the eighty-seven thousand dollars that they owe us that should be paid So that's where I stand on this issue, but I'm willing to look at another ordinance and I'm willing to look at it further Once we get something from the city Attorney's Office. Thank you. And I'll go some time Mr. Thompson again. So thank you. I just want to say a couple more things about this particular ordinance and how it wasn't I wasn't trying to aim it at this particular situation because if I was I would have asked Mr. Kailer to come up with an ordinance very quickly and just added it to the agenda, which I did not ask him to do because that is not best practices. And I think it does warrant the, you know, looking into and what are our best way to go about this process. I just feel really strongly like, again, that we do need this tool in our toolbox. And I think something that we didn't hear tonight on some of the comments that were made earlier was the beginning of those meetings when city attorney requested, said that the deadline was requested, I don't know if it was three months after the deadline had passed or the extension was requested like three months after the deadline passed. That was at the beginning of those videos. So there's just a lot that happened with this and it was, it's just inconsistent messaging and I think it needs to be addressed. And if the special magistrate wants it, you know, wants to postpone it or whatever, I think it needs to be addressed. And if the special magistrate wants it, wants to postpone it or whatever, I think it needs to come back to us to make that decision and to have consistent messaging. So I would really like if everyone would be okay with city attorney's office doing more research and coming back to us with something. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, anything bad? Doing more research and coming back to us or something Yes Thank you, Mr. Thompson anything bad Please so I like I said I didn't have a chance to give my comments on this last night and I I recognize that several of you have Indicated that you've made your minds up on what the fine should be and I think it was something said 87,000, so 50,000, right? Mr. Thompson, for correction. I think Mr. Racher. Thank you Mayor. That was a fine that was originally initiated. That number didn't come up from this necklace. And the 50,000 came for me because I felt like, okay, maybe we reduce it because we did that for another party. But here we are playing like who's going to do what, but the original fine was Mr. Brown if you want to comment was 87,500 or 100, I don't remember the exact amount, but that was the number that was originally put. And then how we got to 9,100, I thought that was a little bit off in terms of the amount. So that's what the number was. I think I might have written it. I will take a look for it. I recognize that that was where the number originally came from. I'm on the same page there. And some of you have indicated that the number should stay there, as the point I was trying to make. At 87, at 50, something like that. And I'm not trying to change your minds. I respect that you have formed a view on that. But I guess part of how if this were coming to us in the way that something like this normally would, the kinds of things that I'll just ask questions that I'm expecting you all to answer, you don't have to. But I guess the questions that I have for you would be, did you review the videos of both code enforcement hearings? did you review the videos of both code enforcement hearings, did you review the transcript, did you attend to one of the hearings or both? Did you speak with the violator? Did you give them an opportunity to present their view on what happened or what should happen and why there's some sort of mitigating circumstances, why that would be justified? Mr. Ungen to his credit is a very effective and zealous advocate, but he's, I think he would recognize not necessarily neutral on this issue. He has very strong feelings for his own motivations, and he's not expected nor should he be to give the entire complete picture of what somebody else might say. He provides his own view of it. That's fine. It's the way he's supposed to work. The reason I ask this is I haven't formed an opinion on what the fine should be, because I haven't reviewed all of those things, the kinds of things that we would be provided in the event we were asked to assess what the fine should be. Okay? So, in the absence of that kind of complete information, speaking for myself, I don't think we have enough information to decide what the fine should be. Mr. Drucker, you said yourself, you haven't gotten the benefit of the explanation from city staff on how they arrived at 9,100. There may be a very valid reason for that in the absence of, if you just allow me to, I'll finish up in that we can. So my sense is that it may be premature for us to be opining us to what the fine should be unless you have all of us can check the box on all of those things and said that we've reviewed them and have been fully advised on that kind of thing. Second, I have a concern about what this says to our staff. City Manager's Office, the City Attorney's Office, Department heads potentially, Code En enforcement staff are all involved in the magistrate process. They go and they present the city attorney's office has a system city attorney who presents the case on behalf of the city. Sometimes department heads are present or coded enforcement staff is present. They do this routinely. I've sat not in these code enforcement hearings, this magistrate hearings, but I've sat through some of these proceedings before. And it's a specialized thing. The staff members have been involved in this process, and I guess as it relates to this one issue, with this one, from the beginning. And city code compliance issues are routinely negotiated, routinely, a substantial portion of the fines City code compliance issues are routinely negotiated routinely a substantial portion of the Fines that get assessed are the function or the product of a negotiation The the city code expressly gives the city attorney's office the right to I'll read it to Negotiate a settlement with a violator this happens all the time and so I'm I'm nervous at the precedent that it sets that we're going to be second guessing the negotiations like halfway through or at the 11th hour, which is I guess at the stage now. And so I just I have a reluctance for taking matters into our own hands right now before it's been formally adopted by a magistrate before the fines have been certified. And directing staff basically telling them, I think we basically said, some said, that staff got it wrong and you have to go either negotiate a different number or not negotiate at all. And I'm concerned about the certainty, or the lack of certainty that's something like that does. Because think about it, say you're a violator, and you know that these things are routinely negotiated, which they are. Routinely, we've had our city attorney's office or the city manager, whoever the case may be, negotiate these things with a violator. Now, the message we're sending is that person whom you're negotiating with doesn't necessarily have authority to negotiate with you because it may be subject to second guessing later on. And that does not provide certainty. It provides the absence of it. If it were me and I had a violation pending, I'd like to know that I was talking to somebody who could actually resolve the case with me. And under normal circumstances, I think that would be true. But the way this is presented now, it feels like the rug is being pulled out from underneath staff. In that, I don't feel like that's appropriate. So again, I haven't formed an opinion on what the fine should be in this case. I haven't. Because I haven't done all those other things. I haven't reviewed all of that evidence. I haven't reviewed all of that evidence. I haven't heard the testimony of witnesses. I wasn't there to judge their credibility. I wasn't there for any of that. So I question whether we are in the best position to do that right now. And it seems like a majority of us have already directed the city manager to do the opposite of what they were doing before. And I have some reluctance on that front. Mr. Mayor. Let me turn back to Ms. Nackles, he yielded for a question. And that will remind everyone, please direct your comments to the chair. Ms. Nackles. So there was a couple things. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Couple things that Mr. Thompson said that stuck out, one of them was under normal circumstances. This is not normal circumstances. The second thing is, were we at every magistrate hearing? Did we talk to everybody? In fact, I called Michael Marshall two weeks ago. He called me an hour before the meeting tonight. So there were two weeks. I did reach out, but I don't even think he could have reached out to me prior to this. I personally found out about it first when Mr. Ungen sent an email about it. We were at League of Cities last week, and I did speak to the city manager last week. So I have tried to do some due diligence. A couple of weeks ago, we made a decision to decrease fines and to made a decision that seriously impacted these business people. I wasn't at their magistrate meeting when prior to that. I hadn't talked to the city manager prior to that. I don't, not sure, but I don't think everybody else appeared to that. I don't not sure but I don't think everybody else appeared to either. So I went with the 87,000 because that's what staff had recommended. This is an unusual circumstance. This was dates back to 2015. All I'm asking is that we need the tool in our toolbox to handle something like this going forward. I don't think it's being handled fairly and I think it sends a very inconsistent message for everyone who is going through code enforcement cases when we can levify a fine of $50,000 on a small business, yet someone who has made millions of dollars off of business and has not complied with a development order for nine years gets a fifth or excuse me, a tenth of the fine. And that is an inconsistent message in my mind. So that's all I want to say right now. If you'll permit me, may I try to reframe this because I think, and this is where we got off the rails, and again, I commented, I beg Mr. Marshall's pardon. We've got the substance and the procedure. What we talked about last month was a substance substance appeal by an applicant after a final finding. There is a provision on our code for this. We're talking about today, there is no provision on our code for our review. It's only a question of whether the city manager wants to heed some comments if there's a consensus here. And I get the concerns that, well, that creates some uncertainty. There is no formal process for us to opine tonight, and maybe that is something that we need to do. I think that maybe the bigger thrust, the biggest thrust of what Councilmember Nacklas proposes in the ordinance that she's talked about. But for today, it's only a matter of one, are there majority of council members who come to consensus to opine to city manager hearing that want to do something different for a yet signed order. That is at his discretion. That is, I know the city manager adheres to, and he commented, you know, we set the goal, this is a little unusual because it's a very specialized case that has legal procedures. So I don't know if that analogy to the other property owner, the other business owner is on all fours. I think there's a bigger, for me, the procedural discord is greater than the substantive amount of the fine. And that leaves me uncomfortable. I don't envy the position we might, a majority of council might put Mr. Brown in, not withstanding the fact that, notwithstanding the fact that we might want something different. It's then Mr. Brown's got to determine what he thinks is right, according to conversations that I'm fully privy to. And I will say going forward, I think we can definitely address this procedure if a magistrate even perhaps take away their confirmed suggestion power and tell them you've got to go do this, put in a whole bunch of procedures, but I'm not a loss to there's no perfect solution here and we're not going to a new I think figure out what the divine amount is. So I feel attention I don't know how to resolve it I'm always trying to resolve that I don't know how Mr. Drucker. I have a question because you you know, this is a remember. So where I guess the question is, did we, the city, have any problems with this application of these nine years because we've let this go by, then maybe that we're trying to rectify. So someone came up with the $87,000. That is, that number didn't come out of my hat. That came out with my conversations with Mr. Brown. And the $9,100 came up. So I need to understand where those numbers came from because we're just not assessing and saying we're going to just say, you know, 87,000 on this. So that number came because you're looking at a formula because they have violated the extensions or whatever they have violated for the last nine years. That's how that number came up with. So if that is the way they came up with that number, then that's the enforceable number. Not this $9,100 that how do we come up with that number is what I need to understand. And no one's been able to explain that to me. And maybe that's where the confusion lies. And I do agree with Mr. Thompson that this is a little bit different because we don't have a whole hearing. And I do agree with Ms. Nacles, we don't go back and listen to every single magistrate or every single thing that we vote on and we discuss. So it is a little bit different and I do appreciate that point. However, no one has been able to tell us up here, at least me, where do these two numbers come from? And why are they so disparate and that is the answer that we need to come up with. And if you can answer that Mr. Brown today, then we will continue our commission's report and we will go on our way. But there is an issue and I don't have the answer that's satisfying me. Mr. Brown would you like to respond please? I'm going to ask Mr. Shad to come up who was president of the hearings and understands the details to explain the 87,000 which which I believe is 87 days of the $1,000 a day, and the 91,000, which is 91 days of $100 a day. Mr. Ongin, I understand your passion and your view. Will you please, you've spoken, please. Good evening again, Brandon Chatt, I'll develop the services director. So I'm gonna give you a little bit of context. First is that the magistrate first enters an order of enforcement, finds that a violation occurred. And that happened on March 22, 2023. At that point, there were two options for complying. One was to construct the retail that had been approved previously, and the other was to obtain a code amendment and site plan amendment, et cetera, to construct something different. And there were two sets of interim milestone deadlines that were associated with each one of those. So on in December of 2023, the violator requested an extension in writing. That hearing, so there were two things that were heard at the March 13, 2024 hearing. One was a certification of fines, and the other was an extension. So at that point, I just want to be very clear about this, so everybody understands, we recommended that the magistrate certify an $87,000 fine at that point. That is because that was $1,000 a day from when noncompliance began, noncompliance with the order of enforcement to that date of the meeting. We also recommended that the magistrate deny the requested extension and that fines continue to accrue daily until compliance was achieved. But here's the important point. The magistrate declined to do that. So we can't force the magistrate to do what we want them to do. He declined to do it. He told us to go negotiate. So we tried to come up with a settlement. We came back to a hearing on July 11th of this year to report to the magistrate that we had failed to reach agreement. And we, you know, I personally ran through what each side had proposed. And we went through some other arguments about substantive issues. At that point, the magistrate directed, I think you might be close to reaching an agreement, go for 30 more days and see what you can come up with. So what we did, first I think it's important to understand this is an extremely unusual case. And I've never in my career ever seen,. Nevertheless, it is what's needed to comply with the code and with the development order. So we went forward with it. I think to compare it to cutting the grass is really apples and oranges. I mean, those are two different violations and they're two extremely different what needs to be done to comply. It's much more complex to comply with this. So, I also wanted to point out, there was some comparisons I was listening yesterday to the lead reduction that was given whatever it was, two weeks ago, a month ago, whatever it was. There was also a very different case. While I, you know, on the planner, I think this is extremely important stuff. However, that was a life safety case. While I, you know, on the planner, I think this is extremely important stuff. However, that was a life safety case. That was a case where somebody had done electrical work, not only without a permit, not just without a permit, but affirmatively incorrectly, unsafely. It was extremely important to get compliance. It's a little bit, that's different than this case. So what the magistrate told us on July 11th was that he encouraged us to negotiate and he said, neither party will be happy with the order that I issue if you don't reach agreement. So we were concerned what the magistrate might do because there were some of the language that had been proposed by the violator with respect to extensions. How extensions would be granted? One of which was that essentially conflated the ideas of a development order expiration with the deadline to comply with the code. We made the argument to the magistrate. Was he accepting the argument that he understood what we were saying? I don't know. If he would have gone with the language they proposed, while we might have felt better about a shorter compliance time frame in nominally, it possibly would have been meaningless if that language had ended up in the order. Additionally, we were concerned that the magistrate might remove the owner of the residential parcel from the case, which would have been a terrible precedent because they're under one site plan approval, one development approval, they're jointly responsible for compliance with the site plan. We were very concerned about that precedent. We also felt that the violator was purposely delaying the process in a way that was essentially they're recruiting the benefit of more and more and more time just by delay. So for those reasons, we felt like having a certain deadline, even if it was longer out than we would have preferred and what we recommended, was brought finality, we knew that barring some legitimate reason for an extension, it would have to be done by then or finds would accrue automatically with no further action needed. So it wasn't the ideal deal, but there were a lot of reasons that we felt like we had a reason to enter into the agreement. And so I thought it was important that the council understand that. Brandon, could you explain the $9,100 calculation as well? Believe it. Sure. So we thought it was important that, you know, that they were in violation for a period of time, certainly. Regardless of whether the magistrate grants it an extension or not, we thought that it was important that there be some fine involved in that. That was calculated at $100 a day between the initial period that non-compliance started and when they submitted their request for an extension. So, at that point, you know, even though it took a little bit longer to get to the extension hearing, they weren't being punished for waiting for that hearing after they had requested the extension. So it was reduced about $100 a day for those 91 days. I'll just say thank you before I turn it over to questions that that certainly helps my understanding and I appreciate the The different factors that we were in privy to perhaps this goes back to more about what's before us I Think we have a different question about Some questions about poor members maybe we need some more clarity for our magistrates too, but be that as it may. Council members, questions or Mr. Wigder? Yeah. I agree with what Mr. Thompson said about the fact that we are not privy to an evidentiary hearing. But I also, likely so, we have, we've reviewed only material that's been given to us bits and pieces. Here say, we have the record, we have the time to go do that. I agree that this is not an appellate jurisdiction matter like a traditional code enforcement issue, so there is something different. But certainly I agree with my other colleagues that there is the appearance that there is such disparate treatment that it warrants looking into it. As the mayor said, maybe not this one specific issue, but generally the issue that of how things get to the code magistrate, how things are negotiated, what parameters there are, what are the policies. These are the reasons why I've asked the city attorney for such information about what this is. Certainly it also behooves us to understand what kind of jurisdiction the magistrate has to change our code, to unilaterally grant extensions. Let them give them 100 years. Let them give them X number of years. You know, how does the magistrate then become the arbiter of what our code says? Our code's pretty clear. I'm not worried about 91 days. I'm worried about seven years. So, you know, that's the question here is there has been a violation. It's $1,000 a day and if it's only 90 days of true violation because everything else is marked up in litigation, it's still $87,000. So we're not talking about rocket science math here. We're talking about seven years at $1,000 would be a lot of money and that still seems reasonable. 87,000 still seems reasonable. Again, I'm happy to look into the situation. The fact that we have no ability to look into the situation or that we're just appointing the staff to make these negotiations without parameters, I think there is where I disagree with Mr. Thompson. I think that's the lack of certainty, right? The lack of certainty that the public sees when they approach us's the lack of certainty, right? The lack of certainty that the public sees when they approach us and the lack of certainty that the staff would have to know what the parameters are of what they can do. And likewise, whatever codes we have, of what the magistrates allow it to do. Now, certainly when all those evidentiary hearings happen, right, and the impelitor's sticks my understanding from the city attorney is that it's not to us on these types of matters, it's to the circuit court. And then obviously, if we so choose, we could appeal, we could appeal a decision. Just like any other party would do in any other litigation. But the idea is, it's the appearance because of this small business. Like I said, like we said, that is that there needs to be a serious look at the way our process for code compliance works because we want the appearance, we want people to know that it's fair when they're coming in the door. We want staff to know it's fair when they're doing negotiations and when you see something like this on its face, patently it looks unfair and that needs to be evaluated. Like the mayor said, it might not be on this specific occasion. It's the global conference that this, it's not that this shows a flaw and this shows a flaw in our process that needs to be evaluated. So like I said, maybe not specifically again in this case, but on the cases. And certainly, I would consider that the recommendation to I would stand by our recommendation that we had consensus on yesterday is that, you know, is that, you know, that much based on the knowledge I have, I would stand by that that I am still not in favor of supporting it in this diminished capacity at that amount given on the egregious and extended period of time. Last point, there is a failure in our LDRs on this requirement to build process. It is an issue that we struggled with during the brick process. It is an issue that they struggled with when they built this apartment building. The inception of this thing with the letter because they had to get a C of O and their bank had to get a C of O for the building to separate that. That is a flaw in our global process that it is difficult for any bank, right? They did not give a loan on the entire two-phase project that gave a loan on the apartments. So that is something else. Separate it apart from our magistrate and our code compliance process. It is something in our LDR process, Mr. Shed, that I think we are going to have to look into is when we have this phase sequences and we struggled and I saw you and us struggle during this brick process of how do we require this and they have to pull the minimum permit and they have to put footings in or something, you know, there was a whole procedure that you were struggling because of this specific issue. So again, it's something that's still on the LDR side needs to be looked at, separate apart from this, and again, this specific issue just raises the fact that it needs to be looked at too. Thank you. Hopefully we can land the plane soon, Ms. Drucker. Thank you, Mr. Shad, for that explanation. That explains a lot to me. City manager knows where I stand on this. I think everyone knows between yesterday and today's commentary. I think we should assign the full fine for transparency, for certainty, and for not to be disparate. And I know this is not, Mr. Thompson, I agree with you 100%. This is not the way it came to us, but it's here. And for the people listening to us and the viewership and the people that are going through this process, what they're going to say is that we treated the small business different than we do the developers. That is what is going to come out of this. And I understand there's a lot of history with this case is a one-off, but I think that the fine should be assessed. And then we should look at the ordinance that we wanna look at and how we do with the magistrate that's, those are all different items, but that's where I would land the plane. That is what I, my feeling on this and whatever way we go, we'll just agree to disagree. Thank you. Mr. Brown, you had a, it was a point,. Wigger made, I forgot to call on you. Yeah, I'm in your commentary, Mr. Wigger, you indicated that maybe you felt that in your own occasion the magistrate rewrites the code or changes the code. The magistrate has not amended the code, they don't have the authority to do that, only the council has the authority to actually amend the code. They are interpreting the code and applying it to individual cases and there may be disagreement with whether or not that is appropriate in terms of compliance. You know, something is required to be done in 30 days, but they say you can have an extra 15 because of your circumstances. That's part of the process. Yes, this is an extra 500 days. So I wasn't referring to this particular case sir. I was referring to a normal 30 day requirement in the code. Right. I think that's something that we ought to review. All land the plane here. I feel much more. The phrase I was looking for, hard cases make bad law. Sometimes I say hard facts make bad law, bad facts make bad law. Certainly, this is a hard case, but a lot of bad facts, unlike anything I've seen in 10 years, again, that letter from a former development service director complicates things. And I appreciate what Mr. Shad has now recited about his having been in the room, the man in the arena. The room where it happened, how many of the analogies can I use, about the different risks and rewards he weighed. And I get why staff was there. I don't feel comfortable second guessing staff in a major substantive way. It's not, we, we, this is what our process was. This is what Mr. Shad had to make that call. I think we might learn from this, but as I said, you know, at our goal setting, I want staff to feel empowered sometimes to make mistakes. It's okay. We were going to try a lot of things, and some of them will, will make mistakes and learn from them, but it's better than not trying. That means more for new initiatives, but it also means I don't want a second guess here, and partly because I don't have a procedural framework to do it, satisfied with the thought and effort that have been put in. It is for some people an unfortunate result, and I think the fact that we're still here in 2024 is unfortunate. That goes back to things that were done nine years ago or not done by people who are not here anymore. So with that I would just conclude the conversation for now on this specific matter which was not agenda and then come back to it later for a substantive review on the ordinance that Ms. Naclas has talked about, one staff reviews further, thinking about what discretion these magistrates have and perhaps reigning that in, and tie that into also our historic preservation board and perhaps more training for specialized boards so that we don't get appeals like we did today, which I think was unfortunate. And Ms. Drucker, I appreciate your political read. I think it may be apt. I will ask people to not just look at the results because there are a lot of different facts as Mr. Shad pointed out about life safety and a building on being unbuilt and other complicating factors. Sometimes it's, you know, politics can distill complicated situations into the simplest of things. The political ads that we're probably all being texted with on a daily basis are not the discourse of Plato or Aristotle or Socrates or Cato. And so it makes us have to explain more so be it. We're still under your report unless anyone else wants to opine on this, Mr. Mayor, I would, but not before you concluded your report. My report is concluded. Thank you, Mr. Shad, for the explanation. I would just add very briefly that I believe that was very important and well articulated background that Mr. Shad provided to us as a first that I had heard some of those facts, right? And I think the fact that that is new to us is itself significant. Okay. That matters. And he made the point of saying that the magistrate twice, maybe even thrice, said that he wanted the parties to go and negotiate. He wanted to have the parties come together and have a discussion about what the resolution should be. By the way, that is a completely normal process. It's used by our magistrates. You'd buy judges all the time. Take parties aside, go talk this over, figure something out. And when you're directed to negotiate on something like that, negotiating compromises tricky a lot of times because you're choosing among bad options or not ideal options. I think you do describe those. And here's where I think I part ways with some of my colleagues here, respectfully, and that is I have a hard time substituting my judgment here with imperfect and incomplete information in place of those who are in the trenches, in the arena, and who are living through this for however length of time this has been going on, and who we have expressly delegated the authority to to negotiate this kind of thing. I don't believe that that is something that we should be doing. And like the mayor, I want to express my support for the staff in doing what they do to try to bring resolution to a case like this, a tricky one. And I think that's where I land the plane. Thank you. Please, that concludes your report. That's concluding my report. Thank you, Mr. Roy. Do you report? I report it okay. First, I have some comments. I support staff 100% in all the hard work that they do all the time. But my responsibility, not to say that anyone thinks differently, but when I'm saying something here, I'm thinking about the people and what they're thinking and that we're supposed to represent what they're thinking by what we're saying up here. Also not just what I'm thinking, what are they thinking and the appearance to them? And that's been made clear to me. And that's why I stand by my other colleagues' decisions that were allowed to respectfully disagree. Like I said, we're here conversing. We're allowed to respectfully disagree with the way sometimes staff handles something. And certainly the ideas, the whole governmental process is iterative. We're always making changes, right? 70 text amendments, all these other things, right? We're always making changes because we believe that while we make changes, we can make things better. And so sometimes we disagree and sometimes things don't go right. I get it. But when matters brought to our attention, that's a matter of public concern. I think it's our responsibility to say something and to say how we feel and say how we think people feel. And I think that's what we're doing here. And that's not to say anything from the staff that we know works so hard. I mean, these people are sending us emails on Sunday, George doesn't sleep. I mean, it gets stuck in the middle of the night from him. I said, I get that, but we're still allowed to disagree on these matters and say what we feel. And I think we did that. Like I said, I agree in terms of the evidentiary things too, and the procedural things that we're going to look at. But I feel strongly about that, that this is not a second guessing staff. This is our opinions on what we feel, and what we think the public is feeling here. And certainly that's the reason why there's five of us here. It's not just one just saying, that's the stamp. It's five of us. It's not supposed to be five zero all the time. It's supposed to be different people coming from different places, different constituents talking to us. And yes, sometimes it's messy. The Saucid word a lot. But that process does work. And I believe in that. and I believe in our staff that even though we might not agree on every decision, that's not possible. So thank you. On my report briefly, and I know it's late, and very briefly, I call this the Guard Rail Initiative briefly. We've talked about this a lot quickly. Stakeholders continue and discuss these safety issues. We've talked about it today. Buffered bike lanes protected sidewalks. Vision zero, important initiative, championed by Deputy Mayor Drucker. A lot of the things on here on the bike map, talk about that, safe streets for all, safe routes to school. Downtown yesterday we approved this project and it was based on things that are going on in certain recent events in our city. What occurred to me is I was pleased with the approval of this, but I was also pleased, it was like I surprised myself that I was so pleased to see, you know, a buffered sidewalk and, you know, trees, you know, street trees. So there was a buffered sidewalk and I know a couple people mentioned it, but I was so pleased to see that there will be an addition here in terms of a buffered sidewalk that increases safety as part of that and as part of what this development services does. And municipal services are doing to increase that safety. Recent site visits, you know, when I just go do my walk-arounds and whatnot and discussions, touch upon a lack of consistency in city and county sidewalk planning. We've seen this in a couple times. This is the Ulta, Malta, whatever it's called now, on Yamada, the big apartment building that changed hands. But you'll notice here there's two sidewalks. There is a sidewalk on Yamada Road. There is a buffered landscape with trees. And then there is a sidewalk internal to that. And likewise, when you cross the street on some of the commercial developments, there is another buffered sidewalk and then there is the county sidewalk. Okay, I call it the Yamato Promenade, but it wasn't intentionally done that way. The city and county as we know manage different roads within the boundaries, as a result some developments now have two sidewalks, the city and the county. This inconsistent policy duplicates material and agency resources and efforts. Likewise, our guardrails on the right side. Of course, this is Spanish River Bridge. You can see here, the sidewalk's been extended. There's a lane, and we talk about it, just painting a line as not a bike lane. But when you cross the bridge, you can see there's a guardrail for the road. Then there's the bike lane, and then there's, or there's sidewalk, the enlarged sidewalk, and then there's a guardrail, of course, so you don't fall off the bridge. On Jagrode here, you'll see next to Omni Middle School, there is the road, there is a sidewalk, and then there is a guardrail, and then there's 20 feet of grass, and then there's the lake, right? So apparently the guardrail are for someone walking on the sidewalk. I don't know how someone could walk into the lake. So the idea here is that the guardrail is placed in such a way that when the car jumps the curb, it then hits the guard rail. However, if there is a pedestrian god forbid on that road, the pedestrian is not protected. Unfortunately, you might have heard, you know, outside the county several months ago, a pedestrian was killed in such an instance, simply jogging on the road, and the car just jumped the curb, and there was no protection at all, and fortunately, my family knew this family. And again, it is something that sticks out to me because we have been talking about this specific issue about safety for so long since I've been here. It's been a primary concern. My colleagues' initiatives, misknockless with her bike rides and God bless her today being her birthday and going through these conversations, but she told us this morning you know, with her bike rides. And God bless her today being her birthday and going through these conversations. But, you know, she told us this morning that she was riding her bike. And like I said, I'm concerned for her safety too. And likewise, Mr. Thompson running all over the city, you know, sometimes with your children and sometimes alone in your initiatives, you know, I'm concerned for your safety too and your children's safety too and your children safety too and everyone and so this inconsistency here I do believe it's a safe An issue that needs to be considered Because I thought so importantly about this matter. I called Commissioner Woodward and she very graciously gave me and some staff some time and Her county and engineers are to look at this issue. They're going to contact the city staff. And I've started the conversation with Mr. Brown and Mr. Shed about talking about this issue further. Of course, we're working on our city initiatives and programs. We're looking at additional ways to increase safety in the interim. And the staff's done really a good job so far. I appreciate it. As a policy matter, of course, let's continue to ask our professional staff and the consultants that we know we have is addition zero, safe streets for all, etc., etc. on the recommendations, but also to do pilot programs in critical areas of initial concern, even if we're not ready, because now we know that some of these funding things, consultants and what not take a long time. Likewise, these items should be consistent with our updated LDRs that Mr. Shed has been talking about with new developments and with traffic and unique services on road and trail construction. Temporary items, we talked about this paint, ballads, temp curbs, technology can help us analyze this like Mr. Ecker said yesterday. We were at the Florida League of Cities conference last week and there was a vendor exhibit hall with all this new technology. And so now you can do without hardwiring. And so we could temporarily get speed signs here that gives the data of every car, even though we're not giving red light tickets or anything like that on this or speed trap data on this stuff. But at least we can get the data on these conflict points, cheaply, literally with a solar panel and battery charge. And then if we think it's important, we can then worry about hardwiring it with AC power and whatnot. But we could do things temporarily. That means we could do it inexpensively. And maybe we can go for funding and grants on the well, but I think it's super critical. We invest in this as part of our budget process, so I had to bring it up tonight. Obviously, there's baller and barrio examples all over the country, all over the world. We're doing this stuff that's not so expensive. You know, here it is. There it is. Councilman Naclas, happy birthday to you. Thank you, everyone, for listening to all my presentations and stuff like that. I wish you a happy birthday to you. Thank you everyone for listening to all my presentations and stuff like that. I wish you a happy birthday. I'm always concerned for everyone's safety and I know we're doing great things here. We're gonna continue to do so. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Give me your red darker. Real quick, maybe this person can help you. Do this, Mr. Winkder. I just wanted to close a loop on some of the new hires that we've had and I'm glad that Mr. Beers here. First, we hired a city council assistant upstairs in the third floor, Angel Buchanan, who has been a lifesaver for me. Angel, if you're listening, thank you for keeping me straight. I know things are starting to pick up, but I appreciate everything that you're doing in the third floor. And of course, the moment that I've been waiting for for a really, really long time, the director of transportation, mobility and connectivity, Nathan George, welcome to the City of Boca Raton. And hopefully you can help with some of the efforts of Mr. Winkter just announced. And I'm really excited to welcome, Nathan, Mr. George, lots of experience with Vision Zero, Save Streets for All, and Complete Streets. And I can't wait to see the stuff that he's going to do in town and Happy Birthday to my partner on the other side. And that's all I have. Have a good night, Y'all. Thank you. Well, Bushing Happy Birthday. It's Happy-related Birthday to Council Member Thompson. His birthday was last week as well. I'm out of a sub. Thank you very. We spent probably half our meeting today dealing with confusion or misinformation, standing from a couple sources or yesterday too. A lot of confusion concerning emails that we received concerning the downtown and the lack of transparency, which are really wrong and we talked about and we'll have plenty more conversations. Apparently, there's confusion out there by some people about the code of silence, which is to the contrary, does not apply to residents that have lost to only certain people. And I would have thought some people know that. We dealt with an hour and a half basically about people that we appoint, our magistrates and our board members and staff is at a work extra hard not only going before them to explain things that we probably need to get the better informed on but now this conversation here. I appreciate everyone's perspectives. I think we came at this from different angles and I think we had a more robust discussion for it, longer than we wanted, probably, but so be it. But I think that's useful. And I think it's important, though, that we all know that ultimately we set the policy staff job as an implement it. And I just want to compare and contrast because I think it's useful. I'm looking at comments that, let me give comments over a book. I recently read, you report to me. It was talking about, it was by a former interior secretary, David Bernhardt, and his dealing with the bureaucracy in Washington. And I'll paraphrase. He said, the buck doesn't stop with elected representatives and political appointees. Career agency staff must return to the first principles of public service and support the vision of the people's chosen, in this case, electeds. Efforts to resist or derail the policy preferences of the electeds in favor of personal or institutional biases also undermine representative government. Fortunately, we don't have that in our manager here because I'll quote from him in an interview, gave a couple months ago, the basic function of a city manager is the day-to-day administration of the city and the carrying out of the policy direction of the mayor and city council. They set the goal. The manager sets the course with their input and the staff of the manager's guidance carries out the journey, whatever that goal may be. And I wanted to emphasize this because I think it's important everyone understand that it's our job to be the voice of the community that we have been trusted by the people to be their voice. And that you may hear different groups opining the community wants this. No one has a better claim to that than the five people that the community has elected. And when we set the vision and the policy, it's go time. And we have some different policies being put in place. We've got some different visions being put in place, different direction, whether it's big in terms of the big picture of the TOC or a pedestrian oriented downtown on the west side of the tracks. Because I, you know, this is going to be, I meet my vision. I think we're going to talk about pedestrianism there. And how we go about that. And it's important that when we set the direction, we go. And I know the manager knows this. And I've still talked about the 100 days. We may have our own 100 days coming soon. And it's important that all the way down, that once we set the vision, we can execute. And I trust Mr. Brown and your team to go execute in that way. And so I appreciate you're outlining that vision because it's a nice contrast from what you see of some of the dysfunction in other governments, or other levels of government, or even places closer to home and not so in the distant past, where things would end up with delay or not the right answer. So I want to say how much we appreciate that. And I think you'd actually ties into this conversation because we learn more facts. We weigh make mistakes. We will try new things, whether it's bold visions or smaller things, but we can pivot and course correct. We should not be afraid to try. Mr. Brown, just a comment on what you were saying, Mayor. I can testify from history back in the long ago. I'm speaking very long ago, in the mid 1980s, there were certain department divisions that were not aligned with the goals of the city and that caused a great deal of friction. There were just, you know, we're gonna do the things the way we used to do them and you know, we're not gonna worry about this new, you know, we're gonna try and move forward. That is not the position we're in and is in administration. I have a really great team of many employees that all the way down to those who do the service every day that our residents see, those whom we value more than any other group that we have. I have to say it that way. If you think about the work that they do every day and what's involved and what they give to the community through their efforts and when you hear someone like one of our groundskeepers who said to me on more than one occasion, my job is to make the city beautiful. It's not to cut the grass or line the fields. It's part of making the city beautiful. We have that and we are here to carry out the vision of the council to give you ideas on how to achieve those visions where we have them and then to react to your policy direction and carry it out. And we appreciate that, thank you. And yes, and let this be another lesson out there to people in the public what you may have encountered decades ago or whatever period of time whether it's more recent or not is not the case. We're setting a vision, we're charting a course, you're going to carry the ball execute and get us across the goal line and we've got some balls coming. So let's, we've got some footballs coming as it's kickoff season. So let's, let's receive the kickoff, run it all the way back for a touchdown, and do so quickly. So thank you for that. And with that, if there's no further business to come before the City Council at 904, because it's late and it's dinner time past, we're adjourned. Thank you.