Feel fire. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] >> beautiful. Beauty. down.
Are you don't Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone [music] as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in
5 4 3 2 1. >> Good morning. Good morning everyone. Thanks for being here. Good morning to my colleagues as well. We'll get started. Busy day and I'll turn it over to our city clerk to give us any uh relevant information. >> Thank you, mayor. Good morning. The city
commission is physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall located at 1700 Convention Center Drive, third floor. Members of the public are invited to attend either in person or virtually. If you're joining us virtually, you can log in using the Zoom app or visit the Zoom us on your
browser. You can also phone in at 305224-1968. Again, 305224-1968. The toll-free number is 8884754499. The webinar ID is 813-928-57671 pound. Again, webinar ID is 813-928-57671
pound. If you would like to speak virtually on an item during the meeting, please click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or press star9 on your phone. The Zoom link, webinar ID, and phone number stay the same for every commission meeting. All lobbyists must register with the office of the city clerk located on the first floor of city
hall. You do not need to register if you are an expert witness giving only technical or specialized testimony, a representative of a neighborhood association or nonprofit speaking without pay, or a private citizen speaking on your own behalf without compensation. However, if you're an expert witness or a nonprofit or
neighborhood rep, you do need to submit a written disclosure to the office of the city clerk before speaking with the commissioner with the commissioner, commission, or city staff. Forms are available at the office of the city clerk. If a lobbyist gives or agrees to give $1,000 or more to a neighborhood association or its representative
regarding a city matter that must be disclosed in writing to the clerk. Note that contingencies fees are not permitted to compensate lobbyists. If you plan to speak during the during the comment periods today, we ask you to please sign in. You can sign in in the in the signin sheets on the podium or
the QR codes that are also located on the podium. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Ralph. Before we get started with our invocation, I just wanted to give a a shout out and a thank you and a recognition of the incredible 39 days we had of World Cup. This Yeah, [applause]
our our city really did shine in in a big way worldwide. Being a personally just being an American baseball, basketball, football, hockey fan, seeing the world sport on our stage was something uh I personally have never witnessed. It was incredible.
I try to get to as almost as many as watch parties as as I as I could and it really took a collective effort. There was a lot of people here on our that my colleagues were so instrumental in bringing the tartan army from Scotland, the Norwegian rowing club and certainly
I spent a lot of time in North Beach with our Argentinian fans which is incredible because not only do we have North Beach which is little Buenoseris here, we had fans from Argentina, from other countries uh from our country. I
had fans tell me they came from New York or other places to specifically come to Miami Beach to watch the games here because they knew that this the excitement, the energy, the passion was right here in Miami Beach. And uh I I I have no doubt we're going to have a lot
of repeat visitors after this success we put on. So, thank you to all of my colleagues, Eric, our police department, fire, sanitation. I mean, this was a major cleanup effort uh across the board and it was done brilliantly. So kudos to our city and and uh for for really
making us look like the worldass city we are. So congrats. I would like to ask um Dr. Walter T. Richardson Chap from Miami Dade Sheriff's Office. So, uh, during spring to come up during spring break,
um, we have a lot of officers and there's a roll call that I know me, I and my colleagues, uh, sometimes join and there's hundreds of police officers there from, uh, from our Miami Beach Police Department, the sheriff's office,
state police, other cities. It's really uh, something to behold. so many different departments coming together with one goal and to to keep everyone safe, which we've done uh brilliantly the last three years. But Dr. Richardson gave the invocation there one morning and uh I and my team walked over to him
afterwards. I'm like, you have to come to our commission meeting. You spoke brilliantly and eloquently and and I'm so proud um to have you here. >> Thank you, Mr. mayor and to you and to
other members of this uh of the day. Uh God bless each of you and I so much appreciate this opportunity. Uh before I pray, I would like to mention that um I'm warmed by this uh by this setting as
a little boy coming up in Liberty City [snorts] uh coming across the bridge to come to Miami Beach as a little boy with my parents and my little brother. Uh, we enjoyed riding through Miami Beach. Um, when I was old enough to understand
a few more things about life, we stopped on Collins Avenue and um, I wanted to get out of the car uh, to see the sights and to feel uh, the ground beneath me.
And my daddy quickly um advised me that that was not a good idea because at that point colored people as we were called then were not allowed to walk the streets of Miami Beach. [snorts] Um I remember that
I remember that uh with sadness uh because I didn't understand why uh as a colored person I was not able to walk the streets of Miami Beach. Let me give you another perspective. In
1960 when the Lincoln Road Mall opened, I was 12 years old and for the first time in my in my life, I felt free because that mall was open to the public and I was able to ride the trains that
they had at that time for the children and their escorts to go up and down Lincoln Road Mall. one of the first malls built uh without street without street traffic. And so I'm glad to be here. This is uh warming for me and
thank you again for the invitation. There are three Abrahamic traditions uh that speak about uh those who are called to be leaders in God's house, making sure that they instruct the people of their communities
to pray for civic and government leaders. Judaism through Jeremiah says that we must pray for our leaders because they by their doing well and honoring God, bring peace to the city.
The Christian Scriptures offers a rabbi by the name of Paul who says virtually the same thing. He says, "Pray for rulers and magistrates that there may be peace in the community." And even Muhammad in his writings in the
Quran urge us to make sure that we lift up in prayer those who lead us in our communities. It's a very sobering reminder of what happens when people do not pray for their leaders.
It's also a very telling comment about what happens when we do pray. God promises to bring peace to the city. to the community if we lift up our leaders in prayer. So with that in mind, I'd like to pray
for everyone here today. Let's pray. Eternal and everpresent one, source of all order and origin, of all justice. We gather this morning in gratitude, grateful for another sunrise over this
city by the sea. Grateful for the sacred labor of governance and grateful for the leaders assembled here to steward it. God, we give you thanks to Mayor Steven Miner, whose commitment to law and order
is not cold enforcement of statutes, but the warm safeguarding of a community's peace. Grant him, oh God, the wisdom to know when firmness serves the people and when flexibility serves the people, the courage to lead
decisively and the compassion to remember that behind every ordinance stands a human being. We give you thanks and pray for city manager Eric Carpenter, whose care for the city's workforce
reflects a truth this house of government too easily forgets that an institution is only as strong as those who show up each day to serve. May he continue to lead not merely with competence but with kindness,
honoring the dignity of every employee whose labor often unseen keeps this city running. Oh God, we give you thanks for Chief Wayne Jones, entrusted with the delicate balance of
protecting our streets while preserving the very spirit that makes Miami Beach the coolest city. keep it vibrant, welcoming, alive. May he walk that line with integrity, ensuring safety never comes at the
expense of soul. And that security and celebration remain partners rather than opposites. We give you thanks for these members of the board of city commissioners called to the demanding work of deliberation and decision.
Grant them patient minds in disagreement, generous hearts in debate, and a shared devotion to the common good that outlasts any single vote or term. bind all of these leaders together, we
pray not in uniformity of opinion, but in unity of purpose that Miami Beach might flourish as a city of safety and soul, order and opportunity, discipline and delight. For those who serve and those who are
served, for residents and visitors, for the vulnerable among us who look to this body for protection and provision, we ask your continued favor upon this city and this commission. May this session be conducted with integrity, its decisions marked by
justice, and its outcomes measured in the well-being of the people of this great city called Miami Beach. We ask this in the name of the God who is known by many names, worshiped in many languages and trusted
by all who call on the divine in sincerity and in truth. Let us all together say amen. >> Dr. Richardson, no surprise, you did not disappoint. Thank you. I wanted to take a moment um to
recognize the while we are taking obviously serious work of our business of our city today while we celebrated the World Cup there's still a nation that is dealing with tremendous tragedy of the earthquakes Venezuela
uh thousands have died rescue operations underway many many many children have been lost and uh we try to do our part here in Miami Beach. We had we sent four
firefighters to volunteer. Two are present with us, Chief David Sola and Lieutenant Pete Darley. Thank you for being here. Also [applause] want to acknowledge firefighter Michael Savadro and Lieutenant Ivan Chavez who
also took took it upon them putting their life in danger going into a a very dangerous situation dealing with the after effects of an earthquake. wanted to invite up two children to really recognize the
children of Venezuela who have either been lost, lost parents, are now orphans, and we have to acknowledge their pain. And I'd like to ask James and Astred to come up and hold the
Venezuelan flag. Thank you, Joseé Frius, for doing your work and being Venezuelan yourself to uh to really keep keep this at the forefront. We also had donations at our fire stations to send food over. And um I'd
like to ask us to do a 30 second moment of silence while James and Astred uh hold the flag. Thank you. We continue to pray for the people and the nation of Venezuela. And I think one
thing the World Cup definitely showed us is that we're a united world. We have to keep uniting and not let the differences divide us. I'd like to ask um Chief David Solar and Lieutenant Pete Darly, James and Ashford, you're welcome to
join as well, Jose, uh in leading us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for
all [clears throat] be jealous. >> Thank you and God bless. So today before we start with and thank you for being patient to our speakers who are going to speak but I I asked um Michael
Rossi from the Miami Beach Classical Music Festival youth program to bring a couple of his students. We're celebrating America 250 this year and I think it's uh it's been a great celebration on July 4th. You put on a wonderful show uh Michael and and your
my classical music festival team. Uh, I highly recommend and you do you do a show for the holidays at the end of the year celebrating. Um, I I I highly recommend anybody who hasn't seen the show to come and see it. It is first
class. It's free and uh it just shows what we do here in Miami Beach. But you are training and and inspiring young local artists. Um, you provide music education, mentorship, performance opportunities. You had this summer over 40 local youth participate in a full-time youth camp located at Temple
Emanuel not too far uh for seven full weeks. And today we are very fortunate to have sole Nation Sole Nation 12 years old and Maria Perozo 16 years old to celebrate today with us and America 250
by singing God Bless America. No. [music] Just [music] >> [music] >> God bless [singing] America. Land [singing] that I love.
Stand beside her and guide her through the night with the light [singing] from above. [music] From the mountain, >> from the mountain >> to the prairies,
>> through the prairies >> to the ocean, >> through the waves with Godless, my home [singing] sweet home. >> [music] >> God [singing]
bless America. One that I love. [singing] Stand beside her and guide her through the night [singing] with a light from above.
[screaming] From the [singing] moon, from the to the ocean, the waves when we fall m [singing] [screaming] [screaming] Oh,
[music and applause] [applause] [applause] sole Maria that was absolutely incredible. >> You have You have no idea what you just gave to all of us. So, thank you. And I see some proud moms in the room, which is always great to see.
>> Thank you, Michael. >> Okay, I think we've had a very inspiring uh morning so far and I'd like to uh start our uh Sutnik hour. >> Good morning. [gasps] Good morning, mayor and city commissioner. I'm city
commissioner. My name is Annabelle Rea. I am um the new IG leaison for U. Mayor Daniela Lavine Kava's office. So I am taking over um David Lee Vidal's position. So I just wanted to introduce myself personally to you guys and just
you know wanted to mayor wanted me to come here and you know just keep on growing the relationship and strengthening it because it's been a wonderful one for the past few years. So please I'm here to help you or if you need anything with the mayor or the county I'm your girl. Okay. And Blake
has my contact information. So, anything you guys need, I'm here for you. >> Thank you. >> Tell Mayor Cavo we say hello. I will. She's She's a friend. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Welcome. Next, please. >> State your name, address. I have two minutes.
>> Um, good morning. Jose AI, 788 Southeast Park Drive. Uh, I'm a resident of Halia, but I come here to talk as a resident of Miami Day County. Miami Day County has invested billions and the county invested billions for the services you provide the rest of Miami Day County like me. I'm here almost every weekday
morning either working out in your muscle beach or walking my dog in your beautiful parks. My concern I follow the the prayer what the pastor was saying. I used to pray for Miami Beach but now I'm praying for Miami. I used to pray for Halia but now I'm praying for Miami Beach because the danger that my family
v did in Cuba. You you guys are facing that danger and what Miami City of New York faced, you guys are facing that danger. So did Venezuela when Chavis came as a socialist Democrat, Fidel came as a socialist med uh Democrat. There was many videos on that. You can watch
that on YouTube. I I specifically ask you to be aware of that. Don't think that you're immune to it, just like New York City was immune thinking that would never happen to them. I I I ask you um Commissioner Alex Fernandez, I know you're very in with the LGBT community, but let them know that that communists
like Fidel Castro put homeless in camps. Let them know that the real reason with the what with the movement is behind and the people of faith, they don't get involved with politics and like the Catholic faith could have stopped the Catholic Church could have stopped either Hitler and they could have
stopped Fidel Castro, but they chose not to get involved. And Mayor Steve Miner, I know you have a target in your head. You're aware of that because you're open with your faith and you guys are primed for for that because only 17,000 of your residents determine your the outcome and special elections have for that. And
they're very active already in North Beach telling them, "Oh, look at all the services North Beach has compared to South Beach capitalists, you know, they're taking and you have a lot of young people that they're very active, you know, so even though it's only a small amount of please don't let your guards down. Don't think it could never
happen to you." That's what they were saying in New York City four years ago. Beware aware of that. And I love coming to my beach and I love everything you do. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Next, please state your name, address. You have two minutes.
>> My name is Gina Russ. I'm uh live 2800 Sunset Drive, Miami. I'm here to ask you to please call today or move to consent uh R 9F reference PSN QLC to rename a street
in honor of Dennis Russ. Many of you knew Dennis personally. Many of you worked with Dennis. Dennis was one of the unsung heroes of Miami Beach, the art deco district, Lincoln Road, Washington Avenue, and affordable housing. And um you've gotten letters of
support and from community leaders Nissan Casden, Marty Maddie Barrett, Craig Robin, Scott Robbins, Lyn Bernstein, Sgross, Andrew Capman, Dennis Schol, Lyall Stern, James Quinland, and Maria Pelin Barkcus in support of this.
Um I received a letter today and I just wanted to read this is from Susie Jacobs who worked with Dennis in the 80s and I think she summed up Dennis. She said, "If Barbara Kappa was the face, then Dennis was the backbone. He saw the beauty, value, and worked tirelessly to
restore South Beach's charm. If you didn't participate in early preservation e efforts, you could have missed his contributions. Fame wasn't his motivation. He wasn't flashy, nor did he rush. Instead, Dennis laughed and kept building the city we celebrate today."
Dennis Russ was a great guy, so smart and kind, one of a kind, and definitely deserving of collective memory. So, I ask you to please honor his work. These are the kind of people we want to help Miami Beach. He loved Miami Beach. As you know, he died a couple months ago,
and this would be a great honor to him and the people that worked with him and the people that have learned from him and he was mentored by. Um, so I respectfully ask you to please agree to name a street. And the specific streets that we've requested are I have 10
seconds. Um, the naming of either 14th Street from Ocean Drive to Pennsylvania Avenue or 12th Street from Washington Avenue to Mediterranean to Meridian Avenue. Thank you so much for consideration. >> Just look this up so I can see it.
You hold it. No, I got to hold it. >> Good morning everybody. My name is uh Dana Stillman. I've been a Miami Beach resident for 15 years and I'm here to discuss the spring breaking of our cat overpopulation problem. Um over the last few weeks and months, I have met with most of you or your amazing staff
members regarding our CAT program and have been very very pleased with the feedback um I've been getting regarding improvements to the program. Today, Miami Beach has the opportunity to become a leader, not only with responding to the cat overpopulation, but in preventing it. That starts with
owned pet cats, not the ones that we've already failed that are living outside. And that's a fact. Whether you love cats or don't like cats, we can all agree there should be less of them. Right now, our city spends most of its time and resources managing the consequences of
this problem and not addressing the root cause. We right at this moment we have thousands of unaltered Miami Beach cats reproduce reproducing and last month I went over how ridiculous it is to drive them off the beach to get them fixed. Every year we rescue kittens through our trap neuter vaccinate return program. We
respond to complaints and we also load hundreds of cats onto expensive private planes operated by various nonprofits which basically kicks the costs over to them to get them out of South Florida where they will have a chance at a better life. Yet, despite those efforts, our cat population continues to grow.
Our taxpayers deserve a system that delivers better results for every single dollar invested. Every cat prevented from reproducing today means fewer kittens born tomorrow, fewer kittens dying in the bushes, which is what happens. Fewer complaints, lower public health risks, reduce pressure on city
department, shelters, veterinarians, nonprofits, volunteers, and lower long-term costs for our community. Communities across the country have already demonstrated that when prevention becomes the primary strategy, cat populations decline, costs decrease, and outcomes improve for both animals and residents. In September, together
with your help, I look forward to presenting a comprehensive span preventionbased initiative that builds on those models, starting with the Miami Beach Spaner Task Force. County participation will be essential because this issue extends beyond municipal boundaries and significant funding opportunities will be available. Thank
you. Good morning, Mitch Novik 901 Collins. At May's commission meeting, six of you voted to hand another 100,000 to the chair and owner of the Betsy Hotel to subsidize the Ocean Drive Association's
music series, often held inside the hotel's lobby. Despite the fact that I had my hand raised to speak, no public comment was taken before the subsidy was approved. Then at last week's finance committee meeting, the same six of you
voted to spend another 137,000 to print and mail the antiquated Miami Beach magazine, even though it's already available online. This publication produced by our very own Office of
Marketing and Communication has become a fitting example of the taxpayer waste that occurs all too often within the walls of city hall. Today, I urge you to pull item C7C from the consent agenda.
Why would this self-proclaimed budgetconscious commission spend nearly $1 million on an outside consultant to communicate with West Avenue residents about a construction project? We already employ
19 people in the city's office of marketing and communication. Surely this arm of government has the expertise and capacity to handle public outreach for the West Avenue residents uh without outsourcing taxpayer dollars. I'll
continue that. I'll continue to argue that taxpayers are being fleeced while special interests continue to receive preferential treatment. If this if the city has discretionary funds available, those dollars should be directed toward
genuine public priorities such as afterchool children's pro children's programs or even the repavement of the basketball court at South Point Elementary rather than producing a costly glossy magazine that's already
available online or subsidizing a private organization's music series. Thank you. Next, please. >> Good morning, mayor and commissioners. My name is Offer Manor. I'm the owner of Blue Stra Linen in Halia. We do business
with the hotels in Miami Beach. Uh last year we we value the relationship with the city. We always try to work with the city on every issue that they arouse. And uh last year we had um agreement with the magistrate and the city
regarding um parking tickets that uh was sum of above $100,000. The global agreement was supposed to cover everything that uh was before 2025
and recently we just got another ticket from 2024 of above $10,000. It's very hard to deal with the parking issues coming with the trucks to deliver linen to hotels.
Those are very big beans that each one of them weigh above 6 or 700 lb and there's no parking at all the places that we need to service. We the magistrate asked us to meet with the
parking department and we've been trying to deal with them and have a face-to-face meeting to find the solution to the places that we don't have parking and how to work it out to make make things available and fair for everybody and we are not able to make
that meeting. We're getting the runaround. We want to ask you to help to help us with getting that meeting with the parking department to resolve this issues. We don't want to be in causing
any issues with uh parking, but we want to find a solution to our problem. Thank you very much. >> Eric, can you meet up with with him or your team? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Thank you for coming in. >> Thank you very much. Um, good morning, mayor and
commissioners. My name is Claudia Jaged and I'm here on behalf of the Lincoln Road Bid. I wanted to make sure you were aware that the Lincoln Road bid supports agenda item R7H regarding the proposed lease amendment with RK Revani LLC for
1691 Michigan Avenue. We've also submitted a letter of support for the record outlining the bid's position. In case I'm not present, if [clears throat] when this item is called, I wanted to ensure that our support is noted. We
believe this proposal represents a positive investment in Lincoln Road and will continue to add to the district's long-term vitality. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Good morning, Commission Mayor. Nice to see all of you. I my time already
started. For something different and since South Beach inspires in me poetry, I wrote a brief poem to share. This is in regards to the Washington Avenue up zone by the proposed primarily by the commissioners that's not seated there right now. Um,
what's wrong with leaving what's left of our small historic district untouched by a bulldozer or wrecking ball? Why not be content with our unique two to fivetory buildings tall?
Residents wish not breathe construction dust and debris, but rather as Paul McCartney says, "Let it be." Yet let it not be in disrepair, empty, deteriorating,
as there are dozens of ways without new build for renovating. How about a marketing campaign targeting Bickl Gen Z out of place in that intense vertical space
or applying for HP grants? Many there are. We likely wouldn't need to look that far. Or imagine our own version of Key West30s island conversion. Read about it at school. History is in the
making here. and tearing down our old buildings should not be part [clears throat] of that. To be sure, to be clear, historic unico. I'll end with my 20 seconds. I might even change out what I'll end
with. I love the micromobility movement. I think everybody under 18 should have to wear a helmet. And I love that you're making a way, may or minor, for people that have a mental problem that get in legal trouble. I read about that as well. And I like the MV magazine for the record.
>> Excuse me, I didn't catch your name. Your name? >> My bad. Jessica Pa, 639 13th Street. >> Thank you so much. >> Four. Thank you all. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Good morning, everybody. Um, I want to kind of open this up to our
neighborhood. Um, Kevin Krueger, 9-year South Beach resident. So, good morning neighbors and commissioners. Uh, Coach Kevin, uh, I've been here uh, promoting sports tourism uh, most of the last 7 years as as a lot of you guys know. And I want to ask uh, cuz it's viral on
video worldwide right now, especially on YouTube. How much do you miss our FIFA fans? How fun were they? So, um, and I want to open up with a quick Q&A. I'll probably ask you like four or five uh, different moments. Um, which moment in
hosting our sports tours was your favorite? Was it the Argentinian fan game watches at the Miami Beach band shell? Show of hands. >> You could probably pick more than one if you want. Was it the um the finding the the footballs that oversized soccer
balls with the with the foreign flags? That was kind of cool. That was done also with badger ops. It was a little scavenger hunt you could do. Really cool experience celebrating our foreign fan flags. Uh the Brazilians uh samba dancing in the streets. Don't forget
that. That was during the group round. Any Brazilian s? There we go. The Scottish tartan army. >> I think that's got a lot of hands. The Norwegian Viking row we just had. I know that's got a lot of hands. Fresh on the mind, but don't forget. So, um others,
none. Anyone dissatisfied? I I ask because and I and I hope that the hotels and restaurants got a lot of great stories and filled your bank accounts, but I ask because if you notice the common denominator are the fans. So years ago, a unanimous
commission sponsored my my suggestion that we rebrand the month of March and uh we did some fitness activations. But what I recognized then was that's going to lack fans and the hotels and restaurants. I think some of them are here representative or represented uh
deserve those fans. They deserve those dollars. So with competition and our fitness competitions starting with 305k and half marathon in place, I would like to help the marketing department, the tourism department. This commission
could be the first to program an entire month that lasts well over a decade. We can own the month of March. um you know beyond sports and fitness I I you all know that I'm going to present to you at some point more formally Miami Beach
games uh or some other concept and I've sat down with the tourism department but I want to ask the audience would you like more fans on their best behavior >> okay great with that I'd like to follow up with you u next month in the tourism
department and uh continue and feel free to add your own Q&A and answer in the last 10 seconds if you want. >> Thank you. Sorry. >> Thank you, Kevin. You've been uh you've been very consistent for years. Patient patient in uh in health and wellness and
you you've got to feel proud that it's happening. Well, I think that it's this FIFA host committee that what you know I've been strategizing and learning as we go and I think that's what it is. I don't want to be a producer. I want I want our city to host and it's a we.
It's 85,000 people as we just did and the host committee is not producing the World Cup, but they've done such a great job as as did our city. So, compliments to to all of us, residents included. >> So, I'm here to help if if uh if asked.
>> Thank you. >> Good morning. I may need a just a couple of seconds extra, but I hope not. I have a letter to read to you. Dear Mayor, Steven Miner, city manager, Mr. Eric Carpenter,
and members of the city commission. I'm writing and speaking before you as a director of Soie Business Alliance. So Business Alliance has now grown into having 47 members of which 27 members
are comprised of Ocean Drive Hotels, restaurants, cafes, and retail establishments. Our hotel members include the Park Central Hotel, the Bentley Hotel, the Beacon Hotel, Colony Hotel, Breakwater Hotel, Edison Hotel,
the Clevelander Hotel, the Villa Kasakasino, Versace Mansion, Hotel Victor, Hotel Ocean, the Carile Hotel. Over 25 Ocean Drive cafes, restaurants, and retail establishments are also
members. We also have hotel members on Collins Avenue. This organization now constitutes the largest Ocean Drive and South Beach business organization in Miami Beach. All of these hotels, restaurants, cafes,
and retail establishments are unified in the importance of Ocean Drive remaining fully open and accessible to vehicular traffic and for our valet on Ocean Drive as well as restoration
and maintenance of side street parking. We are also vitally concerned with all major events held on the beach, in Lumis Park, and on Ocean Drive. and most importantly, life safety emergency services on Ocean Drive.
This organization exceeds the amount of real estate of property taxpaying properties than Ocean Drive Association and as such wishes to become an active participant in all decision-making processes
relative to Ocean Drive going forward into the future. We look forward to a close association and dialogue with the city of Miami Beach and other South Beach civic organizations. Thank you so much for your time.
>> Thank you, David. >> Hello everyone. My name is Christina Vega. I live in Golden Dreams Condominium 65 Washington Avenue. As United States of America is celebrating 250th birthday, little or maybe none of
us asked what does United States of America want for its birthday? What does it need from us? [laughter] And what it wants is respect.
It wants for us to be united. It wants us to respect the law. history and lawabiding people who live here. I have a doubt as a founder of cyber
moneyaundering and real estate investigations corp, a company that investigates cyber enabled crimes that city respects the law and the history. A year ago, I discovered that uh plat
books plaid books are documents that uh describe visualize the land of Miami date were replaced with forged ones between 2009 to 2011. I specifically spoke to Commissioner
Tanya Bat via Facebook Messenger and notified about this. I sent many emails regarding this matter to the mayor, copied the city manager, building department and other officials. One of such plat books is a plat book
describing SA beach, which is platbook 281. It has streets that never existed on our land. For example, Orange Street, Manga Street, Pier Street. Furthermore, after more research, um, we
came across this old Miami Beach book which was published in 1994. What we discovered is that majority of mortgages and deeds were uh, also removed from county records.
Furthermore, just 30 more seconds. Uh, one of the most disturbing discoveries are the review findings of our permit uh, uh, applications for development and documents submitted by the developers.
1250 West Avenue, two LLC's that do not exist, Delaware LLC's, San Juan Hotel, uh, Barkley Hotel. Um but the most disturbing are the bank applications. Bank of America and PNC Bank. Those two
have inaccurate claims regarding the land and identity of the applicant. Because Miami Beach permits are being used. >> Thank you, Ma. for know your customer CDD requirements. We are filing a
petition for injunction under the bank secrecy act with the United States Secretary of Treasury. Thank you so much. >> Seeing no one else in the audience, I'm going to go to Zoom. Jeff Burke, state your name, address. You have two
minutes. Let's go then to Johan Moore. Good morning, commissioners. Johan Moore, 717 Jefferson Avenue. I want to speak to uh two topics today, uh three items in total. I want to express my
appreciation for Commissioner Fernandez, C7AO, and urge uh that that move forward expeditiously. uh any and all efforts to amend live local uh can only benefit our community. My primary comments today
revolve around items R5 AJ and R5 AI. While I and many of my neighbors would very much welcome uh the return of 3,000 of our now lost residents due to uh census uh [laughter] as data shows. We
believe that there are better ways uh to do so than changing the zoning uh in a shoot from the hip fashion uh on Washington Avenue. Uh such as an item that would incentivize recon conversion of formerly lowincome housing that is
now short-term rentals back to affordable housing. Uh that would be an item that we would uh be able to support. We further uh would argue that a program to incentivize culture and
arts uh undertakings to fill the vacant storefronts on Washington Avenue uh might be uh a an efficacious uh attempt at reviving it as a commercial uh corridor, albeit of a different flavor.
uh we oppose the height and the bulk that would be imposed uh on our neighborhood that would infringe on our neighborhood. Uh there is the possibility under this item of at least
one sevenstory tall building uh possibly with twice the bulk of Moxy or Good Time on each and every single block on Avenue. >> Next [clears throat and snorts] caller is Sharon. Sharon, state your name, address. You have two minutes.
>> Uh, good morning, Sharon. It's 2338 Street. Um, there are so many topics on today's agenda that about 2 minutes is not sufficient. I'm just going my thoughts in a way that covers everything in a general manner. First, I'd like to
thank uh Commissioner Suarez and the other commissioners who voted along with him for making the salary portal public. Having this information is a huge and rare benefit to the residents. Uh, next, I know I am not alone in saying that I am completely disgusted and demoralized
right now. Resident taxpayers cover 63% of the city's budget. But time and again, we feel like we've asked in consideration behind developed consultants, hotel oper companies, and its own
employees. And despite covering 63% of the budget, we can't even in the ocean because it is completely polluted by matter. Even worse, when the city, whether it is the elected officials or the highly comp city employees, mismanage projects and go over budget,
the very first response is to make the residents pay for it. It is not a creative solution to offer a geo bond as an alternative to higher water bills, to pay for infrastructure upgrades, just as an example. Both of those options are just different ways of making the
taxpayer shoulder most of the financial burden to solve a problem that we did not cause. And again, this is just one example. Time and again, the stakeholders who make a lot of money off of our city, hotel operators, developers, beach concessionires, tow
companies, they get freebies from the city and are never asked to participate in a financially meaningful way. The continued reliance on residents as the city's ATM has got to stop. We have had enough. Thank you for your consideration.
>> Thank you so much. Our next virtual caller has a phone number ending in 304. Please state your name, address, and you have two minutes. Please unmute yourself. PJ, let's go then to Larry Schaefer.
Larry Schaefer 2338 Street. Did the mayor leave the room? Didn't want to hear the people. How come world class town if residents and tourists are swimming in poop? Why did the state to shut down multiple beaches because of poopion? Where is the feces? Don't
interrupt. Where is the feces coming from? Mayor is the city of Miami Beach water coming polluting its own waters. We have waterfront sewage pumps in mo many of the sites that are testing poorly. Why has Parkview canal been polluted for six years or more? Why is the second most polluted place in the US
in the worldass town? Why is your backyard mayor with feces? It hits differently backyard is now testing six times higher than the notorious Park View Canal. Is this what you want for beach name? You tell the tourists that the waters you have 2500 employees and
so much money. Look at the salary you pay the employees and you expect swim in feces while employees become million multi-millionaires. Operation was a failure. Well, organizational changes making. Where's the water testing lab you promised?
>> Our next caller is Judith Smeiggel. >> Judith Gondominium. I'm speaking against the proposed ordinance to double its size of relative development on Washington Avenue. I know that we all love this fabulous
city, but I also proudly remember campaign promises to protect a very special quality of life by not allowing out developments. We do not want larger and taller buildings. That's not what leg.
But we do want housing for people that live and work here. I know that there are steps that exist that need to be required that developers take steps to make sure that those only are able to rent. Now, let's be honest.
This is a fragile city. People would love a place to rent. And if even if it's only 1500 ft, which is not snow, people would never place near the beach. What's to keep corporations from renting out apartments as opposed to
those people? What's to keep groups of people from renting out and sharing it? What's to keep unlicensed renters? Who's going to staff any project to make sure there's no guilt renters? Plus, if you want to live
and you work on the beach, you may actually need to pass the cap. You're not going to depend on buses to get to work on Sunday. Again, I believe that everybody that's involved with this or use really does
have the best of intention. I just want any development to be more thoughtful to think about the impact on residents. thousands of people living without parking for instance, what that's going to do with those who very already very
limited parking and um and thank you. >> Thank you. Our next caller is Elva Machado from VNE Group. >> Hi, good morning. Good morning. Elva Michelle from V Hospitality Group and
I'm here in support of item R9G continuing the food and beverage partnership with select life. Id like to say that for the hospitality industry the convention center and select life are an economic engine for our city. Uh every successful convention brings
visitors who feel uh hotels, restaurants, shops, and the quality of their experience including the hospitality and culinary services provides within the convention center play a role in whether those groups choose Miami Beach again. Yes, please. Uh, also Sodex life collab collaboratory
approach has also let local businesses like ours participate directly in conventions and may events sharing Miami Beach flavor and culture with thousands of visitors and threatening our local restaurant community. Uh on a personal
note and for the for the last four years V hospitality groups particularly has hosted our employee appreciation breakfast at the convention center is one of the few times each year we get to celebrate our team who make hospitality possible for us and thanks to so team
and their affordable and practical approach our employees get the same excellence we work to give our guests. So the finance committee analysis confirms that the renewing the agreement preset existing investments, avoids unnecessary transition costs and require no additional cost for taxpayer while
protecting the city's reputation as a premier destination for meetings and conventions. So on behalf of VA hospital V hospitality group, we respectfully urge you to support the administration's recommendation and continue investing in the stability and long-term success of
Sodex Alive at the Miami Beach Convention Center. Thank you. Thank you so much. Our next caller is Wayne Roberts. Go ahead, sir. >> Good morning. Um, ladies and gentlemen, um, I've supported each and every one of
you at some point in your career to be a politician. And I've never been so disappointed by a group of people in my 65 years of life. Um, when it comes to budgets, uh,
thankfully the, uh, compensation was put out there and, uh, I was shocked that a a fire EMS employee, several, uh, makes $500,000 last year and they're running at about a pay based on their last bi-weekly te tech check to running at
$760,000 in 26. On top of that, they make hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension payments, medical, use of cars, food, it's over a million dollars if if if this year's run rate is a bi-weekly for those employees.
There are many examples of that across many divisions within the government. Uh you've doubled many salaries in the process in the last two years, which is unfair to the taxpayer and it it's an abuse of our tax system. Uh what's more
um we have lost in the county 278,000 residents in the last 5 years and it's not because of we didn't have enough housing. Clearly the hundreds of hundreds of F increases across the county has not made a uh an improvement
to the residential quality of life which is the driving factor of where where people want to live. F is against the policy of humans. It it blocks the sun. It pollutes the ocean. It it creates uh
a bureaucracy in government. And I I urge you I urge you ladies and gentlemen to change direction, change course that is about humans and residents. Thank you very much. >> Our next caller is Jeff Burkov.
>> Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh uh Mr. Clerk, uh Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, Jeff Burkow, N 590 Lake View Drive. This morning, the commission is considering several items
to fund improvements to our critical infrastructure, R7A, B, and C, and R9D. I'm part of a group of Lake View residents advocating for funding for storm water improvements to address the terrible flooding conditions in the
western part of our neighborhood. We want the commission to agree on an infrastructure funding program that the voters will approve this November. The city's storm water infrastructure needs are pressing and the critical
neighborhood projects need funding, but climate change is not waiting for us. When you evaluate the available alternatives later this morning, please choose a program that has the greatest likelihood of securing voter approval.
Because if that vote fails, lenders will stop lending. Insurers will stop insuring. property values and our tax base will drop and it will be catastrophic for our city. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next caller is Audrey.
Say your name and address. >> Hi, good morning. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead, please. >> Okay. My name is Audrey Failen. Um I'm at 1309 Uklid Avenue. And I'd like to just share that um as a
uh community member of the FPNA and also the FPNA subcommittee who's kind of working with the concepts of the Washington Avenue development. I'd just like to say that there really shouldn't be any quote unquote
improvements to Washington Avenue, especially south of 17th. um that should be made without the input and influence of the FPNA and its subcommittees as these are the residents of that community and we're very open to all
people who live in that community and even people beyond our immediate community and also to kind of [clears throat] I mean it's obvious but you know the sky above is not quote available space and I understand that
developers see a really great community. They see dollar signs and they see a lot of space that they can develop upwards and outwards to the street and that would in effect destroy not only why
they're coming there, but it would also destroy the people who live there and work there. And I hope that the commissioners who've shown support of the community over developers, I hope that they continue to support the
community and the ones who have supported. Um I'm sorry I don't have all their names written down, but there's a lot of you and it's very very much appreciated by the community members and the and um the mayor for his support.
And I think that's all. And I'd like to thank uh Johan and Jessica for speaking up as well. Thank you very much. Have a good morning. >> Thank you. Our next caller is Charlie. Charlie, state your name, address. You have two minutes. >> Hi, it's Charlie Fisher. I'm at 635
Uklid. Nice to see you all. Um I'll speak a little bit more to Washington Avenue later, but I just wanted to bring up three points. uh they are um one I think it's interesting that we're discussing uh the crumbling infrastructure that we currently have um and raising taxes and
bonds to pay for that infrastructure because it's crumbling and at the same meeting discussing uh passing legislation which would encourage uh huge buildings being built in the very area that our infrastructure is crumbling. It's like we can't have crumbling infrastructure, expect to pay for it and then lose the character of
our neighborhood. we need to fix what we have, not try to add more to it. And the second point I was going to make is uh we were sold an idea of switching hotel and uh and condo incentives, but what we
got was an increase in FAR from two to four uh along Washington Avenue. It's not the same thing. These are gigantic buildings that are being proposed uh in a neighborhood that doesn't want it and with infrastructure that we're currently trying to figure out how to raise money
to pay to improve it. It feels misguided and uh I'm calling to oppose it. I I'll speak later to it when the item is called. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next caller has a phone number ending in 304. Please unmute yourself and state your name and address.
Okay, PJ, let's go to the next caller. Has a screen name of Miami Beach. >> Go ahead, please. >> Good. >> Good morning to all. Um, my name is Wanda Jman, 8305 Presby Boulevard. Today, I echo the sentiments of my
friends and neighbors, especially Sharon Weiss and Larry Schaefer. expressing and stating the dis dissatisfaction with the way a city is moving. They said it better than me and I feel
and think the same way. Please govern with common sense. However, with that said, today I want to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Mayor, thank you for your opening remarks today. Not only was
it moving to hear you commemorate America's 250th milestone, I truly love America. But although I'm not Venezuelan, your touching acknowledgement of Venezuela and its people during their ongoing devastating
crisis meant the world to me and to many of us here. Bringing such human empathy and global awareness to a local forum was deeply touching and I am truly grateful for your for your gesture.
God bless America. God bless the people of Venezuela and God bless the entire world. Thank you. >> Thank you, PJ. Let's try 304 again. >> I appreciate your uh your words. phone number 304. >> Okay, this is the third time, so we're
going to stop sick right now. There's no one else. Thank you. >> Great. Let's get to the consent agenda. >> Yes, sir. Mayor, the following items have been separated from the consent agenda. The mayor has separated C7G. These are all on the list that we provided to you. Commissioner Dominguez
has separated C7 A. Commissioner Fernandez has separated C2E. Commissioner Mattail Selenus has separated C2E and C70 and Commissioner Suarez is separating C7C and C7.
Uh some announcements to make on the deis. You have an addendum that was uh submitted yesterday. It's addendum three. You have the packet in front of you and in the day it's C7AS evaluate consolidating departments requested by
Commissioner Suarez. Also these are not on your list. Okay. R5i is being open and continued. R5 R5 is being open and continued.
R5i open and continued. R5O open and continued both to September uh the September 10th meeting. Uh, may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda excluding the separated items and excluding the addendum items
that the mayor will hear after five? >> So moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Fernandez. I have a second from Commissioner Sores. All in favor of the consent agenda excluding separated and addendum items, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none, the agenda
is approved. 70, the consent agenda. >> Great. We'll get started. We got a lot of items, but uh I think we can get through most of it today. So, that's the challenge that uh I'm putting on on myself and all of us. R 5A. R5A is an oral mayor, city commissioner
of city, Miami Beach, Florida, amending chapter 10 entitled animals by repealing section 10-21 entitled shorebased shark fishing prohibited definitions, penalties, and provisions for repealer servability clarification and an effective date. This is a second reading public hearing. It is item R5A.
>> I move the item >> second. >> Hold on. Fernandez. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Dominguez by Commissioner Fernandez. It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom and I see no one in the audience requesting to speak. Uh if there's no discussion,
may I call the roll? Call the roll. Commissioner Magazine. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bach. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> Yes. Commissioner Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Suarez. Yes. >> Mayor Miner. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. The item is approved.
That was item R5A. >> R5B. >> R5B is an ordinance of the mayor and city commission of the city of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Miami Beach resiliency code by amending chapter 2 entitle administration and review procedures article one entitled land use board section 2.1.2 2 entitled planning
board by modifying the published notice requirements for a public hearing. the planning board to the planning board to review approved sale of exchange conveyance or lease of city- owned property and other matters where the planning board makes recommendations to the city commission by amending article 5 entitled resoning and development
approval section 2.5.1 entitled change to zoning district boundaries resoning by modifying the published notice requirements for a public hearing of the planning board to review a proposed change to the zoning district boundaries of a parcel or parcels by amending chapter 7 entitled zoning districts regulations article two entitled
district regulations section 72 2.16 entitled GU government use district to modify section 7.2.16.3 entitled development regulations GU by modifying published notice requirements for a public hearing of the city commission to consider a proposed waiver of development regulations providing for
qualification repeal servability and effective date. This is a first reading public hearing. The item requires 57's vote. It is item R5B. Commissioner Suarez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Debbie, if you can take it off. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, good morning, Mr.
Mayor, members of the commission. This is um a amendment that would allow the city to notice planning board amendments as well as some other minor applications including GU waiverss on the Miami Date
County website in lie of a publication in the Miami Herald. In 2024, the uh voters of the city approved a charter amendment that allowed for us to notice our public hearings um on the Miami Day County website instead of the Miami
Herald. So, we have um in 2025, we amended the LDRs to um switch that notification for almost all of our public hearings, including the historic preservation board applications, the design review board applications, and the board of adjustment applications. In
my opinion, this was an oversight. So, we're just making this consistent with all of the other uh public hearings that are noticed by the planning department. >> Okay. With that, I move my item >> second. Call a vote. I have a motion by Commissioner Suarez. Second was Commissioner Fernandez.
>> Yes. >> Uh it is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom and no one in the audience requesting to speak. Commissioner Bot, >> yes. >> Commissioner Suarez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Dominguez, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez. Commissioner Magazine, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> yes. >> Motion carries. This is uh a first reading, so second reading public hearing is scheduled for October 14th. That was item R5B. >> R5C. >> R5. >> And why, Ralph? Just why October not
September? >> Did I say October? Oh, it's uh it's on the land use planning cycle. >> Got it. R5C. uh R5C the long one so >> sorry >> an ordinance to the mayor city commission of city Miami Beach Florida amending the Miami Beach resiliency code
by amending chapter one entitled general provisions at article two there uh thereof entitled definitions to clarify and reestablish definition to address inconsistencies in the code chapter two entitled administration and review procedures article two entitled general development application and hearing procedures section 2.2.3 thereof
entitled development application submission and review to establish fees for commission warrants section 2.2.4 four thereof entitled public hearing to class clarify quasi judicial hearing procedures are article four [snorts] entitled amendments to comprehensive plan and the text of the land development regulations to clarify
procedures for code amendments. Article five thereof entitled resoning and redevelopment approvals to clarify advertisement requirements for design review board advisory review. Article 12 thereof entitled issuance of certificate of appropriateness certificate to dig certificate of appropriateness for demolition to clarify that appeals are
to a special magistrate section 2.4.1 4.1 thereof entitled generally to clarify procedures for amendments. Chapter four entitled landscape requirement. Article one thereof entitled intent and applicability to clarify that administrative reviews are our process as planning and zoning permits. Article two thereof entitled
requirements to clarify landscape mitigation fees. Chapter five entitled off- streetet parking. Article one thereof entitled in general to clarify interpretation of parking calculations. Chapter six entitled signs. Article one thereof entitled in general to clarify permitting requirements. Article three,
there entitled temporary signs to clarify that certain temporary signs do not require permit. Chapter 7, entitled zoning districts and regulations. Article one thereof, entitled general to all zoning districts to clarify understory level and first finish floor standards and clarify paint permit requirements. Article two entitled district regulations. Section 7.2.2
thereof. Entitle RS1 RS2 RS3 RS4 single family residential districts to clarify accessory use regulations and single family development regulations. Section 7.2.4 thereof. Entitle RM1 residential multif family low inensity section 7.2.5 thereof RM RM-2 residential multi
multifamily medium intensity section 7.2.6 thereof entitle RM3 residential multifamily high intensity and section 7.2.23 thereof entitle I1 light industrial district to clarify permitted uses and use requirements section 7.2.16 2.16 thereof entitled GU government and
use district to clarify permitted uses and use requirements. Article 5 thereof entitled supplementary district regulations to clarify all liable height exception supplementary yard regulations and supplementary use regulations amending the code of the city by amending appendix a fee schedule to establish fees for certificate of use
landscape requirements and commission warrants providing for clarification repeal servability on effective date. This is a first reading public hearing. It is a 57 vote. It is item R5C. >> Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When we adopted the resiliency code, we knew that through its
implementation, there would have to be periodic updates and clarification. Uh we're not changing the code. These are just clarifications and technical updates. And so, I'll just move the item. >> I'll second. It is a public hearing. Uh I see no one
in Zoom and no one in the audience requesting to speak. I have a motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Mayor Miner. May I call Caldero? >> Yes. >> Uh Vice Mayor Dominguez, >> yes. Commissioner Mattel Selenas. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Suarez
>> is absent. Commissioner Bot, >> yes. >> Commissioner Magazine, >> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> yes. >> Motion carries. The item is approved. Second reading public hearing is October 14th. >> R5D. R5D is an ordinance of the mayor city
commission Miami Beach for amending Miami Beach resiliency code at chapter 6 entitled signs article 3 entitled temporary signs section 6.3.2 thereof entitled design standards to modify requirements and regulations applicable to construction signs amending chapter 7 entitled zoning districts and regulations. Article 5 entitled
supplementary district regulations. Section 7.5.1 entitled generally supplementary district regulations. Section 7.5.1.6 and six thereof entitled vacant and abandoned properties and construction sites by amending and expanding existing regulations for minimum fence and screening requirements
and providing for codification repeal servability on an effective date. This is a first reading public hearing. It requires 57's vote. It is item R5D. >> Commissioner Magazine. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this is something that my intention is to help with the beautifification and uh in
enhancing the aesthetic beauty of our city. Um, right now, well, anytime in a city, you you may have uh various plots of land that have projects that are coming further down in the future. And Debbie, correct me if I'm wrong now. Uh
there's a lot of nuance to this, but essentially, if there is a pending project and there's no building permit in place, what is required right now is we have the chain length mesh fence. And there's a reason for that. You want to see visibility. you don't want this
opaque structure. Um, but a lot of times it really uh comes with an unesthetic appearance for the neighborhood, especially when there's that green mesh that then gets ripped and things like that. Um, and what I am proposing is essentially uh it wouldn't be mandated.
However, it would give the option of essentially having the more enhanced um maybe you have the correct terminology for it, but more aesthetically uh pleasing fencing that surround a uh
future property or project. uh think similar to uh the convention center hotel and the beautiful ceramic almost uh looking fencing or or matte fencing that has artistic value um and things like that. When I walk down Lincoln
Road, we have an exciting project that'll come uh right next to the church site. However, we have this very um unfortunate uh chain fence with this green mesh that just doesn't uphold the standards that I want to see walking
down Lincoln Road. Uh along some of our beachfront properties where we have these projects that uh can be years in the making till they get a building permit. Um, I want to give the option of really enhancing that area with more
aesthetically appealing and higherend uh fencing, which right now uh is constraining these properties. Uh, I think a great example uh to point out is Lincoln Road because you can see that every single day. We're all trying to work hard uh but until they have an
actual building permit in place, they're actually constrained about the type of fence that they'd be able to have. I understand uh the concerns about being able to see through into a vacant lot. That does have uh some merit. Perhaps we could talk about uh how we can mitigate those. But Debbie, let me kick it over
to you. You can correct all the areas I was likely wrong. Um and then uh take it from there. >> Um no, thank you, Mr. Chair. That was a very good explanation. What what this ordinance would also do is it would correct the lag that we often see
between the time that a property receives a demolition permit and a building permit to construct um whatever project is previously approved. So this would address that lag in terms of allowing them to move forward with an artistic graphic construction fence in
lie of the vacant property standards. Um so this would give them a 12-month period for that. This would also allow um renderings of the approved or proposed project for the site to be much larger than they currently are. We had previously considered a rendering of the
project to be part of the signage. Um and this corrects that because I think a lot of people love to see the renderings. I know I do. People want to kind of look and see what's going um going in that location. So um yes, we are supportive. The planning board also uh was supportive of this
>> and and just for just so that I can understand. So this restores being able to see through the sideline through through through the fencing or >> for the vacant properties for the for the construction site we always allow the mesh. Okay.
>> Um this will still so that's not really changing in terms of um the requirements. What what this is doing is allowing more artistic graphics. >> I love that. >> Um so yeah, >> good job. Good job, Commissioner Magazine. >> Through the vice mayor >> or through the mayor,
>> Commissioner B. >> Um I uh I love this idea. I think it's always exciting to see what's coming down the pike. Um I do know that um I I mean there's a a there is a vacant lot on the corner of my street that has had so many code violations because their
mesh um that is disgraceful. It really devalues the neighborhood and it's it looks terrible. So, I'm really happy to see this. I would suggest a friendly amendment which would be um um that for those properties they comply with or
enroll in the police program to ensure that before such a a solid fence is put on that they have the no trespassing agreement in place with the police department. because I do know that um that becomes an issue for homeless and
vagrancy concerns and public safety concerns. And so if that is in place before the fence goes up, then um the police can go in at the first call and and deal with it quickly. >> We have a motion.
Commissioner Magazine >> second by Commissioner Fernandez. Uh thank you for bringing this item. I think an example maybe not totally is um is the dova where they put it you actually drive by there and it looks presentable looks really nice. So uh we
could really make a difference for properties that are awaiting building and development by just making it look uh reasonable. So thank you all about it is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom. No one in the audience requesting to speak. It is item R5D.
Commissioner [snorts] Bot, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas, >> yes. >> Commissioner Magazine, >> yes. >> Commissioner Suarez, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Second reading public
hearings scheduled for October 14th. >> So, we I'm going to call one more. I see County Commissioner Vicky Lopez here. Thank you for joining us. We're going to call the CRA items, but I can't call them till another minute. So we're going to do one more item. Uh R5E >> R5E is an order of the mayor city
commission of city man amending chapter 30 of the Miami Beach city code entitled code enforcement by amending article 2 entitled special magistrate by amending section 30-37 entitled terms of office compensation by amending the compensation of the special magistrates providing for qualification repeatability and effective date. This is second reading public hearing is item
R5E. Commissioner Matt Selenos. >> Um so this is second reading. I move my item >> second. Call the vote. >> I have a motion by Commissioner uh Monica Matel Selena, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom. No one in the audience requesting to speak. Roll
call. Commissioner Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Matel Selenas. >> Yes. >> Mayor Dominguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bot. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Suarez. >> Commissioner Magazine. >> Yes. >> Mayor Miner.
>> Mayor is a yes. >> Yes. Uh item is approved 70. Uh that was item R5B. It is approved. >> Great. Right on time. Thank you for joining us. Uh County Commissioner Vicky Lopez. Appreciate all the hard work you've done on behalf of Miami Beach. Uh
it's a pleasure working together with you and um you want to join us up here. >> So we are recessing as a commission meeting and convening as the redevelopment agency. >> Uh there are two items >> on the RDA this morning. Please. Okay.
>> Item one is grant RDA executive director authorization during RDA recess. >> Welcome Lopez. >> Motion to convene as the RDA. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> So we're doing RDA1 which is joint
grant. It's a joint item, but it's a grant RDA executive director authorization during RDA recess. >> I move the item. >> Second. >> A motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. All in favor, please say I. RDA1.
>> I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. The item is approved. 8 Z. Now we have Hold on. >> Yes, you got it. Thank you. Uh RDA2 is approve assignment assumption RDA loans
docs documents Meridian Place Apartments to MDC. Uh please note that this is a joint item with item C70 mayor and that was separated from the consent agenda. So we may want to hear them both together. >> Great. Let's do that. >> Usually
so this is RDA2. >> Welcome Alba. Hey, good morning. Albert, Office of Housing and Community Services. This item asked the board to approve the assignment and the assumption by the Miami date county of the RDA and city loan documents on the Meridian Place Apartments. This is a 34
unit uh affordable senior housing property at 530 Meridian Avenue in connection with the county's purchase of the property from MBCDC Meridian. The property carries a 1.5 million RDA loan from 2007 and a 2.8 8 city home loan
from 2011, both with affordability covenants running through September 25th, 2043 and city approval is required because we are a party to those loan loan documents. This transfer is part of the county's ongoing acquisition of the
remaining MBCDC portfolio, the same process we have already approved for the Jefferson Apartments back in 2024. And in exchange, the county will fund needed repairs, assign Royal American management to operate the property, satisfy several outstanding mortgages,
and continue to honor all existing affordability restrictions through 2043. We have Christian Orango, the executive director for MBCDC, as well as county staff members, if there's any questions. >> Good morning, mayor. Good morning, commissioners. By way of introduction,
I'm Christian Orango, known as Chris, and I'm very happy to be here. Thank you, Ela. It's been a a journey. [laughter] >> Hello. >> Hello, Mayor. How are you? >> Good. >> Good morning. >> You wanted to speak? >> Oh, yeah. Um, I was stating uh earlier that uh by way of introduction, I'm
Christian Orango. Um, I represent the Miami Beach CDC. I have been since December of 2021. um in conjunction with uh Alba and her staff, we're here uh regarding the matter set forth. And I do open the uh audience right now for any questions
concerning the Meridian Place located at 530 Meridian Avenue. Um and other questions that may touch on or concern the portfolio that will be eventually transferred to Miami Day County. >> Nice. Short and sweet. >> Yeah, we like that.
>> Yes. So we're >> we're giving the county the exact exactly what does this item do? [clears throat] >> So for MBCDC, they are transferring their portfolio to the county. Um
because of issues with maintenance and repairs and trying to keep the portfolio afloat and making sure affordability uh continues, they have transferred they're in the process of transferring all of their properties. Who's they? >> U Miami Beach Community Development
Corporation, MBCDC, which is the agency that Christian Orango represents. They were the CHO of the city for a very long time back in 2007 and 2011. That's where these monies come from. There were funds that were placed from RDA as well as home dollars. So, we're a party to this
because since they want to do the transfer of the property, we would need to go through the board uh to get their approval. and they want to do the transfer because the county can >> maintain these properties and this one in particular 530ian. >> And if I may through the chair for
further clarification, what this item does is it approves the assignment of mortgage and other loan documents uh from MBCDC to the county. >> Does this um save us resources?
the investment has already been placed back with the dollars back in 2011 in RDA funds. So, this preserves affordability for these for this property. >> Commissioner Matteo Selenus. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, hello. Good morning, Dr. Terry. Good morning,
Commissioner Lopez. >> Thank you. >> Good morning, uh, Chris, Christian, and Sh. Hello. Um, I actually, this is a companion item to C70, which I pulled, um, because I do have some, um, concerns with this transfer. Actually,
not really with the transfer, but with the building. Um, and I've spoken with you before about it because I know that Royal American in and the county is operating the building now. Um, and we also had a affordable housing advisory committee meeting last night where we discussed this at our meeting and the
uh, committee has some concerns, too. Um, first of all, I just want to make sure that um, and I don't want to I'm not trying to block this. I'm not trying to hold it up. I'm grateful to the county for stepping in and for taking over this portfolio and for maintaining the affordability of these units. Um,
the CDC portfolio was wasn't it 12 buildings. >> The entire portfolio was larger than >> 14 buildings. >> Okay. That have been slowly transferring over. Slowly transferring over. Um, and you know, we can't take them on and I
understand that and um, we don't have the funds nor the manpower and it's a very complicated portfolio. Um, I will say the affordable housing advisory board did have some concerns with, you know, if the county could make us whole financially because we put in our
taxpayer dollars and our RDA money into this um, portfolio and we're not getting anything. The city isn't getting a penny. Um, so that's just one concern that I have. Um, again, not trying to prolong this. Um, the other concern that
I have is that that this particular building at 530 Meridian Avenue [clears throat] is a very troublesome building. There was a shooting there 3 4 months ago where a tenant in the building and a gentleman that was I don't know who the gentleman was, but
they got into a verbal altercation. I believe, and I could be wrong on this, and I know the chief is here. I believe the tenant of the building actually shot at the other gentleman, the bullet hit this the building next door, their window, um, which is a vacant storefront
at this moment in time. But of course, everyone I happen to live across the street from this building. I live at 525 Meridian, and everybody on that block knows that I am a commissioner. And so everybody I couldn't walk outside which
is okay. I mean that's what I signed up to do and I actually love that building and I love those neighbors and you know Miss Jay still lives there. She still reaches out to me. There was another woman who was waking up at 4 in the morning. So this building is can be problematic. We love them. We want to
keep them there. We want to keep it affordable. But but please I I just I don't know who to reach out to other than Commissioner Lopez and thankfully I'm so grateful that you're a representative and we have a good relationship and you're so responsive because you are very responsive and I
remember I you know it's but I just that building can become problematic and I just kindly ask that we um we are aware of this and we stay ahead of this and we address issues that that come up to specifically
to this building and and frankly any of the buildings. Um, but for the most part, the portfolio is is works well and it's in good hands and it is in good hands with the county too. So those are just my thoughts on this. >> Commissioner Lopez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, thank you, Commissioner Mate Solenz, for those
comments. I was unaware that we were having what I consider to be public safety issues at the building. And so maybe I would have my county staff address um this the ways in which we can ensure that the residents are secured and that these kind of problems are not
taking place in the portfolio units that we are we are accepting and receiving. >> May I respond to the chair? >> Alexander Bolognos. I serve as the asset manager on behalf of Miami Day County. So to your point, Commissioner, uh, Meridian Place is a challenge being that we serve 20 units of formerly homeless
households. We have a collaboration with the homeless trust and the assistance is with the city of Miami Beach Housing Authority. With that said, one of the challenges there is that the average was overleveraged. We have paid over a million dollars in institutional debt to date and now we're absorbing the
additional debt. Um, furthermore, we've expended a million dollars with the exterior addressing the um, water rep, you know, the water intrusion. We've repainted the building looks really sexy from the outside and, you know, we've we've done a lot of cleanup. We've been
able to stabilize the occupancy. One of the things that we're doing now is that we are engaging with a consultant on implementing crime prevention through environmental design. So we are assessing the building, looking at all of the areas that you know we have exposure um that are hidden and then
coming up with a plan to ensure that we have more vigilance, more eyes on the property remotely and also discourage bad behavior. And one of the things that we also do is that when there's a problem, we address it quickly and then that is the reason we have a lot of turnover because we are serving a hard
to serve population. the um residents in that program are referred. Um a lot of times we're able to accept maybe one in 10 applications because you know we do have a resident selection criteria. It is an elderly building so there are challenges there but we are we're very
sensitive but I believe that the event that you're referring to is isolated. I understand there was something with a solicitation of services and you know so with that said we are mindful and we're you know we will continue to you know we the county
already has invested tons of capital so we have a lot of skin in the game so it is in our in the best interest of everyone that you know we continue to manage it and keep it in compliance. Um >> Mr. Chairman I have some questions for Alex. Alex how many units are in the building? So there are 34 units in the
building, 20 are single room occupancy units and the 14 remaining are onebedrooms at 60% or below of AMI. >> Okay. And and I guess my I I I'll make a comment. So in the build I'm experiencing the same problem in buildings both on the mainland and here
where elderly people are living and then we have um reserved a number of units for the homeless population. my elderly um residents are telling me that it's not working for them. They don't feel safe. They're not the same kind of
people. They don't have the same challenges um that the elderly population have. And now they're really complaining that they don't feel safe. They leave the doors open. You know, I mean, security in particular during the evening hours is important to elderly people. And they've seen that the doors
are left open by some of the residents that were homeless. So, it's it's an ongoing problem. And I I've continued to say that I think when we when we house homeless people, we should do so with wraparound services. We should not just
provide a home. They have they have been on the street, many who are suffering from mental illness um and do not have the skill set currently without the help of therapists and and people um support services that that can help them make
the transition in a better way that makes everyone safe. So, it it's an ongoing situation that I'm facing for my elderly residents. And I know Alex, you've heard this already several times. So, maybe you could just comment on on what we're trying to do here because
it's important that we do house the formerly homeless, but we need to make sure that they know that they feel like they are making a a successful and healthy transition without impacting negatively the other residents that don't that weren't formerly homeless.
Circl to the chair if I may. Um the SR program is housing first so there is no wraparound. Unfortunately the assistant tied to it is at 30% of AMI. So the rent the contract rent is 30% AMI. So we don't even have enough that
it actually the program operates at a at a deficit. That's why the the asset does not sustain without the county support because it's overleveraged and then the assistance tied to it is not enough to underwrite operating costs. So at this time we cannot even if we have the
desire employ supportive services which is what's required um to really so it would be great if at some point the um SRO contract can you include enough revenue to employ the so the supportive the supportive
housing component um or the a who you know that can be addressed because that's really the the challenge is that it's a housing first. So to the commissioner's point, someone that came off the street, they're just giving they're assigned a unit there and then
it's on property management to do the case management which we don't have that capacity. I understand supportive housing. I'm a proponent of it. Um Villa Matti is a supportive housing community. Fernwood is supportive housing. We those are very chirwood is very challenging
but you haven't heard anything because it's supportive housing and we've been able to work with HUD to ensure that it has the proper fiscal resources. Meridian doesn't have that avenue because it is a local housing authority contract. But again, we're going to continue to work and if we're able to um
over time, you know, we should continue to see improvement. But to the commissioner's point, it is a difficult blend when you have a um homeless population with an elderly housing if there's no wraparound on site. >> Thank you. I understand. I mean, you
know, again, I just and thank you and I I'd like to connect with you and Commissioner Lopez, you always are again, I have to reiterate so responsive. So, um and I appreciate that. And I just, you know, there are multiple concerns in the building and and I know all the tea in that building
and I probably know it before it reaches even you guys because I live right there and people will knock on my door which is fine. Um and I and I love that building. [laughter] Yeah. >> So, um, so I just wanted to share those concerns that we just have this open
communication to make sure the residents in the building are safe, all of them, and safety is is their priority as well and and everyone on that block, and we're just mitigating any concerns that come up. So, thank you, Commissioner. >> Commissioner Magazine, >> are there covenants or deeds on this
that mandate the type of housing we need to provide here? >> Yes. Yes. this uh Charzadi Mommy. I'm counsel for Miami Beach CDC. I've been working with the CDC for over 10 years now proono. Um helping the CDC through all of this and then transferring the
assets to Miami date county. All of these projects have uh affordability covenants. Um this one including this one has two. >> Walk me through that. Why why are these covenants? Did we do we get tax breaks on this?
>> It's funding. It's various types of funding. Um, your housing department [snorts] can, you know, explain all the various types of funding that the city of Miami Beach has either from HUD or from the state of Florida. Um, this particular building, it depends on the
building. This one has home funding. Home funding is a federal subsidy. It flows down through the states and then to the individual participating jurisdictions. You are a participating jurisdiction, the city of Miami Beach. So you got an allocation of home funds. You get an allocation of home funds
really every year and then those funds go into affordable housing projects. Um >> so so let me talk about how I view this in general and I should have paid more attention to this that I didn't appreciate some of
these details. In an area like this, we are facing a housing affordability crisis across the board at every income level. In particular, our working class, right? It's just an article, Miami
became more expensive than New York. We are facing this across the board. And this is one of our working neighborhoods where families that have two parents or single moms living with daughters trying to make ends meet tend to live in
general for this program. If this housing I don't want to use the word project but if this development >> was not owned by the government what
would happen? So that's what hold on. >> It would revert to market rate housing, but that market rate housing would house workingass families, single moms with children,
people trying to get by in our city where that housing is needed most. So now I'm trying to sit here and recollect where I'm saying, well that housing actually is being taken away
from them and we're paying to then move homeless people into it. [snorts] How do I go and tell the working mother at my daughter's school, "No, I'm sorry. You can't live here. You don't have the ability to rent here."
the guy that just moved here from San Francisco and is homeless on our street. We just moved him right in there. Is this a program where you go right from homeless into housing? So, so there's no in between intermediate steps.
>> For us, the home dollars that we have, >> very easy question. >> Well, >> very easy question. Is this a program where you take somebody from the street and put them right into this housing? The thing is that >> yes or no? >> Well, I >> Yes, to a certain degree because of
other funding, not the city's funding. The city of Miami. >> So, yes, that is insane. Okay. That we're putting people from the streets right into the middle of a workingass neighborhood. How close is that to our
community centers? And not only that, we're paying to do it. We are paying to do that. And we are paying to take that housing offline in a workingclass neighborhood away from single mothers
trying to send their children to one of the best schools in South Florida, working two, three jobs so they can give their children a more dignified living than what they may have had. We're taking that housing away from them and
we're paying to take homeless people that likely didn't originate Miami Beach and move them into housing and then they are incompatible from the neighborhood to that workingclass neighborhood talking about shootings
there. This is insane. So, I will say, Commissioner, um, having been an affordable housing attorney and advocate for 25 years now, I teach affordable housing law at the University of Miami. I have for 15 years, I know this area inside and out. Um, and I
understand your feeling about the location of the building and, you know, wouldn't it be better to serve another alternative population? I will say that if the building did go market rate, um those single working mothers would not be able to afford there to live there.
>> I'm I'm sorry. Why? >> Um because if you go market rate in that area of Miami Beach or in Miami Beach in general, the rents are far too high and people can't afford to live there. Flamingo Park not completely
filled with the same exact type of market rate housing where single mothers are raising their children. >> Um, >> of course it is. Of course it is. I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. Hold on. No, I'm sorry. I'm
sorry. Hold on. >> What will you tell me? But let's >> The overwhelming majority of Flamingo Park is not market rate housing that organically serves our working class.
In fact, I'm sitting next to one right that lives in Flamingo Park that was able to be a proud single mother giving her children a dignified living in the same exact neighborhood across the street.
So, of course, it's insulting to say a single mother couldn't afford a market rate unit there. That is the type of housing that we're taking offline. And if they can't afford it, it's because we're taking that market rate housing offline. I am a big believer in the most
basic economic principle in the world, supply and demand. If you take that supply off market and you give it to a homeless person that last night was on the street that that is why then the rest of the workingclass neighborhood housing becomes more
expensive. Simple supply and demand the most basic economic principle that has ever existed in mankind. >> How big are these units? So, and if I could just respond to that, I think that in terms of >> how big are the units,
>> if I make the chair, zero bedrooms and one bedrooms. So, there are 20 zero bedrooms and 20 and 14 onebedrooms. They are small units. >> How how big square feet? >> So, they're about 500 square ft. >> Comm are you finished? Sorry. Commissioner Fernandez.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I want to ask a question of our housing department because what I am hearing here we have a population that's in need of housing. [clears throat] There were public dollars that were used for the creation or creation of the availability
of housing and that housing has restrictive covenants that govern the population and the affordability levels that are allowed to be housed in that in in that housing. whether it's 30% of AMI or whether they're formerly homeless
individuals. The challenge that I'm seeing here is not the individual that is being housed in the property. It's the lack of what I and what Commissioner Lopez very well pointed to the lack of
the wraparound services whether it be the elderly individual or whether it be the formally formally homeless individual. it is a segment of population that when you provide them with housing you need to provide them with the balance of the services. Is
there a way um is there a way that perhaps on a temporary basis um that that we can look at providing for case management because we either provide for a certain level of case management on the front end at the beginning or
eventually they're going to make their way to your office at 777 or or you're going to end up with situations like those that have been described so so that we can achieve that
balance provide provide the housing especially to you know when you're talking about 30% of of of AMI you know a lot of times those are the elderly in individuals now I understand there's also the balance of the formally um homeless in individuals can we look at
that can we look at seeing is there on a temporary basis until the county and maybe we can work with the county through commissioner Lopez to see if on a or permanent basis we can get uh wraparound services. >> So these placements for these for the units are made by the homeless trust of
Miami date county. When we put in our monies, our home dollars and our RDA monies, we didn't have any restrictions on homeless individuals. We only put affordable housing as one of the covenants for us. Now, as they added additional dollars into the project,
that's where the attachment of homelessness came in. It was not through the city of Miami Beach. And who approved? Who approved? That was the homeless trust that approved putting that. And then I guess the county the county as some when did the county do that? I guess a few years ago.
>> Many years ago. >> Can I speak to the chair? >> Back in 2014 the agreement was added for the homeless trust component. Um that is a an it's on it was initially a 10-year term that has matured. Right now it's on
an annual basis. >> On an annual basis. And when does that expire? >> It expired in 2024 and we've just done it annually because again we're not in a position to ask them to leave without a >> So perhaps this is something that >> but it's annual right now based on
appropriation. So this is not dollars that are local. These are dollars that are managed by the housing authority of the city of Miami Beach. They receive an appropriation from HUD and then they're using that to provide the housing. And since the rents are so low, it's just they have the appetite to keep them
there. >> Yep. through the chair. >> So >> the contract rents are very low. >> Wait, wait one second. >> So but so when Okay, so the city is getting dollars and >> the city got dollars in 2011 and we put in home dollars with a 30-year affordability,
>> right? But that was for the 30% of AMI. >> That that was for 30 up to 80 up to 80% AMI. That was our focus and our intention when we put in the dollars for this project. Affordable. No, not homeless. Affordable. So after they got
different funding sources and that's where the homeless trust piece comes in. But yes, these and these units are managed by MB well MBCDC at that point now now with this the county. But the vouchers in and of itself are the
homeless trust and Miami Beach um housing authority vouchers. And just to clarify, the 80 to 120% of AMI range, which is what the city of Miami Beach initially funded on this development, is considered workforce housing in the affordable housing industry. So, this
building was an affordable/workforce housing building initially and it is primarily an elderly building because of the small unit size. So the SRO funding came in at a later date and it is not
from it is from the homeless trust. >> So I guess so so I guess you know there's there's two parts here. In the meantime we have a situation there where we have individuals today and they're going to be there tomorrow who don't have wraparound services that for as
long as they are the tenants of those of those dwelling units. They do need uh wraparound services. Otherwise, we're going to end up with the challenges on the on the other end of uh after after the issue happens. But then the other
side to this is okay seeing okay where are we in that annual term in that annual term with the homeless trust where are we when does that get renewed and can we work through the county uh to to together with the homeless trust and
our housing authority to see okay here in Miami Beach what do we have a greater need for do we have a greater need to house the formerly homeless population right here uh in Miami each or does this area need more of the workforce housing
um or even the elderly housing? What would be the best use of that property? And maybe uh we can ask the county and the housing authority uh to look into that before they make a new commitment for the next year. >> Is that something that you guys can
consider? >> Um Mr. Mayor, so >> well I have Commissioner Suarez. >> No, no, no worries. I would love to hear the response because it was a question I had and so I don't know if it's possible to get a performance. >> Sorry, Commissioner Suarez. I I just want to say I don't understand how up to
80% AMI would ever have been workforce housing. >> It's 80 to 80 between 80 to 120% of AMI is considered workforce housing. Below 80% of AMI is considered affordable housing. >> Okay. So is is that a Miami be in the
county affordable housing is 60% to 120 in in and if it's workforce it's 60 to 140. >> Yes. Are you saying designation? Yeah. There's a HUD designation. So the HUD designation is 80 to 120% of AMI is
considered workforce. Below 80 which is what low-income housing tax credit developments are. Those are between usually 60 to 80% of AMI. And then we have other HUD programs such as the ones that are on this property like home and um >> 80% is
>> which is 80% is the max. >> So so I guess to your qu to your question I don't know that anybody who's living in that building is anywhere close to 80% AMI. Most elderly people are not even at 30% AMI. If you look at
the new AMI charts they're at 20% AMI. So the problem that you're going to be facing with the lack of revenues is an elderly person living on social security does not get an increase every year. However, the rent is increasing every year. So by the third year, an elderly
person actually doesn't have and can't afford to live in Miami date. I'm watching it across all 35 of my elderly buildings uh in my district. So there's one problem because it doesn't generate enough revenue. And yet the next problem is the one you have encountered which is
the homeless trust. So who knew and how how they decide to disperse uh homeless people is a it to me is a problem only because elderly people uh are different than regular uh they have different
challenges when they're 80 85 90 and 95 years old. And quite frankly, I don't know now that now that I've learned through this meeting that we have an annual uh contract, I guess for all 20 are all 20 units being used by the the homeless trust.
>> Yes, if I might correct. So, if I may, the chair, if I I just want to clarify. So, the agreement is between the housing authority of city of Miami Beach. >> The referrals are made through the homeless trust. So the instruments between Meridian Place and the contract are between the property and the housing
authority of the city of Miami Beach. The referrals are made to the homeless trust. So I just want to make sure for the record. >> Good clarification. >> If I may go back in a little bit of history and I can be corrected. >> Excuse me. >> I'm done. Thank you, >> Commissioner Suarez. >> Thank you. So just to get this
>> for a landing. This particular property was you was developed for workforce housing. >> It was developed using home dollars which is at or below 80% of area median income. So the initial idea was to
combine the home dollars and to combine other subsidy from the city of Miami Beach to make whose idea was an elderly project. >> Whose idea was that? When you say the idea was to >> It was a It was the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, which
was which is a nonprofit corporation. Um it was founded by Dennis Russ um in the 80s. And the organization took dilapidated buildings all through Miami Beach, particularly South Beach, renovated them, and used HUD dollars
primarily, so that those buildings could be renovated and then rented to individuals that are at or below 80% of area median income. Most of the properties within the portfolio serve elderly individuals
um and individuals that are at or below either 50 or 60% of AMI. >> Okay. And so the the the people getting h the 20 out of 32 units are getting housed through the >> homeless trust. Correct. Correct. That
was an an additional subsidy through the city of Miami Beach housing authority, but the but the funding dollars come through the homeless trust and the placement of the residents. >> So the homeless trust is giving a
percentage toward the 20 units. Is that correct? >> Exactly. There's there's a funding amount that subsidizes the >> and we have no control over those referrals. Correct. I can explain. So if I just to go a little bit back. So the
2014 the property the ownership at that sponsorship at the time entered into an agreement with the housing authority of Miami Beach that gave them the um a a a rental subsidy. The rental subsidy was to serve formerly
homeless individuals. So the referrals are through the homeless trust. I cannot tell you that the homeless trust has stake in the game. I know that they do the referrals. The the funding comes from the housing authorities. >> 14 the city of Miami Beach agreed to
house homeless people there. >> The housing authority. >> The housing authority. >> The housing authority. So it wasn't anything that Miami Beach had any >> not to our knowledge. It was between the ownership at that time and the housing authority. And if it appears that it was
done because at that time the prop that's when there were a lot of challenges fiscally. Those are zerobedroom units, which is a majority of the units. And it appears that it was done to in order to be able to rent the units and then have some guaranteed revenue. That's what it appears. It was
pretty much a band-aid to, you know, keep the building to stabilize the building and allow it to then serve also a need. >> Okay. So, do we up here have any sort of power to say we want to focus on the displaced Miami
Beach residents? So, for example, I know dozens of elderly people that are that are facing housing, leaving their or getting kicked out of their homes. They live in Miami Beach now. They'd like to stay in Miami Beach. I share Commissioner Magazine's concern
that we don't want to see some [clears throat] non-resident who's homeless that's from anywhere in the world get put in Miami Beach when we have Miami Beach residents facing
potential homelessness. And I certainly don't feel comfortable with the homeless trust whose director we've had serious issues in the past. I don't think anything that comes out of the homeless trust comm and commissioner commissioner
Lopez you you you've seen my concerns with Mr. Book [snorts] it's he plays with people's lives as pawns as we've seen in here in South Beach. So, we're very
cautious when someone says the homeless stress because it's really run by, in my opinion, someone who has no business running the homeless stress. So, is there something, Mr. City attorney, is there something that we can do where the city of Miami Beach can
control who gets placed in there? Well, um, at first blush and without having reviewed all of the documents, I believe that the transaction before you today is to transfer ownership from the
MBCDC to the county. So, I believe that the county, if anybody is in a position to do something to modify the structure there and who is eligible, it would fall to the county to do so. So, Commissioner Lopez, would that would
that be something that the county that the board might consider as sort of a reform to the homeless trust where he they get to decide which referrals get sent where, cuz like I said, we have plenty of Miami Beach
residents, all of whom are pretty much elderly, that need that can't afford to keep up with the with with their affordability. and are getting evicted. I certainly don't like the fact that you
have a quasi governmental entity ch with the homeless trust that decides where who gets what. So if if we don't agree to this, what what what happens now? Commit uh city
attorney. Well, if if we don't agree to this assignment, then I'm not sure what position that MBCDC is in and whether it would trigger a default and potentially a foreclosure on the property. >> We could we could start to interrupt,
but we could sell it with >> Commissioner Bot. >> Yeah, Comm I I interrupted Commissioner Suarez. I apologize. >> Yeah. Well, I'd like to know what exactly would happen if we we declined this this transfer because would does
that mean that m the nonprofit would then possibly come to the city for a renegotiation? >> So, the this particular building has a lot of Miami date county subsidy as well. So, um, the there is anou, there's
a an agreement, a binding agreement between Miami Beach CDC and Miami date county to transfer all of the assets in the portfolio to Miami date county. >> Then why do we need this meeting today? >> So, because you all hold two mortgages on the property. That is the purpose of
the meeting. There are two loans that are from the city of Miami Beach housing department to this particular property that we're talking about today. So, because you have these two mortgages, you as the mortgage holder need to
consent to the sale, it's a not really a sale, it's a transfer to Miami Date County and Miami Date County assuming those loans. Those loans are not payable loans, they're forgivable loans. there's no debt service. Um the only >> if we approve this, we're going to we're
literally handing over any leverage we have. >> Well, if if you approve this, the idea would be that if the issue, as I'm hearing today, is the are the SRO units, right? The formerly homeless units. Um Miami date county then as the owner of
the property would need to decide, do we renew the SRO contract or do we not renew it? um the project as >> we're going to be out of leverage if we do that. Correct. We should probably do that now. We should probably negotiate
that now and then >> and then decide on this item. >> Well, I would defer that to the city attorney and city, you know, to the county. Something that, you know, a conversation could be had with the county to see if they're willing to um
eliminate those SRO units. I believe you correct referred to them as as part of this transaction. >> Do you have that authority single-handedly, Commissioner? >> Unfortunately, I do not. Um the our housing and community development uh department is under the mayor and we have a strong mayor, so I'd have to work
with her. Um I I'm already struggling with the same issue of homeless, formerly homeless people being put into units where only elderly people live. Um, so I already have a meeting scheduled with the housing and community
development uh team to discuss this very issue. The real issue is I don't know whether the county entered into a contract with the homeless trust to place homeless formerly homeless people in any unit uh that is you know
affordable I guess because somebody's funding it. I don't know if the formerly homeless are working. I don't know that. Right. What what I know is that the elderly have retirement and they are forced to pay 30% of their um of their revenue stream whatever it is whether
it's a second job or their retirement to live in these buildings. So is this a projectbased? Is this a section 8 project based? >> This is not projectbased section 8. >> So these are vouchers that the elderly have. >> Some of the unit some of the tenants would probably have vouchers and I can
refer to the county more because they know the actual structure of the makeup of the building. But that is actually the reason and Commissioner Suarez this goes to your point as well why these buildings and these subsidies were created. They were created so that the rents would not increase on the elderly
population. That's why they have these covenants. The covenants that are recorded against these projects make it so that the rents are only increasing very slightly according to the HUD standards up to% the rents are capped
right so they cannot continue to go up which is why these are you know good places for our seniors to live so that they're not concerned with this rapid escalation in rents that we're seeing every place else. >> Thank you. So, this is what I'm going to do now. I'm going to turn it over to
Commissioner Botnam and now I I'm going to I need us to have a conversation. You've been incredible with a wealth of information, but I need to us to talk because he keeps getting interrupted. I plan on reaching out to Mayor Cava. I'm concerned about giving off any leverage we have before I can have or
collectively we have those conversations. Commissioner Bot. >> Yeah. So, I would um I'd like to make a motion to defer, but I also want to talk about some ideas. First of all, I'm very concerned. I'm very supportive of getting homeless off the street into
situations where they will succeed. I'm very concerned that taking folks off the street without wraparound service, without any kind of um support, without knowing that they're homeless, Miami Beach based homeless. Um I I think
that's a disservice to our community, primarily the wraparound service. And I know money is tight for everyone and I know we're all trying to do more with less and we're all struggling. This is a national problem, but at the same time, we have other issues. And before we
create new homeless families, I think we need to prioritize those folks because putting people who are living on the streets without the wraparound services, without psychiatric and medical care, without job training, without all the services and just putting a roof over their head. We hear from the police
department and from Alba's [clears throat] shop time and time again that people they pick up again um have places to live but they are not able to they because of the way they have evolved as as adults and so to me that is doing a disservice to them and it's
also um not making the best highest use of that real estate. Second of all, I would like to have a real conversation about how I mean the land value of of that property exceeds the value of of the of the um
>> the current building. I am not proposing a live local project there. Do not anybody mistake what I'm suggesting. However, we have had an incredibly beautifully designed um very successful project up in North Beach,
the Vista, the Vista Breeze. Did I get the name right? Mhm. >> Um, and I don't know if it's it's comparable, but I do know there's all kinds of public and private money that was put into it where it's it's beautiful. It's um secure. It's um um it
is a place where you can live in dignity, not in a squalid SRO, which listen, a 500 foot studio for a senior person living on a very fixed income can be a lovely place to live if it is carefully thoughtfully designed. If the plumbing doesn't leak, if there's
working air conditioning, if you have a plenty of natural light, if you are soundproofed, it doesn't have to have goldplated faucets and a, you know, 70,000 foot amenity deck. So, this live lo local BS, not interested, but I would like to have a conversation about
perhaps, and I don't know what theou is ironclad. There was no way to get out of it, but it was done in 2012, you said, or 2014. Needs, times, priorities, opportunities were different. So, I would like to make a motion to defer so that many of these conversations that
we're having up here can be discussed so that we can find a better use for this to help incentivize, encourage, and and create housing for workforce housing. And it and it might Thank you. And it
might also have some um um housing for people coming off the streets who have shown that they you know it might have multiple levels of HUDmandated AMIs and that's part of the conversation but to squander this opportunity with land that
we own currently and to turn it over for more of the same I'm not I'm not comfortable with it. So >> and I'm just one clarification the city of sorry the city of Miami Beach does not own the land. Um it's uh the nonprofit organization >> the MB the >> Miami Beach Community Development
Corporation. Correct. You have two mortgages. So you have two >> So but still the that is an organization that is based in Miami Beach and they could come to the table and say you know what we do think this is a better use and like let's bring them into the convers. I don't know how to do this. This is all new to all of us on the
table um on the days rather. And so I think you're hearing I think we're all hearing clearly that there is an opportunity and a desire to do something better that serves people better with the best possible outcome. And I don't think anybody here knows how to get from where we are today to where we potentially want to be. So there's a
motion in a second to defer and um with the mayor's permission I' I'd like it if you could call the vote. >> One more one more thing. So you >> I'd like to call the vote too but Commissioner Suarez then Commissioner Mata Selenus and then we'll call the vote. Miami Beach doesn't own the land, but we have a mortgage on it.
>> Correct. >> You're a lender. >> So, so we're So, we've paid for this on [snorts] and and the taxpayers >> Well, you you paid for it with federal dollars. Federal dollars that came to the city of Miami Beach for the purposes of
>> But the loan we're the principal loan owner, correct? >> Yes. Correct. You hold >> So, we don't we don't actually own anything then. We just have a loan on the property. >> And both of the loans are forgivable loans. There's no debt service. >> And
if we're the loan, maybe this is a question for the city attorney. If we're the loan holders, what rights do we have to the property? If, for example, we require this MBCC to
pay pay off the loan. >> I'm going to ask Jessella who's at the podium. >> I think we have a motion to defer anyway. So, this I think it's I'm pretty confident it's going to pass. So, I mean, obviously I love to get more. >> Just a very quick question. Would would a deed in le of foreclosure be an option here or because of the source of funds
is the natural course simply for the property to go to the county and then the county to be responsible for what comes next? >> We're basically we are we hold two mortgages and each of these mortgages provides that in the event of a sale
that we would be paid. So, we have the option of getting paid or we have the option of assigning and having the county assume these our restrictive covenant which will require that the
property ma be maintained affordable through um 2043. >> How much are the loans? >> The city mortgage also has a reversionary provision. We're here discussing the RDA loan which is a
million5. There's a city mortgage that's 2,800 and something that has a reversionary provision in that mortgage that states that at the end of the affordability period, the city has the option of either extending the
affordability period further or requiring that the owner transfer the property back to the city. that that was done, excuse me, and that's not a common provision, but that was done because those $2,800,000 were used in connection partially with
the purchase of the property. So, because it was a large amount and and used in connection with the purchase of the property, that additional restriction was inserted in the mortgage at that time. >> Thank Thank you. I think what what I'll do is I'm going to look further into the loan documents to see whether if if this
is something that the commission and or the RDA board at a later date wants to consider whether a deed in le of foreclosure where the city takes back the property if that's something that the board has an appetite to do is an option but um but I need to look into that more closely.
>> Commissioner Mate >> Oh, I'm sorry. Just just if I could just so everyone understands. >> Okay. I I did I you by the way you've been very helpful but I really got to keep this moving. >> Just the county the the county holds mortgages that are that are also senior to the city of Miami Beach. So it
wouldn't just be as simple as Adiden Lou because the county would have this [snorts] senior priority on what to do. >> Well, you definitely come across as an expert as you identified. Commissioner Matteo Selenus. Um, really quickly, and I don't want to prolong this, um, as we take our vote, but I just to
Commissioner Bot's point, I would love to have a sunshine meeting to discuss this further because I think it really is important to clarify what happened with the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation and how we went down this path. And we're discussing one building, but there's actually in total 12 that are going to be transferring to the county. And I just really want to be
clear what that means. And um so I would love to have a host the sunshine meeting Commissioner Bot if you're if anyone is interested um because this is a very big issue in our city everywhere affordable housing. Okay. I would love to have you Commissioner Lopez and anyone um because
it's it's it's a very very deep convoluted issue and I just want to clear the record on a lot of issues. Thank you. >> Thank you Commissioner Lopez. We get to see you again at our meeting so forward to it. >> Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Bot.
>> Second. [clears throat] >> I have motion from Commissioner Bot to defer to September 10th, seconded by originally by Commissioner Fernandez. Uh this is RDA2. All in favor of deferring it to >> I'm sorry. Is I don't know if September will be enough time. I know a lot of people are gone in August and this seems
like it's going to be a pretty thorny issue. Do we want to defer it and I want to get it right. I don't want to have this mess again. Do we want to defer to to October? I think we have a Do we have a second meeting in September? >> It is a budget meeting. I don't know if you >> Okay. So, October >> October. Yeah.
>> So, the October meeting, I believe it is October 14th. >> Yep. >> Okay. All in agreement. >> So, we're deferring RDA2 to October 14. Motion by Commissioner Broad, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. All in favor, please say I. I.
>> Any opposed? Hearing none, this item is deferred via 80. May I have the same motion for companion item C70? >> Moved. >> Moved. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, can I I'll just do a vacuumation both of both of the joint items.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you for your expertise. Um it was incredibly valuable to this discussion. Great teamwork up here on the deas. Um so, thank you. >> We'll get to this. >> Yes, absolutely. Any other >> RDA items? >> RDA's conclude. Thank you, Commissioner
Lopez. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. We look forward to seeing you October 14th. I'm sure we'll see you before then, though. >> It's called R9G. R9G is proposed new agreement with Sedexico Live for Miami Beach Convention
Center Food Beverage Services. R9G. So, I actually pulled this item last time as Commissioner Fernandez and co-sponsored by Commissioner Mattail Selenus and Commissioner Bot. Um, since I pulled it, I'll I'll just I I think you remember the discussion last time. So, I'm going
to I'm going to recommend referring it to the finance committee, which was the referral and also I um the item has a slight extension. Uh, if you want to address that. >> Yes. Uh, mayor. Um, this item is a referral to the finance committee to discuss the contract and extending the
contract on a month-to-month basis through December of this year. >> Yeah. And I and as I mentioned, I won't uh elaborate too much, but as as I mentioned last time, Sedexo, they're doing a great job. They're they're they're they do these large scale convention events. Outstanding. My issue
and that I'm going to continue working on. I've asked Eric to to get involved in discussions was these smaller resident charity events that maybe 500 people or a little less. Um you saw representative from the Miami Business Club came last time. They've worked it
out actually since that meeting. Maybe somebody wants to do a wedding uh there again at nights or on week or on weekends when the convention center is not activated and there's nothing going on anyway. It's a great service to our residents and and I found that it's been uh it's been challenging to to find to
find that balance. So, we'll continue to work on that and make sure that's part of the contract uh when we uh when it comes up for a vote. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to be uh sensitive of of those concerns. I'm,
you know, I'm grateful to um to to Sedexo and I know uh Doug Connor is is here as well. Um you know, as we all know, they've agreed uh to discounts for for our local residents. I think it's a
20% discount um and uh certain certain donations uh for 501c3s, making sure that the events are at cost to these organizations. Clearly more can be done for for example one of the things I know like the kosher caterer is dancing and
dancing can be a little bit expensive and I know you've mentioned to me uh you might be willing to also add more options perhaps uh up to three or four possible uh cers uh so that there can be competition uh in that part of the
contract as well >> there there actually has been uh five >> five okay >> other kosher caterers that have worked with us in the last few years as well so it's completely completely open. It's not exclusive to Dan >> Ziger. All right. So, I'll move the item for uh to to go to FK. >> I'll second.
>> Call the vote. >> I have a motion for the referral to the finance committee by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Dominguez. All in favor, please say I. I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. R9G is referred to FK. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Um R5G. >> That was R5G. >> That was R 9. >> Oh, R5G. Sorry. >> R5G. Yeah. R5G is an in order to the mayor city commission of city may reach court amending chapter 10 of the code of city may reach entitled animals by amending section 101 10-11 thereof entitled
running at large prohibited exceptions by providing a grace zone extending from the perimeter of the area designated by the city manager for the benefit of the owner of an unleashed animal who inadvertently allows his or her animal to stray outside the approved perimeter and providing for repealer of ability cification and effective date. This is a
second reading public hearing. It is item R5G. Commissioner Suarez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, second reading for this. And again, you know, there's a lot of, I guess, misconception online to think that we're going to be extending an off leash dog uh, park beyond the
actual dog park in South Fifth. The South of Fifth dog park is unique in the sense that there's no fence. So, if our one of our dogs runs out for a second to chase a ball, which my dog happens to do all the time, unfortunately,
um there shouldn't be a penalty from any enforcement agency of of the city. And I think strikes a perfect balance of uh of enforcement and uh leniency for
for for pet owners considering this dog park isn't fenced. And um I move my second motion by Commissioner Suarez, second by Commissioner Fernandez. It is a public hearing. I see someone on Zoom. Yanna,
I'm sorry. Let me hear from Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> Oh, >> Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> My concerns are the same as they were before. Um, that park is unique. It is unfenced, but um there were so many people that had written me and sent
videos of what happens there. So, I'm concerned about adding leeway for um Unleashed outside of that particular area. And maybe something to look at for the future would be to fence in that area because there have been dog dogs
that have bitten uh people and get into fights with other dogs. So, it's not an area that's without its issues. But that's my concern. >> Commissioner Bot. >> Yeah, I I share those concerns. Um, and you know, just just because a dog runs
outside of the existing parameters doesn't mean that they that that owner is going to be cited. I think as the police do with other matters of law enforcement that are not major, there are um um there's there's a matter of judgment and
discretion. And so I don't think that expanding this um is going to make anything better. In fact, I think it's going to make it worse. It's going to be harder to enforce, more complicated. Um and um I have seen uh long before even this was an item on the on the agenda.
I've I've gotten um residents reaching out to me about issues with dog owners um with their dogs off leash uh attacking children, attacking cat feeders, a cat attacking other dogs. Um and we need less chaos, not more of it. So I will be a no on this.
>> We have a motion. I have a motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. Um, it is a public hearing. I have no one here in the audience requesting to speak. I have three in Zoom. Joanna, please go ahead. >> Joanna, please unmute yourself.
>> Hello. Do you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Uh, hi, my name is Joanna Barinska, 90 album Road. Uh instead of speaking I have submitted the video to the uh audiovisisual department. Uh I'm asking the mayor for about 2 minutes 25 seconds
to play that video if possible. It's called off leash. Thank you. [cough] >> Next call. >> I'm looking at our communications department. I'm not >> PJ. If you don't have it, let's go to the next one and we could always go back to it. But let's continue to the next
caller. I don't know if you want to set a present. [clears throat] >> And by the way, >> nothing to do with the item, right? >> So, let's let's go to >> also. Yeah. I mean, these these have to be vetted obviously because we can't just allow the videos to go up without knowing what it content could be.
>> So, let's go to uh Brian Teasley. And Brian has two callers here. So, let's just pick one, PJ, and and go with that. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Thank [clears throat] you very much. Uh, Commissioner uh, Brian Teasley, 90 Alton
Road, Commissioner Magazine. I lived at Aan Mercer in the village for more than a decade. Feel the same way about opportunities in that town as you do. Unfortunately, at the first reading of this proposal, Commissioner Suarez did a
bit of a uh, sales job on you and on Mayor Miner and two of the other commissioners. Uh he said something like, "I just don't think Fluffy's owner should be given a ticket, a citation for an off leash dog if the dog just happens to stray outside
for uh briefly momentarily." He's used those words and for uh just chasing a squirrel or a ball or something like that. Now, at the moment, nobody is being given a ticket in that situation. What this uh proposal actually does, and
you need to be very careful about this, it creates an off leash zone 100 ft around the perimeter of the current off leash park in which you can have an off leash dog for up to five minutes.
And that's a lot of squirrels and a lot of stray balls. So, I went down, I walked around the park. 100 ft around the current park gives you the entirety of the entrance fountains, the walkway along the water, and all the way to the artistic
lighthouse that everybody sits around and having uh and has picnics around. So, if you pass this ordinance, these guys with the Rottweilers, the Doberman's, and the other very dangerous dogs are going to walk into the park with the dogs off leash. They're going
to wander around. They're going to go to the prominade. They're going to wander over to the lighthouse and after that time they're going to look around and they're going to say, "Oh, there's no park ranger." So 5 minutes of off leash time is going to become 10, might become 15. And then finally, when one of the
park rangers shows up, they're simply going to leash the dog. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right, next caller is Andres Aion. >> Um, good morning, Commissioner. I I go to that park with my dog probably uh two or three times a day. So, um I'm very
familiar with the area. I would say that um the idea of the fence is a great idea. Second thing, I've never seen any ranger ever ticket anybody with an off leash dog um ever. So, um we're going after trying to prevent something that's
happened that I don't think has ever happened. I'm curious to know how many citations have been given to people with off leash dogs. every single time a ranger comes by and sees a, you know, there's several people that run with their dogs off leash in that area and whenever a ranger comes by, they tell them something, they leash them. But I
don't think that there's ever been a ticket given to anybody with an off leash dog in that area. So, um, I would just recommend that that idea of the fence be implemented for that area and have a a nice fence uh for that for that dog park. Thank you, May.
>> Mayor, that concludes the public hearing portion of this item. >> Mr. Mayor >> Commissioner Bach. >> Um, just for the record, I want to make clear that um, my comments were made as a longtime dog lover. I've rescue dogs. I've got two rescue dogs in at home at
the moment. And the little dog is affectionately known as the 10 lb terrorist. He never goes off leash. Neither of my dogs, none of my dogs ever have because um, it's, you know, at the end of the day, dogs are animals who react to things the same way that people
do on a bad day. And there's no telling when a dog, no matter how well trained, might have an adverse reaction or get provoked and um there be unfortunate consequences. So, this is not anything about um not caring for dogs, having a preference for one type of dog over
another, um anything like that. It's just a public safety issue, and I would be very supportive of putting a fence into make a large dog park where you could let your dogs off leash within the dog park um without putting anybody else at risk. Thank you, >> Commissioner Suarez.
>> Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I [snorts] I don't know. I I I don't see the big issue here with this particular dog park. It It's the only dog park in Miami Beach that's by design doesn't have a fence. And I, for
one, don't want to leave it to the discretion of an officer or park ranger to either give a citation or not. I think that's why we're up here to put some checks and balances on on the enforcement side. To the one of the previous callers, maybe 5 minutes is too
much. I'm okay with 2 minutes because I think that's plenty of time to if your dog accidentally goes outside the boundary. You should have 2 minutes to to to collect the or to to to get your dog. So, I'm okay to amend that. And and
I think that's I think that's perfectly reasonable. Again, this isn't designed to make it an off leash zone 150 ft from the from the park. I I think this is this is just to say to any enforcement
officer there's a twominut dis grace period. If just so happens that your dog runs, you're not going to be cited for that. So I I'd like to make that amendment for for two from 5 minutes to 2 minutes. >> We can take care of that.
>> Okay. Yes. >> Um I I'll be supportive uh especially with that amendment. Um I can't let a good dad joke go unwasted. Uh [snorts] I'll have a short leash with this. Um if there's any issues here, I I
would uh ask to revisit it. Um, in particular, kidding aside, the issues that Brian uh laid out, I I think he laid it out pretty eloquently where we don't want this to signal that, you know, Rottweilers and pit bulls are somehow, you know, allowed off their leash and just to be roaming free. This
is to accommodate this, uh, let's call it grace period, if you will. Um, so with that, uh, I'll be fine supporting this. And by the for the record, I want So most breed dog breeds I've had pit bulls
and they're the most loving dogs. So I don't know why we're vilifying pit bulls because they really were meant and bred to be family dogs. So um you know I I think all dogs are they're domesticated. It's just who
raises them is what really becomes the problem. So just want to put that out there. We have a motion to second as amended. >> Motion by Commissioner Suarez as amended with a two-minute grace period. Seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. Uh, Vice Mayor Dominguez,
>> no. >> Commissioner Suarez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bach, >> no. >> Commissioner Magazine, >> yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas, >> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> yes. >> Motion passes. The item is approved.
That was item R5G. R5F R5F is an orders of mayor city commission of city Miami Beach Florida amending chapter 30 of the Miami Beach city code entitled code enforcement by amending article 2 entitled special magistrate at section 30-37 thereof entitled terms of office compensation to amend the procedures for establishing
the compensation for special magistrates other than the chief special magistrate and providing for repealer servability applications at an effective date. This is item R5F. Commissioner Matteo Selenus. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item is um actually doesn't have anything to do with terms of office, but it's the
section of the code that is that we're adding that the city manager can um amend the compensation. >> With that, I move my item. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Manager. >> Yeah. And I just wanted to mention that this particular item basically aligns
the special magistrates with the chief special magistrate that the manager can currently set the hourly rate for. As you've seen with me in the last 6 months, my intention would always be to bring that to you for consideration, but
this does align the two so they're not different um rules. I move my item. >> Second. >> A motion by Commissioner Mateo Selena, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. It is a
public hearing. I see no one on Zoom and no one in the audience requesting to speak. Commissioner Bot, >> yes. >> Mayor Dominguez, [snorts] >> yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Suarez, >> Commissioner Matselinas, >> yes. >> Commissioner Magazine,
>> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> Mayor, >> yes. Thank you. The This is item R5F. It is approved 70. Uh second meeting public hearing is scheduled for September 10th.
Okay. So discuss that important item. Now uh we'll call them together. R7A, R7B, R7 C, and R9D. >> Oh, you even brought your bow tie for uh today, John. Huh? So R7A it is
authorized geobond storm water moratorum on water sewer rates. R7B is geobond for storm water only option one. R7C is geobond for storm water and sewer option two and
R9D is discuss geo bond for storm water capital fund water sewer program. Welcome, John. >> Good morning. John Norris, public works director. I'm bringing back the two options that were requested at the last commission meeting. We had started
discussing the geo bond option to fund water and sewer infrastructure and critical infrastructure projects. So, we had two options that we were asked to bring forward. One was an all geo bond option to fund our 10-year
capital improvement plan and the other was a hybrid option. If you remember a few months ago, we came to city commission to request a rate increase on water, sewer, and storm water rates. What we've done with the hybrid option is we are requesting a water and sewer
rate increase, which was about half of the rate increase, and then we're looking at a geo bond option for the storm water projects associated with the 10-year CIP plan. If we could pull up the presentation, PJ.
It's a very short presentation, only a few slides. [clears throat] So what we did, we looked at who are the residents of Miami Beach. 90% of the residents of Miami Beach live in condominiums, not single family homes. So it makes sense to look at the cost to
a condominium dwelling resident. We took a sampling of condos throughout the city. Condos have master meters. Each resident is not paying their own water bill. It's split up amongst all the residents. We took the total water bill for a sampling of condos throughout the
city and we divided them by the number of units to come up with what is the average expenditure per condo dweller in the city. In addition, we came up with associated values of those condos, which are very
important because we're talking about a general obligation bond, which is based on an increased millage rate. So, the total expense would be based on the assessed value of the property. You see the first value there is $318,570.
That is the median home value for a homestead of property in Miami Beach. And then 966,000 $857 is the average homestead value in the city. And then we threw in some other values just to put perspective on what
the cost difference would be based on the type of or the value of the home that you owned. So as you can see for the condos the variance was cheaper for the hybrid
option. That option again includes increasing the water and sewer rates only increasing the storm water rate by CPI which is a current ordinance and then doing a geo bond for the storm
water component of the capital improvement plan. So those two columns of numbers 177202 down to 586049 that's the combined utility bill and portion of the property
owners tax bill associated with the go bond. So on the left hand column all the projects be funded through geo bond. on the right hand column. Only the storm water projects would be paid for through
geo bond. As you would expect, as the property value goes up, the variance gets greater because the weight on the geo bond is greater on those higher value properties. So, this is for a condo. You
can see in all cases that we sampled, the hybrid option is a cheaper way to go. And by the way, this is an annual cost, not a monthly cost. So you can divide that by 12 and that gives you an idea of what the monthly cost would be. We did that because a tax bill is
annual. Then we looked at single family residential homes that are homesteaded. Again, we have the same median value, the same average value, and the same sample values given. You
can you can see the first line, the all geo bond option is the better way to go at an assessed value of $318,570. There aren't many single family homes with that assessed value in the city. There are some that exist. They are
likely houses that were purchased 30, 40, 50 years ago and have been homesteaded since then. So, the assessed value has been locked in at a 3% maximum increase. The bulk of the homes are going to fall, I'm sorry, the bulk of
the single family homes are going to fall far above that amount. So, you could see in those cases, it's a better option to do the hybrid. This is the original proposed rate adjustment. And I just wanted to bring
this slide up to put in perspective what we were originally talking about, which has brought us to where we are right now. The average single family home using 5,000 gallons per month currently
pays $138 a month. Over a 10-year period, that would increase to $231 per month. And you can see the associated adjustments each year.
The adjustments start higher and then taper off and go more towards a CPI adjustment. This is a rate increase that we are proposing with the hybrid option. If you remember, I said we're taking away the
storm water rate increase and only doing the water and sewer rate increase, which those are two distinct enterprise funds. It's important to note that these enterprise funds operate like a business. We do not typically receive money from
the general fund to fund water, sewer, and storm water. We receive the revenue from the users, the water bill, and all of our expenses come out of that. That includes our operating expenses and our capital
improvements. This shows the original proposed rate adjustment versus the all geo bond versus the hybrid model. Again, [snorts] what you could see is for the lowest
value, there's a savings for the all geo bond, the 318. That's a single family residential though, so it is very limited. And then as you get up towards the uh towards the $5 million value, the
monthly cost goes up significantly. and I'm going to open it to any questions that anybody might have. >> Commissioner Suarez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, John and I have have been talking the last couple days. Um, and
I want to land this in the best [clears throat] way that's for the most equitable for Miami Beach and and the residents. When you use the calculation for single family homes,
it's not it's because you are able to have the water usage per household. Correct. In >> Okay. And the way you have defined it is
5,000 gallons a a month. Correct. So when it comes to condos, it's much harder to do an analysis. And so part of this analysis is you the city had to do
a sample correct of of multiple condos and there are you unfortunately you don't have a specific water meter for each unit. Correct. you have a master meter,
you divide however many gallons and then you divide by that uh units in there and you have an average per per unit when so just to put it into perspective
if you have a household with a median with the median income of 310 or what was on the slide >> a median value of 318,000 >> 318,000 correct And that's assuming 5,000 gallons a month.
The cost is slightly higher. Correct? And what why is that important to note? It's important to note because the if you are a resident in Miami Beach, you have a family, you're probably using 5,000 gallons a month. If
you are a full-time resident here, you are using 5,000 gallons a month or more. [snorts] If you are in a building that has, let's say, snowbirds in it, that average is going to skew down
because if you're only here for 3 months out of the year, some of the units, and you you the cost share or the usage share would would average down below 5,000.
So, John, if you own a household, correct, with the medium income and you're using 5,000 gallons a month, which option is is more expensive.
>> What depends on the value of the the assessed value of the property? >> So, median and below >> median below the all geo bond would be more advantageous. >> Okay. By how much? >> That number was $97 annually. So
>> over the course >> $8 $8 a month. >> No, no, over the course of the 10 years. >> Over the course of that 10 years. And it'd be $970 over 10 years. >> Okay. Um >> actually I I'm sorry. Let me restate
that. The numbers we are giving you are for the highest debt service year which would be 2035. So it would actually be progressive up to that point. So that's not an accurate statement I said. So
just so my colleagues are aware, if you have a median household income and you if you if your how if your portfolio is within the median and below, this would affect you disproportionately
as if if you were above the median household income or not income the value. So, you know, we have to wrestle with the idea that if we go with a hybrid option,
the most struggling residents in Miami Beach are potentially paying more under the hybrid option. I do however understand the need to keep this enterprise fund afloat and I think not
our doing decades of commission me commissioners have really declined to put this in good standing and you know I want to hear how my
colleagues feel about what we potentially could be doing on this because I'm still I'm I'm not even sure where I stand on this yet. I I want to hear from from a few others and and see how do they wrestle with the idea that
the most challenged residents in terms of affordability are going to be not as [clears throat] it's going to hurt them more than um than the ones who aren't challenged
financially. >> Yeah, if I could, Commissioner. So we used an average. These buildings have onebedroom, twobedroom and threebedroom units. Sometimes four and five bedroomedroom units. That is the best approach that we could take.
The lower assessed value units are likely going to be your onebedroom and two-bedroom units. And while your usage might be averaging about 3,200 gallons a month, conventional wisdom would say that the
lower val lower lower assessed value units are going to be smaller with fewer fixtures. So it actually have less usage. So that would that would bring that number down. This the best way we have to
>> sample for for condos. Yeah. And yes, >> and just so everyone is aware, how many condos did you sample for this particular analysis that was on the slide? >> There are 18 buildings that were sampled of varying sizes and varying geographic locations and ages as well.
>> And when you did the sample, it is from what we discussed, some buildings, some some condos or apartments were better off with the full geo. Obviously, some were better off with the hybrid.
>> What were the differences in those condos? >> And when you when you did the sample and and you saw that some condos were it was pref it was beneficial to to the to the ones who were sampled
um for maybe higher usage, more occupancy and the geo bond would have been more beneficial to them. Maybe you could speak a little bit more about that. >> Yes sir. the the lowest value were the ones where the all geo bond
worked better. However, again, we have to if we had a way to prorrate that usage. If we had a meter for every condo, this would be a very easy exercise. We don't. We are averaging across a building. I live in a condo building. We have predominantly
one-bedroom units in the building. I live in a three-bedroom because I have a bunch of kids, but that average is going to be skewed based on the number of bedrooms and number of fixtures per unit. So again, this is just an exercise
that we're doing to try to come up with overall the best the best approach to funding the capital improvement plan for all of our residents. >> Commissioner Magazine and then Commissioner Bot, then Commissioner Fernandez. >> Thank you everybody for this. our our
administration. You have jumped through hoops that we've put you through over the past several years. Thank you to the commission um for being costconscious but also realizing how critical it is that we move forward with some of these infrastructure and resiliency challenges
because of how important and nuanced these discussions have been evidenced by just the back and forth that we heard there. we've all become so detailoriented. I I think what we can also do is take a
step back and make this even more simple. And I actually apologize for not kind of seeing this earlier and uh helping steer in this direction. >> Apology accepted. >> And this is where I hope to go with
this, right? We're getting so caught up in the weeds about geo bond versus revenue bond and what portion it should be. Let's take a step back and ask what we're trying to achieve. Two primary things move forward which we all collectively
agree is needed with critical critical infrastructure and resiliency projects that have been kicked down the road until this commission said enough's enough. we won't be the commission that keeps kicking it down the road. Right? So, that is the number one challenge
that our residents face every single uh storm season, every single summer. We need to be serious about moving forward with these infrastructural resiliency challenges. The second needle that we need to thread is affordability.
We all see our residents are impacted by the increased cost of living and we're doing everything that we can evidenced by our budget meeting last Friday where we sat here for hours and hours and cut millions and millions and millions of
dollars of recurring spending. So instead of getting further caught up in trying to decipher which funding mechanism is best, I think the best way to achieve those two primary objectives is moving forward with critical
infrastructure resiliency and keeping costs low is we take that list that was given us to the administration that we're essentially thinking about moving forward with now. The total is about what, John? about $775 million in present value.
>> Yes, sir. >> Right. And we say we're actually going to pair that down right now. Right. We're only going to move forward with those items that we can all help to define that are missionritical.
That being no neighborhood gets favored or benefited. But the projects that we can either move forward with right away or we lose state or federal funding or that we need to do because they are
critical because we have pipes bursting. Right? When I went through this project list with John, there's some projects on here in part of this, you know, the number that we're contemplating borrowing for that have no physical way
of being done in the next 10, 12 years, right? We're borrowing for things like First Street phase three and four or authorizing borrowing. That's not going to get completed within 15 years, if ever. write this project list.
We would need to implement a new public works and CIP department to undertake all of these in the next 10 years. These are huge undertakings and it is very very robust. So what I would propose
is we scale down the amount that is being proposed by the administration somewhere around what is contemplated under the utility rate for the hybrid option around $430 million something along those lines.
Right? We find the mixture of storm water and water projects that are mission critical. the total in aggregate to about that $430 million. And we borrow through those how these projects are
typically borrowed um through utility rate uh funding. And that saves everybody versus what is being proposed here, poorest and most vulnerable to the richest.
And in five years from now, if you come and tell us, you know what, we've been able to make so much progress, it's time that we can be serious about these more ambitious pie in the sky type things, then we can have a renewed discussion
around that. But if we're trying to thread a needle of affordability and cost efficiency, I really don't see the need that we need to borrow here 750 or $775 million.
We borrow now for only the projects that are missionritical that we have significant federal and state funding for that we would lose if we don't do a combination of storm water neighborhood improvement projects and critical uh water uh and storm water
projects and we travel on the same path that the utility rate portion of the hybrid would have traveled. So in September, we come back for first reading and we say we're here to authorize, let's call it 400, $450
million that would reflect a much scaled down increase to everybody across the income spectrum than is being proposed in either the full geobond method or the hybrid
method. Right? We save $300 million of costs that regardless of what funding mechanism would be borne by our residents. So we achieve affordability by really pairing down this wish list into nice to
have into really let's fund the meat and potatoes, the things that are very critical right now and not just right now but for the next couple of years. Give you breathing room to do these projects. give our residents breathing room so we're not in construction paralysis
and we move forward and by definition we've actually achieved significant cost savings versus either one of those options that are being proposed just by the sheer reduction in the total amount that we're borrowing. >> Thank you Commissioner Magazine.
Commissioner Bot and then Commissioner Fernandez. John, can you clarify if we are proposing to borrow everything now or just authorize the borrowing as we need it? >> No, we would be borrowing as we needed it. So, the debt service would not hit
until later on certain projects. What you know, one concern I have unless we take let's say our first five years of projects and we spread that out over the next 10 years, then I see that we would realize savings. But if we say we're
going to do the first five years and we're going to borrow all that money in 5 years, I'm not not a finance guy, but I think the financial hit is still going to be the same because we're going to be doing the same thing in 5 years for that
second half of the CIP program. Now, if we do spread this out and and I do want to be clear, we have actually spread this out significantly. When we started this exercise, we looked at can we deliver these projects in this time period and we went
back and forth and decided no, we couldn't. So, we started just pushing stuff out, pushing stuff out to we thought it was a manageable, now aggressive but manageable CIP plan. But, you know, I would like maybe Jason to
comment on the financial impact of that. And I wasn't I'm sorry commission compress that into an acceler I wasn't proposing to compress it into a more accelerated time frame than what you had proposed the exact funding mechanism that you have that exists in the hybrid
method for the utility rates. We do that but we don't move forward with the geo bond portion. Right? So we're borrowing less. we would have to essentially reconfigure what constituted that
uh utility rate portion of the uh revenue bond, right? But we're essentially borrowing less and yes, you're absolutely right, Commissioner Bach. We're just authorizing now, but the numbers that we're authorizing are being reflected in what these proposed rates are. So we essentially cap that
and say until we revisit this discussion you have 400 whatever number we decide on million dollars of projects that you can borrow to. So by definition that is a much much less
increase than what we were proposing in either of these two methods. So, John, I also and Jason in just a second I'll um but John, I also want to talk about the other part of that proposal. Um cutting half of the projects.
[laughter] >> Um I how long has it taken us as a city to get to the point where we are which is if we are going to do a hybrid option, it has to happen today. Otherwise, we missed the window to get it on the ballot in November, and then we are back
to being another year out if we're going to pursue the hybrid option. So, how long has it taken us to get here? And can you give some backstory on um on um why we're at this critical juncture? I mean, we haven't had CPI increases for
the water rates for for decades. Um and and we've the city has the city commission before us commissions before us has have not um focused on this. So we now have a backlog of projects. And
if you could provide a little color on that and then how long it's taken us to get to where we are today because my concern and I I'm [clears throat] not a polyiana. I'm not pretending that we're going to get all the projects done in the next 10 years, but to defer decision
making on half the projects which affect the entire city um for some future commission which may or may not have the stones to do what needs to be done. I'm not really comfortable with that unless you can tell me that that list of lesser than projects really doesn't matter to
the residents across the city. And I'd like to hear John's answer and and um and um and the CFO's answer to your earlier question. >> Just to clarify, there are CPI increases, right? >> So, yes, there have been CPI increases commission,
>> not on the impact fees, but CPI increases have been done as part of an ordinance that was adopted for the water and sewer rates, just not the impact fees, which the commission corrected a few months ago. question. >> I've been working on this since I got here, since we met. And then two
previous public works directors have been working on this rate increase as well. So, it's probably two to three years. I think Jason might be able to expand on that. >> Uh yeah, I can add a little uh to that. Jason Green, chief financial officer. I think it probably starts back in 201
I think when we started uh the city part me getting here, you know, endeavored on developing its critical needs program and its NIPs and getting those approved. It's been a long long process. Uh there was a rate ordinance put in place that set uh rates to be at CPI, but those first I think four or five years were
set artificially low. Uh and during that time frame, inflation was higher than that. So I think that the city lost out on inflation uh by 10%. Uh so the rates would have been 10% higher. And actually what was interesting and and working with the public works team on this is
when they looked at the year 2035 and they looked at what the utility rates would be your you know the average you know utility bill would be um you know the new ordinance uh that is being proposed on just the water and sewer having increased versus the existing was
a 10% in uh a 10% increase. So I kind of was joking with John was it that if if they just set the CPI back in 17 and left it alone, we might even be here for at least on the water and sewer component. So I thought that that was interesting. And then to the element of what we've been working on now, uh this
goes back, I want to say April of 25. So yeah, it's been probably a year and a half uh that this this has been been in the works. We started with utility rates and that was kind of postponed for a bit. Uh utility rates again, these were unanimous approval at finance. it was
postponed. It came back to the finance committee. Uh utility rates again were were were fully endorsed. Uh then it was postponed again and then we're we took a couple different tax based on commission discussion with geo bonds and and here we are with a hybrid model that we think is um uh the way to be able to move
forward. Thank you. >> I got Commissioner Fernandez and Commissioner Suarez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. John. So when we talk about selecting projects, so it's my understanding that there has been a
prioritization list that over the years the city has the city has a list of projects and those projects are numbered based on their critical nature um and and their importance to our city.
>> Yes sir. >> Okay. And that's and that's how the projects have been identified. >> Yes, sir. >> And the funding that the city needs has been identified based on that. >> Correct. >> Okay. it. So
you you you gave us a presentation um where you where you showed us different numbers and in that presentation you were comparing the residents uh total monthly cost uh not just utility uh rate charges but also
what the annual geo bond converted into a monthly amount would be. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. And the figures that you showed there assumed that all those households were consuming uh about 5,000 gallons
per month under every scenario >> for the single family homes. The condos were an average of 3,200 gallons per month per unit. >> Okay. All right. And the median that you established was
about 300,000. >> 318,000. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um and for those properties you showed an estimated monthly cost by 2035 of how much under the all geo bond option
for the all geo bond option for a condominium it was about $1,772. >> Okay. And for the hybrid option, >> 1,762. So $9.60 different.
>> So it was >> per year. >> It was about the same. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Hold on. >> Was that help me understand what how Commissioner Magazine's proposal
could be more beneficial to the city from your perspective, to the city, to the system, to to the utility system. And when I say to the city, you know, I think, you know, to the people that are receiving the services, to the homeowners, to the condo owners, and to the people who
ultimately need to pay because I'm my goal is to be able to deliver the projects that are as as the commissioner mentioned, mission critical, but at the lowest rate possible, which is why we placed that moratorum on the water and
sewer rate increases because it was it was going to be very burdensome. on on a lot of people. So, help me understand how Commissioner Magazine's proposal could be more beneficial to the city. So, if we're talking about the median
household median assessed value or lower, that would be less beneficial to them. Water and sewer rates are user fees and the storm water fee is a storm water assessment per unit.
So you can control your use of water and in return you're controlling your sewer fee as well because that's based on your metered water. But every household is going to have the storm water assessment
on it. So as you get lower, just like with your gas bill or your FPNL bill, the percentage of income to the lower income is going to be greater for their utilities. And and if we go with an
utility rate increase across the board, it's going to generally affect the lower income people at about the same level as it would the higher income people. When we add the geo bond component,
it does become a little more progressive on the storm water side. >> Did that answer your question? It shifts it shifts the burden based on on on on the property value. The people that have a higher property value in essence are
are are contributing more. And I >> borrow the same amount. >> What was that? Commissioner Magazine. >> Only if you borrow the same amount. >> You're answering Commissioner Fernandez's point as if we're borrowing
the same amount. I was I was just answering that is if we raise the utility rates and the storm water assessment across the board, how it's going to affect >> the residents. I I think that's what the question was. I'm I'm sorry. I'm trying to
>> and I don't mean to interject. >> I'm trying to understand. >> You answered it as if we borrow the same amount across the board. I'm not proposing that. When you said people on the lower income threshold would be more impacted but by what I'm proposing,
that's not correct because we're borrowing hundreds of dollar hundreds of millions of dollars less under my proposal. >> Let me clarify. Any utility rate increase was my point. Just like an FPNL bill or a gas bill is going to affect
the >> lower income person more than it would the higher income person. >> If I can add to it, I think I think the the general point would be because remember our total capital program uh for this period I think is about 1.1 billion total. It's partially cash flow
funded and partially uh debt financed. Uh I think with the I believe with the commissioner's basic proposal is to not do a geo bond and just revisit the entire capital program and say of the $1.1 billion which projects would we be moving forward with and which ones would we be not necessarily cancelling but
maybe postponing off into a semi- indefinite future. So if you paired down the program you would need less. But I guess from what you were explaining, placing more of the program on the utility rates shifts a greater relative
burden, whatever the amount we end up b bar b bar b bar b bar b bar b bar b bar b bar b bar b bar borrowing through utility bonds onto residents and lower assessed homes and people of more moderate income. um it puts more of a burden on them on a relative scale uh
while placing more of it on the geo bond asks owners of higher assessed uh properties to carry a larger share. >> Yes, sir. That was my point. >> Okay. >> You know, from the debt standpoint, that's a different answer to that
question. John, right? What I've suggested is borrowing the same exact amount in the utility via utility rates under
this proposal as your hybrid proposal. >> The same exact amount, right? So there's no shifting. Oh, well, okay, it's more for people. the same exact mechanism that you're proposing in your
hybrid. So, let's do that and we move forward with it. Let me ask you a question. What happens to the lower income people if in November the homestead
exemption is taken away or I'm sorry increased and then over the years it's greatly expanded. That means the people whose homes are worth 5, 10, $25
million that are paying right now in the geo bond are removed from that. What do you think that does to the people on the lower end of the income threshold to renters?
They are left carrying that burden of the homesteaded property tax uh payers that are removed from the system. I'm going to defer to CFO on that one. >> So, I just want to make sure I
understand the question. >> GEO bonds are funded via property taxes. Correct. >> Correct. >> I'm asking a question. I know the answer. Right. >> If in November a large portion of the people that are
paying property taxes are removed from having to pay them by definition. And then what is that going to do? The people that aren't part of that homestead exemption. And over the years, it's going to grow and grow and grow.
That is the plan here. So the people whose homes are worth 10, 20, 30, $50 million in Miami Beach are removed from having to pay into the geo bond debt service. >> Right.
>> I need clarity if I may. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So right now the the property tax reform that's going to the voters is if it passes the first year the homestead exemption gets increased to 150,000 and then the second year it gets increased
to 250,000. Um so so we're not we don't have a proposal and Mr. Attorney correct me if I'm wrong. We don't have a property reform that completely eliminates
um property taxes from from the B from people's trim notices. Is that correct? >> That is correct. The but the legislation does contemplate that the state legislature will adopt rules that would allow municipalities if they want to further increase the homestead
exemption. So, so, so, so it commands, it commands the legislature to prescribe a uniform method through which any other taxing entity could eliminate those those property taxes. And in this case, it would be up to us whether whether we
decide to to to do that. in which case if this property tax reform passes and in year two we're seeing an increase of $250,000 in essence the bulk of of people who are
in the medium property uh range or below Jason um if this passes they probably then won't be affected by this general obligation bond uh impact because they
would have a tax ex their their their property tax exemption goes up. >> Yes, Commissioner. If you have a if you happen to have a homesteaded property uh on the very end low end of the scale at 250 or lower and the constitutional amendment passes, my understanding of
that implementation would be you would pay uh no uh property taxes. So, it would be free to you. It would be a tax burden shift uh if that constitutional amendment uh so happens to pass. >> Okay. So, so in essence, those individuals,
probably a a big chunk of those individuals who are in the median uh property property value range of about 300 and how much was it? >> Uh 318. >> 318. If this $250,000
property tax reform passes, a probably a big chunk of those individuals won't be affected by the general obligation bond. uh if it were to pass in the ballot box, >> it would be an increase because there's already a 50 already included in that 318. So it would be a $200,000 increase.
So yeah, theoretically that median would shift down. >> So the people who are in the lowest income ranges would be would be protected. Um and so so I just think that's that's good clarity to have here. mic.
>> Commissioner, can you I didn't hear you. >> So, the Sorry, uh the lower income homeowners would get exempt. However, 66% of our
city, the residents are renters. They get no exemptions and they are the ones left holding the bag for where this shifts to. Right? If you lose income, it has to be borne by somebody. We can't just It's not going to say don't pay
your debt service. It's going to be borne by the people that aren't exempt from this. Right? And you I'll just reiterate very simplistically what I am proposing is I I can in good faith vote for and I I
don't lament people that are it is just my my difference in opinion. Um I think it's very important we move forward with water infrastructure resiliency. Um, however, I do think that we can pair
this down not to eliminate these projects, right? But the ones that are 15 years in the future, we don't need to authorize borrowing for that now. We can cross that bridge when we get closer to it, >> right? We send a message to our residents that we are really only doing
the things that are more missionritical, just like we did in our budget process, right? We are rep prioritizing things. We are authorizing the things that are only the highest priority and we could define that however you want, right? But we are
essentially only authorizing a lower amount to be borrowed. And by definition, that is the best way to save money for our residents, right? We're authorizing less to be borrowed. And what are we giving up? Projects like First Street phase three and four that
are never going to get done ever. Okay, this behind they're never going to get done. We We're not even at First Street phase one. That is at best talk to me honestly just bluntly 12
years 15 years. >> If you're asking me through the chair, um what we've presented here is a 10ear CIP. >> I know, but just First Street phase three and four, just talk to me. I don't even want to say off record. We're on
record, but just >> No, I we >> not with the engineering stuff, just layman's terms. >> You asked me this question yesterday and I said that my belief is that we likely wouldn't be able to start three and four for approximately 10 years, but it's
part of the 10-year CIP that we're proposing to fund through these rate increases over the next 9 years. Um, I think what I'm hearing from you, commissioner, is you would rather look at a five-year CIP, >> but not in a compressed borrowing
window. It's not even fiveyear, right? But the the projects that are not as missionritical, that is how we achieve affordability is we prioritize right now for the next couple of years and we revisit in a few years. If we come back and these affordability challenges have
lessened, then we look to a further borrowing program. We're not getting rid of these programs. We are just saying for the ones that can get completed in this short shorter, let's call it five to sevenyear window. Those are the ones
that we borrow for right now. I I don't have I I don't think it is prudent to sit here and authorize borrowing for projects that I'm not sold we're going to complete. Right? I look out and I see some of our
construction projects that are just your typical thing. We don't have any construction project and this isn't a knock on anybody. It's just how you know the city works. They get done on time in a timely basis.
We're having a discussion later on West Avenue to pay a million dollars to a consultant to tell us what what the heck is going on there for a project that's been talked about for 10 years. It's what a year and a half, two years over
over timeline from when we started, which was just like two or three years ago, right? So, we're sitting here arguing about the borrowing amount for these projects that are so pie in the sky
that I'm not going to authorize borrowing that could eventually increase the costs of our residents for these projects I'm not convinced are happening in any type of timely fashion. And if
you all prove in seven years or in five years, wow, we've we've zipped our way through these mission critical projects, it is time to now readress these more ambitious projects, then let's have this discussion again. It very simple. I'm
not saying we could never have this again, but right now we pair down our priority list of what we need and borrow authorized borrowing at a lower amount. And if I may, Commissioner, again, through the chair, um I I am just
struggling, I think, a little bit with some of the terminology that we're referring to. I don't necessarily think that we're pairing down. I think what we're talking about doing is potentially saying instead of funding the entire
10-year CIP in one, you know, ordinance, we're talking about funding a 5-year CIP in an ordinance now with the ability to revisit it at a future date. Now, what I don't know as we sit here today because
we haven't run the numbers is what that looks like from a um debt service coverage ratio and a borrowing number and what those rates are. So, I I can't definitively say I would love to
be able to say if you borrow half the money it's going to be half the cost, but I can't sit here today and say that because I don't think that we have that. already have a great proxy because in your hybrid method you're already proposing that so in a large way you've already mapped that out right
>> wait but that's not correct because um in the h and correct me if I'm wrong but I think the hybrid proposal bifurcates the type of project and what you're saying is that we'll take >> regardless of whether it's water sewer storm water >> um it could get funded with our with the
immediate funding and it's not bifurcated ated by type of project. So I don't think that's a correct analysis. >> Nobody's been able to explain to me why the different types of projects would cost different. >> I think Jason is one to >> any material.
I think there's two things. One, uh the reason GO versus uh your utility rates is because through GEO it's 100% debt financed. Uh where through utility rates it's a partial uh PIGO. So there's some PGO cash that's being utilized. And that's why the original $1.2 2 billion
program doesn't borrow nearly that much. But I believe the proposal that Commissioner Magazine is speaking about is is not have any general obligation debt at all. And what you would do is kind of defer the whole thing. Start I'm going to say start from scratch, but start with your CIP again and go through the projects and pick which ones are
moving forward now, which ones are delayed, which ones are being pushed out. And then once the commission says okay this is the what the landscape would look for or CIP then uh then public works would go back with the rate consult and come back with this is what a new set of utility rates for water sewer and storm water be from a from a
utility rate perspective. So it would take a little time >> and John also what it does is it removes any of the ballot risk and if the voters vote no what what are we going to come back and say oh just kidding I know we need to move forward with these things so let's do it anyway as our public
works director right we have this 10year $700 million project if I would say to you John right now we've been talking about this since years and years before you even came into the city with by
October on second reading, we can get you $450 million of projects to go do this 10-year plan. Would you not take that and run to the bank with not to the bank, but uh run to the construction site? Bad analogy, but would you not
jump up and down for that? that we didn't get everything, but we have certainty for the first time in in what eight years that we've been discussing these in 10 years that we are finally moving forward. It's not at this huge ambitious uh amount that we talked about
before, but for the first time in 10 years, we're actually moving forward with these critical projects that we all know that we need. If you told me to come up with $450 million in projects over the next 10 years, I would do that. But then that
would be presented to commission. And if I was to remove projects that I thought were not as critical, I'm going to focus on the water and sewer projects. And neighborhood improvement projects are by far the lowhanging fruit if we're trying
to reduce the budget down. So those would probably be the ones that would be cut from the list because we have an obligation to our residents to provide clean water and safely dispose of sewage.
Storm water, we have an obligation, but the projects that we propose, the NIPs are huge, huge projects. We can mitigate flooding in other ways. That's how our storm water critical needs projects were developed. We had neighborhood
improvement projects in those areas that didn't go forward. So now we're doing pro smaller projects to shore it up essentially. So I think there is a challenge there. Commissioner Magazine, I see your point. $450 million. We could take care of a
lot of critical needs with that. But then is this body going to be okay with the list that we provide? Yeah. >> Well, first we got Commissioner Suarez. >> Did you raise your hand? >> It was just to ask a question about that
point. By that point, it'll be gone. >> We'll get back to it. Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Bot, Commissioner Fernandez. >> Philosophically, I disagree that pro, you know, First Street Pro sections three and four are never going to get done. If that's
the that's sort of the rationale, why even start with part one, right? because, you know, we're [snorts] not here to just rubber stamp something. We're here to actually think things through and with the hopes that the entire project gets gets finished. I,
for one, want my children to live in Miami Beach and I want to make sure that these projects by the time they're my age are are completely done for their children and so on so forth. So I don't know if I necessarily buy the argument that these projects are
never going to get done because why would we start them in the first place? But I think what Commissioner Magazine is proposing is basically go back four months to before we implement this moratorum and say we're going to pick the projects
that we think are are needed most and then we're going to raise the water and sewer hike which we're going to raise the water and sewer rates to fund that which is which is why we passed a moratorium in first place to
prevent that from happening. So, um I'm a little confused here on why did we even pass a moratorum to begin with if if if that's the conversation we're going to have again and only raising
water and sewer rates is like John you said is going to disproportionately affect people who have who who are are are struggling not struggling but they are going to be affected the
most the the the challenged residents of Miami Beach. And I get it that we there's a difference between renters and homesteaders and I am mindful of that.
one of your analysis for the condos and I want to I want to kind of bring it back to the geo bond option versus the hybrid option because I for one am not going to want to
kick the can down the road. I want to I want to get these projects funded again. We can always do them in tranches, right, Jason? We it's it's going to there's going to be stop gaps of where the the funding comes from. It's not like we're issuing a check for $800
million all of a sudden. It's going to come in tranches, I'm assuming. Correct. >> Correct. We would have to come back to commission every time we wanted to borrow. >> I I'm of the belief that we needed to move forward on these projects. It's going to cost money. How do we fund it? And we're back to where we were about 30
minutes ago. What is the best way to do that? And [snorts] one of the one of the condos or buildings that John's staff sampled,
which I believe is a good representation of full-time Miami Beach residents, whether they're renters or or homesteaders, is Tower [snorts] 41. And when the analysis for tower 41 was
done was that the geobond option only was actually less expense was was advantageous to the the people that living there. Uh and I asked the staff behind you if what what which option was
was was more beneficial. So if you can come up please and and give us the reasoning of why. And again, and this is because I believe a building like that size and the full-time resident population is a is a good representation of full-time
residents in Miami Beach. So, if you can, John. >> Yes, sir. That So, that building had a little bit higher usage than the average. It was about 4,000 gallons per month versus 3200 gallons per month. And the value the average condo value was around 301,000
assessed value. So it would have been a lot of homestead of properties. >> Correct. So just want everyone to understand when you know I I don't really delineate between single family homes or or condos. I think of it more
of a household. And so [snorts and clears throat] if we want to give better relief to people who live here, who have who has families here, who a lot of children, a lot of showers, okay, a lot of toilet flushes,
the only geo bond option works best for that type of resident. How many times have we seen buildings go up where the people It's only for second and third homes. >> Mhm.
you know, to me that that's not that's not a look, not to say that those people don't deserve representation or um consideration, but you know,
who are we going to focus this on? Where are we where where is the sort of share of responsibility going to be placed on? Is it going to be placed on the people who live here full-time, who have large families, or the people who are here part-time?
So, I kind of want to just get everyone back here, you know, to the idea that I first of all, I I think we should move forward. Ultimately, the voters are going to decide this and if it gets turned down, then we have we'll cross that bridge
when we get there. So, how do we fund this? Is it better through a geobond only or is it better through a hybrid model? And I for one is a big believer in the geobond only
option. And again, I'd love to hear from my colleagues. >> Okay, we're getting to the second round of comments. So, let's try to My goal is to finish and vote on this item by 12:30. So, please keep that in mind. Commissioner Bot. Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez.
>> So, just in the last year, I think maybe two, we've had in one of them last week, we had a a sewer line break in North Beach. >> We had a uh water transmission main break. >> Sorry, a water man, forgive me. Um we
had um faulty pipes under the school playground. Um we had a sinkhole last year or the year before. I know I'm forgetting some. Um, we have North Beach NIP scheduled. I I don't I'm not
comfortable deferring this to even a month down the road without a list in front of me of saying what are the projects that won't get funded. If we go with $400,000, I we don't even know without analysis if um
if there will actually be savings. Um, you know, it's great to suggest that future commissions will do the right thing. I would hope that would be the case, but previous commissions haven't. So, why are we all of a sudden putting faith in people who may or may not have
the same priorities that this body does today? We have talked about this and I commend my colleagues because as I've said before, we all care deeply about resolving this in the most equitable and efficacious way possible. Um, but we've
talked about this for two years when when I was still on the finance committee, um, which Joe chaired then and chairs now. Sorry, Commissioner Magazine chairs then, chaired then and chaired now. We talked about this in great depth and we understand how serious this is.
I am I am not comfortable deferring this any longer. I think we've gotten I'm going to make a motion to um to um vote on option one, >> which is option one, the hybrid or >> the hybrid.
>> I'll second that. >> A question point of information. Mr. Fernandez, >> option one requires uh the combination of a rate increase. >> Yes, sir. >> Right. So, that would require five votes. >> Yes. But we would bring back an
ordinance, I believe, at the September meeting for the first reading. >> And what about the >> Oh, I'm sorry. the moratorium you were referring to, >> it would require five votes to overturn
the um the the um the moratorium. >> There would need to be a motion for that first. >> To overturn the overturn the moratorum. >> Yeah, you could move for overturn. >> If you want to say that for certain you're going to do rate increases for
the other projects today, you would need five votes. If you defer that until September, you would not need five votes to move forward with the geomand either one of the options. You only need four votes, but you would need five. If you want to say we're addressing everything at once,
you do you do need the five so that you can overcome the moratorum. And then and then if the uh general obligation bond does not pass, uh we would have to go back and increase the rates due do then I guess a second increase on the water
and sewer rates to cover um the projects that were not adopted by the general operation. >> I'm going to defer to John on that, but I think >> Yes, sir. We would have to come back. If the storm water geo bond did not get approved in referendum, then we wouldn't
have to, but it would make sense to revisit the storm water rate increase at that point. You see, and that's and that's a critical part there. And that's my, you know, with I I like the thought of selecting the the mission critical projects. My concern is that
we have for example I you know from from what I'm hearing some a project like Lake View uh Lake View that where we have homes we've had residents come here crying because you know their their homes have been flooding. Would that make it into that 5-year mission
critical um list? >> It is uh labeled as a critical needs project. So I would say yes. >> Okay. >> Those are the projects that would probably move forward. As I said before, in my opinion, the neighborhood improvement projects would be the ones that would >> say my name
>> be deferred long term. Okay. >> So, >> so, so something for example, um, >> not not elicited by Mus Park. By Mus Park, we have the projects by 44th Street um, and Royal Palm. That area
there that has been flooding >> that that's a critical needs project as well. Well, I want to be clear though that >> if I could jump in here just because I want to be abundantly clear, we have prioritized projects and we have put
together a 10-year capital plan. If we're going to start peeling projects off, I would start at year 10 and I would start working backwards from there rather than picking and choosing >> which project. >> No, I'm not picking and choosing. I'm
just asking questions >> to understand, you know, I'm not I'm not select I'm not proposing that we select one project over the other. >> I just, you know, want to understand when when the public works director is saying, you know, he would have to
determine what moves forward or not. I just want to understand what would make it into that or not. >> And I also want to be clear on the neighborhood improvement projects. Let's take First Street or Northshore D. The first phase is really the infrastructure for the entire project. The pump
station, the dissipator, the outfall, all that is being installed for the entirety. So, we do want to make sure we have continuity. First street phase three and four are 90% designed right now. Designs are good
for about two years on the shelf. So, we would have to revisit those. So continuity is a very very important part of this CIP plan. We have 27 of the 57 projects identified in design or designed.
>> So there are consequences to not fulfilling the entire CIP plan. >> So it's not quite as simple as just trimming some off. >> So there's logic to doing the 10-year funding as opposed to five year for the longevity of the program. That's the way
we've approached design and implementing the CIP plan. >> Vice Mayor. >> Yes, >> John. So, I'm looking at this list of projects which I I'm sorry I my colleagues don't have and we were not prepared to discuss this. So, this is
not not great. But I'm looking at um the NIP projects which would be the ones cut and Northshore D phase 1A Normandy Isles phase 1 um
and um Northshore phase 1b and two would all go by the wayside. >> Is that correct? based on what I said and and that's my opinion, but you're
the commission. You're directing this process. So, that would be my recommendation. If you are trying to secure the water and sewer infrastructure for a limited amount of funding, that would be my suggestion
>> to get rid of the neighborhood impact projects. >> That's not my desire, but if we are trying >> I understand that. I understand that. But that's what we're talking about. We're trying to get But what we're trying what we're saying by doing this, >> which I think is absolutely beyond irresponsible. We literally did not have
an infrastructure map of North Beach until it's actually still being worked on until I brought to the commission and fought kicking and screaming to get my colleagues to approve it. And we've already replaced two pipe structures with much larger pipes than we thought
we needed to because of what we found through that. We have leaks and sewer breaks and water mane breaks in North Beach all the time. We have 18 new projects. 18 new projects scheduled for
Northshore North Beach Town Center. That doesn't even count the stuff that's further a field or coming down the pike that are still twinkles in people's eyes. You're telling me that we're going to have to wait another 10 years to even contemplate those projects? There is no
greater increased density of infrastructure needs going on in this city anywhere than in North Beach right now. And we have we have money that is as planned to
be spent as early as 2028. Real money to start working on those things. Real money. And you're saying no. >> Commissioner, >> enough. Enough of this. Commissioner, no one's saying no. I think we're just deciding. >> We are saying we are saying we are going
to cut the budget in half and deprioritize the neighborhood impact projects. The three biggest neighborhood impact projects are these in North Beach. >> Nobody said that. We are the commissioners. We get to decide if we would say we can borrow up to $450
million. Guess who the legislators are for better or for worse? Us. >> We get Hold on. So, which neighborhood are you going to tell your project doesn't matter? We're not even going to talk about funding it for in the next 10 years. Have fun with that conversation. >> Well, given that First Street phase
three and four won't start for 10 years, I think we could talk about borrowing for that some years down the road. I would be perfectly comfortable having that conversation. >> Where's here? >> Okay. So, let let me summarize. Let me
summarize where we're at. I think we'll finish up Commission magazine then then I'll summarize and I think this is a good policy discussion. I don't I I don't think anybody has to get um upset about anything. This is this is what we do as legislators. We go through the different options. I I'll [snorts] I'll
if I'll I'll summarize the three options we have on the table. First of all, we have a motion and a second on the city recommendation for a combination hybrid model storm water geobond along with water sewer rate increases. I'm sorry. Well, the problem with deferring that
motion is if we're going to get it on on the >> if we're going to get it on the ballot, it's got to be done today. >> I'd rather see first how we do, >> right? The second the second option is all through a geo bond. I'll call it the Suarez model. And the third option is
the magazine model, which is to uh fund it through the water sewer and put put aside the geo bond for now pending uh needs on projects as we go forward years down the road. >> And Mr. Mayor, if if I can just >> Commissioner Suarez, >> and I I I agree with Commissioner Bot.
We're I'm I'm not of the belief that we're going to kick the can on the road or we're going to stop funding projects. I think we need to move forward, right? And I think I think most of us can agree to that. It's just how do we get there and how do we pay for it? And philosophically, I believe that the
geobond only option is a lot less burdensome on the poorest of people of Miami Beach. >> I agree with that. >> Okay. And so I'm going to make a motion to go with that option
>> for the referendum question. Do I have a second? >> I have a second. I have a question on that. >> We also had a motion to defer >> the first option one is I would want to have a discussion about this one before we contemplate raising the water and sewer rates.
>> And to top it all off, we need five out of seven votes to lift the moratorum. So, Mr. City Attorney, if you can put us in proper standing, if there is going to be a motion to
go with option hybrid. Okay. Do we first need to pass a motion to lift the moratorum? >> I think you would need five votes to go with a hybrid option.
>> Okay. So, we as it stands, we have a motion for hybrid MO. model. We also have a motion and a second for the geo bond. And that is to the mayor's discretion of which item do you want to call first? >> Well, I don't know. I I'm happy to make
that decision, but we does it go in the order of when the motion was made. >> It would go in the order that the motion was made. Could >> the hybrid wand? >> I just need understanding on >> and then and then commissioner Vice Mayor Dominguez has a question. And so so Jason just so that I understand and I
my goal has always been what is the lowest impact to the people who are at the lowest levels of affordability. It's the reason why I sponsored the the the moratorum and we the the majority of us
support is the reason why I've been inclining towards the a geo bond version um because it it offers that. >> I want to be able to be mindful of tenants but it's it's hard to find a way that we can give that same level of
relief to to the tenants. So, you know, I'm trying to see what is the best that we can do for mo the majority of the people who have the lowest means. Um, and that would be looking at the median and the and the average people, the
people who have the lowest property values uh who are homesteaded in our city. If the property tax reform were to pass, in essence, those individuals in the lowest bracket of home ownership
value, they they really won't be feeling the burden uh as significantly of this um of this general obligation bond. If you're speak Yeah. If you're speaking of homesteaded uh home owners, uh I think
you could, you know, get to that conclusion, but obviously you mentioned tenants too, but obviously that there would be >> I made my point already about about the tenants. I want to be able to figure out how we can help tenants. Uh and unfortunately, there's no avenue here.
Whether you do a utility rate increase, you're still going to pass a burden to tenants. Whether you do a general obligation bond, you're still going to pass a burden onto tenants. But there is a segment of lower income individuals who are on fixed incomes, a lot of them
who are dealing with the challenges that we might be able to address uh through this. And so you're what you were answering me if the property tax reform passes >> what would be the impact to them? >> Yeah. Yes. So, so as we as we've shown
the, you know, the average homesteaded pays less than the the hybrid and the median uh uh does. But >> what was the average again? I'm sorry. The average the average uh homesteaded home would would pay u more under sorry
under the geo apologian. So both median and average would pay uh would pay more under the geo bond model. >> Jason, >> yes. >> What is the value of the average homeowner? The average of the the average homesteaded property is uh
966,000. >> The average. Okay. And so and so if the property tax reform passes, they're going to be based on 250,000 less. >> 200,000 less. But I think one thing to look at is if everyone goes down by 200,000, at the end of the day, you're
probably netting the same because everyone will be sharing in that that $200,000 decrease. So if your whole year your if everyone's value went down by 200,000 you still have the same amount of debt service I have to apply to everybody. So um you know it's definitely possible that even with that
that that exemption uh you know it would be everyone would save a bit but I'm sorry it would be you would have to reaportion those dollars. So I'm sorry. Yeah the lower end you would end up paying you would end up paying less theoretically. So, so, so those $300,000
condo units for for example that you were speaking about earlier, >> 100, right? [snorts] >> Yeah. Like like as Commissioner Suarez was mentioning, tower 41. Um, that is a model of many other buildings. It's a it's, you know, a sample of the
experience and the situation of many other condo buildings in our city. If the reform passes in in in year two of the reform, you know, those $300,000 units are really going to be taxed based on a $100,000 valuation.
>> Correct. And and the 900 would then just working out that theory, the 966 would go down to 750. So everyone would go down. So the millage would probably have to go up to cover that. So at the end of the day, you may end up paying, you know, similar amounts, but we'd have to
all that's to be determined if that passes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um I have a couple a couple of questions. Um so if the hybrid geo bond is what's chosen, that's a rate increase
and then a geo bond. >> If the geo bond doesn't pass, does the rate increase cover what what exactly does it cover? Does it cover what Commissioner Magazine mentioned which is a certain number of years? >> It would actually cover the water and sewer all water and sewer projects,
water and sanitary sewer and the water and sewer component of neighborhood improvement projects that combine all of them. So then we would have to visit what do we want to do
to fund the storm water portion of some of those combined projects and then at that point we could discuss the timing of it and address it. So we could have a hybrid of the hybrid if if we wanted to. One important thing that we're not
discussing here is the health of the utility fund. If we go with an all geo bond model, I compare this to buying a car that's going to last for 10 years. All right, we buy a car with the geo bond, but we're financing
it for 30 years. In 10 years, we're still going to have 20 more years of debt on that work that we did, but that car is not no good anymore. So, we're going to have to buy another car. So then we're going to have to look at what is our next 10ear CIP project.
>> But I I don't got that analogy. >> I I tried I >> I do. He's he's bas John is saying that you're going to have debt even when the projects are done. So you're going to have this debt living on and then you're going to have to redo new projects and bring on debt on top of the >> but how long does that project live for?
>> Yeah. >> Project lives for a long time. But we're going to have Okay. So 100 years difference. >> I know. So maybe it's not the best analogy, but in 10 years if we don't raise >> if we don't raise utility rates in 10 years, we're going to be in the
same situation with another 10-year CIP plan, but we're going to be 10 years behind on the debt service through the utility fund, if that makes sense. Mhm. >> So we will have to go out for geo bond again or do a very very significant
rate increase to then borrow again or wrap that debt or refinance it. >> And then the chart that you showed previously um the lowest burden to the residents is the hybrid. based on all of the categories of
assessed values and all of the averages that we did, the hybrid model was the best option. And you know, I do want to point out the discussion that the condos were an average usage. The lower assessed value condos are more than
likely the smaller condos with even less usage. So, if we were able to dig down into actual usage per unit, we would probably find that those would not be impacted quite as much as what was shown. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Okay. Again, three options. The hybrid model, storm water, geobond with the water sewer rate increase. We have a motion and a second. Just the geo bond. I believe we have a motion and a second. That's the Suarez
model. Then we have the magazine model. I don't think we have a motion in the second, >> but um >> we're going to go in order anyway. This was >> We all ready to vote? >> Yes. >> No. >> Okay.
>> I shouldn't have asked. [laughter] >> I figure everyone will get hungry eventually. [laughter] Get a vote. >> Usually I'd force it into the vote, but this is a very important decision. So, if somebody uh is asking for a little more time, >> can I just and maybe we just have a
casual conversation. People jump in here as they want. Here's my issue with this, right? I mean, I I'm just following along. And again, this isn't knocking anybody, but the West Avenue thing phase two, right? We're running
significant delays, right? I mean, the project started officially started when we contracted with the design builder in 2017. So, it's been a substantial amount of time for this project.
>> Right. So, we're sitting here and you and we're coming up with this narrative that we can't pair down this list because we're going to start
F. Alton Road Utilities in 2034. >> That was the best argument you've made. >> Anybody? If Kowi is offering betting odds of us starting an FOT utility on Alton Road by
2033 when the Venetian Road bridges are going to be shut down, I will take those odds all day long. There's zero chance. there's zero chance, right? So, we're sitting here saying, "No, we can't reduce the amount that
we're going to authorize borrowing because we're doing all of these." We're not. If anybody thinks this list is all going to get completed in the next 10 years,
I'll use the dad joke analogy again. I have a bridge to sell you somewhere. It's just not going to happen, right? I I don't have the faith and confidence that we need to sit here and make these borrowing decisions or authorization
decisions now for projects that are slated to start eight years from now. Water capacity on the Juliet Tuttle 41st Street for $35 million in 2033. I don't know. Are you telling me we
can't revisit that in 3 years? >> Didn't we just upgrade that last year? >> Did a whole water line project under >> we did the subacquous lines at the bridges at Indian Creek.
>> Right. And I'm just throwing out these examples of projects that are 8 years 10 years down the road where we're authorizing now. And if we take on all of these projects, our city will be in construction
paralysis. All I'm suggesting we do is thread a needle where we're realistic about the mission critical ones as we define, right? So that can be our neighborhood improvement projects
and the ones that are not unimportant but just not realistic over the next I don't know six years seven years we can revisit that in a couple of years from now and if affordability pressures have abated then
we say okay let's go through it with phase two of this I just don't see this pressing need to do an additional 300 00 million of borrowing authorization for projects. >> Somebody tell me I'm crazy.
>> You're crazy. >> I am. That we're going to sit here with a straight face and say this is going to get done. One of the things we've all been frustrated with is the efficiency. many things in this city happen and
we're placing an awful lot of trust saying, "Okay, well, all of that is out the window and we're going to adhere to this 10-year schedule of I don't know what, 30 different projects, 50 different projects, this 42. Let's just be more realistic." M
>> uh Commissioner Magazine and through the chair, um Mr. city attorney. I hear what my colleague is saying and there are valid concerns about efficiencies in government cuz you know I mean will these projects be built in 10 years or
not? I mean the betting odds are are not there. Can we frame the geobond option as an up to allowed? >> That's how it's framed. >> Okay. So we don't actually have to borrow the full amount. We we can we
would have commission meetings to decide the tanches that are um >> I will defer to Jason, but I believe you borrow as you need it. Yeah. >> Yeah. So So we can we we we certainly can we don't have to borrow the full
amount. We can borrow just a hand, you know, 100 or $200 million. And in the meantime, we can certainly list all the projects that are that through the for for the
geo bond portion, we can [snorts] list the projects that have to be funded, right? It in fact, you have to well, you don't have to, but that's what I would propose is we specifically list the projects uh that will get the funding.
And if there come a time that we say, you know, we we we we don't want to fund this or or that project or we shift dollars around, you know, I I think we still have that ability to do that. So, >> well, look, if you're asking the
question does not identify specific projects. There's not enough words to do that. But when the administration comes forward to request the issuance of a bond, that would be when they would determine these are the projects that >> So we're going to be doing essentially
what you're saying. It's [snorts] again, how do we pay for it, right? So I totally understand your your concern with giving the city administration a blank check, but I I don't think it works like that. I think
when it comes before us to issue a bond, we decide specifically what projects are going to be um picked to to move forward. So we have protection in doing it on on a geobond
only and or hybrid, but my preference is we'll we'll do for geobont only obviously >> the Suarez model. Eric, go looking at the magazine model. What's your thoughts on rate and sewer increases without
doing the geo bond at this time? >> So, I I am recommending in this memo the hybrid option because we were already told not to do any kind of any a purely
rate increase on this. From my perspective, the geo bond is is the full faith and credit of the city. Anything that we put on the general obligation bond is taking away from our total
um credibility as a city. And so I would much prefer to see as much as possible go onto the rate side of things and less on the geobot side of things. >> Right. the the I guess the resistance this commission had was the double
digits rate increase and the this proposal again along with the high but this proposal and even under the magazine model has a singledigit rate increase. So I would just want to be 100% clear
with the commission that if we fund half of the program, we are only going to be able to deliver half of the program and there is going to be moments where we are going to get into debates as to what's in and what's out.
>> When when would you uh estimate those debates will start to happen? Because what I'm hearing from Commissioner Magazine is those debates are going to happen seven, eight, 10 years from now. is that >> um I think based on my understanding of this commission, I think you're going to
want to see a list of projects when you approve the rate increases, but I could be wrong. >> No, but the the point is assuming today we approve Well, first of all, we won't even know till November whether the GEO if we go that route whether the geo bond
is approved or not. But just based on the rate increase, let's say we approve that today, do you is there can you can you uh can you break down for how many years you will have projects funded based on that rate increase?
>> Absolutely. I I can't do that right at this moment in this meeting, but if you tell me you want to only do rate increases and not consider the geo bond, but you only want to fund X number of dollars, we'll go back and we will make
a CIP that fits those number of dollars. I think I even said that in one of the prior discussions that we had on rate increases. um that we can absolutely rightsize a a CIP to a certain dollar figure. What
we've provided to you throughout this process is what the full 10-year CIP looks like because we're talking about eight years worth of rate increases that are needed in order to deliver that. >> And and and just to be clear, it's not >> Commissioner Bot Commissioner Bot.
>> It's not single digits. So, um, >> you know, just to put this all in context, I mean, not to be an idiot, but water flows, right? I mean, Park View Island is 6 years into a no contact water advisory. And it didn't happen
because something happened at Parkview Island. It happened because a sewer line broke because a contractor damaged it on a project near Lincoln Road. water was d sewage was diverted into two smaller pipes that couldn't handle it because
they were 80 years old and and and they ruptured. We had all our neighboring communities helping to try to pump things out. We had uh residents trying to reduce the use of the water system to try to reduce the strain. Eventually
everything got fixed and here we are more than six years later. And that's not what caused Park View to be contaminated. >> Yes, it is. >> Mr. Manager, because I >> I >> I beg to differ. I beg to differ. We have photographs of of the before and
after. We had sea life before and after. I lived there before and after. It's not the only thing, but it was the tipping point. And if it it it's one example. It's one example that whatever we decide affects the entire city. It's not just
one pipe in one neighborhood. I I just I'm I'm so not in favor of picking winners and losers on who gets to get um projects that will potentially keep their living rooms from flooding. >> Well, I'd like to turn it for a moment to Eric to respond to that, but I guess
my question wasn't so much winners and losers, but how long are we funding the projects in the pipeline? And I I guess I'm I'm sort of trying to I'm trying to get answers to what Commissioner Magazine. Thank you, by the way, to I think you're Miami Beach Senior High students who are interning for the
Washington Avenue bid. Thank you for joining us for uh for the meeting. It's always good to see our our young generation participating in in the civic process. So, um I'm just trying to get I'm just trying to get a good understanding, but I I'd like to hear an answer to what Commissioner Bot said
because we saw we saw a reaction from Commissioner Fernandez. So the problem was uncovered when we had the sanitary sewer break in North Beach that ended up discharging a large amount of sanitary sewage into Park View Canal.
Um, I am not convinced because at this point we have spent a significant amount of money and have significantly repaired that system that it is purely sanitary sewer. And I think that there is also a storm water component which is what we
have been talking about at committee for the last two years. >> That's right. And I just want to say I'm not suggesting this is the entirety of the cause. I think there was a real issue before it was uncovered. Right. It predates it because the engineering, the the shape of the canal there, but it was
exacerbated significantly. I mean, just look at the before and after photos. Look, I don't want to litigate what did or did not cause Parkview Island. My my my point in making that example was that that was an a a rupture caused by a contractor on Lincoln Road that has
affected North Beach six years later. Right. So I where a seven mil 7 seven mile stretch of sand in the middle of the Atlantic and what we do in one part of our city is going to affect residents in another part of our city. Our pipes are a bazillion years old and they are
in under tremendous duress in this um environment and we are getting more pressure put on them no pun intended and so I think we are treading down a a perilous path here. I'd like to hear uh
from Commissioner Matteas Selenus. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I you know it's this is a really difficult topic to absorb and digest and understand. I'm concerned with the geo bond that is
everything together because if it fails in November then we have nothing. We have nothing. We have no backup plan. we have no um you know finances to help the projects that we want to do and so that's why I'm supporting a hybrid
model. Now, I was just presented with Commissioner Magazine's solution, and I understand it, and I agree that there is merit to it, but I just don't know what the number would be that we could
reduce the debt service by that would also fund appropriately the projects that need to be funded. So, I understand what you're saying. This is, you know, do we need to fund a project that's not going to start for 10, 12, 15, 20 years? And perhaps the answer is no to that.
But I am going to suggest that we that we support the hybrid model today because if it fails in November, the ballot question, we're going to have to really do your model anyway where we're going to have to revisit some type of
funding that is not a debt service. I mean, we're going to default to your model if it fails on the ballot. And if if the first if if both of them fail at the ballot, then we can't turn around to the voters and say, "Haha, just kidding. You still
have to pay more. We're going to increase your rates. You know, we we can't do that." And so I do feel that option two, giving it all to the voters is somewhat dangerous because we have no relief at that point if it fails in November. And I'd like to just, you
know, again urge with at least option one I'd like to urge our city staff and administration to come back with a smaller number that we would be borrowing that could take care of projects or at least maybe not and to Commissioner Bot's point, this is not
picking winners and losers. Maybe it's more of a timeline. So we say what can feasibly be done in 10 years and that's the rate and not 20 years or 15 years or 12 years. Maybe that's how we look at this where every project gets funded that we can reasonably get off the
ground in 10 years and that's the number and not something that's so far in the future that you know we'll have to revisit it in 10 12 15 20 years if that makes sense. So again, if you know, we can look at a different number of the
max debt service for option one, the hybrid option, so that way we aren't risking at all in November. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Commissioner Suarez, >> thank you. Um,
if the hybrid option moves forward, John, and the voters reject the geo bond portion or just rejects the the motion or the referendum.
You said that some of the funds for the rate increase wouldn't be used for the neighborhood improvement projects. Correct. It would be it would just be the water and sewer aspect of the neighborhood improvement project. >> The rate increase associated with the
hybrid option only includes water and sewer. >> Right. So So the storm water would not be part of that. Correct. It would >> if the referendum for the storm water geo bond failed, we would not have funding for the storm water portion of
NIP moving into the future. >> Okay. So just so everyone is clear, Commissioner Matteo Selenus, if assuming that you we go forward with the hybrid option and it we're going to be raising rates today on water and sewer,
which is I believe 42%. Okay? So it's not single digits, it's double digits. And if it doesn't pass, then none of these neighborhood improvement projects are going to get moving forward unless
we raise the rates even more. >> So, so >> we won't do because we won't go against the >> Can you speak on the mic, please? Thank you. >> I don't think any of us would want to go against the will of voters, which is why we're looking at two models that will allow them. >> No. Well, the question is, do we want to
borrow the money now to pay for them or raise the water and sewer rate hikes today? So, you know, fundamentally, if we're going to go to the voters and ask for a geo bond, then we should have everything included on that because we're going to be able
to choose over the next year or two what projects actually get accomplished, which is what which is to Commissioner Magazines and your point. it before we issue the debt in these tanches, we're going to decide what
projects get funded moving forward. But the problem with the hybrid model is if you raise and sewer, if you raise the water and sewer rates today, that's going to stay the same. And and if the geo bond fails, then we just raise the
water and sewer rates and none of these NIPs are going to get finished. So, I think at the ballot box, you're going to have voters are going to have to decide, is this are these infrastructure projects, these
neighborhood improvement projects worth my vote? And I think most of Miami Beach voters are going to say yes because we do have infrastructure problems and we need to address them.
So, um I just want to clear that up because I think the concern is are we going to be able to use a sort of stop gap in between in this process to decide which neighborhoods get approved. We're going
to be able to do that. Okay, here's here's where we're at. We storm water geobond the hybrid model needs 57 vote. We have a moratorum right now. So those the the the hybrid model and the magazine model.
>> I'm not having my name. >> We'll go uh how how did you put it eloquently, Eric? Option three. It was having a revised aggregate total that public works has to fit their needed.
>> I think you should own it. >> The minor method sounds good. >> Let's call the Let's call the vote. We had a motion and a second. The first motion, a second we had was on the hybrid model. It needs a 5-7 vote since we currently have the moratorium in place. >> So this is option one, item R7B,
correct? >> What happens if >> Well, we have then we have a motion to second on on >> it. I know cuz when I flipped up the options, it's option two. >> I would have done that. >> What would you propose? >> Okay, call the vote.
>> I'm sorry. It's item R7C that we're doing right now. Requires 57's vote. Is this a public comment item? >> It is not a public hearing. >> You may, but it's not a public hearing. >> I mean, I usually I I like to, but we
this item's been going this item's been going. And we've also we had a conversation last time. >> It's going to change anything. >> We I think Yeah, we've been >> so in R seven C. I have a motion by Commissioner Bot, seconded by Commissioner Mattel Selenas.
>> Just clarify, make clear, we're talking about the hybrid model. >> I just asked boy. >> Yeah. >> And >> Mr. Mayor, I just need a clarification. Please, >> I just need an important question
>> because I heard two things, two different answers. Commissioner Suarez asked you about affordability and when he asked you about affordability, you said that the all geo bond option was the ones the one that delivered the
most affordability. And then Vice Mayor Dominguez asked you about affordability and you answered that the hybrid model offered the most affordability and that is the one issue that I care most about
is delivering this in the most affordable way to the residents that are living in this city today. And so can you just clarify that for me? Are we talking about the lower assessed valued? >> Yeah, I'm concerned about the about the
lower >> for the lower assessed value. Our exercise showed anything below the median assessed value of $318,000 would be better off with the all geo
bond portion. >> Okay. However, I did also say that we took an average >> and those were probably onebedroom units that we're talking about that don't use as much water. So, that would skew the data a little bit.
>> When we're looking at affordability across all different assessed values, >> including the average, the hybrid option is more affordable. >> All right. Thank you. This is what I'm going to do because I was just having some conversations with the clerk and legal and and uh we're trying to get
>> we're going to take a break now. We're not going to continue the discussion though. We're going to take the vote after we get back. This way everyone can collect their thoughts. Make sure No, we have to because I think there's some confusion when we even >> when I even just broached it, which item is uh is which? >> Yeah, I I mistakenly said that it was C,
but option one is is B. Can we Okay. As long as I just want to make sure everyone if I'm late for, you know, part two, I I don't want to >> I don't want to miss the vote. So, can we just vote now? I think we're all pretty much made up our minds.
>> I'm not sure. I literally haven't made up my mind. I'm not sure. [laughter] Okay, we're we're we're breaking. We're coming back at 1:45 and then we're going to take the vote. >> And Mr. Mr. Mayor, maybe one thing we can consider is before we break, one thing to consider
is maybe the first motion should be whether to lift the rate moratorum because >> we're about to do >> that. That is we're talking out both sides of our mouth if we're saying okay we're going to vote to either do a geo
bond or a hybrid or a scaled back but we're going to keep this rate moratorum in place. Huh? >> It would have to be first, >> right? That's what I'm saying. Right. So, I think we do that. Maybe we could do that now. >> Let's Let's break for lunch. We're back at 1:45.
>> Oh, that Nana n girl la n. Baby, baby. money. Hey N. be a Down.
Down. Thank you. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Fire. Heat. favorite. You Feel
[music] fire. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. feel. Yeah. Yeah. down. Hey
Hey. Hey. Hey. >> [music] >> Baby, baby. >> [music] >> me. Baby, baby, baby. Baby,
baby, baby. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. It [music]
falling back [music] again. >> [music] >> me. Do you It get up. >> [music] >> N feel. N
love Hey everybody. Baby, baby. Heat. Hey, Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Nat down >> [music] >> Hey, tell me
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. I'm going to sleep. You're feel. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> down. Hey
Hey, hey, hey. I feel a me. Yeah. Down. Baby. Hey.
make baby. Baby, baby, baby. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Are you
[music] Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Holding back. Do you believe me? H.
[music] >> [music] >> N feel. N love you. Baby, baby. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. down.
Don't tell me down. >> [music] >> Thank you. [music] Heat. Heat. Tonight, Higher heat. feel. You're going
Heat up here. down. Hey, girl. Hey, Hey, hey, hey. I feel
a feel feel down. Hey Baby. Hey. Make baby girl. Don't.
Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] >> for you. [music] [music] Holing it back. me.
It get it up. N. N Hey everybody. Baby, baby. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. N.
Hey, hey, hey, hey. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being
recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1. >> Okay. Hey, welcome back to the afternoon session of our commission meeting. U, so this is what we're going to do. We have commissioner, county commissioner Mickey
Steinberg here for some CRA votes. Thank you for being here. [applause] She claims that she has to be back downtown. So, we're going to hear this item first, then we're going to go to Sutnik and then back to the uh back to the item, the geo bond storm order rate
item. Welcome, Commissioner. >> Thank you, mayor. We will then be recessing the commission meeting and reconvening as the North Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, North Beach CRA. And welcome, Commissioner Slamberg. >> Thank you. >> May we do item one? >> Yes.
>> North Beach uh CRA one is approved commercial facade grant Ducal LLC. Can I do two Stephen also together jointly or one and two? >> You can. >> Number two is approved commercial facade grant award treebees inc. One and two.
I move the item. Second. >> All right, let's call the vote. >> I heard a motion from Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Mattel Selenus. All in favor of item North Beats. >> Oh, second. Okay, I heard it over there. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Dominguez is
seconded the motion. All in favor of North Beach CRA 1 and two, please say I. I. >> Any opposed? >> North Beach CRA 1 and two is approved. 8 Z. Northbeat CRA 3 is a joint item. Grant Northbeat CRA executive director
authorization during Northbeat CRA recess. >> Move it. >> Second. >> All right. A motion by Commissioner Bont, seconded by Commissioner uh Commissioner Fernandez. All in favor of North Beach CRA 3, please say I. >> I. >> Item is approved 70. I'm sorry.
Commissioner uh Suarez is out. So on the previous one also North Beach CRA 4 is establish establishment of North Beach CRA commercial lease subsidy program. >> Move it. >> I have a question for Commissioner Steinberg.
>> Thank you. Um really quickly um I see this item is um really one-ear pilot. So that's a great thing and I know you're modeling it after a program in South Beach. >> The current program. >> How is that working out currently? >> So currently >> if I may, Mr. Mayor, because um I'm the
sponsor of the item. Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, in South Beach, we have had a number of businesses that have come into the the area, and the and the whole idea was to get spaces that were occupied by vape
shops, liquor stores, check cashaching stores, and and different uses uh that we've established that we no longer wish to to have there. So, we've been able to identify uh for example, Charlie's Charlie's on Lincoln Road. It's a is a
um is a restaurant from Spain. Uh and they opened their location here. We've also had a tech company. >> Uh we had a tech company that opened up >> Edgewood. Which one? >> It's uh Edge uh >> Edgeord. >> There we go. Edge Lord.
>> Edge Lord. There we go. that that has um that has opened up on Washington Avenue and Lincoln Road, I believe, uh as as a result of that. And we've had a number of other companies that have been able to use the grant uh
to come in and replace nuisance uses uh in our in our city. And I don't know if the economic development director would like to add to that. >> Absolutely. Stephen Anthony, economic development director. And um so yes, the commissioner is is absolutely correct. There's been a number of of companies that have certainly taken advantage of
the program. Two that's that's currently in the program today are Charlie's, which the commissioner mentioned, and South Beach Brewery are currently taking advantage over the last year. They've fully gotten their uh their reimbursements. Um and they're continuing getting those reimbursements for the next two years. There's been a
total of 12 applications that have come through with three that have an attempt to to apply. So the the program is certainly picking up steam and that's certainly the reason why we feel like there's an opportunity to duplicate and the commissioner mentioned and sponsored this item to be able to duplicate the efforts that's happening and do that in North Beach.
>> Okay. >> Yes. Thank you. And if I may um just I guess my final thoughts on this is is this also for sorry final question. Is this for new businesses interested in availing themselves of this opportunity in North Beach or is this for existing
businesses that currently are there? So, this this is for new businesses. Yep. This is for new businesses. >> Thank you. >> And I want to uh through through the chair of the of the CRA board, I want to publicly thank Heather Shaw uh who who worked with us on the original uh
program in in South Beach. Uh she when I sponsored that original program, she helped us create a framework for it. And I'm glad now with the leadership of our current economic development director, we're working on expanding it uh in North Beach as well.
>> Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Bot. I need a second, please. >> I'll second. >> I have a second by Commissioner Steinberg. All in favor, please say I. >> I. Anyone opposed? >> For the record, Commissioner Bot is a yes. Commissioner Suarez is absent.
>> This concludes the items for the North Beat CRA. >> Absent. Thank you everybody. Thank you for the 130 time certain. >> Hope you make your uh next commitment. >> Okay, let's go to the uh Sutnik portion. Public comment. Thank you, mayor. Uh we
are Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak during Sutnik? Seeing none, I'm going to go to Zoom. Our first caller is Bha Cavolei. Please state your name, address, and you have two minutes. Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. Can you all hear me?
>> Yes. >> Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I'm speaking with you in reference to item R9H, which concerns Alton Road residents and as well the 63rd Street intersection on
Indian Creek. These are the minutes that you have before you and the action of the um public safety and neighborhood quality of life commission committee meeting that took place um about 3 weeks
ago or so. Um we came as Alton Road residents to this meeting because we had an item on it concerning the flooding that occurs on Alton Road. As you know, Alton Road is the main evacuation road for the city of Miami Beach and the only one with a hospital,
Mount Si. So, making sure that Alton Road doesn't flood isn't just of importance to the residents, but also that live on Alton, but also to the rest of our community. Um, we have experienced tremendous flooding on Alton Road. Uh we've had intrusion of water
into the homes where personal property has been destroyed as well as members of our community uh that live on Alton that have had to um leave their homes so that they could be restored after the
flooding took place. Vehicles were damaged with um many gallons of water inside. That being said, there is a problem when we have flooding events and that is that cars going down Alton at
regular speed and even at higher speeds than are posted cause a wake and such a wake is in violation of state law. Therefore, um what the commission unanimously committee commission committee
unanimously agreed to were the following items that are on your agenda R9H and that is deploying targeted traffic enforcement along Alton Road corridor during forecasted flooding events. Increasing public education regarding
the prohibition against creating weights in flooded roadways. M >> I need you to wrap up almost. Go ahead, please. >> Utilizing emergency notifications, text alerts, and any other form of public service announcements to discourage
motorists from Alton Road during anticipated flooding events. Um, and then the other item we want you to consider also is installing um signalized pedestrian crosswalk from the northwest to the northeast corner of the Indian Creek and 63rd Street
intersection. That is also on your agenda. uh from the uh quality of life commission committee. Thank you and have a good meeting. >> Thank you. Our next caller is Sharon. Sharon, go ahead, please. >> Hi. Uh good afternoon. This is Sharon
Weiss calling in again 23381st Street. Um I patiently listened to uh the late morning discussion about the water and sewer issue. Um, I'm shocked that you didn't take public comment because uh all of the proposals that you were suggesting required us taxpayers to fund
it. Um, I have emailed multiple many of you multiple times with no response uh making what I think are helpful suggestions to help offset the uh hit to the taxpayer uh to to fund these very needed repairs. Um, you know, I don't
understand why we're not asking the developers to pay >> [snorts] >> There should be a dollar amount attached to that and that should go into a fund and it should be a sizable dollar amount. It should go into a fund to pay for these repairs. Um I I understand
that uh we're now supposed to be charging appropriate impact fees. I don't know if that has actually been followed through that. in our beaches is um no contract concessions for you know what I mean they're making a lot of
money off of the beach and they're not being asked to pay and I just think that there's a more creative solution versus asking taxpayers including residential and commercial again and again to pay for this stuff. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next caller is Larry Schaefer.
>> Schaefer, 2338 Street. I've lived paid high water and sewer bills for 25 years. These are higher than those I pay at Ren Miami that have county wall. Parts of those build you the city were a lot and sewer infrastructure. Mr. CFO, where is that money now that we paid? What
reserve accounts or accounts for replacement and repair are available for my payments and everyone else's payments for this use? What balances do you have already for for improvement based on the money we've already given you? Number two, when you ask tax pay for geo
disclose what the used for and lock that in. The amount requested should be predicated on a very robust detailed analysis of what problems we are fixing. There needs to be a detailed project so we know what you're fixing and where so we could move away temporarily if we want to. And I don't know anyone who would write you a blank check for half a
billion dollars right now. Also, we would vote for this if you prioritize the beach first. Lavine fixed Sunset Harbor where his properties were. We learned from that and you have to do better. We did a geo bond in 2018 and were promised a community center in
North Beach and we never got it. How do you ask for more money when you asked before and we gave it to you and we didn't get the benefit that you marketed but when you marketed the bond? Is that even almost securities fraud? You're asking us to lend you money for community center and we never get it 10
years later when com a real serious issue. I'm asking about your credibility here. Do you think you have the credibility after how the previous two geo bonds went and do you have credit with taxpayers at this point? Thanks. >> Thank you. Our next caller is Wayne
Roberts. >> Yes. Good afternoon. I emailed my thoughts to you guys. It bounced. Not didn't bounce. It was blocked by everybody. Well, somebody in the city did it to me and then I resent it and it it went through, I think. Uh, strange
indeed. But um I I put uh this bond issue into AI as a choice between pay as you go, you know, putting in our rates versus bond versus hybrid. And a clear winner was pay as you go. Um the only
beneficiaries, by the way, according to AI, I haven't researched it in depthly yet, is the hotels because they have large volumes of water. they have um uh based on you know occupancy and and 300 square feet they have a very large
utilization of water and they the beneficiaries. What's more there that uh the um storm water um impact uh fees would be largely driven by these large developments uh for hotels and those kind of properties office towers because
they use up more land than uh than uh than others. So, uh, and it's based on land property rather than, um, than, uh, uh, assessed value, I think, based on AI. Uh, what's more, tanches are a bad
idea because we're getting, uh, uh, tax-free bonds that are paying equal or better uh, rates for us than um, than treasuries. So, what we should do if we go the bond route is to take that resource and put it in one, two-year,
and 5year treasuries that pay higher than who we're paying out, and we we cap our uh our uh our uh long-term um possible rate increases based on inflation. Um so, that's my thoughts.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Our next caller is Lori K. Davis. No more of them. Let's go next. Uh, we lost Miss Davis. Can we go to the Pierce Foundation? >> I'm sorry, I'm using my um work
computer. My name is Trisha Hopkins. I live at 5335 Alton Road. I'm calling about um number R9H, which is the Alton Road um flooding that occurs uh during storms. and I recommend that you adopt that resolution. Um, and
that is to deploy targeted traffic enforcement during the flooding. Um, increase uh public education regarding the the no wake zone. Um, utilize emergency notifications and try to identify weather conditions that might
um instigate that flooding on Alton Road. We really need help with what's happening with the traffic on Alton Road when there is a flooding that occurs. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. And I was that was our last caller so we can conclude
Sutnik. >> Okay. So let's uh let's bring back R seven. Thank you everyone for speaking on these topics. R seven ABC and R9D which we were talking about before the lunch break. >> Welcome back John. >> Thank you. Glad to be back. [laughter]
>> Seriously? >> No we we appreciate it. So, there's a couple of things that could happen here right right now because there's three proposals. I'm not sure we have the votes for any of them collectively, but what's going to happen is I'm assuming once something
fails, let's say somebody has a priority on A, once that fails, they'll go to B. So, we may have to actually take a vote and we may have to have a motion for reconsideration on something. Another way to do it is I'll tell you where I am and if everyone's willing to do we could
just say where we're at so we can see where we have the votes. My my preference uh number one would be to do the storm water rate increase without the geo bond. That based on the conversation that gives us again I know
we're rounding off to some degree five six years worth of runway um for now. My second one would be the hybrid to make sure we have these projects funded. My my my least favorite is the is the geopond only model and I'll explain why.
To me I am sensitive to that our residents can say well why you some residents may like it. I want to make that decision. I want to know if I'm going to be taxed. You tell me. I'm I'm sensitive to well we're we're elected. We should be making these decisions. The other issue is if it fails then we're
back at square one and then we're scrambling back to so for those two reasons. Um that's that's my leis that's my hierarchy one two and and three. If everyone else wants to share hopefully we can maybe even reach a consensus before we start taking the votes. If not
we'll uh we'll just take the votes. >> Mr. Mayor I'll echo that in short order. Uh that is my hierarchy. I will say my reasoning for not having the geo bond only at the top of my priority list and
actually having the hybrid uh below um just the utility rate only is just the tremendous amount of uncertainty that I think this referendum in Tallahassee is going to represent. uh I if it does pass going to market in short
order thereafter with the geo bond that is predicated on advorum property taxes I think there's going to be tremendous caution in the bond market about how these things are going to be viewed and funded and things
like that and Eric used a good analogy earlier is he'd be hesitant to place a large amount like that on a credit card and I would take that one step further It's not only placing on a credit card, but placing on a credit card when you
are looking at a very real prospect of losing a part-time job, an income source. Um, I commend Commissioner Suarez for the thoughtful analysis and uh truly I believe his heart is solely squared on
trying to get this right for the residents in the most costefficient manner. Um, I think we can do so by actually borrowing less, rep prioritizing some priority items and borrowing it uh a a slightly more
realistic rate and revisiting further uh projects several years down the road. >> Mr. Suarez, >> can we just go through one more time if the hybrid model does pass? What exactly is the increase in water and sewer
rates? >> I really I I'm going to let it go, but we we we I feel like we've been through this. We got to take the vote. I'm so I'm trying to get Now you're asking questions. I'm I'm answer the question, but I'm we've been through this for an hour and a half. PJ, can you put the presentation up again?
>> [clears throat] >> There it is up on the screen. That's the uh hybrid model water and sewer rate increases. This is based on 5,000galon usage per month on a single family residence.
>> Okay. So overall, what is the percentage increase from 27 to 32? It's like 42%. Is that right? >> 36 >> 36%. >> Okay. Till till 20 32.
>> But you also need to note that we have a built-in CIP automatically >> CPI >> um built-in CPI automatically by ordinance. So you know we can >> I think >> estimate 3%
>> anyways on every year. Okay, Jason, >> just also to clarify that um as they had shown in their projections in 2035, the difference when the ad ordinated together the the utility the utility rates new ordinance versus um the
existing ordinance just showed the overall because that includes a storm water that's just tied to CPI. the difference in the existing rate ordinance and the one being proposed is a 10% total increase because you have the the um you have the effective CPI and then you have the
effect on the storm water component that doesn't have any increase above uh the base ordinance >> but I just simply asked what's the overall increase under the hybrid model for water and sewer and they said 36% >> 36% yeah they were just adding up all of those uh 6.76 for those five years
>> over how many years is that uh Uh it looks like they have increases higher than CPI for the first 5 years about 3.7 to 3.5% per year higher than again assuming if assuming the CPI is 3%. Uh that would be about 3.7 to 3.5% above CPI for three years of water and sewer
[laughter] and nothing above CPI on storm water. >> Okay. So unless anyone else wants to speak on where they're at, let's I'm going to call the vote. We have a motion in a second. >> I just one point of clarification. Um just to make sure everyone gets that like those rates that you saw include
CPI increases which we have already mandated by law. So it is a small differential going above the already mandated CPI which let me remind everybody the reason why we're here is because CPI was not mandated years ago and was undervalued um for the small
increases that were um built in. So there's CPI which is happening no matter what. there will be a rate increase no matter what because that is how inflation works in the real world. Um and then the small differential of the incremental
um increase rate to make up the delta of what's missing. So that's one point for those listening. The second point I just wanted clarification the um neighborhood impact projects are they all storm water? Are they all other things? Are
they a mix of like if we do just the um geo bond for storm water for instance, do we then lose all of our um NIP projects? >> No, they're comprised of uh three funding components. You have the water sewer fund which obviously funds water
and sewer components, storm water fund which funds storm water, and then above ground money which is usually coming out of the general fund. Usually that's a small portion of the NIP. So, it's mainly water, sewer, and storm water. >> So, hypothetically speaking, if um the
the storm water geo bond didn't pass, would you still [snorts] be able to move forward with NIP projects? >> No. >> Potentially. Potentially. It depends on the cash funding available. And I think that would be the time when we would
have to reassess the entire fund and then see what we have moving forward and look at all funding options. Whether that means raising the storm water rate as originally proposed or scaling back on projects. We could certainly do that
at that point. >> And would you have to come back with another rate evaluation go through this whole process again? likely for the storm water component. If if we did not scale back the storm water portion of
the CIP plan enough to cash fund it, then yes, we would have to come back for a rate increase for storm water only. [clears throat] >> Yeah, that's the point, right? Well, I mean, if we're going to go to the voters to decide this, why don't we just
>> we we have everything on the table cuz I think that's the more appropriate thing to do cuz if it if we pass this, water rates go water and sewer rates go up no matter what. And then and if it doesn't pass with the the the half portion for
storm water, then we're going to have to go back and raise them again. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second on R7. Is it B is the hybrid model? Yes. B is the vote. >> Okay, let's call the vote. >> So, I have a motion by Commissioner Bot on the hybrid model, seconded by Mattail
Selenas. >> So, we're taking the vote on the hybrid model. >> Yes. >> All right. It requires a 57 vote. >> Roll call. You want me to do >> Okay. All in favor? >> Go down the line. >> Mayor, can I ask just one quick
question? Um, this is my Sorry if it's been answered or if this is um doesn't [sighs] Can the voters be given both options and then whichever one gets the most votes goes through hybrid versus um
>> I would defer to the city attorney. >> Um we thought that this might be asked. So we do actually have in our pocket a two two question option which would be a question for geo bond for storm water and one separate for water sewer so that
the voters could decide if if you if this is what the body wants to do >> I was just curious [laughter] I'm going to go alphabetically commissioner bot >> uh [clears throat] yes >> commissioner Dominguez Yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez.
>> This is on hybrid. >> Hybrid. >> No. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Magazine. >> No. >> Commissioner Suarez. >> No. >> Mayor Miner. >> Well, failed already, but no. >> Option one fails.
>> Okay, let's call the no geo bonds, just the just the increase. I have I don't have a motion or a second on that one. >> I think we did, but okay. >> No, the other motion on the table was
for the all judo bon. >> I can't move it. So >> So I'll make a motion. I don't know what order you want to call it. >> I'll move it. >> Is that 57s? >> Yes. >> No, it's 47s. No, >> no, it's just this is just on the on the rate increase. No geob
>> because it was aatorium. We We need to re remove more. >> Yes, this is a 57. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, full rate. I have a motion by Commissioner Magazine. [clears throat] >> It was seconded by Commissioner. I'm sorry. Hold on. >> Full rate increase. Your proposal.
>> No, it's not a full rate increase. >> I'm sorry. Full >> It is. >> What's the item number? >> Okay. >> There's no item on the agenda. >> The The motion is the amount that we're going to borrow under the rate increase under the hybrid method. $450 million.
make that the entirety that we're going to borrow under a rate increase. No geo bond component and [clears throat] reconfigure the important NIP projects within that $450 million. So
essentially we're shifting outwards the longerdated projects that aren't going to be undertaken >> and that needs 57s correct. >> Yes. >> Can can I help? >> Yes, please. Um, so I think what we would be looking at doing in that particular instance is
looking to change what was a 10-year CIP into somewhere between a four and sixyear CIP with making sure that the rate increases were not beyond what we were proposing for the uh, water and
sewer. Repeat that one more time. >> So, it would be changing what is currently a 10-year CIP to somewhere between a four and sixyear CIP, keeping the rate increases similar to what was proposed for the water and
sewer. >> And if I can ask for some clarification, how are you going to determine what gets included and what doesn't? Because somebody's calling strikes and balls on this. So is it purely is it purely based on um time frame thing anything
[clears throat] outside of a six week sixyear window is punted or is it based on who gets the most emails or is it based on where people have property? I mean what's it going to be based on? So my suggestion would be if you're going
to entertain this option that we do it purely based on years. And so we would drop out years until we get back to a number that falls within the 450 million. >> But we're being asked to vote on that
without knowing what that includes. >> I'm sorry I sound like I'm challenging you. I'm not challenging you. I'm I'm very frustrated with this process. We are being asked to vote on that without knowing what what would fall off and what would stay in. >> So the only thing that I would
offer to help ameliorate that is ultimately you're going to have to vote on an ordinance for an increase which would very clearly articulate exactly what is in and what is out. So this would just be directing us to
move forward with doing the analysis and bringing back ACIP and a rate increase ordinance. >> Mr. for mayor. If may I if I can make a suggestion,
>> why don't we have a vote now to lift the rate the moratorum and see you know because we can't do anything as far as water and sewer rates unless that moratorum >> I don't know about that. We could take a vote and see if we have the 57 then we could overturn the mortorium.
>> Yeah. So let's just start there and see where the chips fall. >> Yeah. I wanted to take that that vote. >> So, I'll make I'll I'll move it. Okay. I'll move it. >> I'll second. >> This is for the uh rate increase only of
the hybrid version. >> No, no, this is No, I make a motion >> to lift the moratorum. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, this is to lift the moratorum, >> correct? I have a fir I have a I have a motion and a second. >> I heard a motion by Commissioner >> S. So, I mean, we can we can do it. The
reason why I didn't do it that way because I was trying to I was trying to be fair to each one. So the first one we just voted for that failed needed 57. Truth is you didn't even get four. You didn't even get the four votes. So it wouldn't have passed regardless. >> I don't know. But
>> so I I would take the vote. I would take the vote on this item. See where we're at and then we'll we'll can overturn the moratorium. >> Okay. >> So I'm trying to be fair. I'm trying because I've told you where I fall. So I I I don't want to make it look like I'm trying to skew the vote with four votes
on something that I'm telling you I support. >> I'm simply saying that look none none none of these options where water and sewer in isn't going to increase is going to be able to be possible unless we lift a moratorum. So I you know I make a motion to
>> or unless five of us agree. >> No, you still need to lift the mortorium. You still need a vote on that. So it >> right. >> Yeah. If five agree then that lifts the mortorium. >> Don't we have to don't we have to specifically say when we lift the moratorum in the motion?
>> No. By by voting 57s you are lifting the >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Though that changes it then. So, >> so, so I because I was under the impression procedurally we have to first vote on on lifting the moratorum and then we can
vote on and any sort of measure that in increases water and sewer rates, >> right? But because the hybrid option necessarily includes a rate increase, by definition, you're lifting the moratorum. Got it? Which is why because otherwise you need four. So I withdraw that because it's
>> I can just add I I know we have >> two who are supporting my two at the end here who are supporting the geo bond model only. Is anybody else supporting that? >> No. >> Do you want me to call the vote just to have it on the record?
>> Okay. I'm taking everyone at their word that that's the case. So if we have a motion and a second on the on the geo bond only. We've had only two people say they're voting. Let's let's wait. Get that out of the way. >> Okay. So this is item C, geobond only,
which is option two. R7C option two. Geobond. May I call the role? >> Yes. >> Okay, I'm going to go reverse alphabetically this time. Commissioner Suarez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Magazine, >> no. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas, >> no.
>> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Dominguez, >> no. >> Commissioner Bot, >> no. and fails and I'm an L just the register. >> Yes, writer. Got it.
Okay. So, what I want to do now, I know I'm getting a few suggestions here, is call the sewer rate item only, the sewer rate increase portion without the geo bond. It needs a 5-7 vote. If that passes, it pass. If it fails, then we'll
go to to remove the moratorum. >> Can I ask >> mind you the hybrid version only had three votes. >> Can I ask a question on that? Okay. >> So going again uh to what is most cost effective for for for our residents.
Okay. Because for me it's not you know whether it comes out of the utility bill or the tax bill is the question is what leaves the resident's pockets at the end of each month. And so I was weighing between all geobond and
hybrid. The all the all geo bond had the least impact fiscal impact especially to the people on the lower end of the brackets with with this model that Commissioner
Magazine is presenting to us. And when we're looking at I guess it's about half of of the depth capacity. >> All right. So when we're looking at half of the D capacity as opposed to what
amount in a hybrid model? >> Well, there's the I believe it's just short of 800 million. >> So we would be looking at at 400 and about 400 million as opposed to 800 million, >> right? It's 450 on the rate increase
side and 340 on the storm water geo side. >> That's on the hybrid. >> That's on the hybrid. >> Okay. All right. And with Commissioner Magazine's proposal is how much? >> Purely 450. >> 450 between water and sewer and storm water.
>> Correct. [snorts] Then to me then under those two scenarios that is the option that then I would imagine and Jason you're our CFO is would that have the least impact on our residents?
>> Sorry which >> so >> the the the commissioner magazine proposal where where you're cut where you're cutting the that in half. If the proposal is to limit it to $450 million, then obviously, yeah, your program is going to go from 1.1 billion uh down.
>> So, I'll second uh >> Wait, wait, I'm sorry. Earlier before lunch when we had the same question asked, we were told that without doing the the the calculations, it was unknown at this point if there would be cost
savings. Like, yes, if you're borrowing less money, you're borrowing less money. Even I can understand that. However, given all the machinations, etc., it was unclear if there that's what I heard coming from from you guys. It's unclear at this moment without doing all the
calculations if there would be a cost savings or how great that cost savings would be. Did I misunderstand that? It's entirely possible. If I could just add a little bit of clarity to that, I think what was being discussed at the time before lunch was whether or not the
percentage increases in the utility rates would be higher, lower, or the same as what's proposed in the hybrid option. Um, obviously if we're talking about utility rates as well as a general
bond uh general obligation bond tax bill increase, it's going to be more than just the utility rate increases. >> No, I understand that. I got that part. I was asking about the I guess because
you're right sizing it. um you would only be able to fit in as many projects as would fit into the allotted rate increase but there wouldn't be cost savings for the projects etc. Thank you.
Right. And my and my and my question was based on, you know, at the end of the day, what is leaving the resident's pocket at the at at the end of the day? Um, when you compare the two models and Mr. Magazine's uh proposal gets us
started on the programs, I guess, understanding that you can't do the $1 billion uh package all at once. And so, you're I guess it's almost like phasing it. you know, you're you're you're we are imposing upon ourselves tanches. No
different than when you go and you do a full general obligation bond and you say, "Okay, we want to borrow um this amount of money." Well, you're not borrowing it all at once. You know, you have the flexibility in pacing it. This would would in effect create that
pacing. But is that a is that a proper explanation of it, Eric? I I think that makes perfect sense of what we're talking about. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez and we have Commissioner Suarez. And then we've called two other three votes. I want to call the third item that hasn't been
called yet. >> When this came up before lunch, um pacing it out that way was not cost effective >> in the long run. >> It was it was unknown what period of time. Like I said, if you take the total
CIP and total borrowing and reduce it and you compress that time period, it's unknown. If you extend that over the 10-year period, then obviously it would save money. And we're talking about two different things here as far as affordability. We're talking about affordability to all residents and then
we're talking about affordability rate >> to lower income residents. So, you know, any rate increase is going to be equal to all residents across the income spectrum based on the variation of their
usage. [snorts] So, we need to I just want to be clear about that because we're talking about two completely different things here. >> Commissioner Suarez. >> So, the the item before us now is to simply just raise water rates and water and sewer rates and some storm water.
John. >> Yes. All three is my understanding to a maximum of $450 million CIP plan. >> Okay. So why did we pass a moratorum two months ago? I know I'm I'm serious like what? We should have just decided then
of what we're going to do and now we're somehow going to change that. I again a it's a regressive tax. The water and sewer and storm water rate increases. What? Why are we doing that? Why Why would we sign up for a regressive tax
when we can have a more of a progressive tax? >> Maybe Eric, I'll turn that to you about I I took what you said to heart about why we would fund projects like these not via geo bond in the typical utility
rate infrastructure. And in terms of why we passed the moratorum, I think what we essentially achieved in that time is scaling this amount that we're borrowing down by >> 300400 million. >> We just figured that out on the fly
today. It wasn't like an option that staff presented to us. >> You know what I mean? It's just it's we're kind of shooting from the hip on this one. >> And that's what I said walking in here. I wish several months ago [clears throat] I I wish what I would have done um is just take a step uh a
breath and say, you know what, we're trying to achieve a significant amount of infrastructure and utility projects, but we also need to do so in a way that is more affordable to our residents. And what was being proposed several years ago was this
>> very robust bells and whistles package that maybe from an affordability standpoint we're just not in a position to do today. So we do the things that are missionritical and essentially we're providing cost savings to our residents because during that moratorum
we're we're borrowing less money. That's what that moratorum allowed. We were left with the option of several months ago borrowing 750 $800 million. We're not going down that route now. So the moratorum that was put into place with your leadership, with Commissioner
Fernandez leadership, allowed us to essentially get to the place where we're borrowing several hundred million less. >> Yeah. But that also means many projects now potentially not being funded, right? So we're picking winners and losers. >> Actually, see, that's the difference. I
don't I don't view it that way. Okay. And I I the way I view it is we are we are funding the projects that are that we want to get done in the next four, five, six years. We don't have the without the geo bond, we're not going to have the funding for 9 10 years out and
that's going to have to be revisited. But we have we have enough now and basically what I am comfortable is not charging our residents an extra tax at this point and in this environment uh to do that. I think we can get done what we have to get done now. But to be fair, if I may.
>> Yeah. But to be fair, Mr. Mayor, it's they're going to pay one way or the other, whether it's through on a millillage or a water and sewer rate like that. They're going to pay. >> So, what's the more fair and equitable way for people to pay the Miami Beach
residents to pay and that's why we're here. >> Correct. And Mr. Mayor, if if I may, I think the challenge that we're facing is that we don't have the support to do the progressive tax that that takes away the
burden and the weight from from our most cost strained residents. We don't have that support. Uh obviously um now the goal of the moratorum >> was never to just ask a do you mean
legally because of the tax We don't have the votes. >> Okay. I miss I >> Yeah, >> we don't have the support, you know, to >> to to >> call that a progressive tax, but okay. >> Well, I mean, I'm just borrowing Commissioner Suarez's I don't know.
Yeah, I'm borrowing his because rather than doing a rate increase where, you know, everyone is paying this kind of relieves people of certain of of certain um
costs. Um, but the goal of the morator of the moratorum was never to get in the way of people receiving reliable water and sewer systems, resilient infrastructure, and the projects that are needed to
protect our neighborhoods from flooding. It was never to get in the in the way of those projects. It was specifically to challenge our government to find a more effective, less costly, more cost
effective way for our residents to achieve these these projects. Um, granted that we don't have the the the votes to to to do the all uh GO option, we can't leave our residents without
these infrastructure improvements. that would be irresponsible then that I would I would never uh leave this day is today in a in in a position where we leave our residents without a path forward for for for these significant investments but to the extent that we can see okay how do
we move forward without overburing our resence I think commissioner magazine's proposal is the next best choice it gets us going it gets us an ability to prioritize uh missionritical projects. We're still
addressing projects. I mean, I would want to make sure we're still addressing projects in in North Beach and in Lake View and around Mus Park and you know the and the projects that we have grants grant funding for from from the state. I would want to make sure of that and if I
can get confirmation of that, it'll be it'll be great. Um but but we can't, you know, mix the two things. The moratorum was never meant to get in the in the way of the projects. It was to push our government to find a more cost effective
way than slamming our residents with I think it was over $1,000. It was going to get to over $1,000 that they were going to have to absorb of that. And we have achieved that goal. We have achieved that goal of not hitting our
resence with this. And so we just have to do now what is the next most affordable thing from my perspective um uh for for residents which is what Commissioner Magazine is proposing which I believe you know cuts that burden now in half
>> and and I agree with that. Thank you Commissioner Fernandez. If if this was about picking winners and losers, I wouldn't be supporting this next vote and proposal just to raise. But what I'm hearing is we're not we're going to fully fund the projects we need to just over a shorter time frame, but maybe 5
years as opposed to 10. And I'm comfortable with doing that now. Um but >> and I think it's actually fiscally the prudent thing to do. >> But how do we decide what projects to fund? Yeah, basically from the end we will start at
uh 2035 and work our way back because we have prioritized these projects until we get to the number that works between the water, sewer and storm water rate increase. So we don't determine which projects get funded. You have your orders of priority and those projects
that fall within the budget of that list of priority are the projects that end up moving forward. >> I will bring my recommendation to commission. Well, I mean I mean what I would say is that you know we should not deviate from what the professional recommendation is. It
shouldn't be because one group organized and sent emails and one group made phone calls like the recommendation. We have a chart and that chart exists and the projects in that chart were the ones that were going to get funded in order of priority. If we would have done the
general obligation bond for for for example everyone would have been treated equally based on their based on their priority and if we shift >> in a funding mechanism I still want to make sure you know we are still fair that we're not going to
you know because guy that was the guy that was number 10 organizes 50 people to email us now all of a sudden he becomes guy number three so that he doesn't get cut off the list If we do this, I just want to make sure
I just want to make sure that we stick to whatever that professionally made ranking of priorities was because you had a consultant do that at one point I I believe or you guys did it internally. I can't recall was it a consultant that
came in? >> It it was both. It was a prioritization on the stormwater program. There was a prioritization on the neighborhood improvement program and there was a prioritization on the critical water and sewer critical needs program. >> Yeah. And so and so so I'm you know I'm
being flexible because I'm not going I'm going to prioritize the needs of our city which is infrastructure and affordability. But what I will not vote to do is you know in essence politicize then which ones make it into the $400,000
into the $400 million. >> Yeah. No, I I agree with you. >> But >> Commissioner Suarez, then we vote. Comm, >> you know, Commissioner Dominguez brought a really good idea. >> I mean, >> the voters decide. >> Yeah. What would Would Would my colleagues be okay with both options on
the table? >> One, both one and two. >> Okay. >> And then because we're >> Let's hit rewind. We voted twice. They failed. >> Well, well, this motion would be for both questions to be on the on the ballot. And
I mean, how do my colleagues feel about that? And you know, let the voters decide. >> I move the item. >> Yeah. No, we have a motion in a second already on on on the the sewer rate increase. And >> because I don't feel cuz let me just finish cuz I don't feel comfortable saying we're going to cut the project in half and then 5 years from now,
>> we'll we'll have to go back to this. And >> you know, look, we can we can let the voters decide. I mean because right now we're just deciding. I would like the voters to decide. >> I think that's >> okay. >> That is literally what we are elected to
do to make hard decisions about [clears throat] public safety of which critical infrastructure needs is one of the most important things. I mean are we going to punt all of our decisions to the voter? Then we'll have a a direct democracy like they did in ancient Greece. Let's go. >> But the question is how to fund it and
who gets disproportionately affected by those rate increases. Commissioner Okay. >> So, you know, that's >> okay. Let's let's um let's call the vote on the sewer rate increase portion of that hybrid without the geo bond component.
>> So, I have I have a question because Commissioner Dominguez >> and by the way, in all fairness, I actually announced this is the way I'm going to do it. I'm going to call all three votes, which I have. I've called two of the three. And listen, we'll call it. If it doesn't pass, then we'll figure out uh the next the next option,
but I really want to call this vote. And we're kind of delaying. >> Well, because my I guess my my my question is what Commissioner Dominguez is proposing is the same thing as the option two, just bifurcated into two questions.
Um is putting, you know, giving people the option to, you know, I like it because at the end of the day, I wanted affordability. And if people vote yes on those two questions is the same effect as the option
that that I preferred was which which was option two. Is that not correct? >> Oh okay. >> Am I saying this wrong? >> So I if Rick could you help me understand this? If neither of those options get approved by voters then we
are back to square zero. We have no rate increases. We have no mandate from the voters to increase. >> I feel like these are just these are literally morphed from the first two that failed. >> It's to me it's it's a complete non-starter because then either we say fine, we're not going to fix our
infrastructure and we're going to turn into Fort Lauderdale, god forbid, or um we're going to just be back here in in 6 months going through this entire drama again. But I but am I am I misunderstanding that? >> Yeah. Um Rick, I have a question. it
does it need 60% because if it doesn't one of them is going to pass because one of them is going to have more votes than the other. >> Well, what we had prepared and what I mentioned earlier was taking the the item that Commissioner Suarez proposed and splitting it up so voters would
choose do we want to fund storm water? Do we want to fund water and sewer? What Commissioner Suarez just proposed was a little different, which was to put option one and option two, which we have on our agenda to the voters. And the
issue with that option is that if if the voters vote for one, they would have to vote for one or the other. And and I I would like Nick to come up to explain how that would work cuz on a ballot, I'm not sure how we would manage so that the voters could vote one or two. No, I I
sorry. Just to be clear, I think what Rick originally sent was was was probably the most appropriate. Why don't we ask the voters for water and sewer, one geo bond and the other for storm water, and have the voters decide and
then we can and if both one or both fail, yes, we're back technically back to step zero, which is only four months from here. And then we can decide what to raise. And in the meantime, we can also prioritize the projects. But again, that's
>> I'm just calling I'm calling the vote. I'm calling the vote. I I I I literally laid out how I was going to do it. And now I feel like I'm you're you're you're stalling a vote that needs to be called. There's a motion in a second. I'm calling the vote. Okay. >> This is on the rate increase. Motion by
Commissioner Magazine, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez. Uh I'm going to go randomly >> solely rate increase. No bond. >> Correct. >> No geo bond. >> This is the half half the capacity. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Half the capacity.
>> So I'm going to go randomly this time. Commissioner Magazine. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> No. >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bot. >> Commissioner Bot. >> Hi. >> Can you come back to me?
Commissioner Suarez, >> no. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas, >> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> yes. >> Commissioner [snorts] Bot, >> yes. >> Motion passes. So, can we lay out the next steps?
>> It is exactly what they would have been under the hybrid methodology where John, you come back for essentially first reading of that in September and then we take a final vote on that in October. This, >> by the way, this Thank you everyone.
This wasn't easy. I don't think anybody's really fully satisfied, which actually that's kind of what a compromise is. So, uh, some tough decisions, but I I I think we made some good hard decisions with with a very thoughtful discussion.
So, so thank you. >> And Mr. me. Uh, one last thought. You know, it looks like we're going to have some cost savings because we've been so um fine-tuning our budget. We will have cost savings where last
year we uh sent a stipen check to our residents. Perhaps if we have excess cost savings because of the extensive measures that we're taking through a more efficient government, we can put that towards some of this infrastructure funding to even lessen the burden. It we
don't have to vote on that now, but as we go through the budget process, that's something that we could all keep in mind that essentially the excess savings that we uh realize if we're able to do so, continue doing so that we actually put that towards uh our infrastructure funding. Be
>> great. Thank you. R. Yes. R sevenj. >> R7J is public hearing. Cody part of Venetian way as judge Irving and Hazel Cypen way. >> Commissioner De Vice Mayor Dominguez.
>> Uh thank you mayor. So Venetian we at Toledo Islands is currently Judge Irving Siphon Way and this was voted on many many years ago. The family recently requested to add um Hazel, the wife's name, to that section of Toledo because
without her, Judge Irvin Cypen would not have achieved as many successes. Um, interestingly, Mark and I had the opportunity to meet Hazel back in 2015 when we were knocking on doors for his first election, and she was a proud Miami Beach resident raising her
children and grandchildren. And to come back now and I was asked to submit this at the beginning of the year uh to have her name included in that portion of Toledo really made me very excited. Her uh she's um already gone
from here but her uh children and grandchildren live throughout Miami Beach, North Bay Road, Mid Beach, South Beach, and are really excited about this item. Uh it's already been heard at neighborhoods and from here it would go to the county for consideration. And so I move the item
>> second >> follow up. >> It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom and I see no one in the audience um on R sevenJ. All in favor please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. The item is approved. 70. That was R7J.
>> Call R7F. R7G. >> R7F is set. R sevenf set proposed fiscal year 27 mil debt service roll back rates Normandy shores G is set proposed milit set proposed fiscal year 27 military
debt service rate and roll back rates R7F R7G Hello Tama >> good afternoon Tama Stewart budget director so the first item is for Normandy Shores um that millillage rate is increasing it is increasing because the HOA actually voted to increase their
budget um this requires a unanimous vote And this is their maximum millage rate for FY27's budget. >> Call the vote. >> I need a motion, please. >> I'll move it. >> I'll second. >> I have a motion by Commissioner Suarez, second by the mayor on R7F. Please say I
if you're in agreement. >> I. Anyone opposed? Hearing none. R7F is approved 70. Next item is R7G. >> Yeah. The second item is for the city's maximum mill rate. As was discussed at last Friday's work meeting, uh we
recommend leaving the operating millage flat same as FY26 and reducing the debt service millage rate. >> So can you do it one more time to make it please? >> What mill rate are you? >> Okay. So the city's operated millage
rate we're recommending stay flat at 5.8560 mills and then the voted debt service at 2693 mills. Um I don't know if it's okay with my colleagues but we just voted to raise
the water and sewer rates. Can we offset that through a millillage so that we at the end of the day the residents end up net neutral at least in terms of water and sewer. Um >> Mr. Mayor >> and and
uh again we but we could still technically do the roll back rate in when what month? >> In September we have two hearings. So, but but today we have to definitely set the proposed millage the the floor millage rate. So,
>> you can always come down >> and I don't know if you can do this from now until the time we you know next couple minutes, Jason, but could you figure out what the cost is of what we just increased and offset it by a lower
millage? >> Uh, no. Do you think you can do it in the next hour and then perhaps the mayor can call in in an hour or two? >> No. >> Is there a ballpark estimate? >> No. >> Public works department. I'm sorry to be very straightforward, but the public works department was just given that
direction. They're going to have to go back to work with their rate consultant to redo those rates. I have no idea uh what those rates would be nor what the, you know, an average impact or any of that would be done. They have I don't know how many hours or weeks or months. You know, I was even talking about being making sure that we're ready for
September. So there's no way, shape, or form I could even guesstimate what theoretical utility rate adjustments would be. I I can't do that. But again, today you're just setting what your maximum is that you'll vote on uh in September. And September is where you have the flexibility to decrease it.
That's why giving yourself the most flexibility is really so so important. Exactly what we recommended on Friday. You made those you made a series of reductions and you have some flexibility because there's a number of items that you're going to talk about in September on restoring funding for
>> Jason what is the millage rate for the roll what is yeah what is the millillage for the roll back rate >> going to be and what is the proposed flat >> she's while she's looking up the roll back rate just you know with all the the funding that you restored um so if you did decide to vote on a roll back rate
today you would have to basically all of the items that you had restored funding for on Friday, you'd have to reverse and cancel those immediately on the floor. >> Understood. >> So, what is the current >> what's the roll? >> So, the roll back millage rate is 5.5762. >> Okay. And then what is the what is the
floor for >> the ceiling? >> Yes. >> Yeah. The ceiling is 5.8560. >> So, 5.5 >> versus 5.8. >> Okay. Well, colleagues and you know we can certainly
lower the mill even if we pass the ceiling today. I I understand we can lower it [snorts] in September further. But do I have a consensus up here to at least meet halfway on this millage so
that we are guaranteed to lower the millillage for uh next year instead of 5.8 it's 5.5 so 5.65.
So what I can tell you is you have my wholehearted support that that's always how I entered this budget process that I wanted to give our residents a further roll back in the millage rate. I think it is slightly premature today to set
exactly what that is. I feel comfortable if we set a ceiling and we say we are 100% confident our millage rate will not be going up and as we saw on Friday we are already if we would set the budget
at a millage rate that's rolled back and in uh July or I'm sorry in September I want to go through [snorts] to find even more cost savings. I just don't know what rate we're going to come in at. So 5.85
is that correct? The ceiling >> 5.8560 is the recommended uh general mill operating CR and PGO. >> If we did if we took off 005 >> what does that translate into dollars?
Would that be about $100 >> a household median? >> If we go back to which rate? if they lower the millage by 0.05 05 >> just I can in a couple elements again >> where where I'm just simply saying like look we have the ability today to at
least offset what we just raised >> and I want to hold our feet to the fire and say that we're definitely going to do that and not do the millillage of what's going to [snorts] keep our operating budget right I want to get
obviously closer to the roll back rate but again we just raised taxes on the water and sewer and storm water So why don't we just decide today that we are going to tie our hands and make sure that we're going to do additional offset
cost savings to the taxpayers. >> What does that 005 translate to total aggregate in the budget? >> They're OM's working on that very quick. But if I can for just one element, the reason again that we're recommending uh the that keeping the flat millage and that'll be our continuing recommendation
in September is the caution uh yellow flashing caution, not red but yellow uh coming into FY28 with the constitutional amendment. I know you know you talk about that that's definitely going to pass. So that's going to be millions of dollars that we'll have as additional deficit. We had a $7 million deficit
this year based on the trends of property values. There's no reason to think we won't be in a deficit situation next year equal to or greater than we were this year. You add on the constitutional amendment. So we could be instead of having a floor of having to cut $7 million this year, we might need to cut 10 to 15 million this this year.
So even if you're decreasing a millillage that would save half a million or a million dollars, let's say, uh and cutting our revenues, just add that on to the deficit for next year. So whatever you're cutting, you would have additional cuts next year. Not guaranteed, but uh that would be my
prediction. Commissioner Bot and Commissioner Mateo Selenas. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, we have a very robust budget process and this year it has been all the more so through the collective desire of this body to
get into the weeds, have a line by line item document that we can review, have many lengthy conversations about um how to find efficiencies and how to cut things that might be a little bit painful. I think it is premature to um
put in a false cap until we have completed the budget process. I share my colleagues sentiments um in that I think we are all here trying to find the the best way forward. We don't have all the answers yet and that's why we're meeting again in September and why we will meet
one more time um in October. And so I am not going to be in favor of imposing a false ceiling. Um because we it's easy to drop it and to continue to drop it, but if we drop it too low, then we are putting our consumer our our
constituents um in harm's way potentially because we'll have to make hard choices about how many public safety cuts we're going to have to make. And I'm not willing to do that until we have completed the process. I understand everybody on this day is
concerned about affordability for everyone with almost every question that touches that topic. We just spent multiple hours talking about it with our key infrastructure needs. So, um that's where I stand and I think it's premature
to to roll it back any further than we we need to at this point because we can later. >> But it's not rolled back at all. >> So, if we reduce it by 05, >> it's not it's not rolled back at all. Right. And I'm trying to just be reasonable. I don't I don't think a 0. No, it's
>> let let uh Tika, >> right? So, if we reduce the millillage by 05 from what we're recommending, we would save $46 for the average homeowner, uh we've reduced our revenues by $2.6 million. >> 2. So essentially, we came in, you said
to balance our budget and keep our millage rate flat, we had to essentially come up with cost savings of $6.9 million, correct? >> And we found further reductions, several million dollars. You're saying
to reduce our millage, >> it would be $6.9 million uh deficit that we have plus $3 million, was it? >> Yeah. So, right now, based on what we talked about on Friday, we have a $4.2 million surplus that we said we're going to set aside for future discussion in
September. >> Right. That was going to be your budget um kind of your budget stabilization reserve to to help again could be in a 10 to 15 million deficit next year. And there's, I believe, many hundreds of thousands of dollars in items that you are going to consider whether to restore
funding in September. So, any reduction again, any reduction there limits your options. We have $4 million in additional savings that we realized and if we cut our millage rate by 0.05 that would be an incremental what? >> 2.65.
>> So I I'll pose it to you commissioner. I'll either support you in this methodology now or if you would like to keep our maximum millage rate where it's at and we have that discussion to say we either reduce our millillage further or we keep it the same and essentially pay
for further infrastructure funding uh with that. I'm fine wherever you want to take that. >> Thank you, Commissioner. I mean I would I want to save taxes right now. So, I would be in favor of of capping it or lowering it by 0.05 mills and we'll then
have about a million and a half to really decipher. And that's, you know, that's that's good because now we have a pot and we're going to have to decide who who gets the funding instead of just the full four. So, um, and to remind the group one step further, we actually now
have a line item by line item budget. So there's nothing preventing us from all individually going through there and saying, "You know what? I think that can be cut. I think that can be cut and I plan on doing so." So I don't think that that $4 million is going to be the
maximum amount of cost efficiencies that I'm going to be looking to save. So, I'm fine uh backing into that lower millage rate because that's well within the absolute floor of what I'm looking
to save. In fact, my goal over the next month, even if it's individually, is just going through the line item by line item budget to find more cost efficiency savings. >> So, so I'd like to make a motion for a max millage of 5.8. Commissioner Monica Mate Selenus.
>> Um, >> I don't feel comfortable doing stuff here on the fly right now. Um, although I appreciate what you guys are trying to do and I'm not necessarily against it, but you know, I want some more time to process this and speak with our staff,
um, Jason and Tamika. So, I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable doing this right now. And like Commissioner Bot said, it is a process. Um, and you know, we're not all aligned on where we want to cut and where we want to save and we all differ. And, uh, you know, we're
still hearing from our residents about things that have been cut, reduced. So, I I just want to be fair to those residents to be able to speak up and that process that we already have in place before we adjust what our floor
and ceiling is today. So, that's where I'm at. Thank you. I'm in the same uh boat um with that. We had a robust discussion on Friday with the budget and we went through the many different items and um if we go and
slash every single thing that we've got, it's really going to be cutting services and things to our city that make us unique and uh special. And at the end of the day, our residents will not appreciate a sterile city without having
all of the services that we currently offer. Uh during my budget, my um my review, the city recommends slightly reduced millage 0.006 less than as required to service the geo
bonds. If I repeated that correctly, and the operating millage rate recommended to stay flat, and that's what I'll support today. Commissioner Fernandez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm I'm just going to air a frustration that I had last Friday
that I wish we would have if had we had our conference room session today. I was going to bring up this last year in in December, a number of us voted to ask for a rolled back budget and to give us, you know, options for for for a rolled
back budget. And I'll tell you, my frustration with all of with all of this has been that I believe we were given a rolled back budget, but a rolled back budget that was poisonpled and that was poison pill on purpose. That every possible efficiency that this
organization, $1 billion budget organization was able to find were were only those critical services that no responsible elected official would ever even think of cutting. And in fact, every single employee of this city that
that appeared in one of those critical positions that ended up on that list deserves a public apology at least from me because I feel bad that they ended up in that in that list as I believe it demoralizes the critically important work that they do. And to that extent, I
really don't feel that I ever really got a true honest rolled back budget that this city commission voted for. and and I don't appreciate that and I I have to I have to voice that publicly because
the budget is the most important public policy document that we are entrusted to pass and that has placed us in this very difficult position. I think that they that there truly were areas where where
where where if if if we would have taken that exercise seriously that this organization could have found um to really trim and I when I was given that briefing in
my office, I was very clear um to our wonderful staff members that gave me that briefing my feeling about it. I felt it was a political document. It was a politicized rolled back proposed budget to prevent us
from adopting a true rolled back budget rate. That's my opinion on it. That's a frustration that I have. I feel we were deprived of what we asked for and I would have been incredibly remiss had I not stated that frustration on the
record. And in addition to that, and once again reiterate, a public apology that every single one of those employees, whether they're sanitation workers or firefighters or or or parks employees or police officers doing
incredibly difficult jobs, that they are the critical, most critical functions of our government, that they deserve that apology. And I'm giving it uh publicly and I I I'm sorry I have to to state that just because that's I I've been
holding that inside of me since since since since last Friday and I had to uh put that on the >> whole I agree wholeheartedly commission >> I couldn't agree more. Um the proposed roll back rate budget cuts that the city
gave us was a cooked document. I mean, they even had the cats in there, right? They the cats people who showed up. It had all the bells and whistles for everyone to come up and say, "No, we can't do that. We can't do this." It had
it had frontline police workers who are on ATVs doing real patrol work, which I don't want I I want to fund those positions because those are the police officers who are literally out on the beat on the street, not sitting in a car. They're on
on four-wheelers roving and patrolling our our our city streets. So, you know, that's why I also put on uh yesterday an agenda item to consolidate some of our departments to save money. >> And I'm happy to be co-sponsoring that.
>> Yeah. And thank you for the co-sponsorship, Mr. Commissioner Fernandez. But it it really was a shame that we had the opportunity to really do a roll back rate, set the standard across date county. And
unfortunately, this is what the administration gave us and it's going to be very difficult. But just want to bring up another point as I know some of my colleagues mentioned that, you know, we have a process. Technically, this is the process, right?
And we have the ability now as part of that process to lower the the millage rate. [snorts] I don't We have a motion in a second for a 0.05 drop to 8.5.
I'd like to get the win now for our taxpayers and and then continue the process of which we're on right now. So, uh, Mr. Mayor, >> so we have a motion and a second. Let's call the vote. >> Yes, sir.
>> 8.5 >> 5.8, I'm sorry. 5.8 [laughter] not it would be 5.8060 that is just 05 in the operating. >> Why don't we just >> versus what would be >> wait but let me go 5.860
in that's in our total general millage or is that in the combined? >> That's the operating. So right now we're recommending 5.8560 for the operating general millillage. No it's proposed to be 5.8060. 860. >> So
>> just on the operating general mill. >> If you're looking at the memo, that'll be those first. >> And if I could clarify, right now to balance our budget at this millage rate, we needed we're facing a deficit of $6.9 million. Correct. >> Correct. >> So if we would roll back our millage
rate by 0.05, which Commissioner Suarez suggested I'm on the cusp of uh supporting, it would translate. We had to find an excess cost savings of what? >> 2.6. >> 2.6. We found through our budget process
Friday >> above and beyond the $6.9 million in excess cost savings of what? >> 4.2. >> 4.2. Right. So, we are well past there. Okay. Well past there.
In fact, we'd be able to add things back into the budget and still have room. My goal is going to find further efficiencies because I agree with the poison pill theory and and to the public watching at home, what
does that mean? If somebody came and said, "Hey, we need to cut off one of your limbs." I said, "Okay, take my head." No, no person says they take an arm. No, we came and in many departments they go, "Take the and of course you're
no, I'm not going to do that. of course I can't do that. Right? So you kind of set it up in a way for failure. Not overall. We had very significant cuts, but there were certain areas where it was just okay if you need and no reasonable person would have done so. I
I have a hard time believing those were the best most efficient cost savings. But to bring this full circle, Commissioner Suarez, I'll second your motion. It locks us into a rate where we
still have considerable amount of leeway beyond what we've already agreed. >> Let me ask a question. So, so, so that in effect this would be a roll back rate that we're looking No, what is it? What is >> a reduction of smaller just a
>> Let me ask you Jason. What is for and and and again for me what matters at the end of the day is not the definition of the roll back rate or the savings and what that means for for the city. It's ultimately what does the resident
ultimately have to pay and to maintain not a flat rate but a flat tax bill that now that we are going ahead and you know infrastructure is a necessity. So we have to do what we have to do. We have to bite that bullet and move forward with infrastructure projects that is
going to be a cost to our residents. How do we help them on the other end? How do we keep their tax bill flat? What would be that millage rate so it doesn't have to go up? Yeah, that would be 5.7040. Um, that would reduce the budget by $8
million. So, we would have a deficit now. >> Another four million. >> Okay. And is that the amount that is being proposed? No. >> Okay. I would like for us to to consider that um because that is what would
protect our residents the most absent absent doing a roll back. and ask our administration, you know, go back and and and find what would be those good areas, you know, that
are not the essential services. >> And how I'll respond, Commissioner Fernandez, is I think that's an >> By the way, I I I know there's a lot going on. Please go through me because there's actually people who wanted to be heard and not being heard, but Commissioner, >> I apologize. That's our aspirational goal for September. When that number is
refined and they have the correct analysis, I think where I'll go and support Commissioner Suarez is it gets us on that path there, right? And we'll give the administration time to say, okay, what is the millage rate that would correspond with an offset of what
we just passed and we can discuss that in September. this gets us at least moving in that direction because we just don't have that analysis right now. >> Eric, >> I would just in response to the poison
pill concept, um it's 5% across the board is what it took to get to a millage rate. We had every single department prepare a budget that had a 5% reduction. In addition to that, we provided a program budget and we
provided a line item budget. So happy to discuss that further. >> Okay, >> let's call a vote. We >> have a motion in a second >> for 8.5 5.80 5.8060. >> So this is on item R7G as amended.
5.8060 >> on on the general millillage. Correct. >> Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Magazine. All in favor, please say I. >> I. Anyone opposed? I have a no from Commissioner Dominguez.
I have a no from Commissioner Bot. The item passes. >> Are we going to vote on the debt service as well? Because this was just the offering. >> Okay. >> And that's 2693. >> It again to me. I'm sorry. >> 2693. It's a debt service.
>> I'll move the items. >> Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Fernandez. >> Seconded by Commissioner Suarez on the debt service. >> Uh vote. >> All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> And Mr. Mayor,
>> if I could I don't want >> I don't want to speak out of order. [laughter] Um, I do want to ask our administration to find what are those real efficiencies
that we can find in the budget that are not critical, that are not critical, that could get us to that 5.704. Um, >> that will keep the tax bill then flat for the people at home that are getting
that tax bill. I I'd like to make a motion asking our administration to come back to us with proposed savings and again, you know, let's not do what we did with the roll back budget. To me, that was unfair. Uh, forget about us to
to the people that that are create that are doing those critical services. I am confident that in this organization with a $1 billion budget, there are areas where we can find to achieve that 5.704
military that that does not yield any sort of tax increase without cutting away services from our residents or impacting the current level of service that our residents are getting in sanitation uh or or or in public safety
services. I'll second that. >> Call the vote. I have a motion to direct administration. Uh motion by Commissioner Fernandez, second by Commissioner Suarez. Uh all in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed?
Hearing none. The item the direction is approved. 70. Uh Tamika and Jason. This will be one reszo that you'll be amending with both. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Jason. Tamika and Eric. Mr. May
>> R 7L >> R7L is a public hearing approved first amendment 1250 West Avenue development agreement. Welcome, David. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, commissioners. David Gomez, director of
capital improvements. Um, as you will recall at our last meeting, we had the first reading of an amendment and restatement of the development agreement for 1250 West Avenue. The amended agreement includes essentially five
changes. The first one is to extend the deadlines to obtain easements and upland agreements from the areas where they're responsible for building baywalks. It does not change their final deadline, but it does give them a little more time to obtain the the agreements. Um the
second item clarifies that the Baywalk segment at 1250 directly behind 1250 can be constructed over water which actually works to connect to the segment that is directly to the south at 1228. The third item
alters the allowable uh square footage for non-residential areas. uh it actually reduces the square footage at the at the ground level from 4,000 to 2,000 square feet, but does allow them to uh implement some uses in the subb
level for uh spa and other uses. Uh the fourth item clarifies the applicability of the city's flood plane regulations. um essentially setting the flood plane requirement for the time when they
submit for permit for their building. Uh, and then the final item is some minal minor technical cleanup of removing the the name of the owner that's no longer there, adding the name of David Martin uh, in lie of Michael
Stern and clarifying some defined terms. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> I'm happy to move the item. Uh for me, the most important thing associated with all of this and with 1250 West is making sure that the tenants that were
displaced are being uh you know are having a soft landing. And so I would just want to ask the applicants um since we are on this item uh where where are we on the rental relocation uh checks?
>> Sure. Um through the mayor's not here, vice mayor through vice mayor Dominguez. Good afternoon. Michael Larkin turn on South Biscane Boulevard here representing the applicant. So 106 tenants were classified as bonafide lees. >> What we've done in the month of June is
send out 51 checks totaling $750,000 in value. By July 31st, we'll send out additional 35 checks totaling $450,000 in value. The remainder will be sent out uh hopefully in the month of August and that will qualify for all 106 tenants.
>> Okay. So, so the total is over I guess 1 point it's about 1.3 substant. Yeah. 1 point yeah about 1.2 million. The uh 35 that are remaining. Why have they not received their checks yet? >> Um they haven't given us addresses where they are are have been moved to.
>> Okay. And you know under the agreement we prefer to give it to them but we will go to the city at the very end in a year's time. But >> so the 51 people that that have provided you with their new address those are the ones that have received their checks. Individuals that have not provided us with or you with their with their with
their address. Those are the 35 who have still not received their check. And by when do they have to provide you with their address before that reverts to the city? >> Let me say it a little bit differently. So 51 were mailed out in the month of June. Yeah. >> Totaling 750,000.
On July 31st, there's going to be 35 more checks mailed out. >> Okay. Got it. >> And that will be 450,000. And the remainder, we hope to get the address in the month of August and send out by Labor Day. >> Got it. Okay. So, so that will be 86.
So, that will leave about 20 people, I guess. >> Correct. >> That still haven't given you their their address. >> But it was a tremendous program. I'm sure it's very helpful to them and we're happy to do it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you for the update. Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. >> I'm happy to move the item.
>> I'll second it. >> It is a public hearing. I have Mr. Seraldo on Zoom. >> Good afternoon. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Thank you, Daniel Seraldo, 7:30 10th Street. Thank you, Commissioner
Fernandez, for asking about the existing tenants in 1250 West Avenue. Um, I in the last hearing called in specifically about uh eviction lawsuits that have been filed and I'm hoping that could
also be addressed. Want to read into the record the names of the the folks that are under that litigation due to the commission upzoning for this luxury building. Jennifer Martin, Juan Morales, Martinez, Bernan Buyers, Nick Sanchez, and Ashley Hernandez, Juliana Dominguez,
Masso, Hi, Victoria Payne, Kayla Yepz, Jacquellyn Waters, Carlos O'ha, and Andrea Maria Jose Flores. So, I'm hoping those can be addressed, those evictions that the developer has done against the tenants. And my final point is sounds
like you're grandfathering in building underground underwater parking garages. We have seen in West Avenue that is not a good idea and I would urge you all to reconsider that. Make sure not to have the parking where the sea level will
inundate it. Thank you so much. >> There's no one else in Zoom and I see no one else in the audience. That concludes the public hearing portion. Okay, >> I have a motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Mayor >> Miner. Commissioner Fernandez for continuing to make that a priority. >> Um, let's call the vote.
>> All in favor of R seven, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. R7L is approved. Uh, 70. >> Call R7H and R7 I together. >> Yes, sir. R7H is a public hearing. Amendment one, Ribondi lease, 1691
Michigan Avenue. It requires a 57s vote. Second item R seven I call special election 1691 Michigan Avenue lease amendment ballot question. >> Commissioner Magazine. >> Yeah. Thank you Mr. Mayor. What I think here is a tremendous opportunity that we
have in front of us for our city. We have a office property that's owned by a private individual on city owned land with a land lease. Uh this individual has already put in $50 million of uh capital improvements that has significantly benefited our city through
further economic development. Uh but perhaps just as importantly, we actually get a gross percentage of revenue of this project. Uh so the more this project earns, the more the city earns. that is increasingly important with all the things that we're sitting here
discussing today being very budget conscious um looking to restore funding to our residents especially in light of what's happening in Tallahassee uh and there's a proposal in front of us that we've discussed at length to essentially have a phase two of this project where the property owner will
put in an additional $50 million [cough and clears throat] in capital enhancements that will not only increase our revenues from that share of the project but uh um enhance our revenues that we're getting from the current project. Azie, turn it over to you to
discuss more of the nuance and details, but essentially what I'd really like to focus on and highlight is the incremental amounts of money that we will be getting almost right away uh from this project. Not just because of [laughter] the additional uh phase two of the project, but the increased
revenue share that we'll be getting even from phase one. Thank you for you and your team. I know this has been months uh in the making uh through close deliberation with the property owner. We're partners here, right? We are quite literally on the same piece of land. We
own they own part of it. So, thank you for uh you know your uh your thoughtful deliberation here and excited to hear what we have in front of us. >> Thank you, Commissioner. [snorts] Um good afternoon, commissioners. Mayor Azie Dominguez, division director of asset management for the city of Miami Beach. Uh so this is the second reading
um for this item and as as Commissioner Magazine had mentioned we've been back a few times we have been back and forth with the developer deliberating negotiating uh terms for this amendment. Now this amendment is for the developer
to have the right to extend their agreement for two additional 20 years. Uh they're going to be adding about 47,000 square ft of rentable area on the roof of their current garage, which they are allowed to do. It's already their
space to do so. Uh but in order for them to make this investment, which is going to be between $35 $50 million, um they are asking for the additional term. So they have the opportunity to recover the $50 million investment that
they're going to be making here. As you mentioned, with that comes some uh comes some benefits, some immediate benefits for the city. Uh where when phase 2 kicks in, the percentage contribution increases from 2.5 to 3% of total
revenue collected. That includes revenue that they collect on rents for retail space and as well as the office space. Um, in addition to that, we have to keep in mind that those additional two 20-year options will bring in revenues
that currently are not being contemplated under the current agreement that expires in 2092, I believe. Um, uh, so that's going to be bringing in an additional $234 million to the city if we look, you know, long term. the
immediate um reward to the city that the phase two project will bring is about $18 million additional for the first term. Um so I'll open it up for some questions. And I I did want to address during the last commission meeting uh
Commissioner Suarez had asked if uh if we can go back and see how we can take some of these additional funds or some of these funds that are going to come in through this project to assist in offsetting some of the capital infrastructure deficit. My recommendation, which I had put in the
memo, is to u take an additional $500,000 uh a year uh when phase 2 kicks in and just revert those funds uh to be applied to uh the offset of the of this infrastructure deficit.
>> I'm sorry, sir. >> What's the plan? uh your your recommendation uh or your question and challenge was what can we do with these additional funds uh that we're going to be getting from the developer to offset some of the infrastructure deficit that we are
facing. And our recommendation was to take $500,000 a year from that and apply it for 5 years um or as the commission wishes to that deficit directly. >> Why only five years? >> Just a recommendation. Not sure if we we
can extend it out for the full um $6 million. I think it was 66 $6.5 million. Uh so that was just the start of the recommendation. >> Okay. Where's the mayor? >> Who? Uh Commissioner Suarez.
>> Yeah. You know, I I Robert at at the after the last meeting. I mean, you don't have to get up. Sure. I I I called out some of these public benefits and I said, "Hey, look, we you know,
these are great and all, but I think all of these public benefits should go toward infrastructure." And I don't know how my colleagues feel about that because when I'm looking at this, you you've got $100,000 for blue zones
to make the restaurants blue zones approved. It's $100,000. You got $100,000 to a tip line for human trafficking, $50,000 for sister cities, and then there's $600,000 for Lincoln
Road improvements andor Lincoln Road art. Um, okay. So I think just given the one the discussions we just had 30 minutes ago about infrastructure I think all of
these benefits should be toward infrastructure only and and look I mean there and I'm not trying to just make a a thing out about this politically I'm just simply saying
we have about how much in public benefits total 1.3 million including the parking. So 1 million in total for public. >> I think we should have all of that toward infrastructure because how many times do we get an email or a comment
saying why don't we just have the developers pay? Here's a perfect example of where a developer can literally pay for infrastructure instead of, you know, $600,000 to
Lincoln Road Art. So, um I I'd like to see where my colleagues fall on that before, you know, we move forward on this. >> Yes, sir. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> Thank you. Um so the amount that were put in as public benefits um that were
just mentioned are a drop in the bucket compared to the um almost million dollars that uh are being given as part of this project and they're being used in or around Lincoln Road. So the sister
cities when there's been events, we've had them at Lincoln Road restaurants and the 50,000 is meant to be spread out over five years to help revitalize those restaurants um when sister cities uh
diplomats come, dignitaries come from uh around the world. Um and then some of the other ones that were important to my colleagues, that's what makes our city unique. There are seven of us and each of us have different perspectives and things that make the city special and infrastructure is important but so are
all of the other things that make Miami Beach so iconic. Commissioner Matt Selenas. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I had suggested the $100,000 to go to a tip line for folks who call
in for suspected human trafficking, provided that it leads to an they'll get a a small amount provided it leads to an arrest or conviction. And um that's something that's not my personal slush fund or pet project. It's something that's very important to me and very
important to the public safety of our city. Um especially considering there was a very high-profile arrest that happened in our city not too long ago. Um I'm sure you heard Andrew Tate and his brother was arrested right here in Miami not too long ago u for some
alleged crimes and so it's very important to me and I appreciate so is infrastructure, you know, and I appreciate Commissioner Suarez your suggestion. Um but I would like to keep the $100,000 for for human trafficking uh tips.
um if possible. Thank you. >> By the way, I just want the a little bit off topic, but thank you for your work uh with the state attorney's office on the human trafficking. We you uh there was an event recently with probably 100 law enforcement personnel and and the work that's being done in Miami Beach,
our police department. We have our own uh dedicated unit to human trafficking. I believe the only city of Miami date that has that if I'm not mistaken and um the task force but uh ultimately working together with multiple law enforcement agencies. It's really uh incredible
work. So thank you. [applause] >> Uh Commissioner Magazine, Commissioner Suarez. >> Yeah. Um thank you Azie for the suggestion and Commissioner Suarez for bringing that up. I agree how important infrastructure is and I think we're able to achieve multiple goals, right? These
pro uh these public benefits uh my my colleagues uh thought out and discussed that length for several months totaling a million dollars. What the administration is suggesting will essentially bring two and a half times
that for infrastructure funding. Is that correct? So, if we do five years of $500,000 per year, that's bringing $2.5 million to infrastructure funding. Um, one of the things that uh I think also is very important and was really
highlighted to me in the budget process following the county where they're cutting transportation funding. Um, and this is where I would like to gauge the temperature of my colleagues that $600,000 that's left for Lincoln Road. Um, $100,000 of that, we've talked about
the structural deficits for our transportation system, our trolley system, and those are the people that are relying on it to get to Lincoln Road, the workers and things like that. That of that $600,000, we take $100,000 of that and put it to our trolley and transportation services.
Um, and then I agree with the recommendation that was Commissioner Suarez's uh suggestion that we essentially take $500,000 per year of the incremental funding that will come into the city as a result of this project that'll total $2.5 million that
are going towards flooding, resiliency, and infrastructure. So, I I think that's an incredible win where we're getting $1.3 million from across the board, everything from Ardan Public Places to reviving Lincoln Road, which has been a
vital uh uh priority of all of ours to trolley and transportation funding to then what dwarfs them all is $2.5 million of infrastructure funding. And then we still have millions and millions of dollars of excess money that is coming in to the city that as time goes
on every single annual operating budget that we then recalibrate to our priorities there. >> Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Fernandez. Um look I our core function as government
public safety infrastructure sanitation and literally with all and I don't mean this in any sort of disparaging way giving $600,000 for art improvements on
Lincoln Road meanwhile we have so we have almost a billion dollars in infrastructure is really offensive to the voters. You know, I mean, every dollar that we can dedicate toward infrastructure is
just one is just less taxes that our residents are going to have to pay and that's our priority as a government. So, you know, that for me that's where I stand. Okay. I
for now let's go. I may not have consensus on that with my colleagues. >> So explain how the why did you pick five years? >> It was it was a starting point just to give an example. Uh once phase 2 project
kicks off, we can start allocating an additional $500,000 to the infrastructure. And >> who decides where that goes and and when because can that can change, right? And we don't really have a is that part of the proposal here today? >> Yes, it is. Yes, that would who decides
where it goes. I would leave that up to Jason and his team. Um, we're just, you know, collecting the the revenue. >> Okay. I'd like to hear what my rest of my colleagues have to say. >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, you as it
relates to the public benefits, I'm going to leave it to, you know, ultimately what the applicant profers uh, and I'll I'll let that to be determined with the sponsor of the item
to get finalized. Um, because at the at the end of the day, I think at these are profers that are that are being made. Uh, and so I'm going to let I'm going to let the sponsor um iron that out. Um I appreciate the
significant investment being being proposed and obviously I support revitalizing Lincoln Road. Uh and there's so many amazing developments happening from all the way the east end of Lincoln Road that hopefully soon we'll start seeing transformations there to what's happening with Nolley that
Commissioner Magazine that you're sponsoring uh this as well. Um, so you all of this private investment in city-owned property is something that, you know, I think will will help revitalize Lincoln Road. Um, and I
recognize that uh that that public benefits do come as as a result of these of these of these projects. So, I just have a few questions uh because I just want to make sure that I understand well um you know the value that we're putting
in this public asset and that we are maximizing the value for the property own for the taxpayers who are the property owners of this property. Azie, let me ask you, we obtained two independent appraisals >> for this property. Okay. Can you confirm
for the record what what each appraisal concluded was the fair market uh ground rent for the property? >> Uh one appraisal was for 3.9 million per year and the second one was for 3.2 million. Okay.
The proposed amendment establishes a much lower base base rent than the appraised fair market ground rent. Can you walk us through the financial analysis that explains why the negotiated economics
are appropriate despite the appraisal conclusions? >> [clears throat] >> the the fair market uh appraisal that is done is for for this purpose is basically a tool that we use just to see uh what the appraisers uh are valuing
the properties at. It doesn't mean that that is exactly what we're going to be able to obtain. Uh with the current agreement um with this amendment, we can't enforce a change in the base rent based on the fair market rents because it's not a market reset. It's not a
market reset period. Uh we're just using our >> So we're currently locked in. >> We're currently locked in. >> We're currently a a a landlord uh in an agreement with a tenant. >> Correct. >> And we're not able to go in and and and
reset the rents at this >> correct. We present we presented and discussed it with the developer and we start there as as a negotiation. Uh but considering the investment that they're making into the property for both phase one and phase two, uh they they came
back with uh with different um financial offers and this is where we ended up going back and forth. Uh so that's basically how we use the the market rent analysis. Aussie, let me ask you. The the administration has, I guess
appropriately, emphasized um the tenants $50 million investment uh in this in this property in terms of of the the new construction. How did the city quantify that investment when negotiating the the uh financial terms
of this amendment >> for the phase two? >> Yes, >> Mr. Commissioner. Uh well, we we took into consideration what the what the developer is already putting into the building and the caliber of tenants that he's bringing, plus what he is going to
be uh creating with the expansion of the 47,000 square ft and the additional revenue that that's going to bring to the city with an immediate return and also consider the extended uh return that we we're going to be receiving for the additional 40 years.
So, so in essence, you're treating that investment as the consideration uh the principal consideration for extending the uh lease term and I guess modifying the rent structure. >> Correct. Correct. And with the potential of continued growth that this project
will have because these are just projections that we're going off of for future for future revenues. uh their revenues can be a lot higher than what is currently being projected which will definitely generate a lot more revenue for the city as well. >> Okay. This amendment grants an
additional 40 years. >> 220 years. Correct. >> 220 years. Okay. Did the city obtain any analysis on how much that that additional increase of um that in that that that that additional uh term
increase uh would have on the market value of the tenants le lease hold? >> No. >> Okay. >> In the future you mean? >> Yes. >> No. No. We based everything um all future increases are based on a 12% every five. And if we didn't, so if if
we didn't, how did we determine whether the city is receiving adequate consideration for granting those additional 40 years? >> I'm I'm sorry, Commissioner. I'm not understanding the question. >> So, okay, you're you're you're telling me that we didn't do an analysis of how
much the the the additional 40 years of what impact that has on the market value of the lease hold that the tenant has. We we haven't done an analysis of that. So, how did we determine whether the city is receiving adequate compensation
uh for granting those additional 40 years? >> Well, I think based on based on the projected revenues that we're going to be getting and the increase in growth in the rents just in the base rents alone, uh that is what we based it on. And and when we and when we look at um when we
look at the base rent and the percentage rent, when we combine those, what do we anticipate uh will be the the aggregate >> for the uh for the two 20-year terms? It is approximately 248 million.
>> Okay. Um >> and that's that's based just on 3% annual increases. It could be higher. their rents could, you know, the rents the rents that they charge could be higher, which means the revenues are going to be higher. So, we we left we based it on a very uh standard growth
rate. >> And what was that number again? I'm sorry. >> The 3% and the 12%. >> Yeah. >> So, 3% annual growth rate. >> No, no, but but but the total over over the >> 248 million 248 million, those are revenues that that otherwise we we wouldn't be generating.
>> That is correct. >> Okay. Um You know, my concern is that is that this increases the value of the leaseold and Mr. Revani, he's a you you are a businessman. You don't have to get up.
You can stay seated. You're you are a a businessman. And so I would I would imagine you're not looking to hold this property for 100 years. I'm sure that eventually eventually you're going to want to sell your interest. You're
looking to invest in this property, make you know participate in this renaissance of Lincoln Road. And at some point, I'm sure you're going to want to um recoup your your your investment from that. When that happens, whenever that
happens, does the city get a participation rent? Does it does does the city get a transfer fee uh for for whenever Mr. Ravani chooses uh to sell
his property and recoup his investment? >> That is not currently in the agreement. Uh so the answer would be no. >> Okay. Um let me ask you another question. Another question that's that for me is is it's
is important because you know this is a taxpayer asset and I want to make sure that the taxpayer gets the most that they can. When we started this conversation and I asked you a few questions, you mentioned that right now
if the city wanted to get, you know, the total appraised rent value for the property, we're not well positioned for it because this is not the time for a rent reset. >> That is correct. However, if at the time
that we have a rent reset, the city wants to seek its fair market value uh for for for this property. Does this agreement today allow us
to to uh to to get the fair market value from the city? >> From the developer? >> From the developer. Yes. >> Yes. Yes, it does. >> It does. Okay. All right. But >> in the next in the next in the next reset period. >> Okay. So my understanding is that there
is a cap on on the rent reset. >> Correct. [snorts] >> So if there is a cap on the rent reset, how is it how will we get what would be the the the appraised market value at that time? >> The cap request is through this
amendment only. So if the amendment is approved, uh it is approved with the caps on the resets. >> So you're saying today under the current existing agreement that governs the deal today, uh the the deal that we have
today with Mr. Revani, there is no cap on the on on the rent reset. >> That is correct. >> But under the new proposed terms, there is >> there is >> there is a cap on the rent. Correct. that I have a concern with is I want to
be able to support this. You I see the value, the long-term value of $248 million for the city long term. I just don't know if I'm going to be around 60 years from now uh to uh to experience
that. >> We won't see it. But um and so and so and so my my my concern is while long-term yes it's great. How can we not have a less favorable term for the city when it comes to the to to the rent
resets >> and that's why we we've proposed it because we staff was not in favor of having a cap. However, the developer came back on on two or three occasions um said the only way that he could have a return on for his investment is by
there being some sort of a controlled cap on those market resets. And their recommendation, their request was 20% for the first two resets, 33% for the last two resets. >> But you see what I like about this deal is that we're getting better. We're in
general is we're it's is putting us in a better position generally than where we are today except when it when it then comes time for the taxpayers who own the property to get a true fair market rent
at that at that point is at that point then the taxpayers the taxpayers of the future today we are limiting the hands and the ability of the taxpayers of the future to add their fair what what would
be the fair amount of their asset that the taxpayers are going to own tomorrow and that's my challenge with this that I am I'm I'm looking short term is great even longterm in many things but when it comes to that we are limiting our our
our our residents and future commissions so I need I need guidance on how we can address that Mr. manager because you're telling me that you are I'm hearing through through through Aussie that that was a term that the administration did
not want the the administration did not want the cap on the rent reset. >> So as with all negotiations there are priorities to both sides. Um this was one of the items that was a
priority to their side. uh our side was increasing the base rent and percentage rent above what we're getting today so that we start getting returns immediately. Um and we were willing to negotiate into these caps. Would we prefer to not have
them? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, it was a give and take. >> And so, Mr. Vivani, >> I think I again, thank you for the investments you're making in our in in our city. And I obviously you you have a
tremendous vision and uh and and I think you know we want to see that come about but I also have to be mindful of [snorts] the residents to whom we are sending this question to. >> Mhm. And I have to be able to look at these residents in the eyes and tell
them that what I am sending them in all these different terms is better for them now than when than than than what it was prior to to to this agreement. And that's where I have a concern with with the rent cap because that is a new
that's a change in a in a term that that could be perceived to be less favorable to the city in the long run. Understood. Look, I think it's important commissioner to understand the the most important thing which is a tale of two buildings. 1601 is the Washington is the sister building of this building that
was developed 20 some odd years ago at the same time of this building. And that building has become one of the largest blights on this city's history of becoming a failed development. And we're sitting here attempting to talk about what fair market value will be 60 years from now. This building, correct me if I'm wrong, Aussie,
>> but I'm sorry, but let me just ask you. >> Sure. >> Okay. I'm not the one talking about that. >> No, I'm just saying in Let me let me let me just finish. >> Sure. >> That is a term that was brought about as part of this negotiation. >> Mhm. >> That that is changing as a result of
this of this negotiation. So, so you all are the ones that that that have brought that change to this to to this deal. How can we how can we figure this out so that we don't tie the hands of future commissions down the
road >> which which I was going to explain that right now the fair market value that we're worried that we're thinking about 60 years from now is conflicted by the fact that we've already doubled the revenue that the building's been getting over the past two years. Aussie correct
me if I'm wrong that wasn't there 2 years ago. So we've already doubled by $300,000 per year. We've talked about how over the next 20 years the city will hopefully be putting in its pocket close to 20 million dollars that if we do not build this building they will not be getting. Now we're worried about the
city not getting a tremendous value potentially during the fair market value period 60 years from now. And my argument to that is nobody here has a crystal ball of where commercial real estate let alone where office will be 60 years from now or if our first floor won't even be underwater by then like we're having dealing with flooding as we speak today. The point that I think is
important for everybody to understand, it's a better gamble to take the burden hand, make $20 million for the city, have an asset that is going to be an anchor to the redevelopment and the resurgence of Lincoln Road and is a win on all parts for everybody. And that is
what my focus is here with this building is that yes, we could talk about increases in caps, but the increases in caps per commercial real estate national tenants are between 10 to 15%. On an average basis across the McDonald's of the world, the Walmarts of the world, we're proposing 33%. And city staff
fought very hard, which is, hey, we don't want to do the 10 15%. It's close to double that on those periods. And it would not make any sense for anybody to go into a wild card of a development to say, "We don't know what the rent's going to be in 30, 40 years, but we want you to spend $50 million more money into
the project whenever we've already taken the >> But that's been your proposal, by the way. Did or Mr. Manager, did you ask Mr. to invest [snorts] $50 million?" >> No, no. I'm saying the f the first 50 million that we've already spent without asking for anything. This is a partnership that we that we're coming to the commission and saying this is a
partnership for both sides to work together, for both sides. We're going to make an investment and we're asking for a longer term at least to be able to make that investment which is a win-win for all sides, not only for Lincoln Road, for the the constituents, the city, the voters, and for ourselves to be able to make this make sense.
>> So So let me then just understand Aussie then. So this is a new term that does not exist in in the agreement that governs today. I'm not a commercial real estate agent. So I need to understand in
commercial properties what is the typical rent reset term? >> It will vary from property to property and geographic location and it also depends like I've said before commercial real estate is a blank canvas. It just
depends on what you know it's a give and take and who wants what more. Um but it is as as Mr. was saying it is typical to have uh rent caps. um and and and other types of operating expense reimbursement
caps on all commercial leases. >> Okay. So, >> it wouldn't be uncommon to see this. >> The the rent cap that's been proposed in [snorts] this agreement, how does it compare to what is usually in the market? >> It's an acceptable rent cap. As Mr. was
saying, I I've seen rent caps that are 50%. I've seen rent caps that are, you know, 5%. So, a 20% rent cap and especially considering that we're getting $18 million already guaranteed on on just the current agreement plus
whatever the additional term is going to bring. Um, and and you factor in the rent cap, we'll will probably end up the same, if not better. Um, when you do the calculation, there's >> again, not to quote you for the third time, but there's no crystal ball as to where the commercial real estate market
is going to be. And that's my concern. That ultimately is my is my concern because the hope I mean obviously we have trust and we have faith in our community and the future. If not we wouldn't be making all all of these all of these investments. Um but
understanding that you believe that that the number is is fair then I want to understand you know the increase in value in the lease hold that adding these 40 years generates for for for for
the developer Mr. Mr. Ravani today there's no transfer fee for for the city if Mr. Ravani decides to cash out on on his investment and sell his leaseold interest. >> That is correct. >> Okay. That >> city will have the the right of first
offer. >> That to me that that to me is a concern and it's something that I've advocated for uh when we were discussing Lincoln Lane. Uh I advocated for there to be a transfer fee as as part of of of the
Lincoln Lane deal. I know we had one as part of the of the Miami Beach Convention Center hotel deal. Um was, you know, I I'm all fine with with you making money from this, but ultimately the taxpayer is the owner and I want the
taxpayer to to to benefit from this as well if there if if there is a transfer. So, I need someone to guide me on on participation rent because I I I would imagine that you would must feel it
probably is fair for the city as well, wouldn't it be? >> Sorry, can you repeat the question again? >> As it relates to participation rent, why why wouldn't the city >> benefit from participation rent here? uh if you if you if you if you sell your
leaseold interest in the future, >> you you guys are participating with percentage rent >> in with with a transfer fee. >> It's a new term that I've never really heard of before, but in terms of a private sale to a private sale and paying a third party fee to a city is something new that I've not ever heard
of. >> I mean I mean don't we have it isn't it something that we typically I know we had it with with Lincoln Lane. Eric, if you can guide me through this. >> Yeah. when we did the um the procurement process for the Lincoln Lane projects,
it was an incorporated um provision and I believe there's a similar provision in the convention center hotel deal. I'm looking at the city attorney to see if he remembers. >> Sure. Um it was in there is a provision in the the the development and ground
lease agreement for the hotel. I don't recall whether it was included in the procurement or it was negotiated. I believe it was negotiated during the during the negotiations following the award of the RFP. >> And so I just want to be mindful of that because this ultimately we don't make
the final decision on this. And this is ultimately made by the voters of our city who we're passing this to. And I need to tell them how this is the best business deal. We know that there's going to be a lot of talk out there and
people won't understand certain things unfortunately such as you know we can't reset the rent now that even though there's an appraisal you know there is an existing agreement unfortunately you know a lot of things will be distorted however you know if if there is at some
point a transfer I think I think our our residents our taxpayers who ultimately own the land would want the city to to to to benefit from a transfer as a stakeholder in that as well. >> I I I totally respect that and
understand that. I'm open to an idea or suggestion, but I we keep talking about the the fair market value and I think it's important to note that fair market value cuts both ways. It's not just an automatic increase that the property falters as it did or was it was before I bought it. The gross incomes fell off a cliff. The property had a 40 to 50%
occupancy rate. the developer also has to continue to put money in the asset to make sure it's a profitable asset in the first place to be able to kick that off. So, I'm I'm open to the idea or the suggestion against first I'm hearing this. I don't know if the Lincoln Lane project was given F or if other projects were given some type of outside benefit.
We're not asking for any F increase. We're not asking for any uh any deal terms back to us for the project and we're only asking for the extension. So, I'm open to the suggestion, but I just want to make that the the prior points very clear of where we where we stand on it.
>> Commissioner, um well, I I would want to ask uh Eric Eric, you know, what what what would you recommend? Do you believe uh that a transfer fee would be appropriate in this in in this deal? And and if one
would be appropriate, what would be an appropriate transfer fee? So obviously there wasn't one in the original deal for this project, but obviously you know the city would
benefit from incorporating of a transfer fee. Um Mr. City Attorney, do you remember what the transfer fees were in the other deals? >> Um Lincoln Lane had a 5% transfer fee.
The hotel deal I believe is 0.25. There's all over the place. >> That's a wide range. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> Mr. Mayor, while >> Commissioner, while while Eric >> Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Magazine, >> maybe in the meantime, Eric, I just want
to kind of get back to what what [snorts] the added value is to the residents by signing this deal. Cuz I certainly want to make sure that if we send this to the voters, it's a good deal, right? [snorts] Um, notwithstanding these public benefits,
if we were to do nothing um, at the next appraisal date, what would the value what what would the city receive in total for funding? >> I wouldn't be able to tell you what the market value would come in at that time.
Um but if we if we were to do if we were to do nothing >> and uh everything stays status quo, we currently do not reap any additional benefits from the additional square footage, the additional base rent and the and the additional um.5%
of uh of gross sales that we would generate. Um then we would wait for the first market reset and whatever the market reset comes in. If it comes in at 3.9 million or if it comes in at 4.5 million then that's that's where the
base rent would reset to. >> That's respect >> but that is just very speculative. So sorry sir respectfully it's it it's not because there's an appraisal process where both sides need to get appraisals to go back and forth and I can sit here today and testify that the appraisals that have been given to us thus far do
not outline a clear picture and have missed multiple properties that are equivalent to ours that have sold within >> I'm just looking at the memo we're it's four public benefits >> it says total additional revenue through 20 18.14
to 18.6 six. Is that correct? >> I I think the major big difference, sorry, is the major big difference is if we do not build the building, the the the more or less ballpark amount between now and the end of the current term that the city would miss out on would be close to 40 to $45 million before those
resets kick in. >> Okay. But I'm just looking at what the city provided us, right? And this is cash, I'm assuming, right? So eight, correct? >> So, and this is through 20. >> So, correct me if I'm wrong. If we don't do anything, we're $18 million short.
But if we sign, if we do this deal through 201, we would have had an additional $18 million >> at least. Yes. >> Okay. At least. Well, I mean, I don't know. That doesn't seem very fair. Just an additional cash value
of $18 million through 20 and then we have a rent cap of 20%. I I mean, look, I want this to happen. I just want to have a really good deal, but just just saying an extra $18 million
for something when potentially my son could be a commissioner up on here. I don't know. I don't think that's a good deal. Um, I was talking with staff and I don't know how you're open to this, Robert, because you're going to have a
restaurant in there, right? Most likely. Uh, we may have like a small 3,000 square foot restaurant. >> Yeah. Like a members club. >> Would it be possible to have a rev share on that? >> You guys do have a rev share? >> No. With the gross income from the restaurant?
>> I don't know the sales. >> I don't own the restaurant. >> Well, you could potentially lease it to someone with the understanding that whatever revenue you have, it has to go to the city because it is on the city property. >> The revenue from the restaurant to go to
the city. Yeah, similar to what we do at Smith Homesky's. >> I've never seen that before in my entire career that there'd be a percentage rent and then the tenant would then pay a different percentage to then because whatever we collect from the tenant, we're giving you guys. We're not partners with the restaurant. So, if the
restaurant does $30 million in sales, for example, they pay us their fixed rent. We don't get a percentage typically. And if we do, it's above a threshold. >> Right. But and and typically that'd be true, but this is on city property. >> Correct. >> Right. And so similar to Smith and
Lensk's, they pay 10% of gross, right, city Mr. City Manager? >> Yeah. But there's no in between. There's an in between. >> Yeah. Yes. What what Mr. Rani is trying to explain is that we're the direct landlord. >> Understand that. >> So he's he he's the landlord in this case with his restaurant. But couldn't
there be a a a negotiation or deal of whoever is in whatever revenue gets generated in that building which sits on public property. Maybe it's a better deal for the city where we get a percentage of that revenue.
>> Mr. Commissioner, if I may uh give a suggestion on that. uh perhaps the revenue that is generated or or the the rents that are generated from the restaurant to the developer instead of us receiving 3% maybe on just that
particular uh revenue we get 4%. Would that be something that you would be able to contemplate? >> Right? Because I mean look you could I I I'm assuming you're probably gearing up to build something similar to like a really popular place. It's like almost
like a MAS. And we want to make sure at least from the city side that we're going to benefit too from any sort of venture that you're going to that's going to be going on on city property. And right now, I don't
think $18 million through 201 is I don't think it's a good deal considering what we're giving away. But is there a way to have some skin in the game as a city where when you do good, we do good?
>> I think that's why we have the percentage rent because again the the the value >> but but if you have a restaurant that's doing $100 million in sales, they're paying a fat a flat fee of of rent and we just see the >> But I'm not involved in that. Like I they're making their own improvements and spending their own money. I'm not
part of that. I I don't reap the benefits of their profit. It's for me to go put my hands in. >> Isn't that part of the responsibility as being a landlord to a city asset? >> I mean, it's to get a tenant to sign up for a restaurant in a restaurant market that's all but suffering or we're having
closures left and right. And to get someone to convince them to do a restaurant and put 10 to 15 say that we want to take not only beyond the 8 to 10% of the rent, but then we want your profits, too. I think that's that's going a little against the grain of what normal developers are getting on
properties to compare like the Smith and Winsky for example. They're giving 8 to 10% of gross revenues directly from the revenues to the landlord. They're not paying 3% on top of that than going it's a it's a very different system than what you're proposing.
>> What exactly Azie what exactly does Samantha Winsky to do? Uh we have a we have a minimum guarantee from them with uh on the concession side I believe it's u 8% on the restaurant site is 10%. Um
in total uh we end up with uh a million two a million three a year in rents from them. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well I mean I'd like to see what I'd like to hear from my colleagues also. So I have I just have a question because so you know at the time of the
of the rent reset there are appraisals that are done. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that's dictated in the terms of the agreement. >> Correct. >> But notwithstanding the the the appraisals, you know, we we're we're
capped. We never really get the full amount of what of what the value of the property is at that time. That's where I kind of like what Commissioner Magazine is is mentioning. Uh, not magazine, I'm so sorry. Uh, Commissioner Suarez is is
is mentioning about about the restaurant because it can become a term in in in in the lease. So that okay, we don't touch we don't touch that that rent cap, but at least the city is still getting
an extra an extra source of revenue from that $50 million investment that is really not being taken consideration right now in in in the current in in the current rent. And but and frankly a hundred
years from now when we get the property back, you know, is that $50 million investment even going to exist? So, it gives us the opportunity to get some get an income stream uh a a percentage of of a small percentage of of those revenues
in addition to to the $18 million. >> Can can I just further add one thing I think is important. You guys currently get a percentage of everything. So, you guys are my partners in the sense that when we before we bought the building, our average rent in the building was $40 to $45 a square foot. Our average rent
now is over $100 a square foot. You guys get a percentage of all of those increases. Same thing with the second phase. If our rents over the next 30 to 40 years continue to rise, you get part of that. There's no limit to that. >> Rents on on on the rents, but when it
comes to the to the restaurants, a percentage of the sales that they have, >> but I'm the office building developer. I'm not I don't own the restaurant. >> Right. So in your lease, it would be a term in your in in your lease between
yourself and whoever becomes your subtenant. >> So will you be generating percentage rent from the restaurant as well >> if it's above a certain threshold? Yes. So we would be getting a cut if he uh so in in in the commercial real estate transaction there's a break point um
there's either a natural break point or unnatural break point where if the tenant reaches a certain threshold of sales they will pay in the [snorts] case of a restaurant 6% >> usually 6% over a 6 to 8% natural break point >> 6% above and beyond. Uh so that's kind
of in in our life it's kind of like the uh percentage gross. So it it's another 6% that he'll be getting. Um and we will be getting 3% on that 6%. >> 3% on the 6%. >> Correct. Above and beyond the rent that
he's already charging. >> This is this is what we're going to do now. Thank you. If you could both please uh step back because what's going to happen now is if we don't we're never going to decide. So I think we need to discuss amongst ourselves. Um here's my view. We absent this agreement which our
city has negotiated and of course there's always ideas to tinker and we'll ultimately have to we'll have to make a decision each of us whether we're comfortable with it. I look at the big picture that if absent this agreement we're locked in for 64 years and we're going to get no improvements. So um I
like the direction this is going. I think it's good for Lincoln Road. I'm I'm appreciative of your investment Mr. Ravani in in Lincoln Road and and as you've pointed out, the amount of revenue you've created in your properties just in the last couple years um is has been has been outstanding.
>> So, um and ultimately our our voters are going to decide on this. This is going to go to voter referendum and they'll have to make a decision whether they are comfortable with this. Um so, I'd like to hear from uh some of the rest of my colleagues and then let's let's take the vote. Commissioner Mate with Selenas.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, thank you, Mr. Ravani. I think this is a great project for our city, too. Um, I think it's going to be so much better than having an empty dumpy building. So, thank you. Um, I someone suggested to me because there is a narrative going around that this isn't a good deal for the city and
it's, you know, there's conversation around this and someone had suggested to me to put it into Chad GBT or Claude or whatever and just to see what it said. So I did and it actually um Chad GBT AI which we all think is smarter than humans at this point uh suggested that this deal was actually an 8 out of a 10.
So I think that you know some people think it's like a three out of a 10 or a five out of 10 which it according to chat GBT AI it's not it's actually quite a good deal. Maybe it could be better but at what point do you walk away and say you know what it might be an 8 out
of 10 if if we want to you know nickel and dime you get to a 9 out of 10 or a 10 out of 10 for the city but then it becomes what a two out of 10 for you. So I respect that and I understand that. I do have one question though um and my colleagues have been asking a lot of really good questions. My question is
and this may have been addressed but I don't think it was completely entirely. If Mr. Mr. Ravani does at some point you know say you know he [snorts] makes some improvements he opens the building it's running great and at some point whether it's 5 years or 10 year whatever I don't know some arbitrary timeline he decides
to flip the [snorts and clears throat] property or get out of the investment and he wants to go out of town he wants to go somewhere else I don't know um what will that look like >> uh >> for us and for the investment and I'm not saying that you will I mean I hope
you're here for another 120 years you Okay. >> Um, >> and well, and let's hope that it happens after the project is complete, considering that it very similar to the transaction that took place uh when Mr. Orvani purchased this building back in
2024, >> but another investor. So, everything will just kind of remain the same. I mean we do we is there a percentage that we get if or >> No, there's no there's no transaction fee for the city um as the ground le in
in any of our agreements in the event of a uh sale. The only the only um uh the only item that we we have in the agreement is that we have the right of first offer. So, if they're going to be making a sale, they will announce it to us and they will let us know we're
selling for a h 100red million and the city will say, "Uh, yeah, we have 100 million. We want to buy it or we are exercising our >> I would suggest that we get a percentage of that sale." Is that the discussion where you said you had never heard of
that before or was that that okay, >> but thank you for what you're doing because I think it is a great project and thank you again for the human trafficking funding. I it's very important for our city. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Do we have a motion? >> I'll put a few things. I've tried taking
notes on where people stand, the things that are important. The motion in addition to what staff recommends, what I would put forward is dedicating five years of infrastructure funding from the new building or 5 years of funding from
the new building in total up to $500,000 per year towards flooding resiliency and infrastructure funding. taking of the public benefits dedicated towards Lincoln Road, $100,000 of that to
dedicate towards our trolley funding. And I've never heard of this transaction fee, but just given where the city attorney suggested the convention center hotel was 0.25% believe the Mr. Ravani's building, he
bought it for $50 million, right? And we could say, okay, what what speculate what he would sell it for in the future, I'd rather get a net present value of that today, right? Instead of waiting for that sale to happen, we'll assume it does at some point and some sort of
transaction fee. Let's realize that now. So 0.25% of let's call it a net present value of $50 million puts us around the $100,000 mark. I would ask that we increase our public benefits by $100,000
and that essentially well commissioner that's around essentially the percentage that the city attorney indicated is the transfer fee for the convention center or we don't have to uh on the building
sale. [clears throat] Right? So, what the building he bought it for and what the percentage transaction fee for the convention center hotel is, we get that right here up front without having to wait for some sort of sale.
That'll be my motion. C. Can I add one point to that? Sorry. I I'm Yeah. >> And I real we >> last point and then we really we got to figure it out here. I'm okay with giving an additional $200,000 now if it goes to infrastructure because I truly do believe it's a fundamental problem of of
Miami Beach. Our valet to this day and our first floor still floods. So, I do think it is a very important piece of the puzzle for everybody from myself and every resident that for $200,000 if it is allocated to the infrastructure of the city of Miami Beach and I'm happy to to provide that
>> $200,000 per year or just >> a onetime fee. Can't blame my girlfriend. >> That was that that was good. >> Mr. Mayor, I'll be really fast, but I just want to clarify something Mr. Uh, Commissioner Magazine was saying on your
recap of the $500,000, I just want to be clear because this is going to go on reszo that it's not on the new building. It's as of the opening of phase 2. So, it's $500,000 from all revenue generated regardless of what building it's coming from. Okay. Thank you,
>> Suarez. I still want to explore this idea of the restaurant component or any sort of revenue generating business that going to sit there. What's to say that you charge a dollar to the restaurant or the
members club or very low rent and you have your own deal with with the restaurant? Where where do we get protected on that? >> Great question. I can't do it because the lender would never allow it. When we finance these deals, there's certain break points. >> Who would never allow it?
>> The lender. They'll never finance a deal by doing a $1 foot. You have to hit certain thresholds on rents in order to make the investment make sense in the first place. And in terms of like percentage rents, for example, we have like a Magna Sushi that's on the ground floor or a milkshake tenant that was they're on the ground floor of businesses that have failed left and
right. So, it would it's impossible. >> Which lender? >> The lender on the building. Our lender. like you can't build new construction unless you're hitting certain rental rates on on new leases. They won't finance the deal because if you don't have a guaranteed rental income, there's nothing bankable for a lender if, god forbid, you went sideways or got
foreclosed on that they can't take over. Mr. here. >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> listen, I I think I think it's it's uh it's it's a bad you hedge. Uh because at the end of the day, you I bring the points I brought up are points that I
bring up because ultimately we're not the ones making this decision. It's ultimately a a decision that is made by whom? By the voters of of our city. And I and I think it only it only it's to
your interest and to your benefit to give as favorable of terms as possible to our residents when we send this to them. I'll I'll tell you, you know, for me personally,
um the rent reset, the change of of the term between between the current governing lease and the new proposed lease, that change of the of the terms in and the rent reset is something that to me, yeah, I I don't I don't like
that, you know, now we are going to have a less favorable term when it comes to that. But we're also going to be getting $248 million over the course of this lease that that we don't have guaranteed now. Um, and we're going to be getting
an extra $18 million. Um I had I had asked um the our our inspector general to to give me his analysis of this of this deal and he wrote to me. It appears to us that the city engaged in a lengthy goodfaith attempt to revive a terms that
would better protect both the city's short-term and long-term interests than living with a current lease indefinitely. And that to me is reassuring to me. And that's my that last part there is may end. Let me continue my quoting of of what was sent
to me. The investment of the company's $50 million in the building with adjacent improvements to a vital area that direct cash public benefits to the city and local causes and the gradual increase return to the city through base
rent and additional revenue represent a comprehensive attempt to reach a mutually beneficial agreement between the parties. And so getting that puts me in [snorts] a in in a position of being comfortable to support this. However, I
do I do think it's not just about supporting this today. You have, you know, to reach the threshold of of getting the voters on your side. And I think that that's where, you know, these other points that have been brought up
today is important. you you stand to benefit from that because if this doesn't pass at at the voter at the voter box, then there's no deal. Uh and that's where, you know, I would encourage you leaving this room today, you know, to maybe reconsider your
position on that transfer fee, reconsider your particip your your your your position on on the rent reset. Um, but that's ultimately a decision you you you have to make on on your own. But I do think it would just position you better
to have success in November because today is today is just a formality. What ultimately matters what ultimately matters >> is, you know, what happens in in November. With that, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Commissioner Magazine, for for for for
walking this through and uh and working on this with our city administration. >> Okay. >> I stepped back and they did the work. >> We have a motion. Uh the motion will because I will take Mr. Gervani up on his offer of increasing that incremental
$100,000 to an additional $200,000. So that'll bring the summation of our total public benefits to I think $1.5 million uh with 200 of that uh that Mr. Ravani uh pro offered benefiting or going directly into infrastructure flooding
and resiliency. >> And you're recommending this, Eric? >> I am. I'll second the motion. Let's call the vote. >> Who who decides what this 600,000 in cash contributions for Lincoln Pro
Lincoln Road improvements are? >> I think they are delineated there already underneath. >> Yeah, I think it was just like a general >> because it says or Lincoln Road art. >> So, this would be money coming into the city which you as the legislative body
would decide where to put it. I think all of this money all of this money I think should be kept in in this area of the city. You know, we have so many needs so many needs on Lincoln Road
on even even needs for affordability and housing and infrastructure and so many things because you know when we talk about resiliency we think only of infrastructure. Resiliency is also people's resiliency and being able to afford to to live here. I would love us
to figure out a way uh and but I'm just going to yield to the sponsor in in in a way that these dollars can continue to be reinvested in this part of the city. Uh so that so that we can shepherd through the full renaissance of Lincoln
Road, the 17th Street corridor, and even the the resiliency challenges that we have uh in areas like Palm View. Uh so if we could find a way and I don't know uh Mr. Manager when we when we look for you know through the length of this term
we're talking about $248 million. Are those dollars bondable? >> I had a brief conversation with our CFO and he seemed to think that that was a revenue stream that was consistent enough that we could try and do something. >> Anything with a cash flow that's
consistent like that is bondable. >> Yeah. So, it's just I think I I think to to the extent that we can keep these dollars focused in in this area and the long-term needs, we we have a single family residential neighborhood there that has resiliency challenges uh that we need to take care of. We need
investments on on Lincoln Road. We have housing affordability in this in this area of of the city as well. I think you know the dollars are coming out from this area. They should also be reinvested there. >> So, included in the motion, let's call a vote. It is a public hearing. I see Mr.
Zeralto is online. Go ahead, sir. >> Yes. Good afternoon, uh, mayor and commissioners. Daniel Sorado, 7:30 10th Street. I'm not here to argue for or against this deal, but I'm here about what's missing from it. The city is being asked to commit to this lease
holder for up to 106 years, and voters are being asked to ratify it in November. Yet, the same lease holder is currently defending a lawsuit brought by a former occupant of this very building, and that is case number 2026-00005254-
CA-01, alleging the business was forced out by construction disruption. Those allegations are unproven and the lease holder has moved to dismiss, but the dispute goes to how this building is operated. And this deal would add 47,000
square ft of new office space and ties the city's rent in part to how well that building performs. There's not one mention of the case in the staff memo, the term sheet, the appraisals, the amendment, and I also didn't hear it from what the IG told Commissioner
Fernandez. So before this goes to voters, the record needs to acknowledge it exists. Residents deserve the full picture. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else in the audience requesting to speak and there's no one else on Zoom. I have a motion by
Commissioner Magazine, seconded by Commissioner Miner uh on R7H as amended and also R7, the ballot question. >> All in favor of our these two items, please say I. I. >> I. Anyone opposed? Nay.
Have one no from Commissioner Suarez. The item passes 61 items. >> Okay. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you all commissioners. Thank you for the time. Thank you mayor. >> R70. R70 accept recommendation modification
of 63rd Street Bridge schedule. Thank you. Commissioner Bot co-sponsored by me, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Matas Selenus, and Commissioner Fernandez. Commissioner Bot, >> this was something we heard um some
months ago when they we were still in furlow with the federal government. Um we made some modifications based on data analysis and um it's pretty self-explanatory with five co-sponsors. I'll call the vote. Can we
chair? Can we have staff go over what the changes were from the last time this spoke to what it is currently? >> Sure. I'll be happy to, Commissioner. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Jose Gonzalez, transportation director. So, um, over the past few months, we've
been working with the Coast Guard and we held a community meeting to obtain, uh, feedback from the community with regard to the, um, the schedule that the Coast Guard had profered, if you will. Um, a
couple changes. The first change is that the traffic study that we originally did recommended, uh, hourly openings. However, that was a non-starter for the Coast Guard. They would not allow openings every once an hour. They would
only allow to continue openings every 30 minutes during the non-restricted times for a couple of reasons. They mentioned that um the 63rd Street Bridge already has a significant amount of restrictions. As we know, there's 3
hours during the morning week uh peak period and 3 hours during the afternoon peak period where the bridge does not uh does not open. And secondly, there are um while there are alternatives for vehicles, there are there are really no alternatives for vessels if they've got
to cross under that bridge. So that was a non-starter for them. Um so um the other change that we discussed with them was the ondemand schedule and at what time should be the appropriate time to begin an ondemand schedule. And in order
to inform that decision, we held a community meeting as was directed by the city commission and heard, you know, the community feedback loud and clear. um they the community would prefer an ondemand uh schedule very late in the
very very late hours of the day and early morning uh hours of the day. Um but uh they were not the community did not support a fixed schedule for the bridge in the very late hours or very early morning hours
>> in the surrounding neighborhood. Yeah, >> in the surrounding neighborhood. uh because there are concerns that if if a vessel misses the bridge opening time then they'll just linger there and there may be noise complaints and whatnot. So >> what time is that start the on demand?
>> 11:00 p.m. according to the data that we collected both vessel as well as traffic data. 11:00 p.m. is the time when the volumes significantly decrease. And so we feel that uh starting an ondemand operation [clears throat]
from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. would um you know would really meet the needs of the marine traffic, vehicular traffic, and the community's quality of life concerns. And it goes from 11:00 p.m. to when? >> 7 a.m. >> Which is when
>> then the week the during the weekday the restriction the morning rush hour restriction would kick in from about 7 >> no openings from 7 to 10 >> to about 10. Yeah. >> And then um >> to clarify which not is not a change.
>> Correct. We would maintain the current weekday restrictions during morning and afternoon brush >> hours. And what happens on the weekends? So on the on the weekends um essentially it would the the the bridge would be on
a schedule. Let me just make sure here. So the from the bridge would open on the hour and half hour only if there is demand 7 days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Only
if there is demand. It would open on the hour and half hour. Okay. All right. Well, I want to thank Commissioner Bot for hearing my my concerns when this originally came up. I think this just
strikes a perfect balance of uh vessel traffic and quality of life issues in the uh immediate area. >> Commissioner, just just one thing I want to add. And then also on the weekends from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7 days a week the bridge would open on demand
from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the weekends as well. >> On demand which is >> Yes. So that's 7 days a week as well. >> Great. Got it. Okay. >> So I move the item. >> I have a motion by Commissioner Bot, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez on R70. All in favor please say I.
>> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. The item is approved. 70. That was R7. Oh, >> R5Z R5Z is an North Mayor City Commission of City Miami Beach, Florida amending chapter 54, the Miami Beach code entitled floods by amending article
three entitle resiliency standard for title flood protection to modify the enforcement penalty and compliance provision for violations of this article and adopt other clarifying amendments. providing for repealer servability clarification and effective date. This is a first reading public hearing. It is
item R5Z. Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> Thank you. So, in recent years, we've done a lot of I'm sorry, I need to recuse myself from this item and I need to do I need to read something into the record, Nick? >> Uh, yes, Commissioner.
>> Okay, if I may. Thank you. I'll be recusing from discussing and voting on agenda item R5Z because my spouse and I reside on a property with a seaw wall budding the Biscane waterway and I may directly or indirectly benefit as a result of the adoption of the amendments
in this ordinance. >> I think you should move. >> So in the past few years we've done strengthening uh with regards to the construction standards for our seaw walls. This item gives a little bit more
time for repairs if it's uh over topping that's only impacting an individual property and it's not impacting the rightway or a neighbor's property uh or public property. I'll let Amy explain a little bit further. >> Great. Thank you very much. Amy Nullles,
chief resilience officer. Um as you all know, we have a lot of seaw walls, 55 miles and um most of them, [clears throat] 91% are privately owned. we do have a fair amount of seaw walls that are very very low. Um and during king tides and other times of the year we do have over topping. Um this is
really a triaged approach to compliance because seaw walls are very expensive. So if a seaw wall is being overtopped and it impacts the public rightway that does require corrections within 2 years that's in the existing ordinance. What's different here is that it if the over
topping is on personal property onto the upland, they have five years to correct that which allows them more time to plan. And that is um that is the item before you today. Thank you. >> I move the item. >> Can I ask some questions?
>> Um Amy, if you have somebody who has a um a seaw wall that over tops and um the water stays and sort of it becomes fetted water in their yard. Uh, so it doesn't literally go into the neighbor's yards, but it becomes effectively a
swamp. Where where would that >> that's this item >> that's that would be rectified. >> Gives them a little flexibility >> within two years though. >> They get more >> they would have five years to correct. >> Right. So, but I'm so the reason I'm asking is that I know of cases. I've been approached by residents who have
neighbors who are not um attentive homeowners and don't live in the properties um but have their seaw walls over top. The yards become a disaster. All kinds of bad things happen there and the properties on either side then have to deal with the consequences and have
no recourse because it's not literally on their property, but it still affects them. swamps of mosquitoes and you know whatever other issues. So is there >> they'd have first have to get a violation and then they would have up to five years.
>> Right. So my concern is that the people it's one thing if it only affects your property but it if it's also affecting the neighbors properties um is there a happy medium so that there's like a two-year or three year and a 5year. If it doesn't affect anybody else at all
then it's fiveyear. If it affects a public rightaway, then it's two-year. If it affects your neighbor, any one of your adjacent neighbors, then there's a three-year. >> Um, so, thank you, Commissioner. If it does affect your neighbors, then you would have two years. The only condition where you would have more time is if it
only affects your property. Um if there's a condition that is that dire as you're as you are suggesting it is possible that there's also a building violation which would require um a quicker time frame that there may be a structural problem with that seaw wall because that sounds very extreme. So
that would be an additional avenue and >> and commissioner if I may add um that also may give rise to a property maintenance violation that code compliance could enforce. >> Okay. We have a motion second.
>> And just one other thing, just because um you get additional time, it you do have to demonstrate that you're taking steps to remediate the problem. So it's not uh that somebody can sit back and then the final year all of a sudden have to scramble. No, each year they have to
show that they're progressing and doing what they're supposed to do. Okay, let's call the vote. It is a public hearing. I see no one in Zoom, no one in the audience request to speak. We have a motion by Commissioner Dominguez. Seconded by Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Magazine. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Suarez. >> Yes.
>> Commissioner Fernandez is abstaining. Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bach, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenus, >> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> yes. >> Motion carries. The item is approved. Second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for September 10th. That was item R5Z.
>> Just for clarity, is it abstaining or recused or >> abstained? It's an AP. >> Okay. >> Should we let him back in? Commissioner Fernandez. >> No. [laughter] >> No. >> Um, while we're waiting for Commissioner
Fernandez to come back in, let's call R7M, >> as in Mary. >> R7M is a public hearing. Approve use of one Ocean Drive Babushe Brothers Pier Park LLC. And >> should we call R5 AG and R5 AH together?
I'm getting the nod. We voted unanimously unanimously to let you back in, Commissioner Fernandez. >> So R5 AG is an order to the mayor, city commission of the city of Miami Beach, Florida, amending Miami Beach resiliency code by amending chapter 7 entitled zoning district regulations article 2
entitled district regulations section 7.2.16 entitled GU government use district section 7.2.16.3 2.16.3 thereof entitled development regulations GU by modifying the development regulations to clarify setback requirements and providing for codification repealer and an effective
date. That's R5G. It is a public hearing requiring 57 vote R5 AH. It's an order to the mayor and city commissioner of city of Miami Beach Florida uh by amending the future land use map of the 2040 Beach Comprehensive
Plan pursuant to section 2.4.1 4.1 of the Miami Beach Resiliency Code in pursuant to section 163.3181 section 163.3184 and section 163.3187 Florida statutes by changing the future land use designation for parcel of land
located at one ocean drive Miami Beach from the current designation of recreation and open space including waterways RO to public facility government governmental uses PF and providing for inclusion in the comprehensive plan transmitter beer servability and effective date R5 AH H
is a second reading public hearing. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Mayor. And this is uh an ordinance I'm sponsoring um modifying modifying um the maximum setback
requirements in the GU zoned area. right now there's there's maximum setbacks uh and and that limits how the city could redevelop a GU zone property here by by by doing this amendment. We in fact are allowing would allow for this property
to have even greater setbacks. Usually usually we see people wanting to wave setback requirements or or or get a variance on to reduce their setbacks. And here is one of those rare uh opportunities where it's the something
different is to increase uh the uh setbacks. It doesn't touch anything with with uh F or Hide or or anything like that. This is strictly to uh to to remove that maximum setback requirement. Debbie, I don't know if there's anything
else to it. >> No, that is 100% uh correct. the the performance standard districts, which are the areas south of Fifth Street, are the only districts in the city that include that maximum required setback. Um, all of our other districts include minimum required setbacks, but this is a
unique part of the city and we have found that it's very challenging with public property to enforce that maximum setback because we have things like parking uh public parking, public restrooms, park facilities that we don't want necessarily right at that 5 foot. So we are the administration is
supportive and the planning board also was supportive of the amendment. >> And with that I move the item. Madam vice mayor >> these these items are public hearings. So we're listening to now R seven M R5 A
and R5 AH. I see no one on Zoom requesting to speak and I see no one in the audience requesting to speak. May I call the role on all three? >> Yes. >> So, Vice Mayor Dominguez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Suarez,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas, >> yes. >> Commissioner Magazine, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bach, >> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> yes. >> So, uh, the items are approved. That would that was R5 AG, R5 AH, and R7M.
Yeah, >> they did it together. >> Yep. >> All good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. Uh R7K R7 R7K is public hearing approved revocable
permit 100 Lincoln Road, the Decopl. >> Mr. Mayor, move the item. Second. It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom. No one in the audience requesting requesting to speak on R 7K. If there's no discussion, may I call the RO?
>> Yes. >> All in favor of R 7K, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. SE uh R 7K is approved. 70. requests here. So, it's called R5M.
R5M is an ordinance of the mayor, city commission of the city of Miami Beach, Florida, amending chapter 70 of the city code entitled miscellaneous offenses by amending article two entitled public places by amending division 2 entitled bicycling, skateboarding, roller skating, lane, light skating, motorized means of transportation, electric bicycle, mopets, motorcycle, motorized
vehicles, and motorized scooters by amending section 70-66 thereof. Entitle definitions by creating and amending certain terms therein and by amending section 70-71 thereof. Entitle enforcement penalties by amending and providing for additional penalties therein by creating section 70-73
thereof entitle responsibilities of microobility devices operations to establish certain requirements applicable to microobility devices operators and providing for repealer servability clification and effective date that is item R5M. It is a second reading public hearing
bot. >> Thank you. Um so this is a second reading. Um this has been a couple of years in the making. We've had a lot of input from our transportation committee. Um, e bike and micromobility
device users, bicyclists, pedestrians, the police department, park rangers, code, marketing. I think almost every um department has been touched with with this. What we are trying to do is start setting a framework that we can all live
with so that we can encourage micromobility and set parameters for safe usage. We have seen um devastating uh fatal accidents where usually the pedestrian suffers more injuries than
the micromobility device user. Obviously micromobility device user versus car or truck is not something that anybody wants to see either. Um we are codifying we're not doing anything extreme. We are codifying what is already in the state
laws and we are clarifying a particular definition that um is a little bit wonky in the state laws to make it clearer in our laws. Um like I said for it's a second reading and um I'll let Mark talk about the
clarification of the definition. >> Yeah. No, thank you commissioner. I appreciate that. Um after first reading we are clarifying the definition of a motorized means of transportation and the reason for that is because in defining micromobility device uh the
state defined it as a motorized transportation device but then goes on to include a bicycle and humanpowered devices and obviously saying a motorized transportation device and then including bicycles uh is is nonsensical. So by adding the word motorized before the
words micromobility devices in our definition of motorized means of transportation effectively allows regular ped pedal bicycles to continue to be used on the beachwalk. If we were to not add that word and just have microobility devices as part of
motorized means of transportation which are prohibited on the beachwalk, regular bicycles would be prohibited on the beachwalk which I'm is obviously not your intent. So that's why we added that word. That's is that the only change >> that is I believe the >> other than in first second reading.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Other than in designed or equipped in terms of the factors to look at whether a microbility device was designed or equipped to carry more than one person at a time. Uh we also uh added in wheel size and seat size as additional factors that the police
department could consider when making a determination whether or not a particular micromobility [clears throat] device was designed or equipped to carry more than one person at a time. just additional factors for them to consider. >> I will add that um literally [clears throat] this morning Axios put out an article um where the headline is
South Florida sees a surge in ebike injuries among kids. Um yesterday the county had a very lengthy discussion about banning e- micromobility devices outright on some of their county roads. Not all at this moment, but there there has been discussion about um
opportunities for other cities to adopt portions of their um of their ordinance that that was discussed yesterday and and unincorporated aid um having that same ability. That is not the goal that we are trying to affectuate here. We are
trying to effectuate a way for us to coexist and it is a slow laborintensive process because this is not going to be the final stop. [clears throat] What I don't want to get to is to have bans happening for kids on you know people of
certain ages doing this or that. um we eventually want to get to safer for everyone in um mindful and thoughtful ways and this is a stop along that road. Um so for those who have contacted me
saying um it's it's harming our ability to get from north to south um we are working on it. We are installing um speed feedback signs on uh the beachwalk which will happen by the end of the summer I believe. Um
we are uh looking at lots of different other um modes of communicating with people and educating people and providing safe options for people. This is going to be for the long haul. We had hopes that the state was going to step in and take a
leadership role. Um, Governor DeSantis uh declined to do so, which sort of uh hampers our collective ability because it would be much better for us to be doing this together than than in a patchwork fashion, but we are getting there slowly and surely. So, with that,
I move the item and I would hope to get my colleagues support on this. And and Mark, just to confirm, the equipped handlebars appropriate on on these e-mobility devices >> for more than one person. >> Yeah, I mean that the state has this is
all like Commissioner Bot said uh in state law. Uh and it in state law just says designed or equipped. So, we added in a number of factors to help give our police uh additional guidance when making the determination whether a particular micromobility device is in fact designed or equipped. And one of
them is an extra set of handlebars. That's something they would consider, you know, so it's I think helpful. [clears throat] >> I'll I'll second the motion. >> Hello. >> It is it is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom. No one in the audience requesting to speak or no. Am I wrong?
Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. Uh, as I'm sure most of you saw, I sent an email to you all yesterday. Um, I want to thank uh, Commissioner Bot because I worked together along with other stakeholders uh, in this long uh, process to kind of get us to a spot, I
think, where we're all we're all sort of happy that you're not banning, you're not prohibiting, you're not making it more difficult. Um but I came across something recently uh in terms of the updating the definitions in section 70-66 which is about the motorized means of
transportation and in the last over 10 years of that ban um if a ebike rider removed the battery from their bicycle they were compliant with the definition of motorized means of transportation meaning that they were not operating a
motorized means of transportation on the beachwalk. I know we had some discussions Tanya um commissioner along with the city attorney about this about a month ago but then when analyzing this it actually um it would be banned. So someone who's riding because many
residents now only own an ebike um and they don't have a regular pedal bicycle but as you know it's very dangerous to ride in our city. There have been a lot of uh very serious crashes. Many of them including myself just to fully disclose. uh I take out the battery if I ride on
the beachwalk so that I follow the law to the letter letter of the law and uh if you pass it today and don't amend it so that the proposed language so that a bicycle with the battery removed is not a motorized means of transportation um that would be illegal and I would have
to ride with my kids on the dangerous streets. I don't think anyone wants to do this. Um I'm pedaling at a slow speed. We're all pedaling at slow speeds. there's no there's no uh electric assistance being provided. It's very obvious where there's a hole in the bicycle. And I know that some people
have said, "Well, it may be hard to uh to enforce." And then that that I respond with the city now for a car determines um Mr. Mayor, mind a little bit extra time, please? >> Yes. Um, for cars that are parked illegally in our city, before any
enforcement action is taken, they determine the residency status of the owner. That is much more labor intensive and difficult than looking at a bicycle than seeing, hey, is there a spot where a battery would go and is it currently
occupied or is it not [snorts] currently occupied? And perhaps an officer may not know or a park ranger may not know and they'll ask the person to stop and they'll look and they can confirm and I think that is >> so Matthew to your point with you know it's just it's getting late and we have a lot to go through still. So, we did
have that conversation and I do hear the concern. You're not the only one to have raised it. And in discussing this with Mark, correct me if I'm wrong or if you see a different path through now. And our police department, what the consensus was is that you might be asked to stop if you are riding an ebike but
with your battery removed, but you won't be penalized because your battery will be removed. The problem as we saw it um with codifying this is that it then makes things less clear for those people who have bikes where the battery is incorporated and it's just a little
switch where you you know the the park ranger or the police officer can't see whether it's there or not. They have to rely on the word of mouth of the person. We don't want to then no pun intended but give license to people to start using those types of bikes on a place where you're not supposed to. Look, down
the road we might get to a place where we all agree that a 10 mile speed limit does the trick and on the beachwalk we can all coexist and that's one thing, but we're not there yet. So right now for those people who have the ebikes where you can remove [snorts] the battery um and you happen to be on the
beachwalk even though it's not the ideal place for you to be riding because of the huge number of pedestrians um if you are pulled over by a park ranger and it is clear that your battery is not in there will be no violation. And so in conjunction, unless I'm getting this
wrong, this is what I understood our our sort of ending up point was on this was to sort of not cut codify it so that we could allow some discretion by the enforcing agents >> and please Mark jump in if I'm wrong on this
>> through the chair. So I thank you. I I think that's accurate. I just want to point out though that our modification to the definition of motorized means of transportation doesn't have any effect on the issue Matthew's raising. It's a fairly novel issue removing the battery whether integrated or outwardly visible from an electric bicycle. It's something
we hadn't contemplated. So, but as the code stands now, a motorized means of transportation is a device that is propelled other than other than solely by human power. That's how it reads. So you I could interpret it and argue it either way for you, how it's propelled
right now or how it's manufactured and intended to be propelled. So I could argue it's illegal or it's legal either way. And I think you're correct, Commissioner, in that we decided to accommodate it had come from Matthew and I think others that who only may have an electric bicycle uh despite the
enforcement challenges that may present for police to make that determination if someone goes by at 10 miles an hour or whatever. uh that we would I would prepare guidance for the police and interpret this until you all, you know, get to that point and make a decision uh one way or the other and then I'd add
clarifying language. But I'd let the police know uh for now. Uh if you see someone and you pull them over and they do not have a battery uh and it's incapable of providing propulsion um or assistance, uh the motor is incapable of doing that to the bicycle, then do not issue uh the violation. So that's I
think where we landed. And and I think remember this also is taking effect in some time from now. If I remember correctly, it's it's in in August of next year, >> right? >> And so >> give us time to let's do this in
incremental steps. I mean, if I had my brothers, I'd spend a whole bunch of money to build protected pip bike lanes and do all kinds of things and build a second beachwalk. And those things are not in my purview. So before we we make draconian changes, I mean it's taken 2 years to get to this point. So let us
figure this out. Let us put this into action. Let's see how it goes. By the time this law goes into effect, we're going to have speedback moni uh speed feedback monitors on the beachwalk. And we might find all kinds of new information between now and when this goes into effect. though heard and noted
and discussed as how best to proceed, but give us time to get people educated and and engaging correctly with what we're trying to do before we try to move too many pieces all at once. It's it's hard enough getting to where we are now.
>> So So through the chair, could I >> respond? But then I'd like to call the vote. I I just want to ask you if he does if if Matthew does take out the battery, is he >> he is he would not be in violation if the battery is gone if which is what we
what we're saying. >> And so thank you for that clarification. My concern is that when you said it's officer's discretion, I know that I've heard some of your colleagues before mention a concern with being the discretion of an officer. So to me it's
either it's black and white. Either it's allowed for anyone or it's discretion. It can't >> Again, the the police department, the park rangers have discretion. The goal is not to be punitive to people. The goal is to encourage better behavior. If you're doing something egregiously
unsafe or stupid or racist or homophobic, you know, there's not a lot of discretion there. If you're doing something that, hey, that's not okay to do. Please don't do it again. Um move it along kind of thing. they have the op the option to be mindful about the
person, the knowledge base, the intent, how it's being handled and proceed that way. I mean, you know, our police department, our police chief will tell you that officers have discretion and that is what why we spend as much time and effort hiring intelligent um astute
um emotionally aware individuals and then training them properly to become good police officers. And the same with our our park rangers. So um nothing is black and white other well that I I retract that sentence. I retract that entirely [clears throat]
in this case. I think having somebody who is trained through guidance through our our attorney, our city attorney who um is going to put together guidelines on what works, what doesn't. I think we'll be okay. But again, we can take a
look at it six months after this goes into effect. And if we see there are problems, we can amend it or maybe we can even loosen it up because we see that people are only going 10 miles an hour because the speed feedback signs and you know then the issue resolves itself. But we don't know yet. So let us
have some time to put this stuff into place to educate our population to try to explain why this is serious and they should take it um under advisement that helmets will save your life. just a question of when um and all kinds of other similar messages.
>> Uh thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate the guidance that you're going to issue, but just for the record, I think there is a concern that it's not codified and that it's guidance and discretion, but I otherwise I do appreciate the conversation. >> Let me let me let us try it the way we think is the best way to try it before
we decide that's not the best way to do it. >> Okay, let's call it >> which is >> Thank you. And thank you, Matt. >> We have it on the record, Mark. If there is an ebike and the battery is missing, will police be able to issue a citation? No battery. It's not there. It's in the
backpack. If if a police officer decides to give a warning or or not a warning, but a citation. >> Yeah. As I said, the way the the the law is written now, it's a little bit ambiguous. It's probably legal, but it's a little bit ambiguous. However, I will
give guidance and clarification. And the only, by the way, the only reason I'm saying this, and I'm not trying to throw a curveball, I was at I was at South Point Park last night, and Commissioner Matteo Selenus can can can attest. There was a young kid. He's, I think, 18, 19.
>> Okay. >> And he's a special needs kid. And someone gave him an ebike and they he didn't have a battery. And he was I think this was in December 25. He told me he was on the boardwalk. He was
pedaling and he got arrested. He went to TGK. >> I'm Can I finish, please? I just I just Let me finish, please. >> By the way, I should have called this vote 10 minutes ago. Seriously, I'm going to cut this. This is This is going so far a field, but finish your thought and
>> listen, I just want to make sure that that doesn't happen. >> Yeah, I will I issue guidance that no citation should be issued. However, if a person gets pulled over because the police officer sees an ebike and can't determine whether a battery is in or not, if the person has cocaine on them or punches the officer in the face, I can't promise they'll be arrested, but they won't be issued a citation.
>> I I'm pretty certain that the the gentleman in question would not have gone to TGK for riding an ebike in South Point Park. There I mean, I don't >> It wasn't South Point Park. I >> or on the beachwalk. Um and also um >> I've forgot the other point that I was
going to make. Never mind. >> Okay. You have >> vote. >> There's no one else requesting to speak. Uh so, Commissioner Mattel Selenus, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bot, >> yes. Yes. And I just remember the other
point which is that this does not apply to ADA devices less anybody be concerned since there was a mention of a special needs person. I wanted to make sure that everybody understands this not apply to electron electric ADA devices. >> Commissioner Suarez.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Magazine. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Mayor Miner. >> Yes. >> Second. This is uh second reading. The item is approved for the record that was uh moved by Commissioner Bot, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. R5M. >> Thank you. R7Q.
>> R7Q is prepare RFP for AI consultant. >> I believe this was pulled by Commissioner Mateo Selenus. Monica Mateo Selenas. >> Yes. So, um I did pull it only because I was wondering if we could send this to
um FK because I What's the dollar amount that we're going to be is Is there a dollar amount? So, I would just like to send this to to FK and maybe even Duel will refer it to No, no, [clears throat] just to FK. Let's just send it to FK. Um, because what exactly are we trying
to do with this? I just want to understand a little bit more. >> It's it's simply to save on efficiencies where AI can can help the government and it's solely based on a on a contingent basis. So there is no cost unless there is a cost
savings to us and everyone uses AI now. Um so I I certainly don't see why we need to delay this considering um what we're trying to save money uh moving forward as in in the in our
budget and our operating budget. It's a kind of like a no-brainer. I don't think we need to, you know, put this through the meat grinder of >> and I just told I I don't remember when it was a while ago, but I had brought an item that this commission passed to
incorporate AI into every level of government. So, um but certainly >> Mr. Mayor, >> happy happy to enhance it and certainly looking at our and our building department separately, we our commission passed a pilot program to incorporate it
for our permits. I just have one more question though actually but is this is the consultant AI or are we hiring consultant to tell us what AI model to >> contract you know what I mean like >> I don't know if Frank is here is Frank
here okay it it >> I just >> questions >> so it's it's very we're not hiring we're not using AI we're going to see if there is a consultant group will use AI to
save us efficiencies and it is going to solely be based on a contingent matter. So Frank, maybe you can give a little bit more nuance to what this proposal does. >> Sure. Good afternoon. Uh Frankana, IT director, CIO. So the intent of this
proposal was to try to find a creative way to restrict the types of expenses that we would traditionally have from a consultant uh that may charge a flat rate. Um, we tried to think of ideas where we could potentially tie their the
payment structure uh to deliverables and things that would net actual results. Um, not just a we're going to give you a list of 10 things that you can implement. If they're not implemented, they get paid anywhere. So, there are different ways to structure some of the professional services type of um agreements. And that was really the
intent based on the discussions that we had. >> Yeah. And so I, you know, look, we're we're we're debating how we can save money right now for to lower our millage rate. I mean, this just goes hand in hand. I don't know why we need to send this to the committee.
>> I have a question. Recently, a former highle Google executive who now has a company we met with, Eric Frank, offered his services for free. Now you tell me based on that conversation whether you think there's
anything that can come from that but and and there's recently I had someone else another pretty high level there I don't know they claim their motivation is is pure and I'll take it at their word maybe there's some level of benefit to them to offer services but that's my
question do we need to hire a consultant do you think some of these whether there may be opportunities where uh highle companies will provide that input without spending on a consultant. >> Mr. Mayor, >> I'd like to hear from Frank. I I also
would like to hear from Frank, but I would not be comfortable in the slightest turning something over without a proper vetting course of a high level >> and it comes to commission. But I'm just saying that they're offering they're offering their
>> happened on a national basis where highlevel supposedly secure purist motivation companies and at every state level >> commissioner it obviously comes to commission but the point is whether there's opportunities to get a service that is not going to require a consulting agreement. That's what that's the question I'm asking.
>> So as as far as services free or not >> I mean there's no difference between that and a consulting I mean you still have to vet them. So, as far as getting services free or not or at no cost or or what have you, I that's a little out of my, you know, professional realm there, um, >> I'll chime in on that. I'll take free
services over paid services anytime. >> Yeah. But again, [clears throat] guys, I mean, I just want to move I want to get back to the item. The item is designed specifically for a consultant to make a con a a fee
on how much we save. So if we save $10 million based on their recommendations and we move forward with it, I don't know what the percent maybe they get they they save 10%. So we the the taxpayers have saved 10 million and they get paid a million in fees. I'm not
saying that's the case, but we pay less and they get they get credited for that. And so they have skin in the game only if we implement these measures. It's not they're going to give us a bunch and say, "Hey, this is how much you're going to save. Cut us a check." No, they're
going to say, "Hey, look at what these options are. This is how you can save taxpayer money, and whatever fee that we come up with or that staff recommends, we'll we'll be able to to negotiate that
when it comes back. But I want to get this started right away. I I I certainly think staff is more than capable of of getting this of getting this started. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Recently, I had a conversation uh with someone from Tyler Technology,
which I know we use Tyler in our enterprise uh technology. Um and and you know they they specifically about this type of use of artificial intelligence and they brought to to my attention Kolar County that uh that had used their
technology uh when it came to to to their budget and identifying uh efficiencies with with Kier County using this type of of technology. they were able to identify about 22% of their budget for for potential reallocation
opportunities. Um, and they had using this type of technology already been able to implement $40 million in in efficiencies while while continuing to improve their service delivery. So, I don't think there's I don't think anything bad can
come out of exploring a solicitation, asking the administration to to to prepare an RFQ. Um, looking at at what other communities have been able to achieve using this.
Uh, I don't think we're disadvantaged in any way by by by doing that. Um because ultimately if there is a contract to be awarded, I would imagine that contract would still have to come back to the commission um for us to be able to award
a contract. And even then from the uh Kolier County uh experience that was shared with me, you know, they identified potential reallocation opportunities and their budget and all that, but then it's ultimately still up to their commission and to their
administration to decide what they end up doing. you know, the um the technology might might propose um efficiencies and uh and ways to
reduce expenditures and ways to create uh reductions in workload, but it only identifies that implementing that implementing that ends up being up to us as the governing body and and up to the uh city manager. >> Mr.
So, so, so, so with this phase of it right now, this very preliminary phase, um, I don't have an issue with it. >> Commissioner B and Commissioner Monaco Selenus, >> Frank, could you, um, advise how we would safeguard sensitive information,
employees home addresses, date of birth, uh, social security, that kind of information. We've seen it time and time again when AI is allowed into systems that things go wrong. I just read an article today about how AI um broke out of its proscribed
definitions and like I I don't even remember what happened because it was it was like a bad headline of a of a B-rated movie, but it basically said no to the guidelines that were governing it and went off and did its own thing. So, I am not I'm not objecting in principle
to the idea of finding ways to find efficiencies. I am very concerned about letting this in willy-nilly. Even if we say, "Sure, we're going to um um make decisions about how we
implement it. How do we safeguard from having it go wrong where we have 2,200 employees and we have 82,000 residents presumably, most of which at least are connected to the city with sensitive data. Uh you know, that's a lot of
people. and how do we protect against that? >> So, that's a that's a great question. Um, without having this turn into a kind of a lecture on AI and what it is and and what it isn't, right? A lot of that is driven by uh data privacy. Some are laws, some are policies that we have within the city with a lot of the AI
tools that we've built in house. Um, there's governance that goes with that as well. Um, I would never recommend that we plug in, you know, some outside AI type thing and here, have at it and figure it out. That is generally not the way AI works. Um it's there there are
models that need to be trained to look for specific things. They get very good at doing repetitive type you know work and analysis and that kind of thing. Um it is it is not in my opinion where you would come in let someone in and go here's all of our stuff all of our information all of our PII you know all
of the financial stuff that we have and go ahead and figure it out. That's that's not the way that it works. So the the intent with anything that we do along the lines of finding a consultant or contractor or what have you that does the work is we look at specific use cases for types of systems. So for example financials, you know, personnel
management, um permitting, that kind of thing. Um and you basically teach it about the types of things that we have or there's some pre-built models that do it and you would feed it information in a controlled environment. All the AI tools that we've built are bubbled in the sense that they
don't talk to other things. So they're completely segmented. And we do that to protect even our own stuff. That's information that we have that's not the kinds of examples that you brought up where social security numbers and addresses, you know, and routing numbers and and billing and that kind of thing. Um so there are different ways to
address that. I I understand your concern. I agree with you. I mean, generally I'm distrusting of vendors in general um that come in and say we can absolutely do that because until you can actually show it. Um and with all respect to, you know, Commissioner Fernandez and and the example with
Tyler, I've seen the dog and pony show and a lot of times it's not it's not as substantive as what is promised, right? So that's the benefit of actually having them show us what it is that you do on a small scale with test data and then we make decisions on an educated basis, you
know, with your um with with your re our recommendation with your authority to do so to feed some of those things and find some of those efficiencies. >> So I'd like to move my item. >> Commissioner Matas Selenus.
>> Yeah, I fine. and let's prepare the RFP, but I still want to hear it at FIRK because I know Commissioner Suarez, you mentioned the contingency because but so then because everything over $75,000 has to go to FIRK anyway. So we would prepare the RFP and then based on
the responses that we get and then look at, you know, I can't imagine somebody would do this on complete contingency, but um >> that's what it's directed to do. >> There is no fee to this. >> There's no flat fee. There's no it's zero right now, >> right? >> Yeah. So, and if it comes back to us,
it's going to be still be zero. It's only going to be based on how much money they save the residents. Now, what that fee is, we can certainly determine that when they come back with um that solicitation, but again, I mean, guys, we're trying to save as much money as we
can. We're trying not to cut frontline workers like police and fire. This is a perfect opportunity right now to save money where there may be efficiencies. I don't see why we need to send this to Ferg. It's going to come back before us
and we're going to be able to take this as fast as possible to see how much we can save. And again, it's going to literally cost us nothing unless we take the measures that the these that these suggestions might be. So, >> yep, I'm supportive and I and I agree. I
think there's there's a there's a place when it comes back to us that we'll send it to Ferg. I would like simultaneously to explore some of these companies that to see if we can get the same services for the same quality, maybe even better quality that that these at least two
that I know of have reached out and offered their services to our city. Yeah, I was just going to ask for the ability for us to try and craft something that would be a little bit more all-encompassing than just the contingencybased fee models because the
companies that I've dealt with over the time that I've been in government that are contingency based um are not necessarily the folks that I would want to be making these kind of decisions with. >> Yes, understood. Uh Commissioner Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> Oh, thank you. Um yeah, I do think um
this is a good idea to explore. We do need to be cautious though with AI. Even having the experience of what we saw at the federal government where I saw um and we saw multiple times in the news where government contracts were inflated
by millions of dollars and there were errors and uh there was one that was completely off the mark where it mislabeled transgenic mice as something else. So, we just need to be cautious um that AI isn't uh the end- all beall and
it's going to do all of the savings. Um it's hard to keep AI accountable, so we do need to be cautious. I was also supportive of it going to FK, but I understand that there is no price right now, but typically when we've hired consultants in the past, uh it's roughly about $250,000. So, it's not a small
amount. It it will be something um for us to look at. Okay. And uh Eric and Frank uh I know you've done a we had I met recently. You described to me a lot of the efforts that have been made to incorporate AI throughout our city and that is continuing.
>> Yes sir. >> Full steam ahead. >> So do I have a second >> with the safeguards motion? >> Second. >> Call vote. >> I have a motion. This is RQ. I have a motion by Commissioner Schwarz. Seconded by uh Commissioner Mattel Selenas. All in favor of R7Q, please say I. >> I.
>> Anyone opposed? hearing none. The item is approved. 7 R7Q. >> I just wanted to point for the record because it's we're an hour and a half away from adjourning. We have according to the city clerk 32 resolutions, 24 ordinances, six pulled consent items,
and four addendum resolutions. You passed good legislation that you propose limiting our discussion. And I'm happy to abide myself by if you choose to enforce that. Uh so that we know it's 526 now. if we >> I don't know if we've all abided by that till now, but
>> yeah. So, just >> I appreciate that. I'm trying to go as as fast as as I can, but thank you. Um, since we're on the topic C7, I think it's similar and but thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. I'm I I I agree and let's try to get through these as
quickly as we can. C7AS is evaluate consolidating departments. was requested by Commissioner Suarez and there is a co-sponsor by Commissioner Fernandez C7. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh we again just
had a lengthy discussion on how we can save taxpayer dollars moving into the next budget season uh year. And I want to see if there is a consensus uh
with consolidating some of our departments. So for example, tourism and economic development. I I certainly think we can combine the two and we can
save a lot of money on um instead of hiring another tourism director and consolidate the roles similar to what we did with fleet facilities and and parks. Um for the
longest time we had um parking and transportation that was also consolidated and at the time I think everything was running pretty smooth. I think when you look at how we have
about what 42 directors Mr. City Manager >> 21 departments >> how many directors do we have? >> 21. 21. So, you know, that's that's a director for every 4,000
residents. I think we can start shrinking our government to have less of a an overhead. I wanted to see where my colleagues sit on this to really find an efficiency in government and and have
less of a tax burden on our tax. point of information. Wasn't this a consent item? >> Okay. >> Supplemental to second the item. >> Yes. Commissioner Bot, >> I move to defer this item. I think this is a very substantive discussion that
was added to the agenda a after 6 last night, I think. Um I I was at a uh on my way to a uh a neighborhood association meeting. I didn't even know about this until this morning. Um, and I I'm not voting in support of something that I
haven't even had time to read yet. So, I'd like to make a motion to defer this this >> deferral. >> One thing I'll mention is uh the item mentions uh just for something to be presented for consideration in October. It's not even for September. It's not rushed.
>> Yeah, it's just an evaluation. >> I haven't read it. I'm not going to vote for something that I haven't read yet. >> Let's call the vote >> on the motion to defer. Correct. Does I have a motion to defer by Commissioner Bond, seconded by Commissioner Melenas to defer C7AS to uh
September? All in favor, please say I. >> So, we're deferring to have a presentation on what the city administration could consolidate with. >> I think it's to defer this particular item.
As a matter of form, I think it's bad practice for myself at least to vote in support of something that I haven't even seen yet. I don't think that's how legislative policy should be made. I don't think it serves our residents well. And if everybody else somehow
magically had the opportunity to read this and give it due consideration um last night and I'm the only one who didn't because I was at an HOA and I didn't see that it had been added until this morning then I guess I'm I'm the idiot here but I'm not voting for
>> I'm in the same boat commission. I'm also the >> I haven't read yet. >> I'll mention um something else. So you defer the item to September. The memo still says October. So if it goes through now, the city administration has several more months to prepare
>> the it can be pushed out to November or December. >> We we again we we talked about we talked about a roll back rate that was based a budget for the roll back rate that was cooked and it was really
literally putting police officers, firemen and cats on on the chopping block. And here we have an opportunity to lower managerial positions and and shrink the government so that it's less
>> of a burden. I I mean again this is to October and there's plenty of there there's no there's no this isn't going to hurt anyone. >> We have a motion in a second to defer. Let's call a vote. >> All in favor of deferring this item to next month, please say I.
>> I. I. >> Anyone opposed? I'll oppose too. So I'd >> still like to hear it in October whether it gets the >> Yeah. >> So the item could be considered in in September and the date doesn't change.
So we're not hearing this item today. I heard a no from Commissioner Suarez. I'm not sure if I heard a no somewhere else. Commissioner Fernandez. It's I I'll vote to deferred because at the end of the day, I mean, we're still going to get the information. It is what
it is. >> So, C7 as deferred 6 to1. >> Okay. R seven AT R 7 AT direct administration to repurpose and deploy retired police
vehicles as decoys. >> [cough] >> Thanks for being up here. I'll I'll tee it up. Um, >> so essentially this would, and I know we have, and I'll let you give all the numbers. We do have decoy cars out there. Um, in the past year or so,
starting to put uh solar powered battery packs in them. So, they have the lights and they with the it's hard to tell if they're decoy cars or or not, which is great because they're the newer models. The older Decard cars are kind of obvious. >> Sure. >> Um, this would and I and I guess what's
on the table is there's 27 police older police cars, retired vehicles that would potentially be auctioned off fairly soon. The cost, and I'll let and I'm sorry, I'll turn it over to you in a minute. The cost is about $890, I'm
being told, to put the cellar power. So, for 27 cars, you're talking about $24,000. There's obviously a a non- gain of auctioning off the vehicles, but it's pretty dimminimous, but um >> Sure, no problem. Uh good afternoon
everyone, operations division, Marlon Rivero. Um so with our friends at Fleet, we were able to gather these numbers and um the cost overall, we essentially have 27 cars that are coming up to being
retired. it it's about $900 about $870 to outfit them each with solar powered panels. So we can go up to 27 approximately like you said sir that would cost about $24,000. We currently have 12 on the street. Um
they've been very effective. I think the key to them is being strategic when we move them and we place them and so they don't gather dust and and everything else that we would know. Um, but it's certainly it's certainly a viable option. The profit at auction, I'm being told, is
about $36,000, give or take. So, >> $3,600 per vehicle, uh, give or take. >> And I think I think Commissioner Fernandez, you had a separate item to put uh, strategically at the entrance points of our city police cars and and police vehicles. This, I think, could be
a nice supplement to to that item. I don't know whether you had in mind. I did, but I'm not sure that made it through the enhancements, Mr. Manager. Um, I'm not sure. I I do know it was part of of the budget that So, I don't know if
we were able to to get the funding. >> Well, what I'm saying is I think this is a nice uh supplement. We obviously have our our police and I think I think we made it pretty clear that we're going to keep our staffing levels at police. This is and and I've always I've noticed the the decoys and they're pretty again the
newer vehicles, the newer models, so it's not as obvious it's a decoy. The solar power is a game changer. And I tell you, it really got me thinking because a general manager at a retail store, I don't want to say which one cuz I don't if any any any any bad guys are listening. I wanted to know which
where's the decoy, but he he called me and he said, "I want you to know cuz our police department had put a decoy car uh and it's a pretty central intersection, but it happens to be outside a very large retail store." He goes, "It has been a gamecher." He goes, "The amount
of shoplifting has gone down tremendously." He goes, "The amount of homeless individuals hanging out in the area has gone down." Um, so and and it was a pretty it's a pretty safe area to begin with, but he said, "This really has made an impact." So, thank you to
the police department. And he obviously was asking if they can continue it. So, it got me thinking if it works here >> and uh have you have you seen measurable success? >> Oh, they surely are asked for. I'll put it that way. So, uh again, it's about distributing the ones we have. If we
were to gain more, then we would use that smartly. Um, but the advantage of it is that with the solar panels comes the ignition of the red and blue lights and and that's huge. Some people typically uh they just assume it's a it's a decoy car with nobody in it when
they don't see it or when they see it's dark, but the red and blue certainly helps it stand out. So, we've been pleased with it. >> I I would propose I can't move the item, but I would propose that we not auction off these 27 vehicles. And again, it's a it's just a supplement to our already um
I'll move the >> good police visibility. >> Do do any of these police vehicles have a video footage? >> Say that again, sir. >> Do any of these police vehicles have a monitoring? >> Not that I'm aware. Not that I'm aware.
>> It might be worth considering what the expense to that would be. Do you have any sense? I know we're catching >> similar to like how Tesla has videos and >> I don't we would uh confer with fleet Go ahead, Chief. >> Just going to add um and I agree, by the
way, they've been an excellent tool in terms of deterring crime. Quite frankly, they're really really coveted. Lots of residents and businesses have access to deployed them um in proximity to their their residents or business. Um don't know off the top of my head what the cost would be this to stream live video
from those vehicles into our Arctic, for example. We can certainly find it out and let you know and if it's if it's feasible, happy to look into getting some of those So, we have uh Eric, >> and if I could just I I know we've been talking about specifically the 27 cars
that are deadlined right now. Um I would have to double check because I believe what I heard from fleet is that they had already been removed from decals. So, I just need to
make sure that before we say that 27, I would just [snorts] say the next group of available cars we would outfit and we would deploy. >> Mr. Manager, that is that that's quite >> I'm just want to um some of that is
true, Mr. Manager, is partly true. Uh there are some cars that have already been um destriped and ready for auction. um the ones that um the major is referring to are not have not quite uh been online yet but in the process of
getting um decommissioned. >> So sir that was stated to us that in the next few months these are the cars that are coming up for their timeline. So >> great. So we have a motion >> the motion >> second by
commissioner Matessel. Y >> this is on R 78. All in favor please say I. I >> I anyone opposed? >> Thank you. Hearing none. R 78 is approved. 70. Okay. R5 L.
R5L is an ordinance of the mayor city commission of the city of Miami amending chapter two of the code of the city of Miami Beach entitled administration by amending article six entitled procurement by amending division 3 entitled contract procedures by amending section 2-367 entitled rejections of bids negot negotiation soul source purchase waiver of competitive bidding
to establish new procedural requirements in connection with waiverss of competitive bidding and amending section 2-369 entitled award of contract to include additional factors to be considered when determining the lowest and best bidder and providing for repealer servability complication and effective date. This is a second reading
public hearing. [snorts] It is item R5L. >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> Um Mr. Mayor, this is an item that uh adopts recommendations from the inspector general from lessons learned from the Poseidum very no bid contract.
Um it broadens how we define the lowest and best bidder. is not just about price, but it's also about risk responsibility and whether a vendor is truly prepared to deliver services to the city. Um and when the city uses cooperative purchasing options um
above the formal bidding thresholds, the uh city manager will now have to provide a more detailed uh written justification as well as analysis with any bid waiver request addressing all factors uh used to decide the uh lowest and and best
bidder. Um I don't see procurement here, but I'm happy to to move this item. Call the vote. >> It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom, no one in the audience requesting to speak. I have a motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by
Commissioner Suarez. I call the RO. >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bot, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas, >> yes. >> Commissioner Magazine, >> yes. >> Commissioner Suarez, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez, >> yes. >> Mayor Miner, >> yes. Motion carries. The item is
approved. That was item R5L. R7 ah >> R7 AH is agreement with Sino and Miller develop master plan for entirety of Westlots R7H >> Commissioner Bot co-sponsored by Commissioner Suarez
>> co-primed co-prime thank you ladies first >> co-prime on this >> um okay So, I'll have to talk about we >> um >> Great. Then let's just call the vote.
>> I just don't know which of the two primes made the motion. >> Got it. >> Just for the record for anybody listening, this is to um authorize one of our existing vendors. >> This is to authorize Thank you. for any
um one of our existing vendors um excellent landscape architects who just completed a long planned and long um desired pro uh project in Mid Beach, the Beayshore Park, which is a spectacular location if you have not yet been there
to take a look at the west lots which are underutilized and imagine how they could be used differently. um not getting rid of parking and keeping the services that need to stay there in that general area, but looking at how to use that land mass more effectively to
create another worldass park um with a variety of potential amenities. So, this is just the beginning of a planning process that would be open to the public. Um but we need to start somewhere and they we believe they are the best people to start that process.
>> Yes. So I have a mo a motion and a motion by Commissioner Bot, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. All in favor of R7 AH, please say I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none, R7 AH is approved. 70. Let's call the budget items R7D and R7E.
>> R7D public hearing. Adopt fifth amendment to the fiscical year 2026 capital budget. R7, that was R7D. R7E public hearing. adopt fifth amendment to the fiscal year 2026 operating budget. That's R7D and E both public hearings.
>> So the first item is a fifth amendment to the capital budget. It contains six items. It recommends an increase of 2.2 million and the transfer of $2.3 million between existing projects. The first project is the seventh street garage superstructure renewal. There is a
request to add 369,000 to the budget and that's because of additional repair work that's needed and it's recommended to be funded with available dollars in the seventh street garage fund. The second project is a South Point Park project. This is a geob project that was slated
to be funded in tranch 2. The project has been designed and is ready to go forward. So there's a recommendation to temporarily swap funding from two existing trunch one projects that don't need the funds right now to this project in order to move forward. The third
project is a West Avenue phase 2 project. Additional funding has been requested to cover costs for construction, engineering inspection, and expanded public outreach in the amount of $1.86 million. Of that amount,
608 is for the public outreach. And the recommendation is to fund that using available water, sewer, storm water, and capital reserve funds. Uh the next three projects are water and sewer uh projects that need additional funding because
their costs are higher than the original budgets. And the recommendation for all three of these projects is to take funds from existing projects that have been funded with um state and federal grants. So the first is the sewer pump station rehab number two. Uh the third the
second is the aerial crossing water main replacement project and the third is a stormwater pump station cover. >> I'll move the item. >> I'll second. This is on item R 7D. I have a motion by Commissioner Dominguez and a mot by Mayor Miner. It is a public
hearing. I see no one in Zoom and no one in the audience requesting to speak on R 7D. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. R7D is approved 70. >> And then the the operating item has two.
It's a blood um components that was approved by the city commission for the fire department at last month's commission meeting. And the sec the second item is for the Stella Mars transportation services that was also approved by the city commission at last month's meeting. >> I'll move it.
>> Second of a motion by Commissioner Dominguez, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. It is a public hearing. I see no one in Zoom. No one in the audience requesting to speak on R7E. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. The items approve 70.
>> Thanks. >> Call R 7ap. R seven AP implement parking holiday program dollar per hour parking for August through October. R7AP. >> Commissioner Fernandez co-sponsored by Commissioner uh Matteo Selenas.
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Mr. Mayor, this is an item actually that uh Commissioner Matselinas and I worked on together when I was an aid and I'm proud to be well she was an aid now we [laughter] both used to be aids and I'm proud to be u uh working uh now
together again with uh with my great colleague commissioner Mats Selenas so that in the slow months our businesses can have the support of attracting visitors from throughout the region to support our local economy. And I'll pass
it over to Commissioner Mattel Selenus. >> Thank you, Commissioner and Mr. Mayor. I just want to say that this is excellent legislation. This really does help our businesses. I had a meeting recently with the Washington Avenue bid, the Lincoln Road bid, and the 41st Street uh bid as well. And they they brought this
up that this was so helpful to them last year. And I said, "Great. Let's bring it back." And here we are. And thank you for this legislation. And I'll move our item. >> Second. Let's call the vote. Have a motion by Commissioner Matel, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. This
is item R seven AP. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. R seven AP is approved. 70. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez and Commissioner Matasinus. Good item. Let's call R9V.
>> R9V is discuss take action enforcement efforts excessive vehicular muffler exhaust noise. So, sponsored by myself, Vice Mayor Dominguez, Commissioner Bot. This has been an effort uh and I and I know you've spent a lot of time on this as well, Vice Mayor Dominguez. So, take
it away. >> Oh, thank you. Um it's this item has been on the agenda for a while. We do have uh monthly enforcement uh reports that are sent to us uh through LTC. The increase in the number
of citations has been un unbelievable. And I've also had meetings with Sofna and other stakeholders of that area regarding um uh quiet zone signs and we did a pilot now south the fifth. Uh it just started
a couple weeks ago. So we're really uh looking forward to seeing even more. But any update from MBPD uh regarding noise enforcement? Happy to hear it and then we can close this one out for now. >> Yes, ma'am. uh very proud of our enforcement. Uh year to date, we have
1,41 citations that have been written on the vehicle enforcement. I know it's a big concern. That's over twice what we had last year. We had 675. So, uh we've definitely made it a priority for us. It's been going very well. Um at least from what we're
hearing. So, are you seeing any difference with the new quiet zone signs where officers have been able to give citations based on the signs? I've had a couple other neighborhoods request them and I know it's still very very early but that's why I bring it up.
>> It's still very new. Um in the area one area uh zone we've given approximately 213 when compared to other areas. That's for loud exhaust for loud music 252. It's certainly the area that we're
giving the most uh citations at and the most enforcement. I actually went by Fourth Street just to see what the sign was looking like. It's it's pretty clear of what it is, but um not specifically whether they're uh citing the signs or not, but yeah, >> we're pleased with it.
>> Well, we appreciate it. Um you and your team have really done a lot. Uh the numbers speak for themselves and um let's continue to keep that as a priority um because the neighbors really appreciate it. >> Thank you, Commissioner. One question uh with the and thank you
for citing uh those numbers. Is it broken down by how many given at during nighttime hours? >> Um not on this report, sir. This is broken down by areas and by the um by the violations. So we've been
focusing on loud exhaust, loud music, loud noise, and horns is essentially what >> is that something that could be broken down and provided to us? >> Uh we certainly could. >> Okay. Yeah. >> No, thank you. It's uh and thank you collectively working on this. It's a
it's a complaint we we get a lot certainly as the late night hours when those modified mufflers come rumbling down the street. >> Correct. And we actually have a lot of our enforcement happening between that afternoon and midnight overlap. So, uh I'm sure the numbers are are there. We
can just provide them. >> Great. Thank you. Right. >> Thank you. Uh, R98. Oh, R9A. It's good to see the family support. R9 AAA is discuss potential amendments to
single family development regulations. Expedite planning review. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to have Deputy Tacket kind of bring it home on this one. This is the [snorts] This was before us and then staff wanted to come back and give us I
think two options for deregulating a lot of the issues that we have when it comes to the permitting process. >> Correct. Um, thank you, Commissioner. So we have provided two options that we would like some direction on. Um the first option would be the extreme
scenario with simplification where basically you would just be giving a height and setbacks and anything could be built basically within that envelope provided. The second option is slightly more nuanced but we think um would still go a long way to simplifying the
regulations and speeding up the uh permit review process. uh single family homes do take an excessive amount of our plans reviewer's time because of the complexity of the regulations. So we are confident that um we could move forward
with either um of the of the proposals but would recommend that we um that you give us direction today to to refine option number two um which we think will just provide some better protections for uh property owners and uh neighborhoods
in general. Yeah. >> So, we would like this to be a referral to the to the planning board. >> And how how much? You said it takes a considerable amount of time percentage-wise. So, a brand new I mean percentage-wise it's hard to say depending on the number, but a brand new
single family home for example, a first run is going to be probably a 4hour review, 3 to 4 hour review for our permit uh staff because the the um requirements are so complex, writing out
the comments and then typically we would be in in uh communication with the architect because sometimes the architects don't understand certain sections that we have in the single family like there's you know the lot coverage calculation for example if you have an outdoor area it may or may not
count as lot coverage it depends how deep the overhang is and and things like that so it not only takes a considerable amount of time to review but then to explain some of our comments to the design professionals is also very timeconuming and that's what I have
found because I have reviewed uh homes myself and you know it's a lot of back and forth with the property owner and or their architect or contractor for everyone to get on the same page. So, I think we can do do better and and keep the intent of these single family
regulations, which is to provide some some protections for adjacent neighbors um but simplify it so that we can keep these things moving along. >> Yeah, I I'll be okay with option two that gives it a more nuanced approach. >> Debbie, you said Oh, through the mayor. I'm sorry.
>> Yes, please. Debbie, you said that um you would like direction to move it to the planning board. Either one or option one or two. >> Um we are recommending option two, but >> but the the directions to move it to the planning board. >> Um discuss just confirm what the
um I believe we are asking for direction to prepare an ordinance that is consistent with number two and a referral to the planning board. Yes. So could we refer to the planning board for them to discuss it before you prepare the ordinance?
>> Yes, that would be my motion on option two. So then we would we would we could bring a discussion to the planning board and then bring a referral back to the commission. >> Then it has to go back to the planning board. >> Yes.
>> That's that's ridiculous. Why? I mean this is ex by the way this is exactly why we need this is because we have these long processes that get that get drawn out and government just gets in the way and red tape. So it has to go so we have to go to the planning board hear what they have to say then it
has to come back here then it has to go back to the planning board. That's like 6 months. Guys, what is the number one thing that we did that we heard? Not the number one, but one of the major things that we heard when we were knocking on doors, it's getting a permit.
Like, by and large, that is one of the biggest pain points about our government that we actually have the ability to control right here, right now. We can do that. we can we can alleviate it much better for anyone who wants to build a
family and a home in Miami Beach. So, I I certainly wouldn't be a favor of that. I'm okay with the more nuanced approach instead of the more an aggressive approach. Option one, I I think that's fine, but let's send it to the planning board and have it come back to us again. So,
>> through the mayor, if I may, >> Commissioner Bot >> Debbie. So if it goes to the planning board for discussion and there is an ordinance prepared um if the discussion ends up giving very different guidance you have to revise
the ordinance anyhow right like I I'm not trying to add layers of time to this I just want to get the most effective way of getting feedback that we can see before it becomes law of the land but so I'm
So I is it a viable process to go to the planning board with a prepared ordinance and then say they change a whole bunch of things then what happens? >> So that's a that's a great question. Um it really depends on if the title of the
ordinance would change. So this would require an advertisement. It's a legal notice, a public hearing. Um, you know, in my experience, the the single family regulations for the most part, it's one big section. So, a title, the legal requirements of
the title would be to point out the sections that were changing and a general idea of of what's being changed, but not so specific about, for example, if the setbacks are changing. We would just say that the setback section is being amended. But we wouldn't, you know, the title wouldn't have to include
that granular detail of exactly what is being proposed. >> And could you create the title so that it covers every possible eventuality and then if you only do five of the 10 in the title, you don't have to worry about having a revised title. You know, we would create the title broad enough to
allow for some flexibility and for some discussion at the planning board. ultimately depending on what the planning board discusses and you know maybe they want a different section of of the the ordinance amended. Maybe they would like the landscape section for example amended. Then we would have to
you know renotice the title. But for the most part um you know if the title is general enough and provides a little bit of flexibility we're typically we would be okay. But you're correct. I mean it it just depends if the planning board gives us a
completely different direction than we're going in. It >> may probably a bigger issue anyhow, right? Than just the renoticing. It's a bigger issue because it's a fundamental change of what you guys thought was a good direction. So, okay. So, I retract my amendment and I'm fine to send it
along with a broad title and a a draft ordinance to planning and then see what happens. >> Second, I move my second. >> Call the vote. So this is a referral to planning board option two with a draft ordinance motion by [clears throat] commissioner bot
seconded by commissioner Suarez. All in favor R9A please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none the referral to planning board is approved 70. Let's >> call uh let's do the boards R 9 A and B.
>> Yes sir. Everyone has a yellow sheet of paper in front of them. All these can be done by acclamation if if you so wish >> 70. Uh thank you everyone.
>> There was an open seat for everyone. So [laughter] >> I moved that very quickly. >> Yes, >> I nominated her. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> We're all done. >> Yes, sir. All right, let's do R7 AO.
>> R7 AO. Proceed with ITB for general contractor for 41st Street rev revitalization project R7 AO. This I'm going to move the item. >> I'll second. Call the vote. Have a motion by on R
seven AO. A motion from Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Mayor Miner. All in favor of R seven AO, please say I. Hearing none. The item is no one in opposition. Correct. Hearing none. The item is approved 70. That's R7 AO.
Call um C2E. C2E was separated by two members of the commission. Issue RFQ 2026 306 WG parking management service. C2E was separated by Commissioner Fernandez and Commissioner Mattel Selenas.
You guys want to fight it out? >> Sure. Uh the the reason why I I pulled this item uh was specifically I like for for this to go to committee to discuss how feasible would it be to incorporate
into this the unified valet uh systems that we're that we still have pending at committee for 41st Street for the entertainment district possibly for for Lincoln Road. So, I'd like to be able to discuss, you know, the pros and cons and
whether that can be incorporated into this contract. So, that's the reason why I pulled this. >> I also want to send it to FK for similar reasons. Thank you. >> That's great. Um, my only request, this Christie, chief procurement officer, would be if we could approve the
month-to-month extension um just to allow us time. So I'll make a motion to reser to refer to FK with a month-to-month. >> Thank you. >> Of course, >> Commissioner Matelinus, >> you're a second. >> Yeah, second.
>> U so on C2E is referral to FK with approval of monthtomonth of the current agreement uh to C2E. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none, the item is approved. 70. That's C2E.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. C7 C >> C7C increase PSA with HML public outreach West Avenue phase 2 neighborhood improvement project. C2C was separated by Commissioner SW I'm
sorry C7C Commissioner Suarez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I pulled this item uh for a couple of reasons. Uh, David, can you go over some of the funding and the roles and responsibility that this third party would be doing?
>> Sure. Uh, David Gomez, director, capital improvements. Good afternoon. Uh, this particular item is a continuation of services for HML public outreach. They are serving as the city's uh, PIO or public information officer for the West
Avenue project. Their contract began in 2021. This extension will take them through projected completion uh which is 29. Yes. >> Uh for a total duration of eight years. >> Total contract funding equates to just around a million dollars or an average
of around $125,000 per year. their role on this particular project as I'm sure you all are familiar is uh quite extensive actually because of the size of the project and the complexity of the project the amount of
information that they manage for us in terms of public outreach in terms of interaction with residents in terms of coordination not only with property owners and property managers but even with city staff and and the consultants and contractors is
far and away beyond what we usually do on these projects. Original estimates under their original uh contract was about 25 hours per week from all of their staff combined. They are approaching two full-time
equivalents on what they're doing for us now. between regular bi-weekly meetings with the residents and arranging those things and and producing the collaterals for it. Uh they are also responding to thousands of emails um arranging for
meetings for harmonization, following up on multiple uh attempts to meet with properties for harmonization agreements. It is an impressive amount of workload. Um I'm not sure if >> the harmonization agreements already done, correct?
>> No, no, not at all. We have harmonization agreements in place for segments two and three. There's a large percentage of them uh done for segment six. Uh and then there's there's uh spattered around where we've gotten more of them. We don't have 100 of 100% of
them yet. >> Okay. So, you know, the only reason I pull this is I think it's a little redundant. We have a neighborhood affairs division. Why should we spend close to a million dollars on on
outsourcing this when we already have it a department designed specifically for this? I think a million dollars in taxpayer funds could certainly be used better uh or more efficiently. Uh this was approved in 21, so this predates at
least three of us on here. Um, I wouldn't have approved it in in the beginning. And you know, I just we we again we I mean, I hate to sound like broken record, but we just talked about how we can save
so much money from the operating budget. I just think it's ridiculous to spend a million dollars on a third party when we have our we have multiple departments that can do this job currently. So I will I will respond by saying that
we have a combination of efforts and it depends primarily on the project. A project such as this one that is so uh intensive in terms of public outreach and engagement and and communications. Uh it would just be overwhelming if we relied on our in-house staff to do that.
Um our in-house staff does manage many of our projects. One example is the prominade. um and and and there's many others that they do the public outreach for us and they handle it in-house. Larger projects, we we tend to use a
private PIO. Um and primarily it's because of their flexibility in staffing and their adaptability. For example, we recently hit uh an issue with DURM uh permitting for the West Avenue project. is the most recent cause of delay for
work in the field. Just yesterday, inspections in the field to to determine where those lines are that Durham was questioning required three or four staff members from our PIO to go ahead to the next building to to meet with the property manager and let
them know they were coming. Stay behind at the previous building to clear up any questions that property had. babysit our inspecting team at the current project where they're inspecting. And it's a it's a snowball effect. If every time we run into one of those things where we
need additional staff, we we pull from our in-house staff, it takes them away from the stuff that they have to do. >> But what does neighborhood affairs do that they Why wouldn't neighborhood affairs be able to handle this? So if I could, if I could, neighborhood affairs
was pulled together by the from the PIOS in the individual departments. So we now have three PIOs, one in South Beach, one in Mid Beach, one in North Beach. Um the that's the entirety. There's no multiple
departments. There are three people that are handling this. We're talking about two near full-time positions just on this project. that would ultimately cost us more inhouse than we're paying in contracted services on an annual.
>> What What is the rate per hour for these individuals? Like what is the rate per hour? Cuz I see it's a hundred $100 an hour. Is that correct? >> So you have two hours per week out of the over 50 hours that are being built
at 110. You have 79 [snorts] and 89 are the majority of the hours. I mean, I don't know, but it seems a lot for what I get it. You know, it's all about how you manage how you manage
outreach. I mean, you know, Commissioner Fernandez, he does a monthly tour on West Avenue, you know, and he's not getting paid for it >> bi-weekly, I think. >> Yeah. And I I don't know. I'm the no on this. I don't think we should be spending a million dollars to basically
have someone answer emails, make a make a website. Yeah. You know, I just think we have a department for that. And you know, if we were flushed with cash and we didn't we weren't forced to lower our our mill or roll back rate
with with a looming cuts from not cuts, but um our budget's going to have to be lowered with with with the tax cuts that's possibly going to get passed in November. I don't think this is just a good use of taxpayer money. So that's just me. Um, you know, I hope I I'd like
to hear what my colleagues have to say and and why this was probably a good idea. >> Uh, I have Vice Mayor Dominguez and Commissioner Magazine. >> Um, thank you, Mayor. So, we're not forced to roll back our rates. that was
the choice and we're still discussing um how we're going to make use of that choice. But we've received a bunch of emails uh about this topic. But the one that struck me the most and we all got it was from a business owner uh Stefan
and for him the importance of the PIO team given the complexity of this project. Um, and we still have about 144 weeks to go and the amount that's listed there is meant for
the duration of the project at this time. So, I think it's critical. This project has been complicated, disruptive, and um, a lot of different moving parts and I think it's money well spent. I Fernandez uh, Commissioner
Fernandez, I think you moved the item. Yes, >> I'll second it. >> Mr. where >> commercial magazine I >> I'll echo I think this is the epitome where we simply just have to do more right we have so many communications and
PIOS and PIO departments and neighborhood affairs departments and then we go and contract out more communication. No, I I I will not vote for that. I live in this neighborhood. I got involved in this city because of
some of the projects along here. We need to be more efficient with how we operate across the board. There's probably five different teams all delivering some type of similar message.
It's not about needing more. We need to work smarter. Okay. I see Commissioner Fernandez and the staff out there of all the things you described David respectfully I I'm hardressed to think unless they are literally receiving thousands of emails
thousands well show me okay truly if they are receiving what thousands a day thousand a week >> no it's not obviously not a thousand a day or a week but just as an idea in the last two years probably less than the last two years more than 250
harmonization minis more than 100 stakeholder meetings, more than 500 one-on-one meetings, uh 550 issues tracked, more issued, more than 100 uh project updates, um bi-weekly meetings as we mentioned before, um and uh
managing the obviously the the WhatsApp contacts and maintaining the data, the project database, which is all of the contact information, which in and of itself is a almost full-time task of more than 400. Not >> how many emails though how many in the
total >> we need to work smarter. We need to work smarter. It's as simple as that. We cannot have PIO officers, public information officers out the wazoo and then contract
out communications. We simply can't. We have to put a line in the sand about constraining the growth of government. Right? It is as simple as that. And and I hate to sound petty and it's not that
these things aren't important. They're supremely important. But if you don't put your foot in the line in the sand and say we just simply have to do more with less, it'll never get done. And this is one of those instances where I
just have to say we we need to work smarter. We need to work harder. >> Yeah. I mean, we could use this million dollars for a lot of the other projects that are on the chopping block, like like the teen club. I'm sure that's a better use of this of this million
dollars than contracting out what our internal department can do. And how many So, David, how many emails has been sent or received since this program began? >> I'd have to get you that number. I don't
have that number. >> Yeah. See, I mean, you you're you're kind of throwing out well, it's been thousands. I you know, I there should certainly be an exact number of of how many emails were were sent, but scheduling meetings, managing a WhatsApp
group. I mean, come on. We have a whole we have a division literally called neighborhood affairs. [laughter] It's just >> I I got to just from the description, it's not the best pitch. Uh, Commissioner Bach,
>> um, if this is not approved, how will you handle the work that's currently been being done by this outside vendor? >> We'll downshift it significantly. >> What does that mean? It >> means some of the things that are currently happening are not going to happen. >> If I ever said that to my boss, I'd be
fired. >> Excuse me. >> Okay. If I ever I'm sorry, commissioner. Uh, if I ever said that to my boss, I'd be fired. My boss would say, "I guess you have to stay later tonight. I guess you have to work on the weekends." That is the reality of real life work. Okay, I am sorry. It's as simple as that. If
my boss came to me and said, "We lost a resource. We need this work to be done." If I said, "I'm sorry. We're just going to have to produce less." I would be fired on the spot. We have to deliver and we have to do it with less.
>> Sorry, Commissioner. Truly, >> we have three neighborhood affairs um division employees. They would be doing this full-time. >> No, they're already doing this full-time. >> Okay. Um,
would it slow the project, the completion of the project? >> Uh, I mean, harmonization agreements are are critical path. >> Yep. When what where do you need excuse me
where do you need the next harmonization discussion is for projects or it's for sections three and four for west avenue for example >> section three is already complete four has some uh most of them already done the next segment is segment six so they
need to concentrate on getting those >> where where are we in construction what what what >> we are currently in construction on segments two and three >> okay so we're still in two. We the city staff has plenty of time to to to meet
with residents and property owners for something that's potentially years away from even starting construction. So again, you know, this is just the role of government. I don't think we should and and if this is sort of the way we're
going to move where we're going to contract out government, then that's another discussion. Okay. So I Commissioner Magazine is right, Mr. City Manager.
We should be doing more with less. And I I can't imag I I just I just can't believe that is the impression government wants to give this board and the residents
that we're going to just deliver less because you're not paying into someone who can manage a WhatsApp group or make websites or or schedule meetings because that's going to have to happen anyways with staff. Again, I mean, if we if we don't have if
if our neighborhood affairs division isn't doing this, then what are they doing anyways? >> They are doing this already. >> I know. So, then why are we paying extra to do it then? >> Because >> because managing, >> from what I understand, there's there there aren't enough of them to get all
the work done. So, you have to either hire more people or find other ways to get it done. That's my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >> How large is our capital budget? How many projects is there in the capital work plan?
Each one of those projects requires a PIO. Most of those projects are handled by our in-house neighborhood affairs division. This is a$und00 million project. This project requires additional
handholding. It requires additional information. We are constantly being asked to provide more information in real time. We are constantly being asked to provide additional resources and additional
communication and we need additional outside resources. This is not I believe firmly in staffing up for the troughs, not for the crests. And for those of you who haven't looked
at that in management inside city staff is for the troughs. We contract for the crests when we have large projects. This is definitely a crest. This is something that we need to
augment city staff and I believe the most effective way to do that is with outside resources. We're talking about 2 and 12 years worth of service for this dollar figure. We've already expended >> or a million >> $400,000. We've already expended the
$400,000. Then we're talking about six years of service. >> Mr. Commissioner Fernandez. >> The one of the greatest challenges with this project h were the delays that were caused by misinformation
and the delays caused by misinformation caused the the cost of this project to skyrocket. And and I do believe that
put hitting the brakes on the level of communication and I saying hitting the brakes on communications because I know our internal team will always step up to the plate and we'll always do the best that they can to deliver to to to deliver to
the best that they can. However, if I I'm concerned that if we put the brakes on this, those harmonization agreements are not going to happen. We're still working with u with certain buildings on issues
having to do with the drainage issues. We're still trying to figure out some of the stuff even with the uh with with the Baywalk and just a number of things that just continue out there. The moment that everything started to
change with this project that I started to notice a reduction of complaints with this was when there was more hands-on communication, a greater on-site presence, uh more direct line of
of of communication, uh even even even the WhatsApp groups and and all that. And this isn't just for now. This is to get us through the next two years. So it's not just you know to to increase the project for or or the cost for
services delivered until now is for the projected completion through through uh 2028. And so, and so I just, you know, I just want to put it out there. Having lived what we lived uh here prior to the
enhanced level of communication, we do run the risk of there being a more widespread uh source of misinformation or the absence of accurate information that then cause people to organize and
and come and push the types of pause on these projects that we experienced for a number of years and that this commission had the fortitude to overcome. So I just I just want to be cautious of that. I know I know it's it's it's a big number,
but I'm also, you know, for for a construction project, a government construction project of of this size, it's not unheard of to have 1% budget >> dedicated to public communication. And
what's the total uh cost of of this project right now? >> 100 million. >> 100 million. So you you generally you generally have somewhere between 1 and 2% dedicated to public communication and this falls in line with that. If you were telling me you were exceeding that
then I would have concerns. But frankly, this seems within the range of what government usually invests because it is an investment so that our residents know what's going on so they're not fed misinformation and we don't experience again the type of delays that
misinformation caused in the past that is now costing us much more. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. Uh we have a motion and a second. What's the uh just to clarify, what's the motion? Motion is to accept uh the resolution. So I have a motion to accept the
resolution by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Dominguez. >> So I got to tell you, I have a lot of hesitancy on this, but you made a pretty compelling argument, Eric, and I just at some level, even though I
I don't love it, I have to I have to trust your judgment if this if this is never if this is ne necessary. is less than 1% of the total project. Um I I I do share a lot of the sentiment though that we heard from Commissioner Magazine and Commissioner Suarez.
>> Understood. >> And I I'll probably vote in opposition, but I take your points as well. And I I get managing the peak to trough and if you're not fully staffed up for excess levels, you need to do outside support.
And perhaps I'm not even talking about this project. I'm not talking about this project specifically, just uh an overarching theme that I've been re-emphasizing. >> One last question. How many how many employees do you have in the neighborhood affairs division? And how many employees do you have in the
communications department? >> So, neighborhood affairs is four total employees. >> Okay. >> And communications includes neighborhood affairs. And I believe Linda's here.
>> So we have 18 employees and four of them are NAD. >> Four of them are what? >> Uh NAD neighborhood affairs. >> So we have 18 employees and we can't we can't do we can't do what we're doing now with 18 full-time employees.
I mean what are we what are we telling the residents? This is a joke. Well, but I would like clarification because I know that everyone's doing different things. I mean, two or three of them are up in the communications room running all of our meetings. You know what I mean? So, they can't >> do what neighborhood affairs, you know,
I and and it's a fair question. I'm not trying to It's fair to ask, but I do think we need to define what people are doing because then residents get on Facebook and they say, "Oh, wow. There's 19 people in this department. What are they all doing?" Again, fair question, but people just don't know. And so at
some point we should clarify that. >> Well, thank you. >> Yeah. Listen, roles change, responsibilities change, and I'm just going off of what's on this memo. And this memo just simply says they're answering emails, making websites, managing a WhatsApp chat group.
I mean, we can just compelling pitch. >> We can just do that ourselves. I mean, come on, guys. This is ridiculous. >> So, if I might, Linda, please. So, we have, I think, three people up in the booth right now who are AV specialists
who are not going to be doing walkthroughs with residents. We have >> we have four >> four. So, and then we have two photographers, right? >> We have uh in the design team and photography team, we have three people and then we have two persons dedicated
to digital media. Um and then Melissa and I and uh the NAT group. >> Okay. So there is some overlap of what the team could do in terms of writing and communications, but you're talking about bodies to walk through to have meetings to oversee to it's a different
skill set than you know PJ's up there doing presentations and uh doing commission meetings and events around the city and doing all these things. He already goes to the the neighborhood affair uh community meetings about these projects. Like we have to be realistic.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's a great idea to um spend money if we don't need it. But but this is there's a fellacious argument being made that the 18 people in this department
are not already fully occupied. And so, you know, I think we've got a a motion and a second. Call the vote and and vote as your conscience dictates. They both magazine that we'll call the vote. >> I'll say one thing with all this communicating going on whether it be for
this project with outside vendors. One thing I don't know if we need legislation or policy that actually really really irks me is it's left up to us to communicate staff level decisions on Facebook which
is probably the main form of interaction with our residents. There are three or four primary Facebook groups related to the community that the entire everybody in our community knows about. And when we're talking about why is that palm
tree cut down as part of the Uklid oval circle, why is and these are decisions that we probably have no idea about, but we pay a large staff to manage those communications. They're not doing it in the primary form where this
communicating is happening. So maybe not for this discussion, but it's something that has been stewing with me. If we're dedicating all these resources to communications, it is not lost on me whatsoever that our primary means of communicating. Our city
staff seems to have adopted a policy that outside of their official Facebook channel that they're not interacting on our primary methods of communication. It's >> actually a great point through the mayor. >> Then please let's call.
>> You have three photographers and two media. >> Uh no, we have three people in the design and photography team. So they do every single collateral um for all the departments and also they're at all the events. Um we photograph over 150 events
a year. >> We do maybe 4,000 pieces of collateral design. >> So maybe we need less photographers and and design people and and get a get personnel who are more equipped to what
these I PIOS do. I mean, >> okay. I I don't want to be a dead horse and you guys know where I'm on this. So, >> yeah, let's let's call the vote. I am mindful that we have neighborhood affairs division people in the audience as well. So, I'm sure they are working hard. So, thank you for your for your
efforts. Um, this is part of the legislative uh way of it goes. I Mr. Mayor, I I just want to know because I like to be respectful of people's neighborhoods. Um, you know, when it's something in my neighborhood, I als I always ask for a
little bit of difference to me. When it's North Beach, I like to give a lot of deference to to to Commissioner Bod and so on. This is in West Avenue. And so, you the residents there are are the ones who
benefit from this. Commissioner Magazine, what is what is your preference with this item? is you're [clears throat] living this. You're living this and you're having to deal with this every day. And so I just wanna I want to understand what is
>> I've actually I appreciate Commissioner. I I've heard from our residents including as we speak and they're saying it is much needed um and a valuable resource. Right. And as I mentioned where I was going with my commentary
wasn't specific really to this. It wasn't isolated to this. It was more of thematic. uh talk. So, I've heard from residents of of our neighborhood groups uh that chimed in during this discussion say, "Hey, that they're really providing
a valuable service." Um, yes, I I think I've boxed myself in on my vote, but I'm telling you in live time that uh my comments may not have been agreeable with some of the community leaders that have sacrificed countless days, hours,
weeks, months, and years of their time seeing these projects through. And I think that feedback is probably uh more important than my uh my budget um crusade.
>> Okay. >> If you will. >> Did you want to be >> Okay, let's let's call the vote uh >> unseated. >> I have to say on this one, Eric, you you uh you switched you switched probably got me. I was leaning against um for I did get some messages from residents who
said in real time today actually they had an issue um and the the uh the neighborhood affairs division team was able to step in and Mr. Mr. Mayor, I mean, we are about soon to start 41st Street and that's going [snorts] to be another project that's going to have,
you know, that is going to require heavy amount of communication also with with the business, not just residents there, but also the businesses that are fronting that. Uh and I think we just you know I want us maybe we should look at other cities and see what is the
average that other cities are setting aside for communications in these in these capital projects because I am I feel pretty confident in that this is with this is within the norms of of how much is invested into this whether
whether it be at the county or or or at the city uh any city this is within the norm. You have over hund00 million capital project that is affecting people's commute and daily quality of life. 1% allocation to make sure that
they understand what's going on. It it's okay. It's normal. >> Yeah. No, thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. Let's call a vote. >> This is C7C to approve the item. Have motion by Commissioner Fernandez, second by Commissioner Dominguez. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed?
Have one from Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Magazine. Item is approved. >> That's C7C opposed. >> Well, C7 AR is voting no.
>> Well, he gave his he gave res I'm sorry. Bear C7 AR >> C7 AR is donate 2015 Ducson generator to Hutsa. So >> item
>> second it's a donation of a of a generator that is not being utilized by the city anymore in lie of auctioning it off. Its approximate value is 22,000. Uh the city would donate it to Tsulla, the volunteer ambulance service. They have 30
volunteers in Miami Beach, two uh two ambulances, 330 volunteers throughout the uh southern uh South Florida. If you've never seen them in action, they are an absolutely incredible organization, all volunteer,
uh at least from the people on the streets. Uh [snorts] so >> we have a motion. >> Yes, sir. I have motion by Commissioner Dominguez and I heard a motion from a second from Commissioner Fernandez. All in favor? >> I made the motion. >> You made it. I'm sorry. >> So Monica Mattel Selenas made the motion. Seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez. >> All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Hearing none. The item is approved. 70. That's C7 AR. >> C4N. C4N is a referral to public safety neighborhood quality of life committee
and the North Beach CRA uh possible soccer mural in North Beach. >> It's an addendum item C4N. >> I heard a motion from Commissioner Mattel Selenus and seconded from Commissioner Fernandez on C4N. All in
favor, please say I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none, the referrals are made under C4N. couple of other referrals um that I guess had either been pulled or were addendum items. Let's just do those. Uh C4M
C4M is an addendum item. Referral to land use uh require commission approval for removal of residential parking. C4M >> I second the move. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. C4M.
All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Will you make me co-sponsor to that, please? >> Okay. So, C4M is co-sponsored by Commissioner Mattel Selenas. Uh, all in favor of C4M, please say I.
>> I. Anyone opposed? C4M is referred. 70. Uh, another referral. R9F. R9F referral to public safety. Identify and rename Street after Dennis Russ. >> Second the item.
>> Yeah, I'd like to just move the item. >> Second. >> Moved by Commissioner Matt Selena, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. >> Yes, sir. R9F. Uh, all in favor of the referral on R9F, please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. R9F is
referred. 70. >> Two more referral items. R9H. R9H is a referral to FK, on-site mental health counselor for city staff. R9H, >> actually, I'd like to withdraw that item.
>> R9H is withdrawn. >> It's my favorite word. >> R9 I R I is a referral to public safety. Identify and rename street after Michael Tilson Thomas. R9 I >> who's
>> Commissioner Bots's item. She moves it. Commissioner Fernandez second. >> All in favor of the referral on R9 I please say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Hearing none. R9 I is referred. >> Let's do R5S. R5S is the north of the mayor city
commission of city by beach report amending the code of the city by beach or part B entitle bambi beach resiliency code chapter 7 entitled zoning districts and regulations article one entitled general to all zoning districts section 7.1.7 entitled color of exterior surface to extend the deadline for applicability of the regulations and providing for
codification repeatability and an effective date this is a first reading public hearing the item requires a 57th vote is R5S Yes, >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> I move the item uh since it's first reading, I'll give my presentation a second reading.
>> Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, I still have a concern about this. Um during the time that it's been open, um there was a business in Sunset Harbor that painted a hideous color and then the color
started peeling. And so, I do have concerns. I'm happy to make this go through for >> which which business was that? >> You can say it on the record. >> The Harbor um Harbor Club >> actually that that business was painted first and then it started peeling and
then they weren't able to go in and repaint because of the regulations that we had in place without having to go through a land use an extensive land use board process. and the residents were going to have to deal with the
deteriorated paint job uh while while while in this case a property went through the laborious uh land use. >> So that color was approved. I'll defer. I don't believe the color was approved, but changing changing it
would have required to go through through a difficult process through a land use process, a more ownorous land use process. And in the meantime, the property was left with the faded conditions which to your point was not appealing to the neighborhood. But I'll
defer to >> it wasn't even appealing when it was first uh painted. I mean, go ahead. >> So, I can give you a little bit of background. So, the property owner of that building did come to the planning department um maybe six months ago to request they they paint that dark pink
color. Um that exceeded our ability uh administratively to approve. So, we outlined the design review board process. It's a 3 to four month process. Um and the property owner obviously, you know, uh expressed concern about having to go through that whole process just
for a paint color. Now, you know, we try to work with people to say, "Well, if you lighten it up by, you know, a shade, we could have approved it administratively, but they were very um adamant about this deep pink." Um, and Commissioner Fernandez's ordinance that he sponsored would allow them to to
continue with that paint and paint the building that color um without getting an approval from the planning department. >> And, you know, my my concern is I saw the colors And [snorts] I could see how from a
planning perspective, if I'm the planning director, you might be able to tell the differentiation in the colors. from a lay man's perspective and by the way from a gay man's perspective [laughter] I couldn't see the difference in in the colors yet it would have been an you
know this hurdle and this hurdle in time hurdle in cost and you know the extra layers of bureaucracy that end up affecting our our businesses and and communities and even homeowners. Um but I get your point. I get your point. Um
uh I'm happy to move the item as it is for now. >> I'm happy to move it now and we and your presentation for second reading and the sensit is only through December 31st from what I read in the document. So >> thank you. >> Call the vote.
>> It is a public hearing. I I see two individuals requesting to speak. Uh first one is Tim Carr. Mr. Carr, are you here to speak on R5s? Mr. Carr, please unmute yourself. >> Maybe in the West Avenue item. >> Yes. Let's go then to Sarah de los
Reyes, please. >> Hi, good afternoon everybody. Um I do have some input about this. I when originally they painted the the building, I did call the owner the owner of the property and I said that paint is going to fade very fast. He said Sarah
this is none of your business. you have nothing to say about it. And I said, "Well, I'm just letting you know it is going to fade." And I and and it happened. So I I you know, I warned them. I didn't make a big deal about it because what am I going to do? They decided to do that. They said that the city recommended that color. That's what
he said. >> And that's my conversation with owner about that. >> Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else in the audience requesting to speak. No one else in Zoom. I have a motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Dominguez. May I call the RO?
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Magazine? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bot? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Mattel Selenas? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Suarez? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Dominguez? >> Yes. >> Mayor Miner? >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. Second reading. Public hearing schedule for October 14th. >> R5T. R5T is an orice of mayor city commission of city of Miami Beach Florida amending chapter 46 of Miami Beach city code entitled environment by amending article 5 entitled turtle nesting protection
ordinance by amending section 46-203 entitled prohibited activities disruptive to marine turtles by amending section 46-203 C relates special events to establish rules for special events held between April 1st and April 30th and May 1st and October 31st including
lighting prohibition time limitations and penalties providing for repealer servability and effective date. This is a second reading public hearing. It is item R5T. >> Commissioner Suarez and co-sponsored by Commissioner Fernandez.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh this is the second reading. I was just advised by the city attorney to make a small amendment to the deposit. If you can clarify, please. >> Sure. Um the the ordinance requires a deposit of $50,000 as part of the
process. We want to make clear that this is in addition to any other security deposit that may already be required by tourism and culture. >> Okay. So I have a I would like uh just to propose this applies also during the 4th of
July. Um, yes, it would it would apply to any event between um May 1st and October 31st. >> That's the one day I would like to make an exception. Uh, if I if we could just I would I would like to propose for that
one day we could have uh an amendment to to the ordinance. >> I'm okay with that. That'll be reasonable. >> And I'll also say we have a event that's become a flagship event of our uh season here in Miami Beach. and actually occurs
not deep into this season. It would only be a week or two um outside of that. So wondering if you'd be amendable to that, whether it be just grandfathering it in or extending back to let's call it May 15th. >> So good through the mayor.
>> Commissioner Bot. >> So let me get this straight. We're trying to protect turtles, right? That's what this whole thing is about. >> Yeah. Nesting season. >> Nesting season. And so but we're going to carve out these days or weeks. And what happens if there are turtlene will there not be any protections like how
will that work? >> So what would happen is we would still require um the the event producer would need to go to the state. They would need to get um permits and approvals. They would have to have sea turtle friendly lighting as much as possible during the event. Um so that would all still stay.
>> So what is it exactly we're making an exception so to have happen? Well, I think what the commissioner is asking is the the ordinance is basically saying after 900 p.m. we will not have special events on the beach from May 1st
through October 31st. I think the commissioner is asking to allow the the July 4th event. >> Yeah. The fourth the fourth, >> but it will still have the safeguards from the state. >> Yes, they would require sea turtle friendly lighting. So, it's a state requirements as well as the requirements
from our own ordinance which require >> and any sea turtle nests are already roped off and people take care to not set up tents or blankets or whatever near there. >> Yes, Commissioner. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And then Commissioner Magazine the
May 15th. >> Yeah, the May 15th it's uh the F1 Corbone Beach event that's been a flagship of our city for the past five or six years. Um it's I think done wonders for our city. Uh the type of caliber and attention that has attracted
seemingly they've done so without any issue for the past five or six years it's already operating. So leave it up to you whether you'd consider either grandfathering it in or I think it's usually done that F1 weekend which is the first weekend in May. Um, so perhaps
starting May 15th or if you didn't want the ambiguity of what date it might be or moving it up for other dates, just grandfather in that event that already exists and is operated without any issue and always goes through uh the state process. >> But correct me if I'm wrong,
they would still not would they still be required after would they still be able to operate an event after 9:00 on the beach? um under the the amendment they would not um only would be able to until April 30 30th essentially. So they would need
to be able to have I believe they operate until May 8th or so. That's what it was this year. They would need an exemption because it would be an event on the beach after 9:00 p.m. >> When does sea turtle season, for the record, when does sea turtle season
officially start? Not what we define, but the state. The states begins May 1st. Ours begins April 1st. >> So ours begins after our >> ours begins before the state and that's because we our nesting season starts
earlier than the rest of the state of Florida. But the [sighs] the bulk of our nesting does begin in in May. We did have some nest in April this year, but the bulk starts in in May. Commissioner Oh, I'm thinking I'd like to hear from my colleagues.
>> Commissioner Mateo Selenus. >> So, we've we've always we've I I'm pretty sure for the last several years, we've had both a July 4th activation and the Carbone Beach event. Has any of those events harmed the sea turtles that
we've had historically the past 5 10 years or whatever we've had events? I mean, they're already [snorts] happening. So, >> well, that would be hard to say. Um, you know, we have, um, mother sea turtles that come up to nest and they get spooked and they get disoriented and
they won't nest. They'll go back out to the ocean. Um, it could cause when there are hatchlings, they are directed towards any artificial light, the brightest light that's available. So, they get disoriented and they may not make it into the ocean. Um, another condition I can think of is just not
having the space available to nest. um as we take out up the beachfront just actually that square footage it restricts their ability to nest um we would have to ask >> but this isn't harming them further because these events already happen these two suggested dates
>> yeah those are existing events now >> perhaps the if if I may um through through the vice mayor >> yes >> you know with the 4th of July that's a national holiday and obviously it's a big celebration as we experienced this
here. So to me that's kind of like in a category of of its own. However, I do believe we do have legacy events in our city to the extent that we want without picking and choosing
which ones grandfathering in the existing ones knowing knowing it's probably I I don't think there's a lot of them. um grandfathering in the existing ones
any new ones, you know, they can't um but but those legacy events that we have had for for for a long time. That way, as a matter of public policy, we're not selecting the winner and and and and the loser. But it's in general, you
know, if you have been here and usually, if we're permitting you to come back, you're usually probably a good event. If we're granting you this this permit, let's allow them to continue. Let's grandfather them um as so that we're
fair across the board. >> So, what was your point, Commissioner Fernandez? grandfather the existing ones >> during the entire period or during May >> during during during this period of
time. I just don't want us to be picking and choosing and I don't think there's a lot of of events during this period of time. Uh >> but this is why this ordinance is here, right? It's it's to protect um you know maybe tourism can shed some
light on how how many are we talking about >> for legacy I would say the biggest ones would be uh during F1 weekend if um Carbone is has been for about four or five years we also have the air and sea show depend on what they do this year
they included concerts that were on the west side but they still had to go through the process of providing lighting plan. If they don't do anything on the east side, then it wouldn't affect them really. >> So, I believe we >> I would say those are the biggest ones during this during May.
>> Yeah. The only thing is, you know, what's the point of making this ordinance if we're going to just wave it for everyone? It just kind of defeats the purpose, right? >> We're not waving for everyone. We're just waving it for, I guess, two maybe three events. >> 10 events >> and we're not going to add more >> which is also helpful.
>> What was that? Um, based on this year, we have 10 events after 900 p.m. um, throughout the the season. Last year, we had 12 events after 900 p.m. on the beachfront throughout the season. >> And we worked with uh with their team to
identify those 10 events, but if I don't know if you have the list there, but they weren't annuals or major events. >> I wasn't provided. My office asked for for the annual events >> so that I could understand this better. And I I wasn't told that we had 13
events. >> Yeah, I think it was very li I think the list that you asked for was last year. I would have to look back. >> But what you're saying, we essentially have one annual recurring event that's never had any issues. It predated all of
us. I I I don't I don't see it my role to come in here and say, "Oh, wow. This has been a great flagship event for our city that's high-profile." brought great press. Let's get rid of it. It's never had any issues. We are co-signing not to
have no events to accommodate the entire rest of the season. That's a huge win. I think that's a good place to land, but I'll defer to the sponsor on that. How many nests were recorded, Amy? I don't know if you know this, from May 1st
to end of May. Do you by any chance have that information? Well, I have last year's full season. I don't have it broken down by month, but it was 210 nests. That did include some relocations from the Bell Harbor Beach >> total. >> 210 total nests in last year's season.
225 2025 season. >> Okay. And we're at a record number this year or we're trending up. >> Yes, we are advised by the county. We have a high number of nests. >> Okay. Look, I'm I'm not trying to I'm not trying to really impede on on some
of some of the events that have have brought but there if for example F1 week incorporate they still have to have a lighting plan where they cannot have bright lights. >> Yes. Yes. Commissioner, they would have to have a lighting plan and meet our
ordinance as well as um FW. Well, how about how about we apply the the uh deposit fee to to anyone from during this time and other than July 4th because there's fireworks. Not much you
can do about that, but um for for Carbone Beach F1, they still have to submit a deposit and they have to adhere to the lighting plan. And it's not like, hey, one light bulb's on and they they they get charged $50,000. It's if you
can go through the instances of each individual uh violation. >> Um >> and again, this is just to this is just to hold them accountable, right? Because they can say, "Well, here's a lighting plan, but you know what? We're bringing
in this huge strobe light now, and sorry." So, we want to prevent that from happening. But I am also mindful of of of existing events. But those existing events still need to submit a lighting plan and if they violate that lighting plan
and there should be a penalty for that. >> Is is that okay? Is that amunable to you commissioner? >> Yeah. So the lighting plan is one we've come up with or the one that they always have to go through it through the state because it's during this season. So, the state really requires that
they're meeting all sorts of um state rules and they're basically saying, you know, all light has to be sea turtle friendly and it can't be visible from the beach and that is very difficult. So, we as a city require a lighting plan to have them prove to us that they are doing everything they can to have the
lights be low um you know the right the right color low to the ground shielded from from the ocean. It is very difficult to have an event that meets all those requirements. We do the absolute best we can. So, can can we have a deposit where if
any violations occur per our lighting plan that there's going to be it's going to be withheld with against their deposit? >> I think if the commission is comfortable with that and and the city attorney says that is uh enforceable,
>> Mr. City Attorney, >> we can I mean, we can treat them the same as we would any other event, you know, with a $50,000 deposit. Great. They would just be allowed to go past. >> They would just be allowed to to to operate. >> That's what you'd like to do. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, so that's how I to to to
um meet halfway with some of my colleagues. Let's do that. Let's let's just When is Carbone Beach happen? >> Wait, I mean it happens the first week in May. >> It's the first week or second week? >> It's the first week. >> So, let's say May 15th. Okay. It's given
um well no it it would be May 1st to but we can allow legacy >> legacy >> there's 12 legacy events >> no there's we're saying one annual recurring that that's yeah good >> and I don't for the record I went back
commissioner Fernandez to look at the list that I that I provided and it was the Arenc show sports Illustrated which is on the Collins Park beachfront uh world ocean celebration our fourth of July I and uh mind travel live to headphones. The only I did I did include
the times and not all of them go beyond 9 so it wouldn't affect them all. So really it would be um the air and sea show the swimsuit event if they go past 9 and what we've been doing this year. >> What month was the swimsuit event? >> I'm sorry. >> What month was swimsuit?
>> That was uh in May. May 30th. >> Isn't that at a private venue? >> They do various events. they've done at the W. Pariso is on on on the west side. This one was specifically uh Sports Illustrated was on the beachfront, but
again, this was 2025. >> Call the vote. [clears throat] So, >> just I want to make sure we're very clear with our words. So >> try [snorts] >> let's do >> well commissioner I mean legacy events
or a date. >> Yeah. I think if if I may, I think the legacy events I I just don't want us to say we're making an exception for one event and not for others because what
you may value is might not be what I you know may [snorts] value and you know so I just rather you know if an event has been long-standing in our community I I rather make a way to embrace them and then slowly as they go off well then
they they don't come back. nothing new. Let >> me um >> for this I mean because I don't want to >> turtle season. Yeah. >> Well, it is but >> it's we don't we have plenty of time and
then let maybe we get clarification on what we define as a legacy event. I don't want to I'm I'm not trying to push you guys to vote on something that even I'm not really comfortable with. So let me let me just defer this to September and then thank you for calling the >> appreciate that. Last item of the day,
R5 AE. R5 A R5 AE is an ordinance of the mayor, city commission, city of Miami, amending chapter 94 of the city code entitled special assessment by creating article 4 entitled special assessment districts by creating division one entitled Allison Island special taxing district to restate and incorporate into the city
code the Allison Island special taxing district originally created pursuant to Miami date county ordinance number 89-125 for the construction and maintenance of a guard house and gates as well as security services on Allison Island in it and to amend the purpose of the district to include landscaping improvement ments and maintenance in the
right of way and provided for repealer qualification servability and an effective date. This is a first reading public hearing. We're talk this is item R5 AE. >> I'll move it. >> Second. >> Call the vote. >> Sorry. I heard a motion from
Commissioner Matelinas and seconded from Commissioner Suarez. It is a public hearing. I see no one on Zoom. No one in the audience requesting to speak. Commissioner Suarez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bot. >> Yes. Commissioner Matelenzas. >> Yes.
>> Vice Mayor Dominguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Magazine. >> Yes. >> Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Mayor Miner. >> Yes. >> Second meeting public hearing is scheduled for September 10th. The item
was approved. 70. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Excellent meeting. >> Yeah. Ex excellent meeting everyone. Thank you so much to my colleagues, to our residents. Absolutely. We >> don't have any meetings in August, but we're obviously very available to our
residents if any issues come up, but and we'll see you officially in September. >> God bless.