Hey D. Jack. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Data. Hey, Hey, hey,
hey. Hey, hey, hey. Woo! Welcome to the City of Miami Beach Commission chambers. We're glad to have you with us today. If you require ADA assistance or accommodations, please notify the city
clerk or any staff member and we will be happy to assist you. As a courtesy to everyone present, please silence all cell phones and electronic devices at this time. Lobbyist disclosure reminder. If you are a lobbyist appearing before the city
commission or any city board, you must have registered with the city clerk prior to participating. If you have not yet registered, please do so immediately. Presentation reminder. If you submitted a presentation within the 24 hours prior to the start of today's meeting, please
check the computer located at the podium to ensure your file is properly loaded. When the floor opens for public comment, please step up to the podium. Speak clearly into the microphone and begin by stating your name and address for the record.
How to participate in public meetings via Zoom. Once you have joined the Zoom meeting, go to the bottom panel and click on the raise hand icon to notify the meeting host that you would like to speak. As soon as the host grants you permission to speak, a dialogue box will
pop up on your screen with two options. Select the unmute button to begin speaking. After you finish speaking, mute your microphone and click on the lower hand icon. If you are joining Zoom via phone, tap the keypad icon and press star 9 to
notify the meeting host that you have raised your hand to speak. A voice operator will prompt you to unmute your microphone by pressing star 6. Once unmuted, you may begin speaking. After you finish sharing your comments, be sure to press star 9 to lower your
hand and star six to mute yourself. We kindly ask everyone to conduct themselves in a respectful and professional manner throughout today's meeting. Thank you for your cooperation and thank you for participating in your local government here in the city of
Miami Beach. Heat. Heat. Make it make like you me. Hey How do you feel? Hey everybody.
One world. Happy. Hey. Hey. Down. Hey. Hey. Feel well feel well.
feel. Hey Hallelujah. Are you high? Heat. Heat. N. 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. Welcome everybody. Welcome, welcome everyone to the October
15, 2025 finance economic resiliency committee meeting. Um, appreciate everybody's time. Mr. CFO, will this be the last, uh, meeting under this yes format? Well, I thank my colleagues,
uh, our staff for the last two years. It's crazy to sit here and say, "Wow, we're coming to the end of two years." Um, but time flies for better or for worse. Uh, I I think the finance and the budget is uh been put front and center
in a welldeserved way, more than it's ever been. Uh, going forward, if it's my pleasure again to serve as chair or even as a committee member, I do want to uh really continue our focus on our overall spending, not just uh have that wait for
budget season. Um, I think historically this committee has just looked at our new spending items and uh evaluated that, but uh I have an item working its way through that hopefully will take effect uh at the FUR committee
where this will essentially also be used as a form and a platform where we review our existing expenses uh because that's how you get to a billion dollar budget where you're just examining the new items but we don't do any sanity check for the items that have already built up. So, I thank my colleagues uh for our
time serving and why don't I kick it over to you, Mr. CFO and Mr. City Attorney to get started. Sure. Good morning. Uh today's meeting of the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee has been scheduled in a hybrid format with a quorum of the committee physically present and remaining
members, staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. In order to participate in today's meeting virtually, members of the public may dial 1888-475-4499 and either enter and enter the webinar
ID which is 8636059-5462 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which once again is 8636059-5462. Any individual wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon if they are using the Zoom app or dial
star9 if participating by phone. Uh thank you. We have a a couple of announcements. Uh MB20 is deter uh deferred. Uh OB 15 and OB16 are linked. OB12 and 3 are linked deferred and OB5
and MB1 are linked deferred. And we have three time certain uh 10 10:30 uh a.m. time certain OB 15 and 16 10:45 OB19 11:00 a.m. MB23. That's all. Okay. Why don't we get a quick one uh
just to get started on a easy foot out of the way. Uh OB1 and then we'll go to uh OB 15 and 16. OB1. Yeah. Uh OB1 uh discuss the placement of additional or improved wayinding that
could direct guests, customers, residents for the Y Beach Convention Center to Lincoln Road Mall. OB1, John, how are you? Welcome. Good. Thank you. Please. Good morning. So, we've reviewed this request. Um, we've looked at all kinds
of different ideas. We do have existing wayfinding signs within the city. We are recommending that we redo those wayfinding signs, modernize them. We would also like to work with a bid to incorporate a monument type sign like
you had originally proposed. We do think we will need a designer for that sign. A monument sign will require structural design for building permits and we'll have to identify a location. We do believe between the convention center and the new hotel in that area might be
the ideal location for people leaving the convention center to get to Lincoln Road. In addition, we recommend utilizing sidewalks to put pavement markings to direct people to Lincoln Road. And and you know, part of this uh John
wasn't Yes. Uh we do need to bring awareness to Lincoln Road, but it was also trying to incorporate some sort of art. Uh have it more of a festive atmosphere. You know, do we need sidewalk markings to say Lincoln Road is that way?
Probably not. But I do think that we could have some sort of iconic uh art piecefinder when I think it was one of the first conversations we had. uh you know, maybe my direction wasn't clear at the time, and I appreciate you modifying it, where it was just like, okay, we have these blue wayfinder signs. I want something
where when you walk out of the convention center, you go, "Wow, I'm not in Detroit anymore, Chicago, wherever I came from. This is unique. This is Miami Beach. Uh this area uh in a few years will uh command that, right? We're
developing the convention center hotel. We have a P3 on the Lincoln Road rooftop that's happening. Um I I just want to this area to truly be worldclass and I think you know great kind of uh wayfinding art sign uh helps that. Do we have any kind of design ideas or
thoughts? Thank I'm sorry to um jump in here but um Lette could you come up please because there's actually a parallel initiative that has been in the works for the last year and a half um that is very aligned with this that is a an artistic
wayfinding um device tool piece of installation whatever you want to call it to do that very same thing. Um, and I I Lisette, could you just update us on where that is because I think we should probably link these items so that we're not
duplicating efforts. Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning. Lar Roante, director of tourism and culture. Uh, good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members. Yes, uh, Commissioner B is correct. She um had an item from last year, I would say, about artistic wayfinding. I did share that with my
colleagues in public works. We worked with Moonlighter Fab Lab. They gave us two proposals and there was a cost attached to that. We're happy to share that with you and get your thoughts and if you like the what they propose as far as an artistic wayfinding. Yeah. And you know uh as we become even
more budget conscious uh perhaps that's a great thing if there is a cost in the uh let's call it five figure range I would assume uh that we could get some sort of sponsorship for that. You know if we have an artistic wayfinding sign it could be brought to you by the Lincoln Road bid or by um
uh Nike uh whoever. Hotel Yeah. that hotel's being built. Yeah, something along those lines. So, is that something you're prepared to share with us today or do you want to follow up uh with that offline? We can follow up offline with your officer. Okay.
But so, how do we link these so that we're not h pursuing these in parallel and discordant paths. So, because it seems like a waste of everyone's time to be doing it in multiple ways. There there are some similarities, but there are also some differences. We're talking more about a monument sign and
well that's that's what we're talking about. I mean what we can do is we can come back next month and we can address that in the memo that we write to you and we'll share we'll schedule some time with both of your offices. Yeah. I don't want to get into semantics because I don't even know what they mean like monument versus artistic. I just
want something really cool. Right. Really cool that is like wow that's Miami Beach and this is the heart of our downtown area. I don't know how to label that. Um but do something cool. Okay. Okay. Thank you sir. Sure. Hi, commissioners. Good to be here and thank you also for your service on
finance. My name is Daniel Seraldo. I'm a candidate for commission group number one. And actually uh as of yesterday, my chances have suddenly gotten even better. And I had a conversation this morning with some of the higherups hoping that I'll be uh the next vice
chairman of this committee if the voters say yes. But back to today. as far as the signage of Lincoln Road, as I've knocked on doors, people have told me, "We don't know what's going on at the convention center." And so I'd like you to also include, you know, like the auto
show was happening and nobody knew. And so we need more kind of cross marketing and I know Tanya's got that background as well. So looking forward to what you all put together. Thank you. Yeah, I I agree with that. And uh as we get better events because of the convention center hotel uh we certainly
do have a lot that um I think are untapped resources for our community. Uh you know everybody knows our basel but we've really gotten some community focused events over there. Uh so okay uh Mr. CFO we're going to hear this next month. Yeah. Okay. So we'll show the item was
discussed and for uh to return with a more detailed plan. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, let's move on to OB 15 and 16. I do want to just lay some groundwork and parameters here. I don't want to prolong
this. Uh, I don't want to get into uh nasty back and forth. This is not going to dominate the entirety of our FIRK meeting. We have heard this uh at length for several meetings in the past. Let's talk about the things where we're moving
this forward. Um, as opposed to really rehashing everything that's already been said because I do want some brevity in this, right? I I don't want it to get in this nasty thing back and forth. I I can't control that, but I can't control how much time we all lot to this. So, to the extent where people think they're
going to go through long presentations, I just see that. I'm not calling you out. We're not going to do that. Uh, yeah. But I'm saying we're not going to go through very long presentations. Um, say your piece and let's move forward
with this. I'd like to wrap this up in 10 minutes if we can. Thank you, chair. So, let me call the item uh OB15, a discussion to consider proposed new management agreement between the city of Miami Beach and the Miami Design Preservation League Incorporated, MDPL, for the use of property located at one
101 Ocean Drive, the premises, for a term of 3 years with one mutual renewal option of up to three years and further to approve a six-month extension of the current agreement with MDPL and to direct staff to negotiate a new management agreement with MDPL for continued programming and operation of
the Miami Beach Oceanfront Auditorium waving by 57th vote the competitive bidding requirements is set forth in section 82-39 of the Miami Beach city code finding such waiver to be in the best interest of the city or if in the in the best interest of the city to issue a formal request proposals OB15
which we heard simultaneously with OB16 discuss conflict of interest ethical concerns re MDPL's multiple rules OB15 OB16 Aussie this turn you to focus first on OB15 where we at are we doing a six-month extension mention while we
kind of drill down on some of these conversations. Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ozie Dominguez, division director of asset management. At the last FK meeting, we had a discussion on this and FK recommended a uh supported a six-month extension of the current agreement to
allow us time to uh discuss with uh staff today if the recommendation is to proceed with a uh an RFP process through procurement or if to enter into negotiations with a renewal of the current agreement. Either way, since their current agreement expires in
December of this year, we need that extension so that we don't have a lapse in the agreement. Yeah. Okay. So, we have that extension in place. You don't need anything further. So, we do have a bit of breathing room as we decide what we want to do with that space. Are those two things possible to do simultaneously?
Yes. Would there be anybody here that would object to that? I mean, that seems like the uh the best way to move forward, right? So, we keep all options on the table. How do my colleagues feel about that? Okay. Six months. Well, not only six months, but we
already have that in place. Correct. This is essentially having staff negotiate with MDPL. And then also look at what a broader RFP would be. Uh so we're not tying our hands. If we come in and somebody goes, "Well, this is also a
community-minded uh uh endeavor and here's a $5 million rent." We should at least know that that option is on the table. not setting the expectation for that. But yeah, I'd like to clear up and I'll and I'll ask uh Mr. City Attorney I if we are in negotiations with MDPL to see
what the proposal would would end up with that um and we enter into an RFP then that would then exclude them from being able to participate in the RFP process. Correct. You're asking because I was going to weigh in. I think if the the direction is uh to do an RFP, it would be cleaner
to simply do an RFP and for MDPL to participate in that process. It's a little confusing to have a preferred vendor, if you will, and then an RFP for everybody else. So, that would be my recommendation. Commissioner, so I I'm a little bit concerned about
this because I um don't think this is a public space like any other potential public space. Um I don't have the figures in front of me, but I know um I just learned that in the summer months, these past summer months when the rest of um Ocean Drive and the Art Deco
District and and our restaurants were suffering that the Art Deco Museum actually had numbers that went up. And so we are trying to um illuminate to the state and to the world at large that art
deco is not to be touched that um it is uh you know a significant part of our brand. Part of that mission is is educating people about it. Um we use that space as a city for it's a government-owned space. So we use that space for um community meetings. We had
the micromobility town hall there. um Art Deco Neighborhood Association uses their that space, it will be once the the um uh the new um extension is built. It will be a revenue generating um space that can be rented out. Um it houses
exhibitions. We have 100 years of art deco going on right now. um not just in the galleria outside but this past weekend we had um from Mumbai to Miami which is a hundred years of art deco in those two wildly disperate yet analogous
cities and to treat this as just another space that can be used does a disservice to what we are trying to protect and build upon for our city in the greater scheme of things. So, I'm a little bit leerary about having an open RFP because, you
know, sure, somebody can say, "It's a great space. We'd like to um do something and we'll pay you $10 million a year there, but then what does that have to do with with art deco? What does that have to do with our cultural history? What does that have to do with character of place?" So, I'm very okay
with giving six months to work out the details. I would suggest perhaps a a a more um measured way to proceed is that if after those six months, which we've already given, there is not a meeting of the minds, then perhaps we can entertain
opening it up to an RFP. But I I I don't think you can do both at the same time because is there going to be another Miami Design Preservation League organization that's going to come in and take that space? There isn't. I mean, if Miami Heritage Trust Ca Data
Heritage Trust came and said, "We want to move our operations from wherever they are not on Miami Beach to here in Miami Beach and they are one of the the biders." I mean, that's not what we're looking for either. So, I I don't see how an RFP at this point is something
that is desired or useful. Well, Commissioner Schwarz. Yeah. I mean, I I really like MDPL to come up here and and kind of go over some of the questions I have in a in a second writer. Um, but I don't see a
problem with doing an RFP. I I think if MDPL or Heritage Trust comes in and says, "Hey, this is the best use of our uh of you your facility for your city along with any other uh bidder." I like having options and I don't
necessarily want to pigeon hole us into one particular vendor um for a space. So I I I like to have options. At the end of the day, we as a commission is going to decide that. And um you know,
like like the attorney said, it's going to be a little we don't want to signal to the biders that we have an idea of who we want. We really want to have the best case come forward. Uh similar to what happened at the at the Nikki Beach, you know, at the
end of the day, the commission before any of us got elected, they decided that they want the Buché brothers to operate it. But we had world class um interest even from you know, Restoration Hardware um and that really and and to a certain
extent that really leveled up the playing field um for for what was what was proposed. So, I I'm okay with an open RFP. Mr. City Attorney, let me ask you a question. Uh, is the commission instrumental in defining the parameters
for an RFP? And where I'm going with this is to Commissioners Bot's uh point, maybe that space, we don't say what we're trying to do is get as much money in there as possible. Maybe what is more important to us is having some sort of
um genulection to art deco because it's in the heart of our art deco cultural district. So if those are the things that the commission as a body deem are important for that space, are we essentially able to uh craft or help fine-tune what the parameters we'd be
looking for in an RFP are? Absolutely. the commission can provide direction to uh the procurement director and her staff well through the administration um as to specific parameters what the goals and objectives
are for the ultimate um manager or concessionaire you know an RFP could take on a variety of different forms and this property has been operated pursuant to a management agreement but you know that's not to say that something else uh may not come up that is more desirable
or favorable. But you all can absolutely give direction as to what you want. Uh the you know and you can give broad or you can be very specific. Yeah. And perhaps this is a question for you and for Azie. What is the norm that we do for other city assets? Right. And to
Commissioner Boss's point, this isn't just another city asset. Uh this is a great stakeholder that we've had that you know are integral to our city, but it's also probably one of our most valuable assets. you know, uh that's uh in the heart of Lumis Park. Um what do
we do for other instances where we have uh an existing city asset with an existing vendor? Do we typically just roll those leases at the end of a lease term? Um do we open up an RFP? What do we do? It varies from asset to asset. uh if
it's a retail vendor versus a a nonprofit or a service that the city really needs, um we will we will provide a recommendation of either going to RFP or opening it up for broker services or
to renew the existing agreement. So, it can vary depending on on the current use. This is a very unique asset. Um and as Commissioner Bot was mentioning, they do provide a very um unique service. uh catered to the art deco history of the
city. Uh I am not versed in any other organizations that that provide that but we will be able to determine that if there is an RFP um and MDPL will be able to participate in that as well. What are the very high level um lease
terms very simplistically what do we get per rent on an annual basis there right now? Um on MDPL we get uh utility reimbursements. Uh there's not a a a bait a triple net all utilities.
Correct. FPNL and water and sew. We don't get any type of rent. No. What would you dollar a year? Yeah. What would you assign the market value there? Uh there's a there's a couple of u
points to think about this current location and its current state. It doesn't have a parking lot. Um, so it makes it a little bit difficult to really attract um like a high-end restaurant. But if you know, if we were to do this for a high-end restaurant, uh anywhere between
$75 and $100 a square foot triple net, so the base rent plus any operating expenses. So tell me what that equates to on a yearly basis. Uh probably over a million, $2 million in in rent. So, um, there there are a
couple things here. Um, but hold on. The commission then I'll give you Excuse me. Thank you. There are a couple of things here. Um, is Maria Maria Hernandez, could I ask you a question? I know that the most
recent geo bond um there was an extension or there was an item that talked about the um the build for Art Deco Museum. I also want to ask um has anything ever been written about the
role of the the function the services provided by um the having the art deco museum in the heart of our art deco district. I mean let's just talk about it for a second. Let's talk about this common sense. I understand the the
appeal of a million dollars rent, right? I'm not an idiot. Um, I also think that if you have a historically significant art deco district and your museum that relates to it is in I don't
know on 41st Street, you completely undercut the value of having the um the museum there. You in effect kneecap the education. um you signal to those who are watching
with predatory eyes that we don't actually care about our um architectural history and we are doing things to um to actively demonstrate and undercut that and I think that um if we as a
commission don't protect our character of place um who will and so um I I I'd like to ask you about the geo bond item. And then I'd like to ask you both about um if this happens, if there's an RFP
now for this city-owned property, are we also going to be sending out RFPs for um the Bass Museum? Are we also going to be sending out um RFPs for the Colony Theater, for the um
Wolsonian? Uh, that one may be I'm not sure who owns that, but um for New World Symphony, for um the the Jewish History Museum. I mean, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? We either as a city value our arts and culture and historic
institutions that educate our residents and our visitors about who we are and what we are and who generate revenue by by causing offering something to people to come and enjoy which lend themselves to educating students in ways that just
pure reading, writing and arithmetic cannot do or we don't. So which is it going to be? Um so there are two geo bonds for if I recall
for um the MDPL building. We had one in the 2018 bond and we have one in the 2022 bond. In the 2018 bond if I recall and I don't know if is Ty Ty come here. Ty, you know, she's the geo bond
director and she's going to have more of the details because I'm just going off my memory. Um, the the 2018 bond was about renovating the space and creating a different area and expanding the footprint. What I
don't remember is what the 2022 bond said. Um, I think that was for more improvements. Um, good morning. um the 2022 bond was a supplementation. It was additional funds for that original geo bond project that
was allocated in 2018 bond because it wasn't enough funds. And so the the original project that was supplemented in the second geo bond is to do a rooftop access um to make it a more um beneficial uh a more um updated venue so
that there could be revenue driven and supplement and all these things. Um and just as a reminder, my recollection is that those two geo bonds in 2018 and in 22 passed in overwhelming majorities. It wasn't like it was a close vote. It was
75% or more. So, this is not something that the voters said, "Yeah, we're a little bit iffy about this." And there was ample time. Um, as I recall from the geo bond in 2018, there were cheretses and there were um resident input and people
put little dots on things that they wanted to see and and sort of poo pooed things that they didn't want to see. So what actually ended up getting put into the geo bonds were those projects that the the voters wanted to see effectuated and then the voters came out and said in
no uncertain terms we want to generate these projects by allowing the city to tax us an additional amount because we think it's that important. So, I want to make sure that everybody understands what's what's going on here. That we are
potentially talking about once again subverting the will of residents who have voted on something which I find very very troubling. It's a pattern that I've seen up here for a couple years. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Nobody is subduing the will of voters.
Oh, they are. Okay. Okay. So, but because voters because 9 million a year. I'm I'm sorry. You're either recognized or you're not. Yes, you're running for commission and you use this as a campaign, but that doesn't give you the right to sit here and sharpen from the audience. So, you have no more rights.
You have no more rights than anybody else. If you want to be heard, stand to the podium. As far as you have not told me any come to the podium or not. I will. Okay. I don't know. I'm sorry. I don't know why you think you have some special right time after time to sit here and
yell from the audience. Yeah, nobody's recognizing you. We're sitting up here having a discussion. So, we're sitting here having a discussion. I have never once never once in two years not taken public comment.
Oh, are you are you okay? Could I talk? No. No, actually. Okay. Not at the moment. Thank you. Okay. I've never once prohibited public comment. So for you to time and time again as people are discussing here, chirping in from the audience saying
what we're doing right, guess what? In two weeks, the voters are going to get to say whether you get to come up here and carry on these antics or not. Okay? So I will allow every single person to be recognized. Do so in a respectful manner. Okay? As we're sitting up here talking,
you don't yell in from out in the audience. your view, your opinion doesn't matter more than every single other person sitting here. And this happens time and time again. So, if you can give us a moment to discuss here, can can you please sit down? I have I'd like to
was I No, no, because this isn't worth the discussion. You know what? I'll see you later. I'll see you in a few weeks. Thank you. I'm sure. Um, miss uh Mr. Chair, thank you so much for clarifying that. Um, I I think we're
having a discussion, Commissioner Bot. No one's subverting the will of the voters. Okay. Um, times have changed since 2018. Okay. And and we're we our priorities now are different than the
priorities we had then. Not withstanding some of the issues that we've had with MDPL. We've had zero issues with the bass. We've had zero issues with the Colony Theater, but we have a serious ethical problem
with MDPL and how they were taking funds from developers in support of certain projects. So, it's really easy to say, well, look, uh, you know, they're a great organization and, you know, they
they do tours. But in reality, what I've the whole reason we're having this discussion is because we've we've seen a number of instances where lobbying activities, money being exchanged
supports certain projects. And I think that's crazy. I don't think we should be rewarding bad behavior in the slightest. They MDPL, in my opinion, should not have that space moving forward because of what they've done.
And and I have people who are resigning from MDPL telling me and I have a whole list of questions for them telling me that they don't have their act together. Okay? And I'm and I'm and I'd like to answer these questions. I'm more than
okay with having a six-month extension until we find out. But it certainly seems that you're very partial to this organization for whatever reason, and I'm not. And we're both elected officials. We're both elected by the same people.
I have a different viewpoint than you, and so does Commissioner Magazine. So, uh, without further ado, I would like, Mr. chair, if you can call the the the head of MDPL and really explain to us
what has changed since the last time we discussed this as far as lobbying activities, mission statements, and and anything else that that we discussed last time. Yeah. And Roger, while you're coming up
and I'll go in there, and I'm not of the view that you shouldn't be in there, right? I I think you're a wonderful organization. I do think that it's always wise to talk these things through, right? Um I get a bit cold
feet. It it could be the little sisters of the poor going in there. I'd still say, well, you know, million dollars. I'm not saying no, but maybe we should just have this discussion about what our options are. And perhaps the parameters of the RFP are really
fine-tuned to say what we would want in there. and that is an honor to art deco and that is a communal place and we just totally forgo revenue, right? Or maybe we sit there and say, well, you know what, we can have a community benefit
and we cannot have a community partner such as MDPL, but the financial terms have to look a bit better for us, right? And I think that that's where these options go. And you know, there's seven of us that are elected. I think that we should all for a city asset this
critical at least have a say of what that is right and a more robust discussion. Uh so this would have to get recommended to the full commission to engage in these talks one way or another. Correct. Correct.
So what regardless of where this conversation goes I almost want to bifrocate the two. I do think that this should move to the full commission for discussion about the lease. Let's lock in the six-month extension so we're not
constrained, you know, by anything uh by timing and put us back up against the wall and then move this to the full commission for a discussion. I don't want this on consent or anything like that. Um where we say what are we going to do for the renegotiation of this
lease? isn't going to be, you know, kind of a no bid and stick with the current vendor and we'll have our facilities team go out and uh negotiate with that sole organization or do we open it up to an RFP and then we all essentially have
uh say over what those terms are and maybe one person wants to see as much revenue as we can get in there because we need to fix our resiliency and flooding in other areas or maybe some other colleagues want to say help with revenue. We want our best community
partner that focuses on uh art deco and preservation in there. I think those are robust discussions that the entire commission is going to want to have. So, my thought is we're actually going to probably rehash this when it goes to commission. So, what I'll do, I'll make
a motion um that we actually just refer an open-ended conversation to the full commission about what we're going to do with the renewal of this lease and then we'll bifurcate that and and get to uh the other MDPL items. Is that something you're amendable to?
I I would suggest somebody else should make the motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion. Okay. So, if I if I correct it, I think the motion is then to refer the item back to commission with no recommendation because there's not favorable. also a list of the return to commission with no regation for further discussion. For further discussion
for an RF for an open RFP which is for discuss the item the item has either or on the table. Yeah, under the discussion item. Yes, of course. It would be probably a discussion take action. Yeah, discussion take action with the full commission. Okay, perfect. And then let's have MDPL up for
this discussion here. If if you want to do you want to close that motion out? Uh if so we need a uh we have a second on it and then all in favor I I unless opposed. Yeah. No. Okay. We'll show and be clear uh just as we're
bifurcating these Roger please come up. Just as we're bifurcating these two discussion items, the actions uh and behavior of the previous director in the past and at this meeting here have no reflection on me for the new direction
that this organization is taking under your bold uh leadership. Uh I thought that was inappropriate. I in no way I totally attach that to you. And I think it's unfair to your organization that he still tries to kind of uh
you know play both sides where he hangs on uh under the guise of MDPL and you know kind of reflects through antics like that on your organization. I want to let you know that has no impact on me. I have totally separated the the two.
Thank you. We I just want to say um Oh, this is Janette. My name's Janette Dorfman. I'm one of the um the Miami Design Preservation League board members and on behalf of the um our organization, uh David Suarez, you are owed an apology. Um um
Commissioner Magazine and Tanya Bot, we do not conduct business that way. Um that that person is no longer a part of our organization. Uh we have changed our bylaws to address your concerns with a look back of three years. Uh we have um
proided all these provisions to protect and you asked the right questions, David Suarez. Those questions needed to be asked. I'm a newer board member. We've addressed those um concerns. We are ready to speak with you if you have follow-up questions for us. We're, you know, we want transparency. We want a
continued partnership. We've been a partner with this work, you know, with the city for 50 years. I think we're going to be featured on Good Morning America like next week. Uh New York magazine is doing a feature on us. If you look at 36 hours a New York Times like things to do, our organization is named.
Um we have uh our yearly uh New York um sorry our uh art deco weekend is visited by like 300 300,000 people uh yearly. It's your longest running cultural you know uh program. Uh it's I have a PowerPoint. I don't know if it um Oh,
it's here. I'm going to stop talking. Please accept my apology. Uh we've done a international search for a new um executive director. You are going to cry when you see the um with joy with the leadership that we have. Obviously obviously you know it's you know we want
to make sure that we have a continued partnership with you and whatever you've seen of the past I I apologize that's not us. Um you're it's important to ask questions. Um we're here to address them to the best of our abilities. again. We'll follow up with any, you know, responses that you need. I'm going to
click, I guess, um, go with this. And let me see. How do I get this going? Oh. Uh, oh, we're going back. There is there a tuck there? I think it's it's not being Hold on. How do we go back? Uhuh.
Is there a tech help here? You just You just let PJ know in the booth. PJ, if we can we can we restart it with sound. Here you're just going to go up and down there. There's no sound on this presentation. Oh, there's no sound. No, there's no sound. It was not submitted with sound. It's a PDF.
Okay. Okay. So, u my name is Janette Dorfman and I have the honor of serving on the MDPL board and I'm proud to give this brief presentation about our community. For over 50 years, we've been the city's foremost champion of preservation. As educators, advocates, and steward of the world famous art deco district. Through
our tours, exhibitions, and archives, and cultural programs, we celebrate what makes Miami Beach unique, ensuring that our city's historic character continues to inspire for and thrive for generations to come. And it's not clicking. There you go.
Okay, I think it's skipping on me now. So, as I mentioned, we have about 7,000 people that annually take our our tours. uh these people become, you know, brand ambassadors of the city of Miami Beach and every tour connects tourism with education and every participant becomes
an ambassador of his cultural identity. And Janette, that's 7,000 per the whole year. Yeah. For 2024. So that's just our organization, but you have to remember that there's many other like, you know, people that are not um if you walk around, you'll see other tour guides from like other
organizations, but we're Yeah. 7,000 per year just taking just do the doing the tours with with our association which is our one of our sources of income and we had about 150,000 people walk through our doors um last year and the number
continues to grow. Our documents are also we have an archive that is viewed and accessible you know through our it's been digitized all over the world. People access them. They learn from these archives. Um they learn you know skills that allow them to
uh learn how to build upon what we've you know done in order you know we have been preserving art deco history and keeping it alive and other communities that want to keep their art deco history alive such as Mumbai that was just here for this past weekend. Um we had a three-day festival. Um they, you know,
take what those skills and they utilize them to advocate for their own communities like what's happening at the state of Florida, you know, with um other smaller organizations. You know, they take they learn from us and that those skills are there and they're useful and they're um educating the
future, you know, preservationists. Um our lectures, we've had over 50 lectures since 2020. These are free and open to the public. Uh they spark dialogue. They encourage responsible preservation and they make design accessible to everyone.
Art Deco weekend's almost here. Hope you guys are getting ready. Get your costumes. Um, it's 49th year. We have Halloween yet. So, well, we'll buy something art deco and you can recycle it. I have the school. Um, we have many many activities. Um,
these are just a few. And here's your uh where's Waldo moment if you want and you can see if you can spot me in the picture. Uh we celebrated with uh art deco uh history with Mumbai. So you know people from Mumbai came over in Bombay. Uh it was a three-day
celebration. Uh that link below is I don't know if you can see it. There's supposed to be a link below. Um we were featured in India magazines and India newspapers. Um so international recognition. So, that's pretty cool. And, uh, as as
mentioned, we're a community space. And the community space, you know, other organizations such as the Ocean Drive Improvement Community, you know, the Miami Beach Marine Park, uh, numerous organizations, uh, city city public organizations, PL, they come and they
meet and they use our space. It's a space that belongs to everyone. Wrapping it up, uh, the center is more than just a building. It's a civic heartbeat. We preserve and promote Miami Beach's story, support local artists, and drive year-round engagement that benefits residents and businesses alike.
Our presence keeps Ocean Drive vibrant, welcoming, and culturally alive. We're an outdoor living museum, and we drive that, you know, education. People come and they learn about our outdoor museum. It's pretty it's pretty impressive, I think. And lastly,
I think there's no last one, but okay. I just want to thank you um thank you for your questions, your service to um this finance committee. Hopefully I look forward to the commission voting um with the 57th to approve us so that we don't have to send this to the I think it's called RFP or whatever.
Yeah. Yeah. And listen, we could have sat here and had an hourlong discussion and we would have had another twohour long discussion. We want to be respectful of your time and just let you know that we're here and we're a different organization and I apologize for again any out.
You don't have to because that person has no association. Yeah. No, but even you did I mean I feel bad that you felt attacked and and that that you associated that with our organization and we were equally horrified and and that's not us. Look, you know, we have a 50-year partnership with the city. We want to continue that partnership. You know, we
want to make you happy. We want to make the citizens happy. And um we're doing, you know, we're taking active steps. I hope I can answer all of your questions, but I want to continue this relationship. I think it's a beautiful, you know, relationship. It gets international recognition. Look look for us in Good Morning America on the 20th.
And um congratulations. Truly. I mean we it's it's a wonderful thing you know to be featured like in the New York Times to be featured in the New York magazine to be uh you know we have an endless collection of recognition that you know brings worldwide uh attention to our
thing and I believe that we bring in the tax dollars second to the mouse we call it you know people come to take you know see those iconic buildings to take that iconic walk and and we we as our as activists we don't supplant what happens at HPB or the design preview board we
just supplement with our opinion and that's it. You know, we're just a voice and and the voice has no political objective. We're a nonprofit and any mixture or any thoughts that you think that need to be addressed for us to separate and create transparency and
that brings you comfort that allows our partnership to continue, we're here for that. Thank you. Thank you. And that's it. Thank you. Okay. Hand it over to Roger. He can answer all your questions. Before I answer your your questions, I just want to tell you I was rejected at least twice to be on the board. How'd you like to try?
And and the reason being they asked me what would you do better or different and they told them and I got rejected. Uh so now we have the opportunity to make all the difference and changes. We've been working very closely with
Azie and his office uh with with some of the bylaw changes that we've made. We hired a we're very happy a new executive director uh who hopefully will start November 15th uh excellent credentials
negotiating. You can't keep teasing these things and just you know leave us high and dry. Ah no. So I mean until until listen until the contract is signed and we've notified the other um applicants I think we can't really say anything. Yeah. I mean we just No, I get it.
So and I I think so I'll just give you a tidbit. I was, I think, rejected because in my former um role as the um president of the um Miami Beach Garden Conservancy, I was seen as a disruptor because we ended up changing the executive director so they wouldn't take me. And I go, "Oh, I'm not a disruptor."
And meanwhile, we have a new executive director and we're tightening up, you know, the screws and that's it. We'll make you proud. We're going to to be continued with the fabulous, fabulous news that we have for you. Incred. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we don't see ourselves as a political office.
Actually, it says welcome center. I would say half the people come in are just asking Miami Beach questions like how do I get here, which I see. Uh, and we answer them all. We have the pamphlets. So, uh, I think it's
Go ahead. Sorry. We I you know, I think Commissioner Magazine said we want to limit this to 10 minutes. It's now probably been 30. All right. Um, I think that this discussion of what you're willing to change, how we got there really should go to the full
commission. Okay. And so, like I would like to move uh I guess the other item that was called to the full commission as far as a discussion as well. That's fine. I'll make that motion. So, we're going to send um maybe the city attorney. Do uh can the all the
discussion happen on the prior one? this item could be closed and it all be there or is it makes sense to have because it's two items same discussion. Would it be you proposing a motion to move this discussion the the the lobbying activity um item that that can't that keeps
coming back before us? I'd like to move that to the full move that to the commission. Okay. So you can move to uh have a discuss take action item the way that we're doing. Okay. And then and then you guys can be more than happy to present answer the questions that I have and
others might have and um and then we can that way I have all of my colleagues there at the same time. Do you want to submit those questions beforehand? So just we can like answer them my questions but just so that it's like really quick and easy and we don't spend 30 minutes like you said.
Well look if if you guys are looking for a 10-year extension I think it's good to have a robust discussion. I'm not looking for it quick and easy. Okay. Okay. So, and that way I won't be in charge of the time, so I don't mind as much. Okay. Can I can I just do since I was kicked off the stage last time, can I at
least have a minute, please? Okay. Uh we we are a different organization now. Totally. Uh has the membership changed? You dress a lot better. I'll tell you that.
I put on time because I have respect for all of you. I really do. I mean, well, I was just saying you said that organizations changed. What has the composition of the membership of the board changed? Oh, yes. Yes, actually. And uh I've actually been talking to people in the
city about maybe we should have a member on a board who works for the city, representing the city as well. And I believe we have three new members that are coming on. We have three new members who haven't been told yet that there are new me uh new members of the board. And uh we
we're still short some members. Uh so we we want to expand the uh viewpoints and the tenurs the tenorship of like the board every everything the stuff that I think we could we could discuss that at the commission. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What what I appreciate is you have
enough self-awareness to know that these changes were needed. But sometimes people need to ask the right questions and I believe the questions were asked and we did. You know what that does is like it helps us level up and become the you know we want to be a partnership that you know that you know you guys are are proud of and if there's questions that need
listen I can I can certainly I can certainly give you one question. How do you prevent what happened with the last uh executive director very but we're going to have that at the for you know I mean that's that's obviously a question I'm going to have but I mean he's he's an ex ex person.
So, I mean, the fact he's an ex uh member of the organization for I think for like five, six months now, but the fact that we kept them every time we kept getting dragged in, we're like, "Oh my god, we're horrified." We don't want that. You know, we don't we don't air our public laundry that way. We don't attack public officials. Would you say that he's been detrimental
to your organization? I I wouldn't say that. I mean, I it would be there's so much that he's done and it's it's been commendable, but we're it's unfortunate that that something like this happens right before we go up, you know? I mean that that just you know it's it's it's so and it's too hard to
separate ourselves when it just happened like 30 seconds ago. You know hopefully you saw our ability to do just that. So uh I appreciate you know the changes that uh you're doing not just for your organization but as a community partner then for the city. So let's move
this to the full commission. Uh is that a motion on the table commissioner? Yes. And I'll second the uh discuss take action lobbing. Yeah. move OB16 to the full commission for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you so much. Onwards and upwards. Okay.
Thank Thank you all very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Just the vote on that. All in favor? I. Any opposed? No. We'll show the item pass three nothing. I I know we have time certain the trolley next and then the review of impact fees. not minimizing uh the
trolley, but uh the impact fees have been so front and center and you know, especially as we're here during campaign season, I I don't mean to sit here and correct the record on every single thing that's uh put out there in the public realm, but so many people have sat there
and said, "Well, you know, you need to adjust the impact fees." Well, we're doing actually just that. Um and it was actually discovered in this very committee that we hadn't adjusted the impact fees for what is it 20 or 30 years. So yeah. So why don't we uh go to
NB23 and then we will follow that with OB19. Uh but Mr. CFO why don't you tee this up? Sure. Uh MB23 MB23 systematic review of impact fees. uh
MB23 and the budget team I believe is right outside will be coming in to handle this item. Good morning, Tama Stewart, budget director. And we have a brief presentation that we'll share. Hopefully, this will be smooth.
So, I'm going to hand over to Richard Ajami, who is the assistant budget director, and I'll be here for any additional questions. Good morning everybody. Uh Richard Anime, assistant budget director. Uh so the presentation before you uh is pretty
much summarizing an analysis that we did uh based on a referral from the March 19th commission meeting to conduct pretty much a comprehensive review of the city's uh impact fees as well as any other fees that are sometimes referred to as impact fees.
Uh pretty much the focus of the presentation is going to be two parts. I'm going to go into a little bit of details on each of the fees and then to kind of wrap it up, we're going to give you all some recommendations on adjustments uh that the administration
is making. So before and before I'd have this hanging over my head. Uh I know SB 180 is being challenged in court and I'm optimistic about that, but it just hangs over every decision that
we make like a thick smog. Is this in any way circumvented by SB80? Well, I have to wait to hear what the recommendations are, but um there is other legislation that relates to impact fees and what municipalities can and
cannot do. I don't believe that those would necessarily be impacted by ASP 180, but let's wait to see what uh these guys have in mind. And I do believe that there's some other municipalities kind of uh grappling with the same thing. Yeah. So before I go into the details, uh we
just want to give kind of high a highle view of the revenues that we have collected over the last couple of years um from these different fees. Uh which as you guys can see from the table, we've broken out into two separate categories, impact fees and what we
refer to as other fees in this case. So you've got mobility, water and sewer as well as sanitation in one category and in the other you have your fee and loo parks concurrency and sustainability fees. As you can see since 2021 uh the
revenues have I want to say fluctuated um but on a positive note. So well if if this is a one-time fee that means it's tied to new construction. So Tama, how we see that new construction chart in our budget? I would expect to
see very tight correlation with this. Would that be correct? For the most part, yes. Uh with the exception of I'd probably say the sanitation fee just because there is a monthly component associated with it as well as the fee and loo which we'll go a little bit more in detail on.
Okay. So the main thing or the main takeaway from here is just making the distinction between what is really an impact fee and what's not. And I think the main takeaway here is that uh impact fees, you can't mitigate them. So for example, if there's something in the code that
you can mitigate, um you don't necessarily have to pay for the fee. Um that's pretty much what we're going off of here, which is why we've broken them out into these two categories. Uh so I'll jump into the impact fees. Uh
first one being mobility fees. Uh these fees were established back in 2019. You know what? Uh I learned this from my friend and colleague Commissioner Fernandez. I apologize, Commissioner Bot. This is your item. I didn't allow you to properly introduce. Um if there's
anything you want to say kind of postmortem, uh feel free. If not, I'll let them go. But uh I know you were you worked hard discovering this. If there's any uh thing you want to say to tee this up. Sorry for the interruption, but at that just reflected on me.
No, no worries. Um I I not much to say other than you know it's it was shocking when we discovered that for 30 years um impact fees had not been increased. Uh the first step was tying future impact fee increases to the CPI which has already been done. And this has been a
long time coming. So, we're very excited to see um what we're going to do. Um and I for the record because um things get distorted. Um there is a um state representative claiming that that he has been behind this and I will say
unequivocally as my colleagues can attest because we were all here on the day when we had the original conversation that he is not behind this and um and that we are and so I'm pretty excited to see what you got for us. So, take it away again. One of these times I'll let you get through. Sure. Let's see if this is it.
All right. You got it. Uh so the first one is the mobility fees. I'm just going to briefly summarize here. They were established back in 2019. Um they're used primarily to fund u or reduce the dependence on transportation parking. So
pretty much to provide alternative methods for uh multimotal transportation throughout the city. Uh the fees they are indexed uh to CPI so they are adjusted annually. Um and the last
adjustment to these fees was effective October 1st uh as part of the adopted budget that you all approved on September uh 30th. There's a variety of fees here. So, I'm not going to go into the details uh just because they do vary depending on the land uses um as well as
some calculations that are delineated a little bit further in the ordinance. Uh the next one, as Commissioner Bot pointed out, are the water and sewer uh fees which were recently updated or brought to current um reality, I guess
you could say. So these fees uh based on the ordinance that was approved back in June um there was some direction to kind of look at them every 5 years just to re-evaluate them to make sure uh that they remain costbased.
These fees primarily support uh expansion of our utility infrastructure. Can I just a quick question about that. So in addition to reviewing them every five years, these are also um tied to CPI at the moment. No. Uh but we'll get into that a little bit further when we get to
the recommendations. Okay. So the next one is the sanitation fees. Um this one has two components. One of which as Commissioner Magazine you mentioned is essentially tied to construction. The other component has a
monthly fee um associated with it. So the one that's tied to permits or um development is based on job value as well as the recurring aspect of this is based on the equ what it's referred to
as equivalent commercial units. Um since the job value one is percentage based it's not indexed um just because again it varies uh based on the scale of the project. So that kind of wraps up the impact fees. I'm going to go through uh the
other fees that we did as part of this analysis and then I'll finalize with the recommendations uh that we're making. So the next one is the fee in lie of parking. Uh this one was last updated in 2014. However, a review uh was done
earlier this year uh back in April and it was determined that it would be best to leave the fleet the fee as is uh just to not burden the businesses um with this additional fee or increase. And at least from my personal standpoint, I look at it less as
burdening the businesses as opposed to creating the city we want to see. And you do that through incentives. And to the extent that we want to see less cars and less traffic, the only way to do that, and I know people think it's
counterintuitive, is to have less parking, right? It really is. So to the extent that we're building parking on every single project, what what that does, it encourages more and more people to drive, which they're going to do. And I see it all along Alton Road. We have
so much excess parking, it's nauseating. Well, that comes in place of people being able to build residential and have affordable housing and things like that. So, of all the impact fees, this is the one that I'm least concerned that uh would kind of be left alone.
Understood. Uh the next one is a parks concurrency fee. Um this one essentially is used towards the development or expansions of parks facilities and infrastructure. Uh the fee was last adjusted back in
October 2022. Um it's currently a flat uh fee which as of now is $98.75. And last but not least is a sustainability fee. Um this was established back in 2016. Um it pretty much supports environmental
sustainability and resilience initiatives. Um we use it for green infrastructure as well as improvements. Um it is again it's a percentage-based fee. Uh so obviously it's not tied to CPI. Uh just because again it's scales
with the size of the project that this fee is tied to. Uh, one thing I do want to note here is this fee again can be mitigated um depending on any lead standards um that are achieved with uh construction.
And last but not least, uh which I'm assuming is what everybody's waiting for is the recommendations. So pretty much what you're seeing here um is just a summary of the fees as well as the administration's recommendations for the mobility fee. uh we're just
simply recommending we maintain them as is. The second one is the water and sewer impact fee. The recommendation here is as commissioner bot asked earlier is to essentially index this to CPI every year just so that we don't
have to periodically come back with um updates or recommendations on updates to make sure that these fees are or remain current. The third one is the sanitation fee. Um, this one has two parts or
aspects to it. One is uh the fee, the monthly fee specifically has not been updated since it was implemented back in 1998. So the I'm sorry, can I just ask how that can be? Um,
really can't say with 100% certainty. um it's just something that has been on the books for a long time and just has not maybe been addressed. So, as part of this exercise, one of the recommendations we are making is to essentially do a one-time catchup based
on inflation as well as going forward um index that fee again to CPI. Is this water and sewer for everyone or just development projects? It would be for anybody that is essentially um connecting to the city's um
infrastructure. Just new development. Anything that's related to new development. Yes. It's not residential. That's a separate. It would be a connection fee. So if you're building a building and you're adding a new connection, it's a connection fee effectively. Oh, new development. It would Yeah. New development would be
the major one to be impacted by that. It's not it's not the ongoing water and sewer fees that we pay every month. I just want to clarify. No, this is a onetime fee. Yes. Um on the other side is but but for sanitation one time retroactive CPI adjustment
that would be that's for commercial properties. Does it apply to residential? It's a mix. For the most part it is for the commercial corridors. So and the purpose behind this fee is essentially to um collect funds to provide the
services that sanitation provides in the commercial areas. nothing to do with residential areas. Um, it's commercial areas. That's where it's which could have residential building. It could, but it's focused on commercial. I guess I'll So, sure.
John Norris, director of public works. It does include multifamily, which from a sanitation standpoint are classified as commercial. So, but not single family, residential, right? So, condo buildings, apartment complex. Well, how do we have that uh bifurcated
like 8 to 10 or 12 units actually classifies as commercial? Correct. Yeah, right now I believe it's over eight is what's classified. There is that is subject to change um with you know upcoming changes. Well, there there will be an ordinance, I believe, presented for first reading at
this coming commission meeting to bump the uh the threshold up to 16 units so that up to 16 units in a family into multif family building would be under the single hauler uh for residential. So, that will be changing if the
commission votes to do so. If I can just to remind that the funds go into our sanitation fund which is covering really a lot of beautifification and cleanliness programs. How much of a increase would that roll back adjustment be? So, if we were to do that retroactive um
increase right now, um the fees themselves range anywhere from $16 a month to $50 a month depending on the number of units. Uh the fee would go up by about 118% which is a little bit more
than double. So, you'd be going from $16 to $50 per month up to uh between $34, $35 and $109 per month. Just curious, why why why do that for
sanitation and not for water and sewer? If if I if I may, this was this was done. This is actually kind of doing exactly what was done for water and sewer a number of months ago. And I'm assuming and I'm I'm assuming the reason why that we're not doing that in this
particular item is because there's a separate item going through for water and sewer. Water and sewer has already been done. The only the only change in the recommendation is when the water and sewer catch up was done on CPI. There was not an inflation index added to it for the future. So we don't have this problem 20 30 years from now and someone
did it. So, it's basically following the same exact uh uh playbook that was done for the water and sewer connection fees as it is for these flat uh sanitation ones. So, it would be a catch up of of CPI since that date uh as as if there had been always been a CPI and then just
index to inflation so we don't have this issue arise again. And and the reason why it's 118% increase, it's because it hasn't been updated since 199 1998 when the fee was imple essentially implemented. And OM looked at what inflation was
every one of those actual years and and use the actual annual inflation. So if it was 1% 1 year, 5%. So it's an act what actual inflation uh was. It's a cumulative um inflation since 1998.
Okay. Can we go back to this slide please? Thanks. So, uh, for the fee and loo, uh, we are recommending that we maintain the fee as it is, um, based on what the commission approved a couple of months back. Uh, for the parks concurrency fee, we are
recommending updating the parks master plan uh, to essentially support a shift um, from the current concurrency fee, as you call it, to more of an impact fee structure. uh just essentially to mirror
the needs um that we see we have with regards to and in English that means what um it pretty much means uh the $98 and change that we have been charging um we feel it's not enough to kind of keep up with the growing demands of our parks
infrastructure and do we assess the impact that any of these new projects will have and assess accordingly so uh where I'm going with that is if there is a 200 room uh residential building.
It It's a much different impact on our city than a 200 hotel unit hotel. And unfortunately over the past 15 years, we haven't had so much overdevelopment as we've grown
in the wrong way. Right? We've added close and including what's in the pipeline 2,000 2,000 hotels and transient units, right? While we've only added about 150
nonwaterfront residential units during that same time. And that's why we see that impact throughout our city on traffic, on police resources, and things like that. So, is this a one-sizefits-all approach or do we
actually look at what the overall impact? You know, there's a different impact on hotels and commercial versus residential. And Mr. City Attorney, I don't know if even legally we could bifurcate on that, but I'm guessing that the hookup fee for all of this stuff is
one unit and that's your charge. And we don't do any kind of delineation between the impact it'll actually have on our city. I think it would I guess I'll turn it over to Good morning, commissioners. Carmen Sanchez, deputy director for planning.
Um, it does make a difference on the different types of land uses and how it's assessed. Um, but the recommendation is good that we need to update the parks master plan because right now um what we're going on is based on a program that's dated. So once
the improvements that were identified long ago are met, that means that the fee that we're collecting reduces. So um we're recommending to move to a more um updated model more like the mobility fee
rather than the straight concurrency fee. Um, and not only that, but it's no longer on the impact that they're actually creating, but rather the fees have to be based on future plans. So, that plan needs to be in place in order
for us to assess the fees. Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. And Mr. City Attorney, perhaps it's for you or anybody else that wants to chime in. Can we have something that is almost escalating? So, if we would have uh on a piece of
property, let's call it the corner of uh Fifth and Washington, just putting that out there uh for a point of example, um you have your impact fees if you would have up to 50 units on there, but let's say you would go up to 200 units and
then 500 units and a thousand units, right? As you increase that, you may not have a linear impact on how that impacts our city. So is there any type of concept that would be legally viable
where it says we're actually going to as you become any singular project even more and more intensive, we're actually increasing the ratio of those impact fees. So like a I guess you're saying like a progressive uh connection. Um I would
need to do more research or have somebody on my team do more research to get you an answer that. Um I mean as a general rule I mean speaking about for example water uh connection or to connection to our our sewer the impact
fee is tied to the size of the water meter. So in theory at least if you have a development that has more units you're going to have a larger pipe and that but I think what you're suggesting is even beyond that is that if you have 100
units um versus 200 units the 200 units should be potentially more than double the 100 units and I think we need to look into that to see before this right right now we do look at the intensity that they are proposing so a project that obviously has 100 units is
going to have less of an impact than a greater project. So we look at it on a per unit basis. Um but the other thing that that comes to mind is that even though you might have hotel units, people who visit here also use our parks, right? So those projects should
also be taken into consideration as we assess those fees because they also have an impact. Um but I defer to John uh if he wants to come up and and talk about the parks master plan and there's a recommendation from staff about uh updating uh that plan
and in fact in my mind actually I think some of our commercial and transient usages provide a more intense impact on our city and that's where I was saying can we actually you know separate those fees and if you
are building commercial and hotel units uh because they have more of an impact on our city. Can we essentially assess fees aligned with that? Yeah, the mobility fee model would provide that. Um but I defer to the
parks director. I think it's simple. More people, more use, more things break, more things are needed, and you need more repairs and replacement. We an impact fee or whatever you want to call it is necessary. I do believe that in some of our parks, the hotel and the transit
uses have a far greater use and wear and tear in our parks than the average resident. So, I'm all for whatever we can do, especially in the budget times that we're in now that we're not getting the renewal and replacement dollars that we need. Let's do it. And so, how do we implement that? Right? uh
because we're all in consensus here that if you're building a 100 room hotel, it's a much more intense impact on our city than a 100 unit condo. So, how can we assess our impact fees to be aligned
with that? we would have to uh conduct a study and once that study is um outlined with the items that we're actually as a city looking to provide the levels of service if you will that's a more common term once that happens then we can go
ahead and establish a fee that will fund those future projects or deficiencies we would and I think one one of the issues under state law is that the impact fee needs to be related to what the actual cost is to the municipality or the local
government of the additional development or connection. So I think that's why Carmen is suggesting that we might need some studies in addition to the legal research. Well, I I I guess I'll push to have those done kind of in tandem with this
moving to the full commission because I do strongly feel that the transient usages are much more intense to our city and the impact fees should be comate with that. So I don't want to approve this without having that look at all the uses
all of them to see what kind of if I if I may to maybe help move this along is if if we're able to move this back to commission to approve the recommendations this isn't the end of this this is probably the beginning of a pathway on many of these items. So once this goes back is probably you know a
consent approval for the concepts you'll come back with a number of ordinances on sanitation water and sewer and this one is going to have to come back perhaps with a funding request or something. So this would just start us on that path. I think staff has heard the the input uh from FK. So any work that would have to
come out of this would end up coming back to commission anyway. This essentially become for lack of a better term zoning in progress because I don't want this to be a a two-year process and then we have these new uh you know projects that kind of get implemented under the old regime. I
think this is just really uh to give administration direction to move forward on all these initiatives and you're going to see a bevy of concepts, a few ordinances that I think on three of them and this one particular I think is going to be a multi-step process there. There may be a determination to say okay we're going to go down that path which is
great. We need you know X dollars to do a planning study. So we would come back with a budget uh you know amendment let's say to request that and then commission will be able to weigh in on that concept to make sure that you know they have down on the right path. So I think to just for expediency and move things along with and I think there's
one more recommendation that Richard will go through is we're hoping to have this item go back to commission with a favor recommendation on our recommendations but this will not be the end of it. This will be a start of a process and and these will um we can effectuate these as soon as they go back to commission unless there's something like
what Carmen was just talking about which requires further study so that it does that doesn't have to be a monolithic block of everything at the same time. Correct. Corct. I mean is the water and sewer CPI would more than likely be in effect next next October 1st as it goes through the cycle. Uh the sanitation
could be in effect immediately. Correct. And then so each one would have to be kind of have its own separate process as it kind of moves further along and goes back to commission. And are there because I know we talked about it at various points. Are there other fees um throughout the city that need to be
examined? We talked about a comprehensive review of fees that may or may not be tied to development. But I and I I don't have any idea of you know nothing's popping into my mind at the moment but who knows what other fees are out there rolloff fees um you know
if I can on that those th those those particular fees were handled re uh semi-reently within the past uh year or two all the fees are listed in our budget every year most of the ones that are able to are are tied to CPI which really ameliates a lot of the issues that really were identified in this
issue and this fixes a few of those items uh Okay. So, so I know we've done a lot already. Um, so the question is, are there any that are slipping through the cracks? Can we just at some point go back and make sure we've captured everything either in the months prior,
the things that we've done already, um, or things that we just didn't catch the first time? We can certainly go back and double check again just to make sure nothing has kind of quote unquote slipped through the cracks. Okay. Thank you. So, and then I I'll wrap The final one
was just keeping that was the last recommended change. Correct. The last one was a sustainability fee which we just recommend maintaining the fee um as it is since it is percentage based. So we would hope to get a recommendation to send this back to commission with a favorable recommendation uh on the uh
impact fee adjustments as recommended. And just to be clear, the the um sustainab sustainability fee being maintained is at the current rate is based on the concept that the um the fee is based on the percentage.
And so whenever a new project is brought to us, the cost will be specific to what year and what costs are correct when it gets brought. So we'll c so we don't need a CPI because we're effectively capturing that. Correct. It's based on 5% of the total job value.
So the percentage the percentage ones automatically have whatever the cost of inflation is. So those work well. And so for the um in lie of parking fees uh I understand and I remember this conversation well that we decided you know it's already pretty high. Let's keep it that way. But at what point are
we going to you know is a commission in 10 years going to say oh my god how could they not have adjusted this? Like what are we doing about that? If I may I believe planning brings an item annually or every couple years. The planning looks very closely at this item and they self-started that process this year where they brought it forward to
get administration had recommended to keep uh and maintain that rate and they got the commission to uh affirm their recommendation. Good morning. We do an analysis based on the cost of construction of parking garages in the city. So every year I'll get information from CIP. What was the
most recent garage that was built? What was the cost per space um including the cost of land to build that garage? Um the cost has been increasing. Um, and as a result, the fees um would increase the cost of building a parking space. However, at $40,000, we don't have many
people that actually use that fee. It hasn't uh um really changed anything. So, we've we've recommended keeping it at $40,000 because going any higher really makes the fee um something that nobody's going to ever uh use or pay or desire to use.
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate everybody's work on this. Thank you. So, if we can get a motion. Uh, I'll move it as recommended. Thank you. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor?
Mr. City Attorney, I believe I am, but also add a co-sponsor. Um, we will make sure that you are. Thank you. Uh, all in favor? I hearing none opposed passes. Thank
you. if we can uh hear NB14, the Northshore Tennis Center, uh because I know we have a community member uh that's here. I want to be respectful of her time and all that she does for our wonderful city. Okay. Uh MB14, discuss options for funding amounts necessary
for the design and construction of a terrace at the Northshore Park Tennis Center. NB14, David Good afternoon. Um, David Gomez, director of capital improvements. Uh, as you all are aware, the the project for
the Northshore Tennis Center included the building of public restrooms which have now been completed and open to the public as well as a shell space for future buildout. Um during the construction of the shell space, the tennis center requested that we expand
the patio on the west side that faces the tennis courts. Um we originally anticipated using CRA funding and received a recommendation from the advisory board to do so. After further review and consultation with the city attorney's office, it was
deemed that due to the language uh in the CRA, we could not use those funds for that purpose. So, we are here before you today to discuss potential options for funding that expansion uh currently estimated at $350,000. So, where I'm at, and Lori, please come
up and John, if you want to come up as well, we have an operator at the Northshore Tennis Center that essentially operates our tennis academy, for lack of a better word, if you will. We also have a public works uh or CIP
project associated with improving that area. Um I think there's some things that the private side can do sometimes with more expediency uh than we're often able to do. And we see this project up there. I went I visited firsthand and it's just
languishing. And you have created something so unique and special up there. You deserve worldclass facilities that are along with it. and uh we've just gone through a very long budget year. Um I don't want you to be sitting around
years and years waiting for us to magically find this $400,000 to say, "Okay, now you have a good time." And then it takes a few years after that. I went up there, you have this beautiful facility. Uh it caters to all walks of
life from are wellto-do to our have nothing. They all unite on the tennis court up there. You've created something special. I want you to have the facilities and amenities that are commeasured with what you're creating. And I went up there. There's rebar
that's hanging out. It It's just not conducive to what uh that rebar. Well, he was hanging out there, too. Um uh to what you're trying to build. And uh one of the things that we discussed was possibly you taking on that
responsibility and I understand that wouldn't be financially feasible for you to do locked into your current terms, right? So you're only going to make that large capex cap outlay if you have the
uh the certainty that you have a longer operating agreement. Even hearkening back to the high level discussion we just had with MDPL, we funded some of those improvements through our geob, our taxpayers, right? What we're doing here
is saying the private side will do this and in exchange for that, you get a longer contract to lock you in to be able to make back some of that money because you're going to outlay a couple hundred,000 yourself. you need a longer certainty that you're going to be able
to earn that money back. So, you're essentially doing us a service. And when I say us, I don't mean the three of us up here, our taxpayers, right? Because you're saving them $400,000 that would have been uh burdening them. So, why don't I turn this over, John? David, did
I get anything wrong there? Lori, did I get anything wrong? And then we'll kick it up here or maybe serve it up here uh for discussion. Well, thank you. I appreciate all the kind words. It's been a long journey. I started here in 2017 and we took a tennis center that was pretty much derelictked and turned it into the most
phenomenal community resource and as we continue I think the last phase is really adding that cafe which is in my contract actually for me to operate. So some of the major components that were missing including a grease trap um created a problem for me to actually be
able to execute that. Um when you look at the projects that we're thinking of now for the future like paddle and whatnot, part of the um the big picture is creating a community space, a blue zone for people to hang out and eat. And um as they put that in Paddle X, that's
kind of what we're trying to go back and retrofit within the tennis center so that the people whether they're at tennis or baseball or the community center can come and have a cup of coffee and sit and watch the tennis and sort of relax because everything is so go go go. But there's really two components to this. There's the one component which is
finishing that terrace which honestly it's absolutely embarrassing because people ask me almost every day, when's the cafe coming? When's the cafe coming? And I'm like, cafe at this point is a four-letter word. Please don't get me started. Um, well, literally it is. I mean, yes, it is, but in my mind, it's been like a sore spot because I really
want to see this finished in the right way. Um, and then there's the buildout of the inside of the cafe. So neither of those are, you know, small peanuts when it comes down to, you know, actually getting something done these days. But I think there's two pieces that we're
actually really talking about. And just for for the record and for clarity, the reason that the west side is unfinished is because we stopped the contractor pending this request for a change. Otherwise, there would be a ramp there now and it would be done.
Well, I I um look, I I was up there as well. We talked at length and walked through the facility. I'm very concerned about um the the conditions. I think it's an accident waiting to happen and it's also frustrating that um you know you you have people asking when is the
cafe coming and have operators asking you know I'd like to to bid on this or I'd like to get involved with this. I mean it is we need to find a path forward and so I'm I'm pretty excited to to help facilitate that. Now, I guess my confusion has always been like I feel like we go down one path, we
get a solution, then we're kind of told no, it's not that, you know. Um, and so I understand the CRA was a miscommunication and then I spoke to you and I don't know what the actual answer was now because you said like we found some money with the capital expenditure
um what do you call it if there when there's overages. Yeah. Um, so that one of the things that we've been looking at is the potential of using the capital reserve to fund the difference. Um, and it the contractor is currently on standby. We just need to resolve how we fund this change, which
is why we're here before you today. So, I guess that's the second, right? So, if there's uh the ability to utilize the reserves for the $350,000 that would finish the grease trap and the outside, that would be amazing because then I would probably have to put in myself
around 250300 to build the inside of the cafe, which I really want to do. Um, and know with certainty that I'm going to be there because I've, you know, been through the RFP process. And so, so the options are either funded through reserves or extend the contract.
Is that right? or a combination of or a combination of a combination of both I think is probably the right answer. Okay. So, and you you're comfortable with that are and the city is comfortable with that. We are. Yes. And so what is the split and what's the contract extension like? What is
the I I can't I don't know if John has a I I haven't fully um negotiated or spoke about I just found out this was coming on as an item. Yes. Okay. So, so next step should be I I would suggest um if if everybody's
amendable to this is for this to go back to commission along with a recommended path forward of you know this is a contract contract extension um number of years. This is what the city's going to fund from from the budget and this is
the path to move forward so that we can you know vote on this and and and make this happen. Um it's just been languishing. So, so if I if I can, I I I think it's to return to commission to direct the admin to negotiate an extension to the operator agreement with a condition for the operator to
partially fund the design and construction of the terrace. Um, at if if you for clarity, the city has the funds to finish the terrace. The city has the funds to install the grease trap. What we would I believe we'd be
negotiating is the buildout of the cafe and the contract extension. I think that would be the direction you'd be giving. So, so we be to fund the the buildout of the Okay. May May I ask the the existing agreement did not contemplate the buildout already for the interior? Just operations. Okay.
Correct. Do you agree? Yes. But it does say that I am to operate a cafe in the space which I the reason why it was just built as an empty shell is because it would have sat there not moving forward with the bathrooms had I not just said build the shell because it was originally budgeted
precoid at like a $2.1 million project and we couldn't get it to go anywhere. So I said build the shell. I will create the cafe myself because that's the only way to get it done. And obviously you guys funding part of it helps me because otherwise I'm looking at probably a $600,000 outlay on my own as you know
I'm a really great resident but that's kind of a lot I would say. Um Lori, how much is it going to cost? About $300,000 to build out the cafe. In appliances alone it's like 150 by the time I get things going. And I can't even start on this. I can't even get
this permitted until these guys get the the deck going. So, I've got about 3 years left on my contract. Um, but I don't want you paying anything. I mean, me either, but I mean, I really want to be a part of it. Now, you know, John and I can discuss whether or not that that
money comes out of my future rent payments somehow so that, you know, it's not like an overall burden for me. I do produce a significant amount of revenue for the city. Um, I'm not looking to get anything for free. I love this city and I love the tennis center. So, whatever
it takes to get it done. No, but I think that's right. It's a It's not your personal contribution to the city. It's it's a you know, payment now against future revenue or or rent payment or whatever. And and really, you can't start because the permit isn't closed. I mean, that's the issue. And
and so we need to move expeditiously to finish the work on the exterior, close the permit concurrent with negotiations on the funding for all these next steps, and then just move forward. I mean, yeah. So, I don't know if you guys have the ability to approve that piece of it
if they have it in the reserves to say, "Let's go ahead and do that because I can't even store stuff in it. It's the most beautiful storage space that is getting unused in the city right now at $2.2 million, you know, I don't I don't believe we as a finance committee have the appro the authority
to approve, but um we can definitely recommend that it goes back. I don't know. Can it come back to the October meeting to move it forward?" I think that would be up to whoever is handling this for staff. David or parks if we're you're talking about a a
capital budget amendment to fund the city portion of the elements that we've spoken about. Yeah. I mean, whatever needs to happen first to enable you guys to finish the exterior work and close it out the permit so that while you're doing all the other stuff, we can get going, you
know, do the contract negotiation and and start planning for the buildout. I I just don't want this to go another three four months before we even close out the contract. Like how do we expedite this? Yes, the we can work with the budget
department. Um we've missed our deadlines for for the October 29th internally, but we can speak to the manager and see if we can affectuate uh with the CIP department to move forward a um a quick uh budget amendment, which we hadn't planned on for October 29th, but if that's the the will, we can
discuss that with the city manager. and we'll bring we'll fund the from the capital reserves the city elements. But this motion is to return uh to direct the admin to negotiate an extension to the operator agreement with the condition that the operator would fund uh the buildout of the cafe as part of
and again not out of your private pocket but as um funding uh against future earnings of the facility. So that um you know so your rent payments might be decreased by 5% for the next 3 years whatever until the money is made.
That would be amazing. Yeah. So so you guys negotiate that. We bring it back this month in October so that we get going with it. Um because it's all going to take time no matter how quickly we press play and then we just keep moving forward. So for clarity, we'll be bringing back the
budget amendment and request for the 350, which is the terrace, the grease trap, the outdoor portion, together with a direction to negotiate an agreement for the build out of the interior and the extension of the lease. That's what I would recommend. Yep. I would just ask CIP to send that
information to OM immediately. Okay. So, uh, that who would be making that motion? We show Commissioner Bot making the motion. A second. Just giving the motion one more time. uh return to commission uh with a favorable recommendation to direct administration negotiate an extension to the operator agreement uh with a condition for the
operator to fund the build out of the cafe at the Northshore Park Tennis Center. Can can can we put something in there that uh if by the next commission meeting we find funding for the tennis center where they don't have they're not
required to fund it. If let's say I bring a motion or an item to fund the tennis center so they don't have to pay out of pocket for it and I think that should be handled right now. I I just want to make sure that the item that we're passing doesn't pigeon hole
them into funding it themselves unless they're again unless I bring something forward or someone else finding the money for it. My understanding is that the city through its capital reserve is going to cover the terrace and just the terrace and the grease trap. I think it's more than comfortable doing that with some
negotiation as to and then the buildout would be negotiated about just the buildout because your mot the motion that you just said requires them to pay for the buildout. That's what I'm hearing from the committee. Yeah. Well, I'd like to have like an or um the city
finds extra funds to build to help fund the buildout. Commissioner, I don't know if it'll satisfy your concern, but the agreement itself has to come back to commission for approval anyway. Okay. Okay. Uh, so Commissioner Bot made that motion. Do we have a second? So, but you're saying in that time we can
in that time if you if the commission decides that they found a way to fund it, the agreement will just be adjusted so that they don't have to fund it. Got it. And listen, if if you're thinking of self-unding this is appreciated, I don't think necessary, but thank you though. Okay. Sorry. Uh, Commissioner Bot made
the motion. Second. I'll second. Commissioner Magazine. All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Hearing? None. Passes three nothing. Thank you, Lori. Thank you so much for what you do for our city. Truly a great operator. Lori, I'm honored. Um, let's do OB19, the trolley contract.
Okay. OB19 request for advisory review and recommend approval of final selection and negotiate negotiate agreement in substantial form is set forth in attachment A with limousines of South Florida Incorporated pursuant to
invitation negotiate ITN 2024-008- ND for municipal circulator services from the transportation mobility department OB19. Thank you. Good afternoon Mr. Chair, committee members. Um, I have a brief
presentation that picks up where we dropped off last month. Uh, PJ, if you could put up the presentation, please. Okay. So, uh, the first couple slides are a refresher. Um, this slide shows
the three vehicles that were considered as part of the procurement. The hometown trolley, the Gillick trolley, and the Gillick bus. The vehicle that the administration is recommending is a 40ft Gillig bus. It's
a lowf flooror vehicle, heavy duty with dual doors for easy boarding and lighting. However, if you recall, if this vehicle is selected, it would result in an increase to our annual operating cost of about $5.4 million.
So, we uh we've been engaged in trying to reduce that deficit or close the gap uh to the extent possible. At the last FK uh committee meeting, you may recall that we spoke a little bit about advertising and there was a
concern amongst the committee members that we were not generating sufficient advertising revenues. So, we did a little bit of of research on this. Um our our advertising on the exterior of our
trolleys generates about $180,000 a year. Um but some of the key takeaways based on our research was that when the policy decision was made to ban alcohol sales that that uh quickly reduced our
revenues by approximately 80,000 a year. Um also um premium brands uh national brands typically do not um advertise on transit vehicles if you will. They advertise either on big digital uh
billboards, even our bus shelters as well that are uh some that are digital uh but not so much on transit vehicles. The transit vehicle market attracts more local businesses which obviously have a
lower monthly uh rental rate. However, uh the key takeaway here is that based on our research and information that was provided by our advertising vendor, Outfront Media, our rates do align with
the market averages for transit vehicles. And that is in the range of, you know, 4,000 to 11,000 depending on if it's a small business or if it's a premium brand. Jose, and let me ask uh because I just
wanted to do like a little anecdotal observation. So, I just I sat in Sunset Harbor one day and just did my own little study or analysis and saw about 20 trolleys go by. I don't know how many were the, you know,
unique, but um less than half of them had any advertising at all. Some had uh city advertising, right? there were actually like city uh initiatives um don't litter thing things of that
nature. So maybe our rates are in line but and this isn't a question for you because I don't think you're doing the advertising or marketing but are we really putting our best foot forward in trying to sell this? Uh because if our rates are competitive I don't know if
our utilization is competitive. uh we have this iconic city uh with some weekends half a million visitors and I think you know it's a pretty easy sale if we do it if our rates are in line
maybe it's not a utmost priority and how do we make it such u Mr. Mr. Chair, I think you raised a very valid uh observation. Um I will ask our advertising vendor um outfront media
to perhaps they can shed some light on on that observation. So we actually we have nothing to do with it. We just rely on um That's correct, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commissioner
Bot, uh Mike with LSNL. We represent Outfront Media, um, the advertising company that operates the advertisements on your trolley program. Um, and I'm joined with, uh, by Pablo Kashki, who's the general manager for the South
Florida region. Um, I can say a couple things. Number one, the, uh, fact that you observed advertising on about half of the trolleys is simply a function of demand. If the demand were there for more uh, advertising, there would be more trolleys with the advertising. Um,
I can say secondarily that Outfront Media has a pretty heavy presence in in Miami date county and specifically on the beach. They also operate through a separate contract, your bus shelter program. And so they uh they focus on trying to sort of cross-ell, right? If
an advertiser comes in with an interest in one advertising medium, they try to cross-ell to the other. There is an aggressive effort. Um based on my conversations with outfront and perhaps Pablo can can expand on this. There has
been um a decrease number one the as as Jose mentioned the lack of advertising for alcohol products has had a significant impact. Uh, number two, the availability of new digital assets on the beach has also pulled some
advertisers away, whether it's national advertisers or advertisements for campaigns for like a twow week event or a month-long event. What happens often is that those uh advertisers who used to advertise on the trolleys cuz they were the only show in town. um recognizing
that there's a cost to installing and then removing advertisements from a trolley, they'll opt for the digital uh because it's, you know, what is our revenue split there? Uh if you go out and sell advertising, so I believe the the uh the city
currently rem retains 52.5%. Is that right? 57 and a half. Correct. So it's 52 and a half in favor of the city. Uh we are having discussions on adjusting that. um because there is a concerted effort from both outfront and obviously your
transportation team to drive up uh revenue. And I'm just thinking, you know, is the incentive structure properly aligned? Is this a large component of your kind of bottom line revenue or is it just like around the margins? It's an important I'm not sure that it's
large in terms of raw numbers, but it's an important part. I I just wanted to make sure it was getting the attention it it deserves from our standpoint because it is critical to us as part of a publicly traded, right? It is publicly traded. Publicly traded. It may be just, you
know, pennies in front of a steamroller for you. Um I'm not saying that's the case. I'm I'm just, you know, inquisitive. Please. Thank you. Thank you for so the the company is a publicly traded company with the offices in the whole United
States. Uh we include the the trolley in the of the city of Miami Beach in every RFP and every proposal we have on the national national demand. Erh and we do it and and also we have 25 AES in two
cities in in two offices in in Miami and Pompano to cover all the the the the local market. So we are trying to to offer the the trolley and all the inventory that that we have in
the city of Miami Beach and the city of Miami etc to all the the market. No. So you much appreciated and thank you for the partnership. Jose, let's uh let's continue
PJ. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, uh as I mentioned previously, we have a funding deficit of $5.4 million annually. to reduce that um deficit. Uh as part of the new service, we're exploring options
um for your consideration. I will mention that these are not necessarily options that we are recommending but options that we are presenting for your recommendation. The first option is um the what what we call the bus versus
trolley option. Uh while our and while our recommendation is a trolley vehicle for a variety of reasons including the the branding the iconic branding that we've had for the past uh you know over over 10 years um if we if the Gillick
bus is ultimately selected it will represent an annual cost savings of about $500,000 annually. And that is, as I mentioned at the last meeting, the fact that the trolley vehicle has an additional cost associated with it. It's uh the trolley
package and it's about $150,000 additional per vehicle. That's the capital cost. But in terms of operating savings, it's about half a million dollars a year if that option is exercised. The the second option is to reduce the
hours of daily service. We currently operate from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. That's 15 hours a day. If we were to cut that down to 12 hours a day, focusing on commuter demand, I'm sorry. What is our current operating schedule? 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
If we were to focus on commuter demand, uh meaning, you know, let's say 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. thereabouts, um we would save approximately a million dollars if the trolley vehicle is selected and a
million half dollars if the bus uh Gelick bus vehicle is selected. Mr. CFO do our resort taxes go towards this at all or is this uh there's a combination that comes from our resort taxes. That's correct. Correct.
This uh is funded um there's two places the trolley is funded from. Uh one is the half penny sales tax that we get uh through the county and the other portion which is really the upper portion um that we're really talking about is the transportation fund which does come from uh I believe it's 60% of one of the 1%s
of the resort tax. Yes, this is uh tourists are paying a a a big chunk of this. So, I'm just thinking, you know, when we sit here and talk about, okay, how do we make this work? The first fundamental question you have to ask, what is the intent of this? Yeah. Yes. It's very broad ranging, but
is it is it for commuters going to and from work? Is it to make sure tourists have this as an option as opposed to getting in Ubers? And is it to reduce traffic? So I think you know and this is I guess our job uh more than anybody
else's is what is what is the goal of the program right do we have do we have data on wrership are by hour I mean does are there hours does it really fall off after 9:00 in the
evening is it really used for commuting I know when we make changes to the bus route our senior citizens are very vocal about um praising changes if they're useful and con being concerned about uh the changes if they're not. Um so I I
don't want to cut the the service if it's being used equally throughout, but if it's really not being used after a certain period of time, then maybe that's something we should be examining as well. Yeah. And just, you know, familiar with,
you know, looking outside my window at 10:00 at night. Are there people that possibly use it after getting off a work shift? Yes, of course. We we can never speak in absolutes, but is the juice worth the squeeze? I I have
a hard time seeing that. Um if I can share, I know um we've spoken uh at length before and I would know spoken with the transportation department as a as a frequent anecdotally as a very frequent user of the service myself. uh you know we use it uh my family I use it
to go to church on Sundays uh we use it to go to the grocery store uh when we had a movie theater we use it to go to the movies we use it to go to dinner um so it's I I see and as I live next to Rebecca Tower um I do see it used you know a lot of the seniors are using it to go to Publix used to go to the
grocery store to go to church it does um and if they have hourly rate uh hourly numbers they can look at you know later in the evening but it does seem that there's a lot of heavy use during the day and in the evening you know dinner circulation you know we want to go to Uh we're not going to drive up to Washington Avenue. We're going to jump on the trolley and we're going to use
that to go to dinner and then come back, you know, but that's um we're more American so we probably eat more in the five to seven range more than Europeans are probably eating a lot later. Uh but that's you know how we see that. But do do you have more like a Jason Green resident comment that you're going to need to make from
the podium. So Mr. Chair, throughout the years we have conducted user surveys to understand who's using it and and why. Um the what what we know is about 50 50%
of the users are actually 53% are residents and so the remainder are you know they could visitors or or day trippers. Um also 57% of the trips are used for leisure. 24%
of the trips are used for work purposes. So currently it it it serves a variety of of of purposes and ultimately the goal is to provide a mobility option that is safe convenient where people do not need their cars particularly for
close close strips because this is an internal circulator system within our city. I think the overall goal obviously of this exercise as we discussed last time at FK is to attempt to live within our means. Uh we know uh the difficult budget process that we went through and we know that that will be difficult to
find new dollars going forward. So it's you know the budget department worked um diligently with the transportation department was very open and honest about their fund. Um and they're looking at you know they're looking at some very honest uh recommendations that could bring down that cost increase on the
contract to try to bring that fund within a a more fund balance structure. And there's other elements outside of the contract. would we be if we decided to go with the reduced hours out of the gate? How locked into that decision for what? Seven years we're
proposing here for the contract. Seven minimum base term is seven. How long are we locked into? We could never increase. No, we could. Yeah, there's flexibility. The contract will have that flexibility in terms of increasing hours, decreasing hours. We can increase routes, decrease
routes as needed. that these are never uh easy decisions, right? But I don't know if we have another choice. Yeah. I mean, where do you find $5 million? No, I think I think it's a couple things. I think we look at cutting whatever the least couple the least used um ridership hours are. You know, if
it's nine 9 to 11, then so be it. Whatever you guys determine. The other thing is um I know the the um Miami Beach package to make it look and feel like a cute little Miami Beach trolley is very appealing, but um I don't know if we've seen um what the cost is to
maybe just wrap the exterior. I think you said you couldn't wrap it the first year because the paint wasn't fully cured, but maybe that's something that we we six months. That's something we do instead of spending I think it was $150,000 each each um trolley for the full
package to simulate um the look and feel of of something historic and you know charming and especially or or not even not even historic and charming but something that definitely signifies Miami Beach. And so if we can do that for significantly less than $150,000 a
year, but still brands it as a Miami Beach trolley, I think that's a win as well. It also gives us a conversation, an opportunity to have a conversation with um the folks in the marketing department about what do we, you know, what do we can what do we want to communicate here? You know, is it don't
be rough on the bay or is it, you know, make sure you hit these awesome destinations? It it gives us a lot more flexibility and I think that would be money better used. I think I think what we're you're talking about then is the the bus because Jose the the trolley which was our recommendation is the more expensive
option, right? So it's the bus if you're speaking about the bus which does save was the 150,000 per vehicle. But if we move from the trolley we move from the trolley down to the um half half a million a year. Yeah. So there's there savings there. Rare. So if there's the option because that's the one of the important what
we're looking for are um critical path issues that let us execute the contract which is the type of vehicle and number of vehicles. That's that's the the no-go decision that we need to have here today. Things on hours of operation. It's good that we can get that approval for that recommendation so they can make
those adjustments immediately and begin saving money. Uh but those are I I believe there's there's options that if there's money found in the future, we could ramp up those hours. But what we're going to talk about is is um you know the specific vehicle type that's going to be approved and the number of. So
yeah, I mean I I'll I don't want to um co-opt the chair's prerogative, but I would suggest that we we um bite the bullet a little bit and take the less expensive option and look at different ways of cutting further. Um I think the two things that residents care about the
most is making sure the buses are kneeling buses so people get can get on and off easily. um and uh that they're safe and clean obviously um and that they emit as as few emissions and particulate matter as possible because
that is also pretty nasty. So I think if I recall correctly from the prior presentation, the bus hits all of those metrics. It's less expensive. It's flexible in wrapping potential down the road. It is a kneeling bus and um it is
not all the way to completely green but it significantly reduces the part particulate matter that comes out of it. I do wish we could be all things to everybody but I think first and foremost we're going to be no things to nobody if we can't fund this. So
so I think that's the first two right. So, so we we dealt with it being the bus to save money versus the trolley and the reduced service hours at least initially at 1.5 million. I think you have two other at least two other Yes. OP off on option two. So, we're trying to fund a $5 million
delta and we've I think we're just trying to bring it down as as low as possible. This is going to get us a lot of the way because the fund does have fund balance to cover through the the delta that we're trying to bridge is $5 million, right? Corre correct. And we got to what? one and a half or $2
million. We're at two so far. $2 million through these two initiatives. Let's I'm not going to stop you anymore. Let's make the same progress with it. And I and I'd be remiss if if I don't say that just based on historical patterns, whenever we reduce ours,
ridership goes down. As an example, prior to the pandemic, we were operating 18 hours a day. We had over 5 million passengers a year. After the pandemic, we reduced the number of hours from um eight from 18 to 15 and we saw a a
decrease in writership from 5 million to three and a half. We're we're currently at about three and a half million. I would suggest let's look at that because I would also suggest that there's a core user group that will always use the trolley, right? The people here for a couple days, the seniors who use it and and I think it's
a phenomenal amenity for folks who use it. But there's also now what's different from the pandemic pre- pandemic and immediately post pandemic is that people are using scooters all the time and they haven't been hadn't been prior to this. Right? So they have bigger like a million different versions
of scooters. So I would not be shocked to learn that people who used to take the trolley down from North Beach down to South Beach to get to work now just take their scooters and get down to work. So, you know, it's not a direct causation and I don't want us to to be locked into that way of thinking because
there are lots of other variables. So, um we also have extended the freebie services, right? And and that's a whole separate conversation that I'm sure we'll be bringing back to this committee at some time, but but that is basically if you live within the freebie service area, you can call up a freebie and if
you got the time to to be flexible, you can use that. And some might find that more appealing than a trolley. So, it's not a it's not necessarily only, you know, you reduce the hours, you reduce the ridership. I think there's a lot playing into that, which is why I want to come back to who's using the trolley
when, so we can make an informed decision, try to keep it going for as many people as often as they need it, and and, you know, cut out the the low hanging fruit. And I'm going to venture that by the time we get halfway through this contract, we're going to have
autonomous robo taxis that are at least some part, if not a critical element of transportation in our city that I think is going to somewhat reduce some of the demand or impact on some of these services. I'm just waiting to see somebody figure out how to hijack those little delivery
bots and just reprogram them to take them like sit on it and just take it where you want to go. help people personalized mobility people. All right. So, uh we left off on the third option. Third option consists of
um reducing the number of spare vehicles that we purchase. We are required by state and federal regulations to have a 20% spare ratio and that would be about a total of um five vehicles. But what we could do is only purchase two new spares
and use three of the best uh existing trolleys that we have. They would be the low floors of course. Refurbish those and and use those as as spears. That would be a yes for me. And how I mean I don't know the details. You do, right? How impactful is that
going to be on our services? How often are we actually utilizing the spare fleet? Well, currently we have quite a number of vehicles that are spares. Um, we have about 33 vehicles and only 21 in service. So, we have a lot of spare
vehicles. Um, but how how often do we kind of they're rotated tap into that? They're they're used all the time. They're not just parked in in a lot. They're used all the time. They're switched out. The uh the fleet is aging. It's over some vehicles are over 10. The
ones that we would keep are slightly newer. I want to say they're from 2017. 2016, 2017 thereabouts. Uh but but nevertheless, they're, you know, almost 10 years old and they're up there in miles and they're showing their wear and
tear. They are breaking more uh for But again, even if we got part of the way through this contract where we said, you know what, these are actually uh this spare fleet that we're um going to utilize for cost savings. If in
year three or four they've just lived outlived their useful life and there's nothing we can do then we can address that kind of on an intermittent basis. Correct. I believe so. Yeah. Yeah. If there's more if there's I think if there's um serious reliability issues
um that could be something revisited if we find dollars onetime dollars to buy additional vehicles. So that could be done obviously negotiated a new price. It won't be the prices that are set here. But I think the important thing is just like when you buy a new car, you don't have issues for a number of years, right? So hopefully these spares will be sitting there unutilized for quite a
number of years until um the existing one. So if if um if we only purchase two two spares instead of five, we would save $600,000 a year if the trolley vehicle is selected and uh $1.2 million a year if the bus is selected
per Hold on. That's the savings per year. Yes. So, what would be our cumulative savings? Uh, we're up to 3. If you accepted, which it sounds like going with the bus, the reduced service hours, and reducing the spare purchase, you're up to 3.2.
And there's one more uh dollar value one. And then the last option uh would be to purchase smaller vehicles. Gillig offers both the trolley and the buses in two different size, actually several different sizes. Um but the ones that would be appropriate for our service would be
either the 30 foot or the 40 foot. Uh the administration's original recommendation is a 40 foot vehicle. However, we could uh purchase 30ft vehicles. The capacity of the vehicle would be uh less of course for
passengers. The 30ft vehicle would accommodate 24 passengers versus the 40ft vehicle accommodates 40. Again, our system is a robust mass transit system that carries millions of people. So, but we think that with a 30-foot vehicle, you know, we it's something we can live
with. Uh if this option is exercised, I actually I'm sorry to cut you off and again, I'm not an expert. This is just anecdotal. I see a lot of benefit from a smaller, more nimble fleet. Uh just in terms of the backup that it causes in
traffic. Uh, I get that this is a critical element, but if you're driving down Alton Road, I'm really not convinced. Some sometimes the trolleys aren't are causing more traffic than they're actually alleviating. I get that they are uh required service for people that don't want to rely on a car. Um, but the
larger buses that we have, I I think that there is a uh significantly larger impact on how they're backing up some traffic uh on some of our key commercial corridors. Point. I'll take it. So this if this option is
not well uh would you disagree or in line? Well, for the number of people that our system carries, it needs a a larger vehicle than than most. Um that was something that was an outcome of an
optimization study that we conducted a couple years ago that really scrutinized our system and you know ways of of value engineering it and trying to make it better. And one of the things that they that came out of that study was that we need a mass transit vehicle. You know
whether it's a bus or a trolley doesn't really make a difference. So okay so for this for this option Yep. How how often are our trolleys at capacity or if we go with the smaller vehicle um
are are the trolleys often at a capacity that one is above our existing capacity right so do we have a lot of times where people are waiting in line and we're separating the buses because I know that this is a bus issue but is it often
people are waiting for trolleys and a trolley goes by and it is just too packed, they can't get on. That has never been my experience. Um, but I welcome everybody to chime in. One route in particular, our Collins Express, which is what I call the, you know, the the the workhorse of of our
system. That that route is often at capacity with people waiting. And a complaint that we do regularly receive is that the trolley passed by and didn't pick me up. and it's because it's it's at capacity. Uh that happens more often
on the Collins Express. Um then during peak periods, we do have times where every trolley I've been in some of these. Is there a way to have a hybrid fleet where we maintain however many trolleys or buses are needed for that route or other routes
that we need a larger capacity. But for some of our other routes that are less utilized, we'd go with the smaller, less cost impactful, we could that's something we could look at route by route to see what the rather than a one-sizefits-all, which is
essentially what initially was proposed. So Jose, what you're talking about is that like the three circulators uh being in the smaller vehicle where the Collins Express would be the larger vehicle. Yeah. So maybe we don't get $200,000 of cost savings, but if we can get $130,000
of cost savings and not reduce the capacity for the routes that are already at capacity, I think that's a win-win. Yes, agreed. Thank you. Okay, so this uh this slide summarizes Oh, thank you, PJ. So this slide summarizes
the four options. Key takeaway if um and I know our CFO is doing the math in real time but if all four options are exercised uh the savings can range from 1.8 million um if
the Gillig trolley is selected as the vehicle to $3.4 million per year these are if the Gillig bus is uh is selected. If I can, you know, keep in score at home, as you know, I I was obviously I believe that because I'm also trying to
craft your motion, uh, is that it was the bus to save the half a million, the reduced service hours, the reduced the spares, but kind of splitting the baby on the number four. I we'll give it the $100,000 estimate because that has to be negotiated. Um is that there would be the smaller buses on the circulator
routes and keeping the larger buses on the um so that would be $3.3 million right there which gets us substantially there. And I and I um I know that there are elements uh that we've talked about that aren't really part of this about the fund overall um that we can have
some cost savings reducing studies and some other costs internal to the fund. Okay. Um, and then I know you wanted to talk about um, so that that's going to really ameliate a lot of the the fund issues, but there are some more that they're going to go through. And I think you were going to talk about the the county interlocal and the next
and the Collins Express because there's a an important caveat uh, that needs to be put. That's a good segue. Um, the county requires every municipality in Miami Dade that operates a municipal circulator route to execute an intergovernmental agency agreement
because by home rule charter, by county code, the code ha the county has jurisdiction over transit operations as well in Miami date county. So, we are in discussions with the county. Uh, they approached us. Um clearly we would need
the interlocal agreement with them but they approached us very specifically uh to to uh with the goal of eliminating a avoiding any duplication between their service and our service. So they're going through a very comprehensive
evaluation. They're doing this with every municipality in Miami date that has a municip that operates a municipal circulator to try to minimize that duplication. Who takes precedence? The county. county. Yeah, the county's routes. If there is a bus route that operates along the same route as a
municipal route that the the county has a priority. So, um those discussions are ongoing. We don't know exactly what the outcome will be, but um they hold the cards. So, if there's any circulator route current
or under the the the new contract, which is essentially the same routes, we would continue the same routes. there's any route that they are not in agreement with, they have the prerogative to deny that and then clearly we would not, you know, that would be a savings because we would not be operating that route. We
would not need to purchase those vehicles. Okay. And um we talked about the financial impact that we're trying to close the gap. So now the uh the forecast that our CFO was referring to, the budget department forecasted the
transportation fund for the next uh six years. Uh this forecast includes all our current programs and services. Uh however, it does not include and I just want to state it for the record, it does not include some of the one-time
operating enhancements that were approved by the city commission for this fiscal year 26. Those include the water taxi, $600,000 to match the FDOT grant for for the water taxi, the art week transportation plan that was approved in
the amount of $388,000. The uh midsize shuttle for senior uh residents to take them to the Walmart, that's $39,000. And the maintenance of bike lanes, Jose, tell me what happened for $100,000. between 28 and 29.
Between 28 and 29. So in 29 obviously we uh we've fallen to the the red. We're at a deficit there. Essentially the surplus runs out. What if what you're see if you're asking about the acceleration why it appears accelerating. The reason it's Oh, sorry.
I got that part. Yeah. Why? Well, because are we operating at deficit every something happens where we stay on the same track in 26 27
we reduce by $5 million in 28 and then we reduce each year by $5 million. Why all of a sudden are we running at a $5 million deficit? Is it is it because of the trolley and now we've essentially just
uh look at this same chart but add $3.5 million onto each of these? No. No. What you're seeing here is if the contract was approved without any of these funding uh operational reductions that we're talking about. So if they approved everything with the trolley and all these other things and the reason
you're seeing an acceleration in the in the um utilization of that fund balance is because all the buses don't come online day one they come in in tranches as it were. So you're seeing an acceleration in in that transition overall transportation. Right. So he has multiple slides showing where we would get to based on recommendations.
What's driving this primarily is our new cost associated with the trolley. So this chart is going to be dramatically different. Still going to see the same trends but not as accelerated given that we are recommending $3.5 million of cost
savings free service. Yes. Right. So so that one is if you approve the contract without any of these adjustments the bigger buses the the the higher the number of spares. So if we can go back Jose. Yes. Yeah. So, so by so right here in 28 the fund will have
theoretically let's call it a surplus of $7 million. In 29 it'll have a surplus of a million and a half. In 30 it'll have a surplus or a deficit then of three and a half. No. No. What you're
seeing there is what the fund balance is that is available. It has a structure. This contract will cause a structural deficit. Right now, it's a bal a balanced budget. Uh when you have this uh if you implemented this contract as is without these changes, it has it makes a very large structural deficit
that accelerates for and it takes about 2 or 3 years for the full weight of the contract to come into effect. So this would show is that the transportation fund would be completely out of money by the 2029 if no change. So I get that. But if we do implement these savings that we're discussing here, then the chart
changes dramatically. Changes and I have some of those scenarios already, not with the real-time numbers that we just but if all four uh options are exercised, I Okay, but before we get there, uh one of the things we we did was really look into our our current program budget and
see where we can cut. And so we've identified um potentially four different programs where some cuts uh may be uh possible. And this is you know we don't have to discuss these today. This is
just you know to put this on on your radar. Um well I'll tell you what number two uh if those are the digital boards that you guys put in front of my apartment uh just to mess with me every month. uh count me into getting rid of those.
It's a lot more than that. It's not just that. Um so, uh yes, these four programs total to almost a million dollars annually that that uh we would save. And some of these costs wouldn't necessarily be
eliminated, if you will, but they would be perhaps transferred to another department with a, you know, with a larger budget that can absorb. Um so this uh if we take this these savings
into account and we exercise the four options the four cost savings options then this would be the scenario the the forecast if the trolley vehicle the 40ft trolley vehicle is selected.
So under this scenario we would uh go into a deficit in fiscal year 31. So we would already be extending the life of the transportation fund a few more years and then if the Gillic bus option is
ultimately selected as well as all four options um we would remain cash flow positive beyond 2031. So I think the important element here is this one up here is kind of what you
discussed today. But it what it's important to include is so not only would it include and again I'm trying to draft a motion here is you know is uh utilizing the gillic buses reducing the service hours reducing the the spare vehicle purchase using the smaller buses
on circulator routes. Um there was we also discussed that the Collins Express bus purchase would be contingent upon county approval. Correct. Because just as a side note, if the county doesn't approve that, which would not be good for the overall system because it is our most utilized trolley,
that is how much? 3.8 million. 3.8 million. That alone would cause a you know to to solve the issue. We're hoping that doesn't come to fruition and we're able to keep all four routes and the four items that he had spoken about which are um you know reducing some of those elements and we can mix and match
that we talked about reducing studies because there's not a lot of capital dollars in effect but if you go back to that four ones because there's one specifically I want to point out that would have an impact um that people would see and this is red removing the duplicative services and I want you to
speak Jose a little bit more about that fourth element because that could cause some consternation. But there are duplicative services of a specific only to senior freebie program. And this is the one one of the ones I believe runs from Rebecca Towers to Publix
which is duplicative of the trolley that does that. I I don't know if we're you don't have to make that decision today. That's what I'm saying. Um it could be done through the budget process and we could put these as uh recommended efficiency reductions in the next budget process. But the charge was
to come back with a plan to to get us structurally in a long term and let's call it beyond 5 years actualally sound. So you don't have to accept those four. Uh but I I think that those are all elements that'll be discussed in the 27 budget process. But to move this
contract forward, which is what we need to do today, is if I can return to commission with a favor recommendation, approve the contract in substantial form utilizing Gillick buses, reduce service hours, reduce the spare vehicle purchase, use smaller buses on circul
routes, and make sure that the Collins Express bus purchase is contingent upon county approval. I think we're good with that. Yes, sir. If that's the this is where you know I hate being a politician but can we put make more efficient service hours and things like that you know you start talking about
reducing uh a kid but I don't know if any of these are going to be uh um that's why we're not going to put this as part of the motion but we wanted to show that we have a plan we've heard it the commission and we know that there won't be a bunch of dollars available we
can't necess we want to work that we don't need the general fund to subsidize this fund. It may have to at some point, but we don't have to do it today. And not only do we not have to do it today, but when we walked in here, essentially the contract would leave us
with a $5 million operating deficit in our transportation fund. Correct. Right. So now we got down to reducing that by let's call $3.5 million. So a million and a half. That makes the overall fund much more sustainable. We
still want to try and bridge that gap, but that can be funded as of now. Let's say we're not able to find another dollar of efficiency that can be funded out of the surplus, the ongoing surplus in the transportation fund and that won't have to be supplemented by the
general fund. Uh, correct, chair. And what we need to make sure is that we look very closely because as as Jose because we like to be very transparent on this is that this works under the assumption that this commission has approved the the water taxi for one year. So if we're going to continue with
that I know that there's been discussions with the county with uh city Miami city Miami DDA to help spread that 600,000 to try to get that down. So there's a lot of things that the administration is working forward to bring this into a structural sound situation, but we believe that this
motion moving forward with this contract to move this forward will be uh sufficient to make sure that we have the funding to make sure these programs move forward. So if if that is the motion is acceptable. Um I believe I have to show commissioner bot making that motion based on
uh this when the transportation fund was something that was highlighted what in June of our budget retreat and that gave me great agita of somehow trying to find just $5 million in an already stream budget process. So, I thank you and your
team uh our partner here that we're going to go forward with the RFP uh for making this much more digestible. Um listen, in any case, would we love to do all of these things? Of course. Uh but I think this is really optimizing our bang
for the buck. Yes. Thank you. So, we'll show you seconding the motion. Yes. All in favor? I All right. She'll pass. Thank you. Thank you, m Mr. Chair, if I may. Just just one point slash request. Um, as you will recall,
the pricing that we received from Gillig, which is the bus manufacturer, I think came in February with an expiration date of August. Uh, Limousines of South Florida managed to leverage their relationship with Gillig to extend that another 60 days. So, that expires at the end of the month. Just
respectfully requesting that this item be placed on the October commission agenda. I I believe I can. We have our motion. So, great. Awesome. Thank you. That's not from out from media. That's You're wearing a different hat. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. That's a different hat. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you all.
Thank you. That's great. Uh how about we do OB123? Okay. We're going to do OB 1 2 3. We have a hard stop at 115. Yeah, understood. So, we're going to do OB123 and 15 minutes. I'm going to read them
quickly while they come up. OB um is that who is the sponsor of those? The their various uh Commissioner Suarez, yourself, Commissioner Bot, right? So, maybe we won't do those. I How about OB5 and NB1 because you're a
sponsor of one of those uh right, Commissioner Bot? Yeah. How about OB5 and NB1? And that's the green roofs. So, let me read read those in. OB5. Okay. OB5 discuss feasibility of implementing
a green roof at city city city hall. OB5 and MB1 resolution of the mayor and city commission of the city of Miami Beach, Florida, directing the city administration to explore feasible strategies for creating expanding green roofs as well as incorporating greenery and landscaping on city buildings and present its findings to the land use and
sustainability committee and the finance and economic resiliency committee within 90 days of the adoption of the resolution MB1. Good afternoon uh commissioner and committee members. Um Elizabeth Muro, assistant director for facilities and fleet. We have addressed this item
before before FK. Um this is in reference to the green roofs both at city hall and at other um city facilities. And we originally had a proposed to have a pilot program at 1833 Bay Road which is a facilities management building. After further
discussion at the June uh 11th meeting, um we were asked to review other city facilities where we can implement green roof. And what we have suggested before you is to spread out the original allocation that we had um compiled about $600,000
to three facilities. One, the 1833 building, uh the 77 building as well as Scott Rake building. and we can possibly put a pilot program in each one of these to see what would be the most successful.
I have a question about that. Um, city hall was designed to be one story taller. Why would we not focus our efforts on something that is in town center that the hotel will be looking down upon and would be, you know, a good
message about resilient um, Miami Beach? Can we not rethink this and come up with a strategy to do our pilot right here? Commissioner uh Frank Garcia, facilities management uh division director. the the
existing parapit height at uh the roof here at city hall would um make basically the type of infrastructure that that's needed to make the space um habitable and enjoyable um would be a lot more robust
and and and more expensive. We we're trying to see um as as was recommended uh previously to see where um we can implement some smaller scale lower impact um green roofs and then you know
work off of those lessons learned um see what works well, what doesn't. But here um to make that space usable would would require a significant amount of um capital. And what um what are you envisioning as a pilot program? Do you
have anything to show us about because you we had all talked about you know we don't need to be a big grassy field. It can be you know planters. It can be all different types of things. I think I referenced the book that Eric has in his office with dogeyeared pictures now. Um
so do you have something to show? So, we had an um an attachment that actually has a rendering of what is being proposed at 1833. And this is a modular structure, so it allows for both flexibility and and ease of maintenance of and this
would be fitting for that. Um yeah, like like Liz said, these are these the system is basically um what we would like to pilot is preveitated uh modular roof trays. basically um
there's an underlying infrastructure and then these PJ if there's a slide for that if we could pull that up as Frank's talking and so um so these trays these trays are preveitated they're basically dropped in
um irrigation um and drainage is kind of engineered on the front end and then uh what happens is maintenance is a lot easier when you can remove and service those trays uh individually as modules.
So the building that's um getting close to occupancy on the corner of 17th and Washington, I think it's the Vanesco. I don't know if Benesco funded it or um um uh it was going to be the Thompson Hotel and maybe the flag is changed
there. Is that the one you're talking about? Yes. So, I remember driving um driving past them as they were installing their rooftop um you know, they were craning up trees and palms and all kinds of cool things. Have we looked to see what
people are doing on the private sector so we can inform ourselves about what we could do as a pilot on our roofs? So when we looked at our roofs, we actually worked with TMCO and they have a division that specifically just focuses on this. And so when they
considered the pilot program, they looked at vegetation that would be resistance, you know, not only to the environment, but it would not pose an issue when we're considering wind and load. I mean, they took everything into consideration.
And um I can see some green roofs that are being implemented citywide and other developments and I'm not too sure if they're going to be viable. I can tell you that. I'm like, what are you doing with a palm tree up there? But so I wouldn't guide ourselves by that. I
would guide by, you know, the the experts in the field who have studied and they take into consideration all those factors so that you have a a a project that is completely viable. Okay, there it is. Thank you, PJ. That looks nice.
This is where 1833 Bay Road um in Sunset Harbor. That's this is the facilities and there's maybe next page. I think there's a a couple pages. Was Oh, maybe not.
Okay. Um give me one second. I'm pulling it up from the agenda. Thank you, PJ. that's based on this uh preveitative modular roof tray system that that we spoke about and and um the consultant you know um
basically you know studies the the microclimate um and wind and the load that your building can uh sustain and then kind of makes these uh recommendations. Thank you PJ. That's
a two-story building, correct? Yes. Yes. And what I'm thinking of is just, you know, I wanted it an area where there are more vertical buildings, so people are looking down on something. Um, I
guess in Sunset Harbor, we do have several buildings in this immediate area that is is or are vertical to this, right? So, you're going to get an improvement in the aesthetics there. And what is the cost that's associated
with this? So when we originated when we got this cost, this was about a $600,000 that contemplates $400,000 for the installation, you know, the whole entire uh vegetation and everything, but it also includes $170,000 which has to do
with the roofing membrane that has to be prepared and a 20-year um maintenance agreement so that we know that this is always going to be um in good shape. So there would be no ongoing capex or maintenance.
Um that's yeah that's included in there. We contemplated that the I love the idea and and I had a similar item as well. Uh I was really struck by the significant cost that I wasn't expecting. I would love to do this at every building across the
city. I'm fine approving this and saying we'll consider as part of the budget going through the process. I'm 95% certain that we get to the budget year and this is one of those enhancements where we go, well, we'd love to do it.
We we just don't have the money. Um, so I'm fine to do that. Um, I just I I don't know if this is something that we see implemented when push comes to shelf. Yeah. No, it's it's um
it's nice to have. I'm not sure we're going to find our way to it this year. I think it would be um I think it would be useful to figure out how to do it. And I think it would be useful to learn also how we can, you know, do community gardens or something
along those lines where it's more than just decorative. Um so if it's not this year, it's in a future year or we have somebody come in and um sponsor it or you know or encourage our new buildings that are going to come online over the next number of years to consider that as
part of their planning phase. And from you going through this, I I know it could be an unfair question because it's not like this is your area of expertise. If this was a completely new groundup development, right? Let's say we were building the facilities uh
department. We go, okay, here's option A that is just normal status quo and option B and it's incorporating one of these green roofs fire station. Yeah. Would that still be $600,000 or is part of this is because we have the
existing infrastructure and we need to replace some things. So would it and what I'm thinking is do we kind of go forward with uh exploring a policy where new development whether it be on the private side or we can even look at
incentives on I'm sorry on the public side or on the private side look for incentives uh to require encourage uh green roofs throughout the city. Would the cost still be so high or
Mr. Mr. Chair, it's it's hard to say. What we know for certain is that green roofs are um an easier ask uh you know when implemented early on during you know design development phase right before the the the project is you know
fully baked let alone built. And um as far as incentives are concerned that the we do have um the urban heat island ordinance um which does encourage um not necessarily green roofs but certainly along the lines of you know
cool roofs, white roofs and green roofs. Yeah, she's she's back. Yeah, I I know from uh from my view at home and I overlook one a white roof on the community health center along uh 7th in Alton and that
gets destroyed very quickly versus just across the street is Baptist Health that has some sort of green roof like this. Uh what it does for just the overall community is like night and day. Um, so perhaps we can explore and I think
actually that's where this started was perhaps we explore incorporating requirements or encouragements for green roofs going forward. And then it became well let's put our money where our mouth is. How could we ask the private sector
to do it if the city doesn't do it? So maybe we talk even though we Yeah, we could talk about having this as an incentive or requirement for Yeah. new city facilities. Well, I mean look, we are going to be building a fire station at some point
hopefully in our lifetimes and um that should have a green roof. Um so I think so perhap so perhaps there's I mean there's a couple of elements there. One is on the private side which is probably and city you're hearing I'll jump in if I'm off is probably a separate referral to land use to discuss if there's any
kind of incentivization for a developer to build a green roof. So that's probably a separate discussion. This one city is I think the chair hit it on the head is the difficulty with funding, but it could return to commission. Um you'd have to to let me know if it's going to
be a budget priority in the 27 budget priority or to or for it to to be considered. And I want to explain the nuance of that everything is a priority and you understand that a lot because we've talked about that is that as of right now it is not in our capital project so it wouldn't even be
considered. So if there's the thought of let's put it on the list and if we happen to get funding for it that's great. So it could be afford to create the project. Um, if you think it's that important to make it a priority, we could add the word priority to the motion if if we want to forward. Or if we think that it's just very difficult
financial environment we're going to be over the next couple years, which I do agree with the chair. Um, you know, the could just be heard and closed. um andor an element of a motion going back could be to get to direct the administration that whenever we're building a new building that at the very least the
green roof option is analyzed and to present that to commission you know with whatever that cost differential is. So that could be that could be a separate one. This could not create a project but just saying going forward any new city project um where there's a roof being built that the green roof option is
looked at from a feasibility perspective. So there's I'm just giving you a couple different paths. Um but I know as we're wrapping up here wanted to see um where is Commissioner Bot who will have to make the motion or if there is one I've just heard and closed. I I just let us know.
You know, I think we should toss it into the mix for commission discussion and review. Not as a priority, but you never know who's going to turn up with what opportunities. And I' I'd hate to just close the door on it when it's something we do want to move towards. and you guys
have done the work and um I think it's something we should be talking about and continuing to talk about. Okay. So, we could return to commissioner with favorable recommendation to uh recommend uh the creation of a green roof project uh and to be considered uh as part of the 27
budget process. If that's your motion. Yeah. Okay. And we'll show Commissioner Bot Commissioner Magazine. Will you second that? I will. Yes. All in favor? I Okay. The motion passes to nothing and that'll be OB5 and MB1 uh together.
Thank you. And Amy, perhaps you could work with facilities to just spearhead different ideas as opposed to us just, you know, paying for these. Um I'm just browsing headlines. Sewer district grants uh send
green infrastructure dollars to Cleveland neighborhoods. Uh yeah, being creative on funding on grants or public private partnerships or things like that that can we love the idea
economically it's challenging. So other ways that you could envision are catalysts that could kickstart some of these um all years. Okay. But we sure can do that. And we also do um offer this as an option through our private property adaptation
program, green roofs. So we've uh recommended that in a couple situations and people haven't quite done it yet, but that is an incentive. So and if I can if the the project gets created, that's obviously something that my grants division will look at if there's any grant uh possibilities. But unfortunately, as we know in the
environment we're in right now, uh green initiatives um have not been funded uh funded well recently. But it's something by creating the project, it's something that now we'll put it on our our radar. Great. I think we're at your your time.
We are. Thank you all. Um Commissioner Bod and I uh will be seeing you all soon. Uh thank you for everybody's work over these last two years. Thank you.