Heat. Heat. you Christmas. You Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat. down. Heat. Down. Down. Heat. Heat.
I don't know. Yeah, I know. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. 2025. We are going to pick up where we left off. I believe we are on RE3 which was pulled for discussion
>> and chair briefly uh the city attorney will state that the attorney client session is concluded. Yes, >> that's what I Yes, the uh attorney client session in relation to the uh Pam Jorge M. Perez Art Museum case has been concluded and we're back to the regular
agenda. Thank you. >> Thank you. RE3 was pulled for discussion. I don't remember who pulled it. Commissioner Coroyo, I believe he's coming. Is the CFO around?
Madame manager, vice chair, I believe you pulled RE3, the adopted budget midyear amendment for discussion. Chairwoman, uh,
I haven't had the time to go through this with anyone from the administration. Uh, you know, we're talking about a midyear, but this is not a midyear. We're the tail end.
We have approximately two more months before we start the new fiscal year's budget. And a lot of what I see that's here um should be looked at
in the coming fiscal year's budget because when I'm seeing this happening here and I've seen it throughout the years and I've seen it last year and I've seen it this fiscal year's budget. the minute we have any kind of money
that it's available, we're running to take it and spend it and blow it away. And what I'm seeing is look at the situation on the Olympia theater because of stuff like this throughout the years.
Uh we approved 300 more officers each year that it might take four, but we're going to have a lot of money to come up with if we're going to meet that 300 more police officers and we're not
planning for it. We I think all of us approved it and would like to see it give a sizable discount at the very least if not fully which might be hard
to accomplish uh in the property taxes that our seniors pay. So we could give them a rebate. The way that we're spending the money, we're not going to be able to do any of
that. And I'm just not in a position to be voting in midyear uh for another 25 plus million dollars here. Um even though maybe 10,
it's new money, but that could just be rolled over for the fiscal year coming up. We didn't have to put that here. And 5 million particularly is for while something that will be good for the community,
we as a city already have paid a big chunk. And why am I saying that? because the county has given uh the soccer association FIFA
40 plus maybe more maybe it's even 50 plus million dollars. Um what percent Larry of our property taxes are paid to the county? It's close to
30% a uh through the chair and Larry Spring chief financial officer based on the millillage it's about a 6040 split so 40% there's a >> but you got the school board so >> yeah well that's in addition the school board will be in addition to that
>> yeah but in property tax 30 >> 37 37 >> out of each dollar that uh each one of our property owners pays that goes to school board, county, city. What
percentage of that dollar goes to the county? >> 37. >> 37% >> 37 comes to us. >> So the rest goes to the county and the school board. >> So it's opposite. >> 37 goes to us. 63 goes to the school board and the county.
>> Yeah. But what of that goes to the county? >> 29. >> It's less than the school board. But it's still high as heck. >> 29 cents goes to the county. >> 29. Yeah. Okay. So, I was right. It's
right around 30%. Um, that's a lot of money and they're coming back to us for more. You know, I I'm sorry, but uh I can't vote for this now knowing
that you guys haven't shown me and we voted upon this meetings to go for the administration to come back to us and show us where are you going to find suggestions
and getting the money for 100 more cops. uh even if we could only hire, you know, and by the time the year's over, only 50 would have been paid. But then the following year be the 100 and the 100. So you might go to a fourth year for
another 50 to rebate our senior citizens so they don't have to be thrown out of their homes or have to sell it and move somewhere else. You guys haven't come up with anything
either, but you're going to come up and give me all kinds of more money to spend, including $5 million with an organization that frankly has got so much money. And yes, he will bring a a lot of
uh notice worldwide to the city of Miami. And it it will bring people to spend money in Miami and all that, but as I stated, we were already paid a big chunk through
what the county has paid with their own money. So why are they coming to us for another five million? I I'm not going to give five million to that that I'm going to need to put more cops
in the streets and I'm going to need to give a rebate to senior citizens in the tremendously high taxes that they're paying in their property in their homestead. So, you know, I
I haven't even gone through carefully with some of the rest of it, but this is something that the administration should have just made sure that you would sit down with each of us, go through it clearly. You know, outside of the review that we
all get, you know, an hour and a half or so, I haven't had anything else. and and you know on that one as you all know I I couldn't be president for that. I had to deal with some other issues. Uh but
he should have all met with me even before this Tuesday. So that's that's where I'm at. I'm you know I respect everybody else but I'm not voting for anything here. >> Okay. that could be rolled over into the September 1st budget meeting that we
have so that we could see what you're proposing for additional police and rebates to senior citizens on their homesteads. >> Is there anyone else that would like to make any comments? May I have a motion?
>> Motion. >> Second. >> I'm ready. >> Second. >> Second. Motion and second. >> Um, just briefly, RE3 needs to be amended pursuant to a substitution memo dated July 18, 2025. >> I have a motion and a second for RE3 as
amended. All in favor? >> I >> I >> nay. >> 41. >> Where's that substitute memo? Is it the same one I have here or is it a different one? >> If you could just give me a copy so I can see and I want to make sure that I
end up with the right one. see if it's more or less. Thank you. >> I have RE10 was pulled. I'm not sure which commissioner pulled RE10. >> Let me >> you >> No, Commissioner Rosado, did you pull
R10? >> Okay, >> let me go to it, please. >> Yes, I I did uh pull it. >> Okay. I got a couple of questions in the Bickl Key Bridge and the reason I have questions is that
it's a fairly new bridge and I remember how new it was because I cut the ribbon for it when I was mayor and while time passed. Um, it's going to be 24 years this November
I left the mayorship, but I did that. I don't remember when, maybe it was in uh 99, 2000. So that bridge is maybe 25 years old and it's in this much disrepair
that they built it run from the beginning. I mean, what is number one, what is the problem with the bridge? Two, is it a bridge that belongs to the city and we're responsible for
the upkeep or is that part of what belongs to the keep? It's ours, you're saying? >> Okay. All right. So, that that answers one question that it belongs to to us. You shaking your head. So,
um the what what is the problem with that? So, good evening, Commissioner. Hua Santana, director, Department of Resilience and Public Works. So, the bridge is uh approximately 50 years old. Um
>> but I just told you we opened it up and refurbished it back then. >> That's correct. and and and and again around the year 2012. Um the bridge was rehabilitated
um at that time as well. So um the repairs that are going on now are just continual maintenance items that that a a structural bridge of this nature needs work on. The bridge gets inspected every two years by the Department of
Transportation. um based on their findings and our our inspections, a a repair program was put together and that is what we're effectuating now. Um in addition to widening the the sidewalks are on both
the north and south side of the bridge. >> Okay. What is the projected cost amount? >> So right now the the approximate cost of of the repairs are about $4.6 million. That's the approximate amount 4.6. >> Yes.
>> And we're using a Delaware corporation >> to do it. >> No, the the the agreement the Delaware company is the the Swire entity that we're entering into agreement for for
their contributions along with other things that are in theou. We have a contractor that is a city contractor that's doing the repairs. >> Okay. That's makes it a lot uh clear. All right. >> Do I have a motion?
>> You have a motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Uh R10 will be amended pursuant to a substitution memo dated July 22nd, 2025. >> Thank you. RE12 was pulled for discussion.
>> Uh yes, I I did also the switching of lots. It's because the original lot is a an irregular lot >> and it was cost prohibitive to build. So we are switching the lot out to give the
developer a lot that is buildable. >> Okay, >> that's why >> that that's fine. >> May I have a motion? >> Move. >> Second. All in favor? >> I re 13. >> That's the one that I pulled out. I I not sure if I know the answer for this.
I think I might, but uh if it could be explained to me u by commissioner part because this is a CRA omnic issue. Is this that restaurant that we ended up with not because we wanted to but we
basically had to. >> Right. >> So in order did did we ever get anybody to come in there or to or is going to come there? Well, actually, Asia, you're you're back there. You can give the best information. Yeah.
>> No, not that I know of, but we're working on it, I think. And the grease trap is part of it. >> Uh, through the chair. Um, we are working on an RFP for that building, but we do need to complete the grease trap. >> Yeah. But my my question to you is, do
you have anybody that's going to come in and rent the space? currently no, but we are looking for people and we'll put out an RFP >> normally and I could tell you that because when I owned restaurants uh and I'd leased from the place, I had
to put the grace trap that's the way it works. Uh why can't that be part of the negotiations with whomever is going to come there that they pay for the grace? Well, we tried that the first time and
the restaurant was not open for over 10 years. They were unable to move forward. So, we said, you know, as a city entity, as a CRA, let us try to do it ourselves and then um reapproach the situation. >> Well, number one, I could tell even though a lot of time has passed since I
owned restaurants, $130,000, it's a hell of a grease truck. Uh one big humongous grease trap. Why is it costing so much?
>> Um, so we did put it out to bid and we got a number of responses and we it's not just the grease trap itself. It's a purchase of the grease trap, the construction of it. My understanding is that because it's a historical property, they're
going to have to do some excavation on the outside of the building. If you're going to put a grease trap, you got to buy the grease trap. So, you know, it goes hand in hand. >> But there the grease trap goes outside, not
inside. >> I I still cannot understand why such a high high number. Is it being put pretty far away from the restaurant or what what is the issue? Why it's so expensive?
>> Good evening through the chair. Uh Jose Perez, director of the office capital improvements. Commissioner, the item covers for the general contractor to take over for the existing permits and contractor. That's out. the the amount
that's on the item covers for him, that company to take over the whole entire scope of the project. It's not just the grease trap, the work that needs to be done outside, the plumbing connections on the inside of the building that wasn't done properly. So, this
contractor is going to fix that, including the electrical >> beyond the grease trap. >> That's correct, sir. Okay. So, >> he's just taking that responsibility for the whole entire project. >> All right. So, that's where it was getting to. It didn't make sense to me that this would be just for a grease trap.
>> Do you know how much the grease trap and the installation of it is costing out of the 130 >> for for that? The grease trap is not just the grease trap. The amount is about $72,000. But that is to do the work outside, but we're going to have to do some repairs
inside the building. All that plumbing is already on the ground, poured concrete. So, we're going to have to cut that and reconnect all the plumbing lines inside the building. >> I just hope you guys take all this into consideration once you find someone that's going to come and operate it. How How large of a space is it in square
feet for the restaurant? >> The the restaurant's approximately 6,500 close to 7,000. >> It's a pretty big space. >> That's a good space. >> Yeah, >> you could put uh 200 seats there maybe. >> Uh so, okay. You're going to have a a
larger uh grease rep for something that big. >> Yes, sir. >> Still a lot of money, but at least I I just somehow thought it was a small place, 20, 30 seats, but no, this is going to be a big one. Okay. Um
I I you know, would do it a little different. Uh but if you got so much other problems in the building and so on, uh uh hopefully you get somebody that you're going to get a good rent from. >> That's all I can say. >> Do I have a motion? >> Motion.
>> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Immasses. R15 was pulled. I'm not sure who pulled RE15. >> Yeah, RE15. Well, this is the appointment of the uh uh the new um
>> IG >> IG. Yeah. And that's I thought thought we had some questions. >> I don't have any. >> You don't have any questions? Not at all. >> Does anybody else have any questions? >> I I will make the motion. Uh we had a
a committee of I think fairly prominent individuals in the area that I picked them. I'm not going to second guess them. I don't know. whom some of the others were they were in the finalists but uh u I'm going to go along with a
process that we established u now what the manager has to do in this resolution he has to estab where's the manager by the way >> there she is right there >> no no >> the manager had to leave for the evening
sir >> he's pulling in a Gonzalez but at least he doesn't leave uh by 1 in the afternoon. That's good. Okay. Um the this is going to come back to us, correct?
Uh and we will be the ones approving the final contract. >> Correct. >> The manager will negotiate it in the best way. But I I think that um one of the things that the manager
has to keep in mind that while this is an important position and should be compensated as such uh it should be within reason. It's not a an opened uh wallet,
you know, to give Larry's uh former salary uh to him. >> Now that Larry's left is why I'm saying that. So, um I make the motion. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> Madam Chair, I was actually going to ask if we could hear from Mr. Diaz. >> That's appropriate. Um, >> good evening. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, Antonio Diaz. >> Uh, sorry, Commissioner. I thought you
were going to ask me questions, but u I'll introduce a little bit about myself. Um, >> we could if you like. >> Well, that's what I'm here for. >> We don't want to >> We don't want to disappoint you, Mr. Diaz. >> Um, I'm a 33year veteran of the city of city of Miami uh with the police
department. I retired recently in June 23rd. I I always worked with purpose and the reason I want this position and I'm interested in this position is really to make a difference. And if you all know about my work product and my history is
that my investigation is always going to be based on facts and not influence. I want to be clear about that. I am not I am not going to intertwine this office with any politics. I'm going to do the right thing and I'm going to do the right thing not just for you but for the
citizens of of Miami. >> I'm I'm glad uh you made that statement and I applaud uh you for those words. But remember uh your ultimate bosses are the citizens
and residents of Miami. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. May I have a motion? >> Motion. >> Oh, I had a motion. Yeah, you have all in favor motion. >> I >> I >> I >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Congratulations. >> By the way, we we made this motion even
though Ernesto was sitting next to you. Just kidding. Just kidding. >> Someone pulled RE17. >> Let me see if that was me or not. Let me go to 17. So, that one's actually mine, but I
don't know if I pulled it or somebody else pulled it. Uh, >> I think you did. You said um I >> didn't pull it. >> Would vote for it if you like. >> Did anybody pull it? >> You did. >> Somebody pulled it. >> I did. >> Yeah. >> Basically, what it is? I just want to explain to you guys. It's a study. How
do uh Would you um I'm sorry. Where's um >> Thanks, >> Axel. Actually, would you elaborate a little bit more on what we're trying to to do here with the uh >> Look, it's a good it's a good motion.
I'll second it for you. You should make it when you put it. >> Okay. >> I'll second the motion. >> I have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. Are we done with the uh >> or is there any >> RE 20 21 22?
>> I forgot about those. Someone pulled RE20. >> I'm not sure who pulled it, Madam Chair, but uh 20 and 21 are my items. I I mentioned this at the last meeting where I requested that we adopt this by by ordinance. And uh the idea is that right
now we don't have a requirement to do charter review at all as a city or as a local government. >> Make the motion. I'll second this. This is uh the way it's worded. It's uh good government. So, make your motion unless anybody else wants to talk about it.
>> I move to add the creation of a charter review commission as a charter question to the November ballot. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> 21 is the >> companion item. >> Yeah. >> So, same thing. I move >> motion. Second.
>> All in favor? I >> as amended. >> As amended. >> Who pulled RE22? Yeah, mine. But let let me say this because I don't want to be here all day. You know, none of us want to be here all night.
>> The items that I put here, I'm not going to get into discussion, argument. If there's a question, I'll gladly answer it. I'm putting them because I think it is good government and it's all into the future. I'm not looking at anyone now
because this is for the future. uh who knows who's going to be uh the mayor uh years from now. Uh and this is going to have to be for everyone that's mayor into the future. And I've done it in a way that that is fair. If a mayor
is going to be working full-time, no unemployment, uh he should be compensating more. >> But is that 22? >> This is the one that has to do with coke. So you write code. Okay. So let's there's quite a few of them. This one here go in order
>> is one that I think is for good government. It it would apply not just to elected officials, but it would apply to all city officials. If there's legitimate, not frivolous, but legitimate uh signed complaints like the
law requires, maybe seven days for code to send someone might be uh a little too quick. I don't know if that wants to be expanded into more time. I don't care. But it's being
put down for the future to apply to everyone in the future that works for the city. And it's not being done with the intention of any one person or not.
>> This could apply to me. It's going to apply, you know, to to anyone. So, so pertaining to u just some clarification here, you know, um if you remember, we passed a resolution because uh you had wanted the city manager to
investigate my properties when I have zero and I stated here I have zero violations and just so I don't think we should be in the business and that's why specifically um with your help with everybody's help here passed the resolution that when
something comes up uh that I think you've got a problem or you think I got a problem. It shouldn't be us that investigate. It should be the third party, the county, and that's what that that this right here makes you feel that you're targeting me again. You know what I mean? Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe maybe not. >> I state I've stated as clear as I can, Commissioner. I don't want to waste our time. If >> No, no, the body wants to vote against it. So be it. >> Yeah, I'm not voting for this. Uh but the the problem is that that resolution
uh the city manager could not enforce it because nobody wanted to come in here in our city and do our job for us. Simple as that. So this resolution will establish a process
that doesn't name you, doesn't me, doesn't name anybody here or any of our employees. It's a process that we're establishing because nobody else has been willing or wanting to come into the
city to do our job. >> Do I have a motion? >> There's a motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Motion fails for lack of second. >> Okay, >> the next one. >> Wait a second. If there could be a
motion to withdraw RE23 that's a companion to RE22. >> Do I have a motion to withdraw RE23? >> So move. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. Uh we're now at uh 24.
This is a simple uh resolution for a charter amendment. If we require all our employees to take drug tests, we should voluntarily take it. And it's
being done and presented here in a way that's being very watered down to meet every provision of the law. And again, let's not spend a lot of time uh in it.
This is not uh targeting anyone because this is when you put a charter amendment, >> this is >> for anybody >> that will serve here long after all of us are gone from here. So,
whatever the will of the commission is, let's vote for it. >> Do I have a motion? >> It's a motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Dies for lack of second. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to withdraw RE 25? >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I name. >> Okay, let's go to uh the next one that we have. Which the next one? We have >> sunshine requirement for the mayor.
>> Yeah. What number is that? RE26 >> 26. Okay. This is for any future mayor that the city has beginning if this is uh passed by the voters this
November. Has nothing to do with the president mayor because he will be term limited out. I think it's good policy in your highest office of this city. to have a full-time mayor
that will not have any outside employment where they can >> This is sunshine. >> Oh, and the sunshine. Okay, >> this is sunshine. >> Well, let me let me go back in this one. This has to do with the mayor.
Any future mayor, not this mayor because he would be term limited out would have to abide by the same sunshine rules and regulations that we have to live with in not being able to talk to
one another where he or she the mayor might be would not be able to speak to any of us about anything that will come or could perceivably come
before this commission. Again, um let's vote it up or down unless there's any further questions. >> Do I have a motion? >> The motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Motion fails for lack of second.
>> I have a motion to withdraw RE27. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Okay. >> R28 is salary and outside employment for the mayor. >> The
mayor of the city, whoever he or she might be into the future, should be a full-time position where they can not have any outside employment
that could have the potential of being a conflict directly or indirectly through the potential of it.
I think this is good government and we have included in in this that obviously the mayor should receive a different salary than he does now or she
will or he will into the future. U but I've also made sure that it's not in the way that it is now that the commission controls the salary that can save you say a dollar a year and you got
to work full-time and no outside employment. So we safeguarded this by including uh a change that whoever the mayor might be will receive the same salary and if
there are increases in the future obviously those increases will follow of a congressperson. A congressperson has a population in their districts that is slightly bigger
than the city of Miami. And the mayor will be compensated at a reasonable amount, not as much as Larry, but at a reasonable amount.
Uh and then if you include the u benefits and that the mayor receives it it will be something that someone that wants to serve and took the
position to serve could certainly live on and live on uh where they don't have to eat McDonald's all the time. So that's what it is and it's something into the future. >> I have a motion.
>> A motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Motion dies for lack of second. >> May I have a motion to withdraw RE29? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> my apologies for the interruption. Um, currently we have four charter amendment questions that have been passed to be placed on the November um, special election. And so I would like to ask for direction as to the order of the ballot questions. Uh, the four questions that
are currently in play, lifetime term limits, grace settlements, city-owned nonwaterfront property, and the charter review commission. So, I would disrespectfully request direction from the commission as to the order that you'd like to that the order in which you would like the questions to appear
on the ballot. >> Alphabetical by the first letter of the first word in the sentence. >> Besides the grace and the term limits, which are the other two? >> Uh, city- owned nonwaterfront property that uh passed today and the charter
review commission. Those are the four >> non city waterfront property. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> I'm fine. Any way you put it. >> Alphabetical. >> Alphabetical it shall be. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. R30. >> Yes. this uh again we could discuss it if you like but what I'm going to propose is very simple and it could be voted up or down but if there's discussion
um I I don't mind uh discussing it uh this is not taking sides with anyone or coming here to speak against the DDA.
The bottom line is that downtown Miami belongs to the whole city of Miami. Not so that only residents of downtown and Bickl
have to be the ones paying extra money for benefits for downtown. They have a right to express themselves in a straw ballot question of what they
feel. So you get the real sentiment, not what a handful of people for one side or the other side will tell you. Now, I'm being told, I don't know if it's true, that if we do it the way that
I thought would be appropriate and having only property owners vote, uh, residential property owners, um, that that might be a fair way of doing
it, but then I'm hearing that somehow it's going to cost the city all kinds of money to do that I don't think he will, but I'll make it sweet and and nice. U even though people are rent also are not
property owners, they pay more, property owners pay more, so they're also affected. So, if I'm going to be told that it's going to cost more money and we shouldn't do it because of more money, then just put it as a ballot question so that the
residents uh that have a vote in Bickl and downtown can express their feelings on this and then this commission could decide whatever he wants uh to keep on
doing after you see the results. or you could throw it in the garbage can if you like. Uh but the bottom line is that we are charging residents uh property owners
in a limited area of Miami for something that's citywide and it's not fair and they don't even have a say so on this. By doing this, you're giving them a say so of what they
want to do. I believe that it's the obligation of the city of Miami's general fund to take care any needs in downtown. If they want to do it through the DDA as
an arm of our city, I have no problems with that. What I think it's wrong is to be taking money from our residents when they've never had a say so in it.
And we're talking about times that property taxes are higher than ever. That's why so many people are live in our city. Uh insurance rates, it's like having a second mortgage. And then on top of that, apartment
buildings, condominiums are getting hit by all kinds of additional fees. So the bulk of the residents of downtown and Bickl pay even more taxes before you get to
the extra tax to the DDA than our other residents pay because our other residents don't have to be worrying about all the additional fees for a condominium or uh paying higher rent because of the fees and cost in an
apartment building. So, that's that's where I'm at. We could vote it up or down. It's fine with me. Uh but um uh I felt that I had an obligation to bring this. This is not
again taking sides with anyone. what's being said, if the DDA has done a good job or not or anything like that, the simply being we're giving the people
that are paying a voice and I think that's what our country was founded at. >> I have a motion. >> There's a motion. One thing I would like to say, I don't agree with this, but I do agree
that there needs to be dialogue with what happens with the DDA >> downtown. I I understand from staff that this would be a logistical nightmare on trying to get this straw pole done.
But I do think something needs to be done. Well, can we do it in the fashion that I said in substitute uh the wording in this resolution? So, instead of mailing it to property owners, voters
can come and vote for it. So, I also agree that there's a problem here, but this is going to be a disaster. This is not the way it's been explained to me. It's a disaster. I think we should be a little more thoughtful. >> How's it going to cost money when you
got an election that's being paid for already and you're just putting another question in the referendum? I >> I don't think I I I don't think it should be a valid question. I think first we need to have more dialogue from
both sides. I we have now a new chair for the DDA and it's just rushed. I think it's rushed. I think we need a little more time and to be more
thoughtful. I'm cognizant of the neighbors having to pay. I'm also cognizant of the good work that they are doing. I just think we we collectively this the staff the DDA
you need like a think tank like a think tank and not just not just completely do away with it or this straw ballad you you can't because you have property owners who don't live here who are renting their property there are a lot
of considerations that are going to go into this so I do support something. I just think this is >> not the way to go. >> It's it's it's not all the way baked yet is what I feel. So, I won't be voting in favor of this.
>> And madam chair, I echo uh everything you said. And I think with the new D4 commissioner, it's a great opportunity to dialogue to get feedback and follow the structure within the DDA first where they go to the committees, go to the board, sit with you. Uh I have a lot of
confidence in dialogue and in reaching out to residents and businesses. >> Well, no one here is saying that you can't have any dialogue. No one here is saying that this is binding. I made it clear. It's a throw ballot question. So you could have all the dialogue you want
afterwards. uh although we're saying here hear from the people that are being taxed uh on a special tax for this and something that the whole city should
share the burden not just two key neighborhoods of the city. >> I think what we're saying is that this isn't the vehicle to do that because of the complications involved. >> What complications? >> Yeah. Business owners, residents. >> Excuse me. Yeah, I was going to say I have a procedural question for the attorney and the and the clerk. I'm not
sure who's sort of best equipped to answer, but could you explain how how a straw poll would would work, either of you or both of you? >> Um, so, uh, commissioners, uh, essentially, uh, you're looking at approximately 40,000, um, property
owners within the DDA boundaries. Uh the closest model that I could find when it comes to conducting a straw poll that involves um polling property owners would be uh a model along the lines of what we use for the business improvement districts. And so um essentially you
would probably have a mail out of roughly 40,000 pieces of mail um sent domestically and internationally using certified mail. Um the mailout would need to include a letter containing instructions for voting, a ballot, an affidavit uh and a business return envelope. um a property owner would need
uh be required to complete the affidavit and include um the affidavit with the ballot. Uh I I think it would um be better for maybe the city attorney to speak to the challenges associated with joint ownership of properties, trustees that own properties, corporations when
it comes to potentially filling out the b the affidavit and including it with the ballot. So I'll just um you know defer to deputy city attorney Jav Alban. Uh good evening commission. Um deputy city attorney Jav Alban. Um so one of
the concerns when we met once this item was drafted we met with city clerk city administration to see how is the best way to move forward. And one of the concerns was making sure that um the integrity of the straw poll right because any poll what's necessary is the integrity that you know it's it's done
in a fair way that nobody can question. So one of the things here is that um many of these properties are owned by um you know uh corporations or investment entities and we ran into this issue when we did it with the business improvement districts where you have multiple owners
on one uh owning it right at 33% or you know different uh percentages. So you have to make sure you get all of them to have one ballot. Um so that was a challenge to make sure we can get everybody involved. Um, so there there are some issues where you have to review all these things and make sure that
they're done correctly. Um, but that was one of the concerns, just making sure this was a legitimate poll that nobody can question the integrity. Thank you. And again, I don't think that I don't think that this is a bad idea. I just don't think in the
form that it's presented is the right way to go. I think we should be a little more thoughtful. I think that we should allow the new executive director to come up with some ideas, present it to us.
But I I do want to hear from more of the community than just what comes here because being honest, as many people were in favor of that were against. Yes, it was. Cuz I sit and count and I do
stick figures. There were several people that came in support of no not just employees not just employees and the number of people that came against wouldn't support just throwing
it out. So I what I'm saying what I'm saying is that there should be a process that we would have more input. I just don't think this is it. So I'll be voting against it. Do I have a motion? It's a motion for it as as u is
>> as is. I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Motion dies for a lack of second. >> Okay. So, let me do another motion uh to put it in the ballot this November instead of having a mail out to property
owners so that all voters in the DDA district can have it uh to vote in this election. Everything else would be the same as what is in the
original resolution. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Motion dies for lack of a second. >> Madam Chair, if I could add something. I, you know, I've met with uh different stakeholders. I know they have concerns.
I think a lot of their concerns are legitimate. I had my first DDA board meeting in 12 hours approximately, and I'm going to be proposing some items there. I think, you know, hearing the things that folks have brought up, I think there's two sets of concerns is
the way I've categorized them. There are concerns about governance and representation. That is one column of concerns. I think there should be resident seats that are explicitly for residents. Right now, the way the bylaws are written, you have to be a downtowner, whether it's living there or
working there. And that's not quite good enough. that means folks that live downtown but work somewhere else are not necessarily adequately represented. So I'm going to come up with you know amongst you know not just that one but have several sort of governance bylaw proposed changes that I think there
there should be some support for. I think there's also concerns about the way that dollars are spent and what priorities have been and I think that's a reflection of the way it's been been led for some time and I have pause uh with the way that some dollars have been spent as well. I've taken a stab at
revising the budget so that it's something that I'm comfortable with bringing to you all in September. So, I know tomorrow morning we're going to have a discussion on these things. Uh, and I would not I would be very supportive once we put some things in place taking a survey of of residents, a
survey that's slightly different. So, we do a random sample survey of folks that are paying into it >> to see if they think that revised priorities are satisfying their needs or not. Obviously, we haven't made any changes. I haven't had my first meeting, but I I hear folks loud and clear, and I
think there's definitely room for improvement, and I'm going to be pushing for that. And then we'll sort of take it on a road show with downtown residents as as you're suggesting, and get additional feedback, think we can do better by them. >> And anywhere where we can help, please rely on it. I love it and very
supportive. >> Okay, moving right along. Gentlemen, do you need a report for the budget or did you read your report? I read my report. >> I got mine. >> Everybody read theirs. >> Um, we're talking about what now?
>> It's um BU1 status of the FY25 quarterly and FY26 proposed budgets. >> Do you need by the way chair D3 D3 D4 D5 my I'm going to defer that. There's it's too late in the game to take that up. There's no need.
>> Thank you. What what items are you waiting? >> I I've got three items here. D3, D4, and D5. It's late in the game. >> Four and five. >> Yeah, I'm I'm going to defer that. Okay, >> we don't need to hear that today. >> It's late in the game and everybody's tired and
>> these these items are deferred to the next meeting. >> Wait, let me make a statement first. We We still have the budget BU1 status of the fiscal year 25 quarterly report and FY26 proposed budgets. Do you want to
have someone come up and speak on that or did you read your report and you're okay? >> I read my report. >> I I read my report. I don't need a >> I don't either. >> Yeah, I'm good. >> Okay. So, with respect to discussion items, I'm going to update my memo, my
chair memo on discussion items. We have currently nine discussion items. I would like to limit the number of discussion items a commissioner can place for one meeting and also if a discussion item is
not heard the day of commission meeting for the agenda that it's placed on then that discussion item is removed from the agenda and not passed along to the next one and the next one and the next one. um nine discussion items and this is
only like two commissioners with discussion items. One has four, one has five, one has three. I want to limit our discussion items per commission to two items per commissioner. So that would be
a number of 10 if we all had two commission two two items. So m >> guilty is charged. Yeah. >> Right. Same over here. >> Okay. So when we have a discussion item, it will be thoughtful because you want to put it and and if it doesn't go, it
goes away. You can have another discussion. >> But notice that I volunteered because I understand late in the game. >> Yes. Yes. >> I'm being a gentleman. D3, D4, D5. You know, >> we're going to withdraw those and then you can >> No, defer. Defer. >> No. Well, I'm going to put I'm going to make a meal. >> Just put that rule. So you can't oppose
that rule. So that rule takes effect. the the No, actually the the chair can update her memo. >> Does the chair make her make her rules as she goes along >> as as the situation requires? So, but
that memo will be in place for September and you know if you'd like we can defer these to the first meeting in September. >> Three, four, five of the >> So then my memo goes into effect September. So the after the first meeting in September, >> Got it. It won't be. Okay.
>> Now, do you guys want to hear any of these discussion items right now? >> No, I'm I just got one question. I'm just interested. The uh this is Commissioner Rosado. The loop. What is it? The loop. >> The Miami Loop. >> You've had me intrigued. You know,
>> Okay. Wait, wait. I need a motion to defer Wait. Do we want to defer all of them or do we want to defer just Commissioner Gabella's D3, four, and five? D3, four, and five. >> We could defer to everything. I mean, is that much left?
>> Where's Okay. >> All right. >> A motion to defer. >> So, do I I have a motion to defer all of the discussion items to the first meeting in September. >> Is it I'm sorry. For all discussion items? >> All >> I'll second it. >> A motion and a second.
>> All in favor? Hi. >> But be be mindful guys. I'm going to update my chair's memo >> to discuss the number of discussion items we can place on an agenda.
>> Yeah, I I accept. I am guilty of this charge as well. There's only one item that I think >> it's a pocket item. >> Okay. >> Because it is >> there's only one that's time sensitive. >> So is that time sensitive? Because one, we do not allow. The reason why we frown
upon pocket items is because the community doesn't have an opportunity to have that information beforehand so they can have comments on it. >> Yeah, it'll it'll take me all of 30 seconds. Uh
>> no, but that's not the the problem is that >> last time in a meeting like this we >> they don't have you know we didn't bring it for public comment we so >> no pocket items >> no not and discussion items should never
be a pocket item. Okay so um at this time we will conclude the city of Miami commission meeting for July 24, 2025. Thank you all for your advocacy. Thank you for sticking around till 9:00. >> Thank you.
>> See you in September.